Foothill College GHG Report (Calendar Year 2014) Narrative

Transcription

1 Foothill College GHG Report (Calendar Year 2014) Narrative Foothill College is completing its third GHG report following the first submission in 2009, and an update in This report includes energy and emissions data from calendar year 2014 (January-December), consistent with ACUPCC reporting guidelines. This inventory includes scopes one, two, and three, and estimates of emissions from solid waste and onsite process. Following the approach taken in 2008, this report uses similar methodology, i.e., utility bills for scopes one and two, and an estimate of student and employee driving from a combination of zip code and student scheduling, validated by in person and online driving surveys. As noted in previous GHG reporting, while we have an accurate estimate of scopes one and two, scope three, indirect emissions from transportation, the largest component of GHG emissions, is only an estimate based on a logical construction of student schedules. That said, we believe the trend analysis of these data, and the impact to our future energy infrastructure planning, continues to be the most important facet and benefit of these efforts. This report also includes a reflection on the previous five years of scopes one and two emissions, and our goals to become a smart energy campus, with the ability to better manage energy use, and improve our peak demand shape and shift. Summary The most significant impact to Foothill College s GHG emissions since our first report ( ) was the addition of nearly 1 MW (megawatt) of onsite solar photovoltaic energy generation, connected in spring 2010, which produces nearly 1.7 million kwh of electricity annually, 20% of our current annual electrical use, reducing GHG emissions by ~750 metric tons (1 pound CO 2/kWh) annually. This is also significant in our second trend, which was the completion of building renovation projects, and the new 60,000 sq-ft Physical Science and Engineering Complex (PSEC), which together have contributed to an increasing trend in annual electrical use. That said, the total annual scope one and two emissions has remained near 5,000 metric tons since Year - tons CO 2 (electricity and natural gas) scopes one and two combined Average (std. dev 3.6%) These trends are consistent with the addition of 1 MW solar PV (mid 2010), which reduces imported energy, and re-occupancy of renovated buildings ( ) and completion of the PSEC science and engineering complex (2013), which increased our building footprint by ~10%, including energy intensive chemistry labs. Student driving was estimated for 2010 but not updated, however our slightly downward trend in FTES ( ) of ~ 2-3% per year, and increase in online courses (and online only students) suggest a decrease in scope three student driving emissions of 10% or more. Based on a 2013 analysis of student registration data (zip code and schedule), we estimated about 15,000 metric tons of CO 2 per year, and in 2014 we estimate that the combined student and staff driving (and flying) is ~14,500. The trend we are most concerned about is the steady increase in electrical energy use, rising from ~ 6 million kwh/yr in to an estimated 8.5 million kwh/yr in While this is due to the combination of increased building footprint and (likely) energy intensity of new science labs, we still lack

2 building level energy monitoring tools to help us better understand, remediate, and manage energy on a day to day and hour by hour basis. This remains our number one goal to reduce energy demand and GHG emissions, and part of our evolving smart energy campus strategy. In a similar trend, natural gas use increased significantly from a low of ~ 335K therms in 2010 to ~ 467K therms in 2014, and averaged 467K therms from A second goal is updating our building management systems across campus, increasing occupant comfort while decreasing energy used. To summarize our findings for scopes one and two (combined), electricity and natural gas use, we observe the following trends: 1. Total GHG emissions (scopes one and two) remain flat at ~ 5,000 tons per year 2. Electricity use increased with renovation and new construction but has leveled off 3. Natural gas use increased in a similar trend as electricity, also leveling off 4. Total imported BTU per sq-ft, a key measure of building energy intensity, is high, ~ 100K BTU/sqft, and is a key figure of merit for our energy efficiency measures 5. GHG emissions per student has increased very slightly with decreasing FTES, but is still dominated by scope three emissions, ~ three times higher (~5,000 tons vs. ~15,000 tons) 6. Overall, scopes one and two are ~ 25% of total GHG emissions, typical for a commuter college in a relatively mild California climate. The remainder of the narrative focuses on our strategic goals of becoming a smart energy campus, reducing student driving through rideshare programs, Eco Pass bus service, and increase in hybrid instruction, and efforts to reduce water use and solid waste, through campus sustainability. A discussion of methodology for estimating scope three (transportation) GHG emissions is described in Appendix 1. Foothill College s Smart Energy Vision Foothill College s energy goals emphasize developing a smart energy platform that integrates building energy monitoring and management with enhanced distributed generation capabilities, and eventually becoming a managed energy grid, a collaborative partner in the utility of the future. Towards this end, Foothill College has developed a multi-tiered model that integrates building energy sensors with building automation controls, measuring heat exchange of hydronics (heating and cooling from a central plant), a campus wide energy management system, inverter output from 1.5 MW solar PV and 240 KW cogeneration (heat and power), an Energy Information System (EIS) that monitors, models, and displays the energy flows into buildings and from our onsite generation and utility feed, and finally the capability to synchronize energy generation and use, and or load shift (demand shift) in a utility business model called Integrated Demand Side Management (IDSM). The logic and structure for this future energy system has three layers. First, a smart energy campus begins with understanding when, where, and how, energy is being used. This leads to a better understanding of basic building operation, i.e., are building systems operating correctly, and can we control buildings precisely enough to manage energy with occupancy and use? The second level of the smart energy stack is significant onsite energy production from 1.5 MW solar PV and 240 KW cogeneration of heat and power, which provides 45% of Foothill s annual electrical demand, and 50 to 100% of our peak power demand. At times this generation exceeds campus load, and Foothill exports electrical energy, which currently isn t stored to offset energy at other demand peaks. The third level of the stack is the analytics and visualization platform for understanding power flows throughout the day, and displaying energy use at a building and campus level. This Energy Information System (EIS), transcends the energy management and building automation software (EMS/BAS); with such a system, we would begin to model an enhanced generation capability of additional solar PV and battery storage,

3 whose main use to generate and store electrical energy during the day, and release it in the early evening, where we often experience our greatest power demand. In order to leverage additional onsite generation, without swamping the outer distribution grid (called backfeed ), the generation and release of energy must be carefully managed. The EIS will inform the campus energy manager about how energy generation assets, e.g. solar PV, cogeneration, and storage, can be combined with Automated Demand Response (ADR) to help the utility power grid better respond to large power demands, and/or shift the campuses peak energy demand away from the utility s peak demand, which can also cause high time of use (ToU) charges. Integrated Demand Side Management (IDSM), fits well with large distributed generation behind the meter, especially college campus distributed energy systems. In the utility model of the future, managed energy grids will participate in grid optimization, using a multilayered energy monitoring and management platform, and employing Energy Intelligence. Reducing student driving through rideshare and Eco Pass programs In 2012 Foothill College began efforts to reduce student driving emissions through ridesharing programs, including the Zimride service, and in 2014 enacted a student fee for an Eco Pass which provides free VTA (Valley Transportation Authority) bus service for all Foothill College students. In the three years using Zimride, students report a slight increase in opportunities for ridesharing, but this remains a challenge for students. Bus ridership has increased significantly, but only for a small fraction of students who live very close to a bus line, don t own or have access to personal transportation, and/or have school and work schedules that accommodate slower bus transportation. Like most colleges, we haven t yet devised a manageable approach to preferential parking for rideshare commuters. That said, the popularity of the Eco Pass and rideshare programs appears to be increasing steadily as more and more younger (millennials) opt out of owning or operating personal vehicles, and use social technology for engineering carpools, not just for school, and including personal travel. Waste reduction Over the past 4-5 years since our last GHG report update, Foothill has consistently diverted roughly 50% of our solid waste, approximately 155 tons of our ~310 tons solid waste in We have campus wide collection points for recycling cardboard, paper, and plastic, and single stream sorting for diversion of material not presorted in recycling bins. Our long-term goals include plans to compost food scraps, and have increased use of compostable products to replace traditional paper and plastic. This is an ongoing challenge in continuous education of student populations that change every year, and general awareness of campus sustainability efforts. Campus Energy Champions Project The Campus Energy Champions project was a program funded by Silicon Valley Energy Watch (SVEW) and the Silicon Valley Foundation, to develop a cohort of ~ 20 students knowledgeable in energy use and efficiency and able to engage with other students to help increase awareness of energy use on campus. The project also included brown bag lunches with guest speakers from local energy technology firms. During the 16 months from fall 2013 through fall 2014, these students made presentations in their classes about energy use, including informal instruction in electrical and natural gas terminology (kilowatts and kilowatt-hours), and additionally some fast-facts about where energy comes from in California. The original goal of this work was to combine building energy data analytics with observations of energy use on campus, and help reduce campus energy use by managing energy inefficiency. For example, rooms that are overheated or overcooled, projectors and lights left on for

4 hours in empty classrooms, etc. Due to technical issues with the new energy management system, we weren t able to get data for our buildings, however, using classroom surveys, we did show a slight increase in student awareness about energy use, good energy efficiency habits, and in higher level academic and honors classes, we were able to measure better understanding of energy concepts. In fall 2014 we attempted a specialized climate champion subgroup of the program, and in spring 2015, we formed an Energy Champions Club, where students practice energy efficiency methods in deliberate and demonstrable ways in the classroom, and can also earn engineering credit for using Kill-a-Watt meters, reading and analyzing smart meter (energy profile) data, and learning 50 key terms and concepts in an Energy Champions Handbook. The Campus Energy Champions is intended to lower campus energy and GHGs, as well as spread energy efficiency knowledge and practice into the community at large. Foothill College Sustainability Committee The Foothill College sustainability committee meets monthly to discuss projects on campus to reduce waste and water use, and coordinate campus-wide initiatives in sustainability and recording progress in key sustainability indicators. These efforts are important to ensure that non-energy contributions to GHG emissions (waste, water, packaging, chemicals and materials) are managed and improved in a deliberate and coordinated approach that is also integrated into curriculum. In the second half of 2015 Foothill and De Anza College will re-engage with the FHDA District Sustainability committee. Conclusion: going forward, lessons learned, and goals for 2020 First and foremost, the College is planning a major upgrade in campus energy monitoring and building energy management tools, which will allow us to understand when, where, and how energy is being used. In addition to better building occupant comfort, an issue across campus in both old and new buildings, we expect to achieve a 10% reduction in both electricity and natural gas, stemming a rising trend in campus energy use. This will include energy dashboards allowing occupants to see in real time the energy being consumed, leading to behavioral changes (lights, projectors, doors, etc.) It is well known that occupant behavior can influence building operational profiles significantly. This also ties in with the long-term goals of the Campus Energy Champions project, to teach our students to be both aware and active in their energy use and management. Second, efforts to decrease student driving to campus, through ride sharing, bus use (VTA / Eco Pass) and a trend to integrate video lectures and hybrid instruction, will have the single biggest impact on our combined GHG emissions. Scope three (driving and air travel) represent nearly 75% of GHG emissions, reflecting the commuter student and our use of fairly clean electricity (lowering scope 2 emissions). Third, the campus sustainability committee will continue efforts across campus to reduce waste, increase recycling, and move towards food composting, all having an impact on GHGs. Additionally, awareness about water use, an acute issue with California s continuing drought, will enhance student awareness and concern for management of resources. In this respect, the most important education we can give our students is the practice of sustainability, and the impact of human activities on the planet. As we complete our update to this GHG inventory, the results indicate flat GHG emissions in scopes one and two, and a slight improvement in scope three, as compared to our first GHG inventory (2009). These results will be communicated through our shared governance committees, with the goal of increasing awareness about energy use, encouraging ridesharing for employees and students, and the integrated efforts of managing energy, water, reduction of waste, and careful selection of materials and products.

5 Appendix 1 - Estimates of Student and Staff Commuting, and Air Travel Estimates of scope three emissions, by far the largest in the GHG inventory, are difficult for a number of reasons. First, there are very large uncertainties in the number of students driving to campus, the distance driven, fuel economy, carpooling, and what other activities (shopping, commuting to work) are comingled into campus commutes. Second, a similar challenge occurs for faculty, which comprise both full-time and part-time instructors, with similar uncertainties (especially for part-time) of comingling other activities. Using our 2013 driving survey, administered to both employees and students, we developed a methodology, described below, for a best estimate to GHGs from transportation activities. A full-time student will drive to campus three to four times a week for 12 weeks (42 trips) including a trip to campus for books, make up exams, etc. A driving survey conducted in fall 2007 and 2013 suggested that students drive, on average, 12 to 14 miles to campus, and operate vehicles with about 25 mpg fuel efficiency. For Scope 3 of this GHG inventory, we assumed 12.5 miles to campus (one-way) and 25 miles round trip. Using 25 mpg CAFE (fuel efficiency) a round trip to campus is assigned one gallon of gasoline and 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. For a full-time student making trips to campus per quarter, at 20 pounds CO 2 per trip, 1,000 pounds CO 2 (1/2 ton CO 2) per quarter, ~1.5 tons per FTES. Foothill College student enrollment is approximately 12,000 FTES, reduced by roughly 3,000 students taking online courses only, multiplied by 1.5 tons per FTES (3 quarters) or 13,500 short tons, CO 2. Summer enrollment of about 3,000 (RT) students (in person) averaging 4 trips to campus per week (24 trips per session plus 1 trip (bookstore etc.) or 25 trips total per enrolled student, are 20 pounds CO 2 per trip, or 500 pounds per student, or about 750 tons for summer session. These calculations serve to set an upper bound on the student GHG emissions, around 12,000 metric tons carbon dioxide for Foothill College students, approximately ~1.5 metric tons per student per year. Faculty and staff driving is a bit more complicated to estimate, and includes a number of assumptions. For faculty driving we begin with 500 total (200 F/T and 300 P/T) and 374 FTEF (Full Time Equivalent Faculty). Next there are assumptions about total trips to campus, e.g. between three and four days a week, and ~40 weeks per year (12 weeks per quarter and an estimate that two thirds will teach some fraction of a summer session), for a total of ~110,000 trips per year. An even bigger assumption is fuel efficiency and distance to campus. Here we estimate two gallons per trip, perhaps a bit on the low side. Multiplying by 20 pounds CO 2 per gallon, the total GHG emissions are ~ 2,000 metric tons per year. Non-faculty staff driving also includes assumptions and is estimated by multiplying 150 (administrators, deans, admins, and temporary employees, etc.) by 5 trips to campus and 44 weeks per year (11 month contracts, etc.), a total of 66,000 trips, at 2 gallons (and 40 pounds) of CO 2 per trip, approximately 1,200 metric tons. Air travel was the hardest to estimate, as we don t record the number or distance of flights. For this we estimated that 100 faculty, and 10 administrators, will take an average of one trip for year at 3,000 miles round trip, using 30 mpg for fuel efficiency, and thus 100 gallons, and 2,000 pounds CO 2, for a total of 220,000 pounds, or 100 metric tons CO 2 from air travel. As noted above, scope three emissions are both the largest contribution to total GHG emissions, estimated here at ~ 15,000 metric tons, and the most difficult to estimate. We ve chosen an approach that best fits are scheduling, registration, and driving survey data, with an approach that would more likely overestimate than underestimate GHG emissions, and using defensible and logical assumptions.