Clemson University West Virginia Health Science Center West - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Redlands University of Rhode Island University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi University of St. Thomas University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas at Dallas University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Vermont Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington University in St. Louis Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Liberty University Clemson University West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia Institute of Technology Presenters: Gayle Perez & Matthew Lee West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine West Virginia State University December 2016 West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Wheaton College Widener University Williams College

Developing a Peer Group for Clemson Peer Institutions George Mason University Nova Southeastern University The University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa) The University of Tennessee - Knoxville University of Arkansas University of Vermont Virginia Commonwealth University Peer Group Based On: • Size • Technical Complexity • Climate Zone • Percent of Residential Students 2

Clemson Operating with Similar Bldg. Complexity Clemson’s average building size aligns with peers Building Size and Complexity 70,000 5.0 4.5 60,000 4.0 50,000 3.5 Avg. Bldg. GSF Tech Rating 3.0 40,000 2.5 30,000 2.0 1.5 20,000 1.0 10,000 0.5 0 0.0 A B C D E Clemson F G Smaller buildings = Lower mechanical complexity = More energy intensive Less energy intensive Sorted by Tech Rating 3

Providing Peer Context Clemson Operating with space 37% older than peers Campus Age by Category Weighted Renovation Age 100% 60 19% 90% 50 80% 52% 70% 23% 40 Age (Years) 60% % of GSF 30 50% 28% 40% 20 26% 30% 10 20% 30% 14% 0 10% 8% 0% Clemson Peer Average Older buildings = Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50 Higher energy consumption 4

Progress Toward Goals – LEED Construction Clemson has built more LEED-certified space than all of its peers LEED Space as a % of Total vs Peers 20% 18% 16% Clemson LEED-Certified Building Examples: 14% % of LEED Space 12%  Rhodes Engineering Addition (Gold)  Packaging and Design Building 10% (Gold) 8%  Watts Innovation Family Center 6% (Silver)  Lee Hall III (Certified) 4% 2% 0% LEED Space % Peer Group Member Average 5

Phases of Funding Distribution Envelope/Mechanical Spending vs. Targets $20.0 $15.0 $ in Millions $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Envelope/Mechanical Target Need Space/Program Spending vs. Targets $20.0 $15.0 $ in Millions $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Space/Program Target Need 6

Greenhouse Gas Inventory 7

Carbon Mitigation Structure AVOIDANCE ACTIVITY • • Prevent activities before they start Reduce the existing level of an • Example: Increase space utilization activity • Example: Consumer fewer BTUS’ of instead of building or acquiring new space energy or travel fewer miles INTENSITY OFFSETS • • Lessening the carbon intensity of Utilizing carbon offsets to neutralize activities unavoidable GHGs • • Example: Fuel switching (coal to Example: RECs; sequestration; natural gas; introducing renewables) retail offsets 8

Simplifying GHG Sources into Scopes All expressed as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCDE) Scope 1 – Scope 2 – Scope 3 – Direct GHGs Upstream GHGs Indirect GHGs • On-Campus Stationary • Purchased Electricity • Employee / Student Combustion (Natural Commuting Gas) • Employee Air Travel • Vehicle Fleet • Student Study Abroad • Agriculture Travel • Refrigerants • Solid Waste • Wastewater • Purchased Paper • Transmission & Distribution Losses 9

Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control Majority of emissions result from purchased electricity Scope 1 Sources Emissions by Scope 441 24,646 MTCDE - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Co-gen Plant Other On-Campus Stationary 21% Direct Transportation Refrigerants & Chemicals Fertilizer 36% Scope 2 Sources 68,415 MTCDE - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Purchased Electricity 43% Scope 3 Sources 16,817 25,961 MTCDE - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Paper Purchases T&D Losses 10

Gross Emissions Decreased Against 2007 Baseline Despite increase in population, Clemson successful in continuous emissions decrease Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and Population Indexed to FY2007 40% 30% 9-year change: +37% 20% % Change 9-year change: 10% +6% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -10% 9-year change: -8% Peak decrease: 13% -20% Gross Emissions Campus GSF Campus Population 11

Total Gross Emissions Decrease in overall emissions, despite growth in space Longitudinal Gross Emissions 200,000 8 180,000 7 160,000 6 140,000 Campus GSF (Millions) 5 MTCDE 120,000 ACUPCC Baseline Year 100,000 4 80,000 3 60,000 2 40,000 1 20,000 0 - 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 GSF 12

Normalized Gross Emissions Clemson’s gross emissions have decreased since FY2008 Gross Emissions (per Student) Gross Emissions (per 1,000 GSF) 12 30 10 25 7% 8 20 MTCDE/Student MTCDE/1,000 GSF 6 15 10 4 5 2 0 0 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 13

Gross Emissions Compared to Peers Clemson has higher gross emissions than peer average Gross Emissions (per 1,000 GSF) Gross Emissions (per Student) 25 14 Ordered by: Total BTU/GSF Ordered by: Density Factor 12 20 10 MTCDE/1,000 GSF MTCDE/Student 15 8 6 10 4 5 2 0 0 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Peer Average 14

Scope 1 15

Scope 1 Stationary Emissions Clemson has lower Carbon Intensity after switching to 100% Natural Gas Carbon Intensity of Commonly Fossil Consumption vs. Scope 1 Used Fossil Fuels More Emissions Activity 600,000 45,000 100 90 40,000 500,000 80 35,000 70 MTCDE/ 1,000 MMBTU MMBTU 400,000 30,000 60 50 25,000 300,000 40 20,000 30 200,000 15,000 20 10 10,000 100,000 0 5,000 Less 0 0 Activity More Less Coal Natural Gas Emissions Intensity Intensity 16

Total Stationary Fuel Consumption Clemson above peer average in Stationary Fuel Consumption Stationary Fuel Consumption 140,000 Ordered by: Total BTU/GSF 120,000 100,000 80,000 BTU/GSF 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 A B C D E F Clemson G Fossil Fuel Peer Average 17

Other Scope 1 Emissions Options for future fuel switching are limited Fertilizer and Refrigerants Direct Transportation 1,400 6,000 1,200 5,000 1,000 4,000 MTCDE MTCDE 800 3,000 No Emissions Data in FY07 600 2,000 400 1,000 200 0 0 18

Scope 2 19

Little Progress Reducing Scope 2 Emissions SRVC Grid Fuel Mix Emissions Consumption (2007) 78,000 560 76,000 550 74,000 540 72,000 MMBTU in Thousands 530 Natural Gas Nuclear 70,000 Renewable Coal 520 Other Fossil MTCDE 68,000 510 SRVC Grid Fuel Mix 66,000 (2012) 500 64,000 490 62,000 480 60,000 470 58,000 Natural Gas Nuclear 460 56,000 Renewable Coal Other Fossil 20

Intensity: Scope 2 Already Low SRVC is less carbon intense compared to other regions Carbon Intensity by Grid Region 1,000 900 800 700 MTCDE/1M kWh 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 21

Scope 2 eGrid Emissions Clemson within the second least carbon intense region Purchased Electricity Consumption vs. Purchased Electricity Emissions Regional Grid Carbon Intensity (MTCDE/1,000 GSF) 25 700 14 600 12 20 500 10 MTCDE / 1,000 GSF kWh/GSF MTCDE/1MkWh 15 400 8 300 6 10 200 4 5 100 2 0 0 0 Electricity Consumption kWh/GSF Electricity Emissions / 1K GSF Peer Average Ordered by: Regional Grid Carbon Intensity 22

Degree Days Context Downward degree day trending as peer institutions stay consistent Degree Days Degree Days 7,000 7,000 Clemson Peer Average 6,000 6,000 5,000 5,000 Degree Days 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 0 0 CDD HDD Average 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 23

Scope 3 24

Minimal Changes in Scope 3 Emissions Commuting and travel are largest contributing sources in Scope 3 FY16 Scope 3 Breakdown Scope 3 Emissions 35,000 1% 30,000 0% 12% 25,000 30% 11% 20,000 MTCDE 15,000 46% 10,000 Commuting 5,000 Financed Travel Solid Waste Overall 226 MTCDE increase 2007-2016 Wastewater 0 Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses 25