James  A.  McCarthy  GEOS206:  Final  Paper  

5/17/2011  The  Faculty  House:  A  Potential  Candidate  for  Winter  Study  Shutdown?  

Introduction  

Electricity  meters  and,  more  recently,  steam  meters  have  been  installed  in  

Williams  College  buildings  to  monitor  and  evaluate  energy  usage  on  campus.    

Electricity  and  steam  usage  data  are  important  for  improving  the  energy  efficiency  

of  Williams  College  for  multiple  reasons.  First,  these  data  encourage  the  evaluation  

of  general  usage  patterns  on  campus,  thereby  serving  as  a  source  of  comparison  to  

energy  usage  at  individual  buildings  during  specific  time  intervals.  For  example,  

electricity  monitoring  led  to  the  discovery  of  abnormal  electricity  use  at  the  

Williams  College  offsite  shelving  facility,  and  technicians  later  determined  that  

electrical  systems  at  that  property  were  malfunctioning  (S.  Boyd  lecture,  2011).  

Secondly,  energy  usage  data  also  provide  insight  into  energy  intensity  and/or  

inefficiency  at  a  given  site.  Specifically,  energy  usage  data  per  unit  area  (e.g.  

kBTU/sq.  ft.),  together  with  knowledge  of  how  members  of  the  college  community  

use  a  space,  allow  evaluation  of  its  efficiency  and  relative  need  for  improvement.  For  

example,  The  Log  used  more  kBTU/sq.  ft.  of  heating  energy  in  January  2011  than  

Morley  Science  Laboratories  (MSL),  despite  MSL  being  a  high-­‐use  space  with  high  

energy  intensity  (e.g.  fume  hoods).  This  suggests  that  The  Log  is  a  much  more  

inefficient  building  than  MSL;  however,  the  total  amount  of  energy  consumed  by  

MSL  far  exceeds  that  used  by  the  Log,  so  improving  efficiency  at  MSL  would  likely  

result  in  greater  energy  savings  (Sustainability  at  Williams  website).  Perhaps  the  

best  example  of  the  benefits  of  energy  monitoring  is  Schapiro  Hall,  a  LEED  certified  

building  at  Williams  College.  Energy  usage  per  unit  area  data  revealed  that  Schapiro  

was  operating  at  much  higher  energy  intensity  than  Hollander  Hall,  a  coeval  LEED  

certified  building  with  similar  design.  The  investigation  that  followed  due  to  the  

discovery  of  this  discrepancy  found  significant  inefficiencies  in  the  insulation  design  

and  its  installation  at  Schapiro  Hall  (S.  Boyd  lecture,  2011).  

The  monitoring  of  steam  and  electricity  usage  permits  evaluation  of  energy  

efficiency  on  campus,  but  in  itself  does  not  provide  impetus  for  improving  efficiency  

and  saving  energy.  However,  at  Williams  College,  only  ~10%  of  the  Williams  College  

energy  budget  is  produced  by  onsite  cogeneration  of  electricity  at  the  central  steam  

plant,  and  a  trivial  amount  is  produced  by  solar  P/V  arrays  (Zilkha  Center  website).  

This  suggests  that  the  college  must  purchase  nearly  90%  of  the  electricity  and  steam  

energy  consumed  on  campus  (from  power  plants  and  as  fuel  for  steam  generation).  

Thus,  improving  efficiency  provides  financial  benefits,  and  in  most  cases  (i.e.  

depending  on  the  type  of  electrical  generation),  reduces  the  amount  of  CO2  and  

greenhouse  gases  released  to  provide  energy  to  the  college.  Furthermore,  Williams  

College  is  an  institution  that  is  committed  to  improving  sustainability  on  campus  

and  elsewhere,  demonstrated  by  its  participation  in  various  energy  rating  projects  

and  its  cooperation  with  the  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Sustainability  in  

Higher  Education  (AASHE).  Therefore,  steam  and  electricity  usage  data  are  essential  

to  Williams  College’s  commitment  to  sustainability,  because  they  allow  Williams  

College  personnel  to  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  sustainability  measures,  and  also  

suggest  new  candidates  for  energy-­‐saving  projects.  

This  study  

  In  recent  years,  Williams  College  has  performed  an  extensive  shutdown  of  all  

non-­‐essential  buildings  during  the  winter  recess  to  save  energy,  and  the  steam  and  

electricity  usage  data  showed  that  energy  savings  were  significant.  The  amount  of  

energy  saved  during  this  time  has  led  to  investigation  of  a  similar  shutdown  during  

Winter  Study,  but  of  a  much  smaller  scale.  Because  students,  faculty,  and  

administrative  staff  are  back  on  campus  and  have  academic  commitments,  only  

buildings  that  are  of  limited  use  can  be  considered  for  a  Winter  Study  shutdown.  

Griffin  Hall  has  been  previously  identified  as  a  potential  candidate  because  there  are  

no  essential  academic  or  administrative  offices  located  there,  and  there  is  

demonstrated  potential  for  energy  savings  (GEOS206  Exercise).    In  this  study,  I  

examined  the  energy  usage  patterns  of  the  Faculty  House  during  the  winter  

shutdown  and  during  Winter  Study,  to  determine  if  it  too  is  a  potential  candidate  for  

a  shutdown  during  Winter  Study  

 

Figure  1.  View  of  the  Faculty  House  from  Main  Street,  looking  north.  

Setting  

  The  Faculty  House  (Fig.  1)  is  a  17,635  sq.  ft.  building  built  in  1938  and  

located  on  the  northwest  corner  of  the  intersection  between  Park  Street  and  Main  

Street  (Route  2)  in  Williamstown,  MA.  The  college  has  directed  numerous  

construction  projects  of  the  Faculty  House,  but  the  most  notable  is  the  construction  

of  a  $1,245,000  addition  in  1983,  which  was  built  out  from  the  north  and  west  walls  

of  the  pre-­‐existing  structure  (Facilities  website).  Another  notable  construction  

project  is  the  $20,000  construction  of  a  bowling  alley.  The  bowling  alley  is  a  

trademark  luxury  that  is  available  to  members  of  the  faculty  club.  Its  presence  is  

significant  because  it  indicates  that  the  Faculty  House  is  used  primarily  for  special  

social  functions.  

  An  important  factor  that  determines  whether  a  Williams  College  building  is  a  

feasible  candidate  for  Winter  Study  shutdown  is  its  usage  patterns.  As  previously  

mentioned,  the  Faculty  House  is  primarily  a  space  for  special  functions  and  social  

gatherings.  The  Williams  College  faculty  club  sponsors  events  throughout  the  year,  

including  Lyceum  dinners,  and  the  Faculty  House  can  be  reserved  for  meetings  as  

well  as  meals,  provided  by  Dining  Services  if  arranged  (Facilities  website).  A  

consistent  use  of  the  Faculty  House  is  the  Friday  lunch  buffet,  which  occurs  

throughout  the  academic  year.  Besides  the  weekly  luncheon,  the  Faculty  House  

appears  to  be  used  for  special  social  events  and  gatherings.  There  are  no  essential  

administrative  or  academic  offices  in  the  Faculty  House  

Methods  

  I  followed  the  methodology  described  by  S.  Boyd  and  D.  Dethier  that  was  

previously  employed  to  evaluate  the  effects  of  a  Griffin  Hall  shutdown  during  Winter  

Study  (GEOS206  exercise).  This  required  downloading  Faculty  House  energy  usage  

data  from  the  Williams  College  sustainability  website  from  two  time  periods  during  

the  2010-­‐2011  academic  year  –  a  ten  day  period  during  the  winter  shutdown  and  a  

ten  day  period  during  Winter  Study.  During  each  period,  I  determined  the  amount  of  

energy  consumed  by  steam  and  electricity  (in  MMBTU),  as  well  as  the  percentage  of  

the  total  energy  usage  each  value  represented.  Using  these  values,  I  calculated  the  

cost  and  CO2  emissions  of  both  electricity  and  fuel  usage  (for  steam)  during  each  

period.    

To  determine  how  much  would  potentially  be  saved  at  the  Faculty  House  

during  the  entire  Winter  Study  period  (25  days),  I  took  the  difference  in  energy  

usage  (MMBTU),  cost,  and  emissions  (T  of  CO2)  between  the  10-­‐day  Winter  Study  

period  and  the  10-­‐day  winter  shutdown  period,  and  multiplied  by  2.5.  Throughout  

the  process,  I  compared  my  results  from  the  Faculty  House  calculations  with  those  

of  Griffin  Hall  to  try  to  understand  the  general  efficiency  and  usage  patterns  of  each  

building  relative  to  each  other.  Numerical  comparison  allowed  me  to  make  

qualitative  conclusions  about  each  building,  and  also  decide  whether  or  not  a  

Faculty  House  shutdown  is  feasible  solely  from  an  energy-­‐savings  standpoint.  

Results  

General  usage  comparisons  

The  2010  winter  shutdown  went  from  12/23/2010  through  1/1/2011,  and  

graphs  demonstrate  clear  energy  savings  in  both  steam  and  electricity  usage  (Fig.  2  

and  Fig.  3).      

 

Figure  2.  Steam  usage  (in  MMBTU)  from  Griffin  Hall,  in  blue,  and  the  Faculty  House,  in  red,  from  the  period  12/01/2010  to  2/28/2011.    

 

Figure  3.  Electricity  use  (in  kWh)  from  Griffin  Hall,  in  blue,  and  the  Faculty  House,  in  red,  from  the  period  12/01/2010  to  2/28/2011.    

During  the  winter  shutdown,  both  steam  and  electricity  usage  in  the  Faculty  

House  drop  dramatically,  but  in  relation  to  Griffin  Hall,  notable  patterns  are  evident.  

First,  steam  usage  at  both  buildings  is  nearly  similar  throughout  the  entire  period  

shown  on  the  graph  (Fig.  2),  however  the  Faculty  House,  despite  its  bigger  size,  used  

less  steam  than  Griffin  Hall  during  the  winter  shutdown.  Secondly,  the  Faculty  House  

consistently  consumes  more  electricity  than  Griffin  Hall,  and  used  more  than  double  

the  amount  of  electricity  during  the  winter  shutdown  period  (Fig.  3).  Faculty  House  

energy  usage  results  are  reported  in  Table  1.    

Table  1.  10-­‐day  steam  and  electricity  usage  at  the  Faculty  House  during  both  the  winter  shutdown  and  Winter  Study.  Ratios  of  the  MMBTUs  consumed  at  the  Faculty  House  to  those  at  Griffin  Hall,  and  the  percentages  of  total  energy  use  at  the  Faculty  House  are  also  displayed.    

Data Set Energy consumption in KWH

Energy consumption in MMBTUs

Faculty House: Griffin Hall Ratio

% Of total energy use

Winter Shutdown Shutdown electricity 1930 6.59 2.07 14.8 Shutdown steam - 37.93 0.87 85.2 Total Shutdown - 44.52 0.95 - Winter Study Period Winter study electricity

3230 11.02 1.47 13.2

Winter study steam - 72.7 1.16 86.8 Total winter study - 83.72 1.20 -  

Table  1  demonstrates  that  during  the  winter  shutdown,  the  Faculty  House  

consumes  5%  less  total  energy  than  Griffin  Hall;  during  winter  study,  the  Faculty  

House  consumes  20%  more  total  energy  than  Griffin  Hall.  Cost  and  emissions  data  

follow  similar  patterns,  and  are  reported  in  Table  2.  

Table  2.  10-­‐day  cost  and  CO2  emissions  at  the  Faculty  House  during  both  winter  shutdown  and  Winter  Study.  Percentages  of  the  total  cost  and  total  emissions  at  the  Faculty  House  are  also  displayed.    

Data Set Cost in dollars

Percentage of total cost

CO2 Emissions (T)

Percentage of total emissions

Winter Shutdown Shutdown electricity $201.69 28.00% 0.791 27.20% Shutdown steam $518.12 72.00% 2.112 72.80% Shutdown total $719.81 - 2.903 Winter Study Period

Winter study electricity

$337.54 25.40% 1.324 24.60%

Winter study steam $993.08 74.60% 4.049 75.40% Total winter study $1,330.62 - 5.373  Potential  savings  

  Because  the  Winter  Study  period  is  25  days,  the  potential  energy,  cost,  and  

emissions  savings  from  the  10  day  period  must  be  multiplied  by  2.5.  The  potential  

savings  for  the  Faculty  House  and  Griffin  Hall  are  displayed  in  Table  3.    

   Table  3.  Potential  Winter  Study  energy,  cost,  and  emissions  savings  for  a  25-­‐day  shutdown  at  the  Faculty  House  and  Griffin  Hall.  The  differences  and  ratios  between  the  Faculty  House  and  Griffin  Hall  savings  are  also  displayed.    Potential Savings Faculty House Griffin Hall Difference Ratio Energy (MMBTU) 98 57.8 40.2 1.70 Money (dollars) $1,527.03 $972.33 554.7 1.57 Emissions (T CO2) 6.18 3.91 2.27 1.58  

Discussion     The  10-­‐day  winter  shutdown  energy  totals  show  that  the  Faculty  House  uses  

less  total  energy  and  less  steam  energy  than  Griffin  Hall  when  placed  in  a  low  energy  

state.  Because  the  Faculty  House  has  1.3x  more  square  footage  than  Griffin  Hall,  the  

fact  that  it  consumes  less  energy  suggests  that  the  building  is  more  efficient  at  

maintaining  a  base  temperature  during  the  shutdown.  The  Faculty  House  is  a  

significantly  younger  structure  than  Griffin  Hall  (110  years),  so  better  heat  retention  

may  be  expected  due  to  more  efficient  building  techniques.  However,  both  buildings  

have  been  previously  renovated  and  have  been  retrofitted  with  relatively  modern  

insulation  and  power  systems,  so  the  winter  shutdown  data  suggests  that  the  

efficiency  of  steam  usage  in  Griffin  Hall  can  be  improved.  An  interesting  thing  about  

the  Faculty  House,  however,  is  that  it  consumes  twice  as  much  electricity  as  Griffin  

Hall  during  the  shutdown  period,  and  ~1.5x  more  electricity  during  the  Winter  

Study  period.  This  suggests  that  the  electricity  demand  of  the  Faculty  House  is  

consistently  higher  than  Griffin,  which  could  be  attributed  to  its  use.    Kitchen  

facilities  and  appliances  in  the  Faculty  House  may  be  contributing  to  this  high  

electricity  demand.  That  the  Faculty  House  requires  2x  more  electricity  during  the  

winter  shutdown  than  Griffin  Hall  with  only  ~1.3x  the  square  footage  potentially  

indicates  that  a  more  complete  electrical  shutdown  of  the  Faculty  House  could  

occur.  

  The  Faculty  House  consumes  nearly  twice  as  much  energy  (1.9x)  during  the  

10-­‐day  Winter  Study  period  than  it  does  during  the  winter  shutdown,  while  Griffin  

Hall  consumes  1.5x  more  energy  during  Winter  Study  than  during  the  winter  

shutdown.  This  demonstrates  the  potential  for  savings  at  the  Faculty  House,  because  

the  low  energy  state  that  could  be  established  at  the  Faculty  House  during  Winter  

Study  is  proportionally  smaller  than  at  Griffin  Hall.  And  as  Table  3  demonstrates,  

estimated  energy,  cost,  and  emissions  savings  at  the  Faculty  House  are  1.7x,  1.6x,  

and  1.6x  the  potential  savings  at  Griffin  Hall.  This  high  potential  for  savings  makes  

the  Faculty  House  a  great  candidate  for  the  Winter  Study  shutdown,  at  least  by  the  

numbers.  

  While  the  Faculty  House  is  a  potential  candidate  for  Winter  Study  shutdown  

because  of  its  energy  savings,  my  claim  that  it  is  a  “non-­‐essential”  building  is  entirely  

subjective.  That  is,  what  I  perceive  as  “non-­‐essential”  from  a  student  perspective  

may  actually  be  considered  an  integral  meeting  space  for  members  of  the  faculty.  

Therefore,  in  order  to  implement  a  Winter  Study  shutdown  of  the  Faculty  House  or  

Griffin  Hall,  extensive  work  must  be  carried  out  by  the  Zilkha  Center  to  understand  

public  opinion  regarding  these  issues  and  to  establish  guidelines  for  what  is  or  is  not  

an  “essential”  building  during  Winter  Study.    

Conclusions  

  Due  to  Williams  College’s  commitment  to  improving  sustainability,  the  Zilkha  

Center  has  investigated  shutting  down  buildings  of  limited  or  “non-­‐essential”  use  

during  Winter  Study  to  reduce  steam  and  electricity  usage  on  campus.  Previously,  

officials  have  identified  Griffin  Hall  as  a  candidate  for  Winter  Study  shutdown,  

because  of  demonstrated  potential  for  energy  savings,  and  a  perceived  limited  usage  

during  the  Winter  Study  period.  In  this  study,  I  determined  the  potential  savings  

from  implementing  a  Winter  Study  shutdown  of  the  Faculty  House.  Results  indicate  

that  a  Faculty  House  shutdown  results  in  1.7,  1.6,  and  1.6  times  more  energy,  cost,  

and  emissions  savings,  respectively,  than  at  Griffin  Hall.  This  is  notable  because  the  

Faculty  House  is  only  1.3  times  larger  than  Griffin,  suggesting  that  the  overall  

efficiency  of  the  Faculty  House  is  greater  than  Griffin  Hall.  The  potential  savings  at  

the  Faculty  House  lead  me  to  recommend  implementing  a  Winter  Study  shutdown  of  

this  space.  

  Before  college  administrators  can  implement  a  Winter  Study  shutdown  of  

either  the  Faculty  House  or  Griffin  Hall,  work  must  be  done  to  determine  the  public  

response  to  these  shutdowns.  Implementing  sustainability  measures  on  a  college  

campus  is  often  difficult,  because  members  of  the  community  may  not  welcome  

sustainability  measures  if  they  require  changing  behaviors  or  actions;  however,  if  

public  support  is  first  fostered  through  education  and  outreach,  sustainability  

measures  will  have  a  greater  chance  of  being  well  received  by  the  public.  Therefore,  

future  work  in  determining  public  opinion  and  continuing  sustainability  education  

are  needed  to  improve  the  possibility  of  implementing  Winter  Study  shutdowns  at  

Williams  College.  

References  Cited  

Boyd,  S.  2011.  lectures  in  GEOS206:  Renewable  Energy  and  the  Sustainable  Campus.  Williams  College.  

http://sustainability.williams.edu/category/zilkha-­‐center/zilkha-­‐mission.  Sustainability  at  Williams:  Zilkha  Center  Mission  Statement.  Visited:  5/16/2011  

http://sustainability.williams.edu/category/buildings/building-­‐data/individual-­‐building-­‐data.  Sustainability  at  Williams:  Individual  Building  Data.  Visited:  5/01/2011  

http://facilities.williams.edu/2010/03/faculty-­‐housealumni-­‐center-­‐1938/.  Williams  College  Facilities  website.  Visited:  5/16/2011  

http://faculty-­‐club.williams.edu/.  Williams  College  Faculty  Club  website.  Visited:  5/16/2011