Download - Triumvirate Environmental RISE meeting
Transforming Our Institutions: The Harvard Green Campus Initiative Case Study
Leith Sharp,
October 2008
Harvard’s Organizational Structure
Harvard’s Management Structure
• Highly decentralized• Schools financially autonomous• Strong individual identities & cultures of Schools
Central Adminsitration
Vice Presidents
Schools
Deans
President and Provost
Corporation
Harvard’s Population
Students• 19,000 Degree Students• 13,000 Fellows, non-degree & summer studentsFaculty• 2400 Faculty (on campus)• 9000 Faculty (teaching hospitals)Staff• 12,000 Administrative Staff
Harvard University
Harvard’s Complexity
Athletic4%
Health care0.4%
Commercial5%
Library8%
Lab/studio17%
Other15%
Support5%
Residential31%
Office & Classroom
24%
Assembly & Museum
6%
Complexity in Infrastructure
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
• Location: student residence (~300 students)
• Proposed savings:
• Annual savings >$20,000• Payback <3 yrs
Process…
Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
HGCI
Loan Fund
Vendor
Sales RepTechnician
School
Fin Mgr (capital budget)Fin Mgr (operating budget)
Facility DirectorBuilding Manager (Superintendent)
House Master
House occupants (students)REP coordinator (student)
Maintenance crew
Univ. Ops
1 2Change Agent
Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
HGCI
Loan Fund
Vendor
Sales RepTechnician
School
Fin Mgr (capital budget)Fin Mgr (operating budget)
Facility DirectorBuilding Manager (Superintendent)
House Master
House occupants (students)REP coordinator (student)
Maintenance crew
Univ. Ops
1 2Change Agent
3
4
Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
HGCI
Loan Fund
Vendor
Sales RepTechnician
School
Fin Mgr (capital budget)Fin Mgr (operating budget)
Facility DirectorBuilding Manager (Superintendent)
House Master
House occupants (students)REP coordinator (student)
Maintenance crew
Univ. Ops
1 2Change Agent
3
4
56
Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
• Full Process = 3 months of constant facilitation by HGCI
HGCI
Loan Fund
Vendor
Sales RepTechnician
School
Fin Mgr (capital budget)Fin Mgr (operating budget)
Facility DirectorBuilding Manager (Superintendent)
House Master
House occupants (students)REP coordinator (student)
Maintenance crew
Univ. Ops
1 2
3
4
56 7
8
910
11
121
3
14
15
16
17
181
9
20
Change Agent
Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
Harvard’s Growth
Harvard as Builder
• 600 campus buildings • 21 million gross square feet
(gsf) of floor space• Historical trends - 1 million gsf per decade
Harvard as Landowner
• 657 acres of campus land area– 219 acres in Cambridge– 22 acres in Longwood– 250 acres in Allston– 137 acres in Southborough– 29 acres in Watertown
• 4,100 acres of research land area
Harvard’s Environmental Impact
Harvard’s GHG Inventory: Annual
Reporting
60+% growth in GHG emissions since 1992
Wide range in School GHG growth trends
FY06: Cambridge/Allston campus = 74% Longwood Campus = 26%
Buildings account for over 87% of emissions (to power, heat & cool)
Three of Harvard’s 11 Schools account for 66% of campus emissions
Harvard’s Green Campus Initiative
TotalFull Time Staff
FY01 1
FY02 4
FY03 8
FY04 11
FY05 11
FY06 16
FY07 19
FY08-FY09 24+
Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach
Base Program Funding
TotalFull Time Staff
Annual UniversitySavings
FY01 $ 80,000 1
FY02 $264,000 4 $400,000
FY03 $648,000 8 $700,000
FY04 $890,000 11 $1.5 million
FY05 $857,000 11 $3 million
FY06 $1,155,000 16 $5 million
FY07 $1,700,000 19 $6+million
FY08-FY09 $2,200,000 24+ $7+million
Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach
Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach
Green Campus Loan Fund: $12 million interest-free capital for conservation projects
Existing Buildings
New Construction
5 year payback maximum
Simple payback used
10 year payback maximum
Lifecycle costing used
$8.5+ million lent since 2001
200+ projects
30% average return on investment
Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Organizational Chart 2000
Director, Leith Sharp
Co-Chair Assoc. VP, Facilities & Environmental ServicesTom Vautin
Co-Chair Faculty, Harvard School of Public HealthProf. Jack Spengler
a
Capacities: Time, Attention and Expertise
Capacities: Time, Attention and Expertise
Director, Leith Sharp
Co-Chair Assoc. VP, Facilities & Environmental ServicesTom Vautin
Co-Chair Faculty, Harvard School of Public HealthProf. Jack Spengler
Green Building Operations
Residential Green Living Programs
Campus Occupant Engagement Programs
HGCI Base Program Staff
♦ FY07Operating Cost = $1.6million ♦ Annual Savings = $6+ million & 90+ million pounds of CO2
20% Office of President and Provost & central administration sources.
•Sustainability – The Challenge of Changing Our Institutions•Green Building Design, Construction and Operations
HGCI Courses at Harvard Extension School
23+ Full-time Staff
20 Part-time students Renewable Energy
Environmental Procurement
Green Building Design
Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Organizational Chart 2000
1.Change Attitudes and Assumptions2.Engage People and Foster New Capacities3.Assessment, Research and Development4.Pilot and Expand New Practices5.Process Quality Control & Continuous
Improvement6.Leverage Leadership7.Reform Finance and Accounting Structures8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
10 Elements of Organizational Transformation
1. Change Attitudes and Assumptions
TRUST
AuthorityTransaction
Three Types of Relationship
Models in Organizations
Reference: Professor Karen Stephenson, http://www.netform.com
Building Trust Based Relationships
There is no problem because….the planet is an infinite source of resources with an infinitecapacity to absorb our pollution
There is a problem but it’s not mine because…..what I do has little impact on the planet, Ijust don’t count, my influence is too small
There is a problem, I am involved, I probably could do something except it’s so hard……Ican’t get the funds, I don’t know how, I don’t have the time, I keep forgetting, my managerdoesn’t seem to want it, there’s no reliable alternative, it’s too risky, I don’t get evaluated onit etc
The Transformation of Hearts and Minds that Underpins EffectiveOrganizational Transformation for Sustainability at Harvard
There is a problem and I am fully engaged in working on my part of the solution in every way possible!
1. Change Attitudes and Assumptions
2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
Occupant impacts on building operations &
environmental impacts
There is much research to support the idea that learning is best served when “motivation is intrinsic” that is to say when the individual is self-motivated rather than externally motivated.
Experience that has no emotional engagement are not likely to be effective in generating new mental representations.Gardener, H. (1999) The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Motivation
MOTIVATION
2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
Inter-Dining Hall Competition: 500+Dining Staff
PEER TO PEER PROGRAMS
In 2007 The winning kitchen reduced electricity use by 23%
Harvard University Dining Services: Green Skillet Competition
2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
Residential Green Living Programs9,000+ students from the College, Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School,
Kennedy School of Government
• Peer education, and awareness. • Practical projects in the dorms.• Collaboration w/ administration to
identify barriers to conservation.
To reduce the environmental impact of dorm life at Harvard through…
Major focuses• Electricity, heating, & water
efficiency• Reduce waste through re-
use and recycling• Sustainable dining
PEER TO PEER PROGRAMS
In the College Quantified savings are now well over $400,000/year.
• >13.8% reduction in electricity use of dorms by 2007
• >4% reduction in fuel for heating
• 33% reduction in food waste
• 25% increase in recycling
• $50,000 annual water savings
• >60% reduction in move-out trash
• >$75,000/year of reusable items salvaged and resold by REP and Habitat
2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
Targeted Behavioral Change
SHUT YOUR SASH COMPETITION
HMS Fume Hood "Shut the Sash" CampaignAverage Sash Height & Energy Cost per Hood
02468
101214
WAB HIM Bldg C SGM Arm
Building
Avg
Sas
h H
eigh
t(in
ches
)
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
Avg
Ene
rgy
Cos
t /H
ood
/ yea
r
Pre-Campaign Sash Height Post Campaign Sash HeightBaseline avg cost / hood / year Post Campaign avg cost / hood / year
Harvard Medical School
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Over $250,000 of energy savings from this targeted competition
Harvard Real Estate Services – 3 complexes (1,800 tenants) – 10 REPs
Harvard Law School – 8 dorms (700 students) – 4 REPs
Harvard Business School – 5 dorms (420 students) – 6 REPs
2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
- 5,700 people pledged to turn off computers and lights at night.
- 5,400 people pledged to enable sleep mode on their computer.
- 3,700 people pledged to buy at least 30% recycled paper.
- 4,600 people pledged to double-side copies.
- 3,821 people pledged to bring their own coffee mug.
2007 Online Sustainability PledgeLast year over 8,000 people signed!
Large Scale Social Marketing Campaigns
Certoon: Annual Campus Energy Reduction Cartoon Competition in the College
2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
3. Assessment, Research and Development
40
11
3
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Point is no cost andoften given in Harvard
projects
Potential cost impact,but will result in reduced
operations costs
Point has costimplication and anassociated humanhealth / comfort /
productivity benefit
Point has additional costimpact with strictly anenvironment benefit
Over 20 LEED Projects at Harvard show that there are 34 credits and 6 prerequisites that can be achieved at no added cost if the process is managed
effectively.
Included in this number are 9 credits that all Harvard projects immediately get.
Silver = 33
Gold = 39
Platinum=52
3. Assessment, Research and DevelopmentWhat is the Cost of LEED?
Building Energy Assessments, Tracking & Reporting
HGCI has identified over 200 energy conservation measures in 60 building complexes within a 12 month period for Harvard Real Estate Service.
Peabody Terrace Apartments
Square Feet Units Occupants Build Manager Org # UOS Bldg #450849 495 696 Pam Cornell 53830 425
Heating Source Cooling Source Utilities Included in Rent Water BillingTRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE FALSEFALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUEFALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE
1 TRUE
UtilityAnnual
Baseline Baseline Years Usage / SFUsage /
Occupant
Electricity (kWh) 2,265,043 FY 2006-2007 5.024 3254.372
Natural Gas (therms) 5,044 FY 2006-2007 0.011 7.248
Steam (MMBTU) 24,956 FY 2006-2007 0.055 35.856
Water (ccf) 31,023 FY 2006-2007 0.069 44.573
Chilled Water (Ton-Days) 0 - - -
#2 Fuel Oil (gallons) 0 - - -
#4 Fuel Oil (barrels) 0 - - -
#6 Fuel Oil (barrels) 0 - - -24,956,034 FY 2006-2007 55.353 35856.37133,189,118 FY 2006-2007 73.615 47685.514
Baseline Summary
Electricity Heating
Water Chilled Water
Combined Heating (KBTU)Total KBTU
Blackstone SteamNatural GasElectricity
#2 Fuel Oil
#4 Fuel Oil#6 Fuel Oil
Chilled Water
Chiller On-site
Monthly
QuarterlyElectricityHeat
Water and Sewer
None
Normalized Annual Usage and Cost
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
Fiscal 2006 Fiscal 2007 Fiscal 2008 Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010
kWhs
0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000
Cos
t ($)
kWhsCost
Normalized Annual Usage and Cost
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
KB
TUs
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Cos
t ($)
KBTUCost
Normalized Annual Usage and Cost
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Fiscal 2006 Fiscal 2007 Fiscal 2008 Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010
Ccf
s
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Cos
t ($)
CcfsCost
Normalized Annual Usage and Cost
00000111111
Ton-
Day
s
00000111111
Cos
t ($)
Ton-DaysCost
Window AC
Geothermal
Onsite Renewable Energy
Photovoltaic
Big Belly Trash Compactors
Solar Thermal Collecting oil for Harvard Recycling truck
Ground Source Heat Pumps
Building Mounted Wind
Technology ComparisonPV Wind Solar
Thermal
$/20 yr kWh
$.25-.35 $.03-.12 $.24
$/20 yr MTCDE
$400-550 $100-200 $70-350
Note: costs are AFTER rebates for PV and wind and factored over 20 years
Solar thermal is not eligible for MTC rebates
4. Pilot and Expand New Practices
4. Pilot and Expand New Practices
Green Cleaning
Biodiesel in University Shuttles
Ground Source Heat Pumps
Occupancy sensor driven temperature Setbacks
Harvard UniversityDiesel Emission Controls
For Construction Equipment
4. Pilot and Expand New Practices
Process to Implementation• Trial, Education, Buy-In, Meetings…
Harvard Transportation Services Vehicle
Harvard Emissions Spec
• Retrofits - 60HP+ onsite 20+ working days
• EPAs verified list, or approved by Harvard
• Ultra Low Sulfur Deisel. Preference for biodiesel, ethanol
• Anti-idling, equipment location, electric equipment
RetrofittedVehicles
4. Pilot and Expand New Practices
20072006
2001: HGCI initiates first 3
pilot LEED projects
2004
21 LEED Projects5 Certified16 Registered
2005
26 LEED Projects7 Certified19 Registered
16 LEED Projects4 Certified12 Registered
7 LEED Projects2 Certified5 Registered
Green Building at Harvard :History
50+ LEED Projec12 Certified38 Registere
2008
Test
Levels of LEED Ratings
Green Buildings worldwide are certified with a voluntary,consensus-based rating system.USGBC has four levels of LEED.
Source: www.usgbc.org
52-69 points
39-51 points
33-38 points
26-32 points
Dunster / Mather Kitchen and ServeriesFirst Institution Kitchen to Achieve LEED, Dual-Flush Toilets, Melink Variable Speed Drive Stove
Hoods, Composting System
LEED Silver Certified
Harvard Dining Services
Aldrich HallCampus Lighting Master Plan, Preferred Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles, Green
Cleaning Program, high performance ventilation 13 Filters, 80% C&D Waste Diversion
LEED Silver Pending
Harvard Business School
90 Mt. Auburn St. Ground Source Heat Pumps, No Irrigation, Indoor Air Quality Testing Prior to Occupancy,
Untreated Concrete Floors and Walls, Green Cleaning for All of HRES U&C,
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
LEED Gold Certified
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
Harvard University Library
First Science Center Seeking LEED Gold
Allston Development
Highest energy performance goal of any lab design at Harvard, careful attention to materials selections, onsite stormwater re-use
46 Blackstone LEED Platinum Certified
University Operations Services
Submitted to USGBC in September, 55 Points Pending – 52 Required for LEED Platinum, Highest energy performance of any Harvard LEED building, bioswale, energy efficient
elevator
Landmark Center, HSPH42,000 Build-Out, Underfloor Air Distribution, Digitally controlled Lighting w/T-5 Lamps
LEED Certified
Harvard School of Public Health
5. Process Improvement
Do we need some in time research?
Do we need more management support?
Has it fallen off the agenda due to other priorities?
Does something have to be done and no else knows how to do it?
Did someone leave and momentum lost?
Is there some unfounded perception of risk or misunderstanding preventing engagement?
Did we consider life cycle costs, rebates, grants, integrated design related savings etc?
Are we re-inventing the wheel instead of using what’s been done already?
Are we missing someone important at the table?
Continuously Diagnose and Address the Weakest Links in Every Process
Does anyone have the time to project manage this properly?
Is the bigger picture still being addressed?
5. Process Improvement
Ten Commandments for Cost Effective Green Building Construction & Renovations
1. Commitment
2. Leadership
3. Accountability
4. Process Management
5. Integrated Design
6. Energy Modeling
7. Commissioning Plus
8. Specifications
9. Life Cycle Costing
10.Continuous Improvement
Process Quality Control & Continuous Improvement5. Process Improvement
46 Blackstone LEED Platinum Certified
University Operations Services
Submitted to USGBC in September, 55 Points Pending – 52 Required for LEED Platinum, Highest energy performance of any Harvard LEED building, bioswale, energy efficient elevator
Original site consisted of 100% impervious surfaces
Developing Stormwater Strategies .
658 tons of asphalt were removed and recycled
Demo of exterior structures to create open space and future Bioswale
Installing high-albedo pavers on stone base
Creating a permeable surface for the courtyard
Bioremediation system for surface water treatment
Bioswale treats all water from 25,000 s.f. parking lot
Drainage to municipal sewer system eliminated.
Storm run-off on the site is reduced by 35% to 51%
99% waste diversion through reuse and recycling
A serious commitment to construction waste management
•Daylight access to over 75% of spaces
•View access to over 90% of spaces
Daylight and Views
Daylight and Views
Full cut-off exterior lighting
Energy Efficient Lighting
Daylight and occupant sensing
fluorescent lighting
43% reduction in water use from EPAct Standards
Plumbing
Application of Icynene Foam
Thermal Insulation and Vapor Barrier
Reflective Roofing and Operable Windows
Roof Specifications:• Solar reflectance 65%• Emittance .92• U values .024 to .032
Window features:• Double pane, argon-filled low-e glass• U value .25
HVAC Design Strategy
• Right-size the design:– capacities to match building envelope thermal
performance
• Minimize energy use in delivery systems– Air handler for ventilation only (100% fresh air)
– Energy recovery from exhaust air (enthalpy wheel)
– Fan-less valence units for space heating and cooling
– Variable frequency drives on all pumps
Energy Use
Designed to be 40+ % more energy efficient than ASHRAE 90.1
Mechanical Systems
• Cooling: ground-source heat pumps• Heating: hot water from steam• DDC controls:
– Outside air reset– Occupancy sensors– CO2 monitors– Variable air volume
Air Handler/Heat Recovery System
• Provides up to 5100 CFM of 100% outside air for ventilation
• Enthaply energy recovery system is 80% efficient
• Ventilation is demand controlled with occupancy and CO2 sensors
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified Wood
Sustainable and Renewable Materials
Concrete Counters
Sustainable Carpeting Materials
Recycled, recyclable, PVC-free, low VOC carpet tiles
Bamboo flooring
Low VOC adhesives and sealants
Reused Systems Furniture
Refurbished furniture with recycled materials
Remember this?
And now…
TRADITION DESIGN PROCESSA typical process involves a linear progression from the architect down to the engineers and finally the contractors. A strict hierarchy of communication is enforced by the project manager.
Architects
www.aangepastbouwen.nl
Engineers
Contractors
www.hansa-klima.de
Engineers
Contractors
Architects
Integrated DesignAn Integrated Design Process is a more iterative process that provides additional flexibility and dynamism in the engagement of all team members so that there is scope for ongoing learning and the capacity to address emergent features and strategies.
The project team is still required to adhere to clear communication protocols to minimize conflict and confusion, however there are more deliberate opportunities for cross communication between team members.
The design charrette is a key forum for integrated design.
Source: Leith Sharp 2008
Integrated Design Requires Inclusiveness and Collaboration
Conventional Design Process Integrated Design ProcessInvolves team members only when essential Inclusive from the outset
Less time, energy, and collaboration exhibited in early stages
Front-loaded — time and energy invested early
More decisions made by fewer people Decisions influenced by broad team
Linear process Iterative process
Systems often considered in isolation Whole-systems thinking
Limited to constrained optimization Allows for full optimization
Diminished opportunity for synergies Seeks synergies
Emphasis on up-front costs Life-cycle costing
Typically finished when construction iscomplete
Process continues through post-occupancy
Source: ‘Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process’. Prepared Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec Consulting
The Integrated Design Process is as Much a Mindset as it is a Process
Mindset Principle Strategies
Inclusion & collaboration Broad collaborative team • Careful team formation
Outcome oriented Well-defined scope, vision, goals & objectives
• Team building
Trust & transparency Effective & open communication • Facilitation training for team• Expert facilitation
Open-mindedness & creativity
Innovation and synthesis • Visioning charrettes (with comprehensive preparation)• Brainstorming
Rigor & attention to detail Systematic decision-making • Goals and targets matrix• Decision-making tools
Continuous learning and improvement
• Iterative process with feedback cycles
• Post-occupancy evaluation• Comprehensivecommissioning
Source: ‘Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process’. Prepared Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec Consulting
The Integrated Design Process is as Much a Mindset as it is a Process
The Management Challenge of Integrated Design
The integrated design process requires skillful management. A number of integrated design process management recommendations include:
Ask for it up front, include it in the RFPs, Owners Project Requirements etc
Select design team members with experience in integrated design where possible.
Include design team members at the right time, such as operational representatives, commissioning agent, sustainability consultant, cost estimator, controls engineer etc
Engage the team in a process of internalizing all sustainability and project goals.
Establish an early dynamic of trust and mutual understanding across the team as thefoundation of effective collaboration.
Undertake a design charrette with full team participation to develop strategies andallocate roles and responsibilities
Carefully and consistently diagnose when to bring the team together, when to drive themto collaborate and when to implement linear task sequence management.
Continuously ask why particular strategies are being recommended and what otheroptions have been considered
Implement modeling strategies & life cycle costing to evaluate impacts of design options
Ensure the effective engagement of operations staff, the commissioning agent to ensure the design meets operational needs
6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions
CONFIDENCE & CAPACITY•Evidence•Confidence•Business base for green campus organization
AUTHORITY•Legitimacy•Priority•Mood/culture•Goals
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION•Capital Approvals Systems•Finance & Accounting•University Contracts
6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions
Upper Middle Management2nd Level Deans, Associate VP’s, CFOs, COO - Planning
Top Level LeadershipPresident, Provost, Deans, VP’s
Grass RootsStudents, building Managers, facilities staff, project managers, custodial, transport & procurement staff
Harvard-Wide Green Building Guidelines: Development Process
Development and Approval Process• 2001-4: LEED piloted and numerous projects
underway• 2004: President Summers: Approves Sustainability
Principles including a commitment to integrate sustainability into capital approvals process.
• 2004-7: LEED project experience expanded across the University
• Feb 2007: University Construction Managers Councilasked HGCI to establish interfaculty sub-committee to draft guidelines
• March – Oct: Guidelines developed by HGCI and interfaculty committee over 11 meetings
Leverage Leadership6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions
Development and Approval Process: Oct-Dec 2007• Financial Deans: Approval• Capital Projects Review Committee: Approval • University Construction Managers Council: Approval • Administrative Deans: Approval• University Construction Managers Council : Approve final draft• President Faust: Notified of completion and adoptionOngoing Efforts:• Green Building Guidelines Committee: Tasked to review LEED
Gold option through 2008• Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Tasked to integrate
guidelines into University contracts & standards, provide training and project support to all Schools and Departments
Harvard-Wide Green Building Guidelines: Development Process
Leverage Leadership6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions
7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
Capital Budget Managers
Maintenance Budget Managers
Utility Budget Managers
Human Resources Managers
Accounting Structures Are Getting in the Way of Best Financial Practice
Barrier: Accounting structures are driving inefficient design and operations by limiting
the appropriate movement of
investments and savings
$12 Million Fund - interest free capital for high performance projects
New ConstructionExisting Buildings
5 Year Payback Maximum
Full project funded
Can bundle projects
Simple payback used
10 Year payback maximum
Cost premium of high
performance option funded
Life Cycle Costing used
Green Campus Loan Fund
7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
$12 Million Fund - interest free capital for high performance projects
New ConstructionExisting Buildings
Green Campus Loan Fund
$12 million interest-free capital for conservation projects
+$8.5 million lent since 2001
~200 projects
30% average return on investment
7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
Provide Financial Access to the Champions
7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
HARVARDGreen Building Guidelines
• Capital projects exceeding $5 million will seek minimum LEED Silver certification.
• Harvard University requires a number of LEED credits to be treated as pre-requisites (including minimum 6 energy credits ~2030 Challenge)
• An “Integrated Design” approach is to be adopted. • Life Cycle Costing assessment is to be conducted throughout the
project• Energy modeling is required• Adopt an ongoing commissioning approach for the life of the building.
Life Cycle Costing
A method of project evaluation in which all costs arising from owning, operating, maintaining and
ultimately disposing of a project over an agreed period are accounted for and converted into today’s dollars.
In short, life cycle costing allows for the consideration of medium and long term cost implications of today’s
decisions.
When can it be used?► New Construction► Major Renovations► Capital Projects
► Routine Replacements or Upgrades► Day to day purchases that incur any ongoing
costs
When Should We Introduce the LCC Approach in the Building DesignProcess?
Get in Early and Get in Ugly! ( Favourite quote from GRT!)
Simplest Use of Life Cycle Costing
Present Value of theInvestment Costs
Present Value ofOperational
Costs+
Present Value = All costs in today’s $
Provided by Bob Charette
How Should LCC Be Used in the Decision Making Process?
1. To compare different options (e.g. ground source heat pumps versus natural gas furnace)
2. To determine financially optimal efficiency level (e.g. amount of insulation)
3. To identify medium and long term savings for potential reinvestment or immediate justification
of integrated design solutions
1. To compare different options (e.g. ground source heat pumps versus natural gas furnace)
Vacuum Pump Replacement Study
Discount Rate 8.00%Escalation Rate 3.50%
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3Name Water Seal Dry ClawDescription Existing ReplacementAnnual Utility Cost $ 38,768.20 $ 15,030.41 Annual Maintenance Cost $ 440.00 $ 190.00 First Cost $ - $ 46,500.00 Year 10 Replacement $ 47,340.00 $ 61,147.50 Year 20 Replacement $ 59,940.00 $ 77,422.50 Years 20 20
Total Net Present Value $ 808,819.73 $ 457,403.89
Savings $ 351,415.84
Life Cycle Cost Analysis Scenario 6: >Break Even Annual Costs (5.58 MMBTU/week)>Malkin Perspective
General AssumptionsMaintenance Escalation 3.50%Discount Rate 5.75%
Gas Boilers Central Steam (oil/gas)FY2007 Rates $3,725 $0
Gas (per therm) $1.55 3,946 0
$29.00 0 339
$9,841 $9,841
Maintenance Cost
Gas Cost
Repair Cost
Net Annual Cost
Present Value Annual Costs
Present Value Annual Costs
Net Annual Cost
Repair Cost
Steam Cost
Maintenance Cost
$3,855 $6,116 $9,972 $9,429 FY 2008 1 $9,694 $10,252 $10,252 $0$3,990 $6,353 $10,343 $9,249 FY 2009 2 $9,629 $10,768 $10,768 $0$4,130 $6,550 $10,680 $9,031 FY 2010 3 $9,564 $11,311 $11,311 $0$4,275 $6,787 $11,062 $8,845 FY 2011 4 $9,497 $11,877 $11,877 $0$4,424 $7,024 $11,448 $8,656 FY 2012 5 $9,435 $12,478 $12,478 $0$4,579 $7,270 $11,849 $8,472 FY 2013 6 $9,234 $12,915 $12,915 $0$4,739 $7,524 $12,263 $8,292 FY 2014 7 $9,038 $13,367 $13,367 $0$4,905 $7,787 $12,693 $8,115 FY 2015 8 $8,846 $13,835 $13,835 $0$5,077 $8,060 $13,137 $7,943 FY 2016 9 $8,657 $14,319 $14,319 $0$5,254 $8,342 $7,053 $20,650 $11,806 FY 2017 10 $8,876 $15,525 $705 $14,820 $0$5,438 $8,634 $14,072 $7,608 FY 2018 11 $8,293 $15,339 $15,339 $0$5,629 $8,936 $14,565 $7,446 FY 2019 12 $8,116 $15,876 $15,876 $0$5,826 $9,249 $15,075 $7,288 FY 2020 13 $7,944 $16,431 $16,431 $0$6,030 $9,573 $15,602 $7,133 FY 2021 14 $7,775 $17,006 $17,006 $0$6,241 $9,908 $16,148 $6,981 FY 2022 15 $7,609 $17,602 $17,602 $0$6,459 $10,255 $16,714 $6,833 FY 2023 16 $7,447 $18,218 $18,218 $0$6,685 $10,613 $17,299 $6,687 FY 2024 17 $7,289 $18,855 $18,855 $0$6,919 $10,985 $17,904 $6,545 FY 2025 18 $7,134 $19,515 $19,515 $0$7,161 $11,369 $18,531 $6,406 FY 2026 19 $6,982 $20,198 $20,198 $0$7,412 $11,767 $9,994 $29,173 $9,536 FY 2027 20 $7,159 $21,900 $995 $20,905 $0
20 Year Net Present Cost$162,302 $168,219
Steam (per MMBTU) [includes fuel, non-fuel, and distribution]
Year
FY2007 Annual
FY07 Maintenance CostAnnual Gas Usage
(therms)
Annual Steam Usage (MMBtu)
2. To determine financially optimal efficiency level (e.g. amount of insulation)
How Much Insulation?
Inches 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Upfront Cost $45 $50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75 $80 $85 $90 $95 $100
Energy Use 4 3.2 2.56 2.05 1.64 1.31 1.05 0.84 0.67 0.54 0.43 0.34
How Much Insulation?
InsulationCash Year
20
Energy Per
YearEnergy 20
Years0 Inches -$63.43 5 100.001 Inches -$36.77 4.00 80.002 Inches -$16.14 3.20 64.003 Inches -$0.73 2.56 51.204 Inches $9.03 2.05 40.965 Inches $13.64 1.64 32.776 Inches $14.12 1.31 26.217 Inches $11.30 1.05 20.978 Inches $5.83 0.84 16.789 Inches -$1.73 0.67 13.4210 Inches -$8.66 0.54 10.7411 Inches -$12.57 0.43 8.59
Using an integrated design
approach you may be able
eliminate mechanical
equipment to justify this cost
3. To identify medium and long term savings for potential reinvestment or immediate
justification of integrated design solutions
A Financial Model for Climate Neutrality
Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting 2008 Campus GHG Report
YALE: Campus GHG Reduction Framework: Progress to Date
CO NSE RVA TIO N
RE NEW AB LEEN ERG Y
CAR BO N O FFS ETPRO JEC TS
P RO GRE SS TO DAT E• 8 % reduc tion f rom 04 p eak
• 1 3 % below Pre -2005 Tra jecto ry
•1.5% C amp us G SF Incre ase since ‘05
PRE -2005
TRAJECTORY
YAL E A NNO UNC EM ENT
GOAL
REDUCTION PATH IF L INEAR
Annual Cam pus Em issions
Met
ric T
ons o
f Car
bon
Dio
xide
Equ
ival
ent
Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting 2008 Campus GHG Report
CORNELL: GHG Reduction Plan and Strategies
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Year
GH
G E
mis
sion
s (m
etric
kilo
-tons
)
Green Development
Energy Conservation
Status Quo
Fuel Mix
Renewable Energy / Offsets
Actuals
Projected 2007-2012 with CCHPP in 2010
Kyoto Target by 2012
Future: Climate Neutral
Emissions without Energy Initiatives & CHPP (2000-2012)
Accounting Reform for Building Climate Neutrality
Adopting 20 years net present value accounting framework for evaluating carbon neutrality investment
and return options for each building.
Track and reinvest savings from energy demand reductions to fund onsite renewable energy, fuel
switching, additional efficiency efforts and carbon offsets.
114
Building Name Leverett Towers F & G
Department Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Description Complex of 2 11-story towers
Age Built 1959; renovations every 4 years
Size 121,697 square feet
Occupancy 158 suites, 20 tutor apartments; 300 residents
Demographics Undergraduates, graduate tutors
Lease format Academic year appointments; temporary summer housing
Building systems and utilities
Heat/ventilation: Steam to forced air and radiant heat; Hot water: steamAir conditioning: window unitsElectricity: tutor kitchenette appliancesNatural gas: dryers (1990-2001 only)
2006 GHG emissions 1537 MTCDE
Costing Case Study
Costing Case Study(Research provided by Debra Shepard 2008)
Leverett Towers Investment Summary
Component% of
Portfolio Investment Period MTCDE/yr
Energy Conservation Measures 17% 2007-2009 255Renewable Energy Technology (onsite) 3% 2007-2009 49Fuel Switch 22% 2012-2020 345Offsets 58% 2012-2020 888Behavior Program ((2%)) 2007-2020 ((33))
116
Costing Case Study(Research provided by Debra Shepard 2008)
Leverett Tow ers:Climate Neutral Portfolio at 2020
17%
3%
22%58%
ECMs
RETs
Fuel Sw itch
Offsets
Leverett Towers Investment Summary
Component% of
Portfolio Investment Period MTCDE/yr
Energy Conservation Measures 17% 2007-2009 255Renewable Energy Technology (onsite) 3% 2007-2009 49Fuel Switch 22% 2012-2020 345Offsets 58% 2012-2020 888Behavior Program ((2%)) 2007-2020 ((33))
erette Towers Financial Summary for Climate Neutrality
Financial CategoryNet present value
through 2020
Investments (ECM, RET, Fuel Switch, Behavior) ($1,068,958)
Savings (ECM, RET, and Behavior) $1,142,947
Carbon Offset Purchases ($68,268)
TOTAL PROGRAM Net Present Value $5,721
Designing Programs for the Way We Are8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention by Institutionalizing New Practices
Designing Programs for the Way We Are
The findings of many studies suggest that the conscious self “plays a causal role only 5% of the time” There is an active effort on behalf of the mind to make what is conscious unconscious as quickly as possible.
While conscious choice and guidance are needed to perform new tasks, after some repetition, conscious choice quickly drops out and unconscious habit takes over, freeing up precious reserves of conscious awareness.
Bargh, J. A. and Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psycologist, 54 (7) 462-479
Conscious Engagement
8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention by Institutionalizing New Practices
Designing Programs for the Way We Are
The findings of many studies suggest that the conscious self “plays a causal role only 5% of the time” There is an active effort on behalf of the mind to make what is conscious unconscious as quickly as possible.
While conscious choice and guidance are needed to perform new tasks, after some repetition, conscious choice quickly drops out and unconscious habit takes over, freeing up precious reserves of conscious awareness.
Bargh, J. A. and Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psycologist, 54 (7) 462-479
Conscious Engagement
Implications for Creating a Learning Organization
•Make it a habit ASAP
•Institutionalize using organizational systems ASAP
8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention by Institutionalizing New Practices
5% Conscious Behavior
Designing Programs for the Way We Are8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention by Institutionalizing New Practices
EXAMPLES:
•Adopt new financial approval requirements
•Integrate new practices into contracts and specifications ASAP
•Redefine position descriptions, performance reviews & training programs
•Implement prompts & visible cues to trigger behavior (signs, bins, emails)
•Formalize new annual reporting requirements
•Establish routines of regular meetings and agenda items
9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
9. Adopt Accountability FrameworksCambridge vs Longwood Emissions
145,572
204,449
220,407 219,104
233,663
247,224
63,293
52,930 48,723
85,914
110,995 114,054
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
FY90 FY02 FY04 FY04 FY05 FY06
MTC
DE
CambridgeLongwood
GHG Reduction Targets
Green Building Standards
Life Cycle CostingFinance and Accounting Frameworks
Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting 2008 Campus GHG Report
Summary of Ivy GHG Commitments in 2008
Brown University42% below 2007 baseline by 2020
Columbia University30% below 2005 levels by 2017 [in line with PlaNYC]
Cornell UniversitySigned Presidents Climate Commitment. Will have strategic plan including timetable in 2009
(already have 7% below 1990)
Harvard University30% below 2006 by 2016 including all growth (which equates to a net 50% reduction)
University of PennsylvaniaSigned Presidents Climate Commitment. Will have strategic plan including timetable Sept 2009
Princeton University1990 levels by 2020 (18% reduction from 2007)
Yale University43% reduction from 2005 (10% below 1990) by 2020
Greenhouse Gas Reduction StrategyThe Allston Sustainability Guidelines chart a course for Harvard to reduce the emissions of its new campus in Allston by over 80% compared to a conventional campus.
Allston Em issions Reduction Strategy
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
200520062007200820
0920
1020
1120122013201420152016201720
1820
19202020212022202320242025
Year
Alls
ton
Emis
sion
s (M
TCE)
Buildings will use 40% less energy than stipulated by ASHRAE 90.1
Energy generation will be 30% m ore efficient than current Harvard standards
22.5% of A llston's energy demand will be provided by renewable, GHG-neutral sources
Conventional Developm ent
Sustainable Developm ent
50% of rem aining em issions will be offset
9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 2026
Perc
ent o
f GH
G E
mis
sion
s
#1: Building Design:Buildings 40% more efficient
#2: Efficient energygeneration : 30% less carbon intense (E.g. cogen)
#3. Renewable energy strategies: On and off site renewables: 22.5% of energy demand
#4. Purchase offsets:Carbon offsets 50%
42%
14%
Key for climate change: incremental reduction of CO2
footprint
Produced by HGCI. Modified/adapted by ADG. November 2007
4 components associated with new development [First Science as a prototype]:
9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
10. Institutionalize Continuous Improvement
Trial
Design Process
Building Project
Evaluation
Recommend Trial
Design Process
Building Project
Evaluation
Recommendations Trial
Design Process
Building Project
Evaluation
Recommend Trial
Design Process
Building Project
Evaluation
Recommendations
Harvard Campus-Wide Sustainability Principles
Sustainability CommitmentHarvard University is committed to continuous improvement in:• Demonstrating institutional practices that promote sustainability.• Promoting health, productivity and safety through building design & campus planning.• Enhancing the health of campus ecosystems & increasing the diversity of native species.• Developing planning tools to support triple bottom line decision-making.• Encouraging environmental inquiry and institutional learning throughout the University.• Establishing indicators for sustainability for monitoring & continuous improvement.
Implementation Commitment• Continue Harvard Green Campus Initiative • Integrate into Harvard’s Capital Approvals process• Establish indicators for monitoring progress• Integrate into annual financial reporting processes
“As we plan for the future, these principles will set a strong course
that will benefit Harvard and promote responsible growth and
environmental quality in our community.”
President Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard University Gazette,
October 14 2004
Visit our website www.greencampus.harvard.edu
To Learn More About The Harvard Green Campus Initiative:
Contact: [email protected]
We offer Distance learning courses through Harvard Extension School:ENVR –E117 Organizational Change for Sustainability. ENVR –E119 Green Building Design, Construction and Operations
See: http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~envre117/http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~envre119/