Bluleprint for a Green Campus (2001 Update) 

Table of Contents | Introduction | Climate-Friendly Campus | Growing Without Increasing Traffic | Safe/Healthy Campus | Consumption and Disposal Habits | 2002 Blueprint Update | Original Blueprint  

Creating a Climate-Friendly Campus

The Vision

CU commits to meet the emissions reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol, which would reduce CU's greenhouse gas emissions by seven percent below 1990 levels by 2010.

The Blueprint committee asked that an emissions inventory be completed prior to deciding whether to adopt the goal. A team of student researchers have completed the inventory which shows that emissions have increased by nine percent. However, alternative assumptions could be made that significantly affect this conclusion. It is also important to consider that emissions would be far higher without the 1991 conversion of the steam plant to a high efficiency co-generation facility. Please see the attached inventory.

Progress Within the Past Year

Wind Power Purchase

Students voted last spring to increase their fees by $1 a semester for the next four years to purchase wind power for the University. This is enough money ($50,000 per year) to purchase the output of an entire wind turbine (2 million kWh/year). The emissions saved are approximately 567 tons of carbon, 7 tons of sulfur dioxide and 5 tons of nitrogen oxide.

Energy Efficiency

Facilities Management has recently been funded by the Chancellor to implement a lighting upgrade for fifteen general fund buildings on campus including Norlin Library, the Koenig Alumni Center and the Engineering Center. The carbon savings for this lighting upgrade project will be approximately 921 tons.

Facilities Management has also purchased nine new "alternative" vehicles in the past year including four metro micro vans (gas), 3 Mitsubishi's (gas), and 2 Club Cars" (electric). Two older Mitsubishi's were also refurbished and returned to service. The department now has a total of 20 alternative vehicles.

Additionally, a Utilities Master Plan Committee has been created to look into three options to bring/create more power on campus to fulfill campus energy needs.

The Department of Housing has also taken significant steps towards reducing energy use. Student rooms in Farrand and Aden were equipped with individual heat controls, and the buildings systems were "rezoned" to more appropriately deliver steam where it is needed. Incandescent lights were replaced with fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts in the Farrand lounges. This project improved lighting quality and realized an approximate energy savings of seven percent. In Cheyenne-Arapaho, 90-watt incandescent hallway lighting has been replaced with 32-watt fluorescent T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts.

In Family Housing, space heating and domestic water heating energy has been saved as a result of installing more efficient, staged boilers at Newton Court. The new boilers use roughly 60% less energy than the original boilers. Insulation levels were increased from R-3 to R-36 in the new roofs on two Smiley Buildings. A combination of approximately 300 higher-efficiency refrigerators and stoves replaced older appliances. In the Service and Administration areas the insulation level was increased from R-7 to R-51 in the new roof on the College Inn.

A resolution supporting energy efficiency on campus and expanded use of renewable energy was approved by the UCSU Environmental Board and University of Colorado Student Union Legislative Council, and unanimously "applauded and strongly supported" by the Boulder Campus Planning Commission. The Resolution is attached as an appendix to this section.

Plans for Upcoming Year

Facilities Management is looking to purchase a street-legal electric "GEM" car this spring. Housing has several plans, including installing about 150 new appliances in Family Housing. Housing also plans to work with Transportation Services and the Alternative Transportation Coordinator to consider the feasibility of phasing in the replacement of service vehicles with cleaner vehicles. Also, they will investigate purchase options for an alternative-fuel vehicle for employees needing to travel between East and Main Campus.

Students will continue to work with the energy resolution as a tool for gathering support from several major departments on campus and the Boulder Faculty Assembly for energy efficiency on campus.

New Issues

With increasing gas prices, the current energy crisis in California, and a new administration actively pushing for increased drilling on public lands, energy issues have entered the public arena and dialogue with new vigor.

Universities and companies around the world are continuing to make energy reduction and efficiency a priority, despite the inability of several countries' representatives to come to agreement on the Kyoto Protocol. For example, the presidents of all 56 colleges and universities in New Jersey as well as 13 other New Jersey organizations and businesses endorsed a Sustainability Greenhouse Gas Action Plan for New Jersey. The plan calls for a 3.5 percent reduction below 1990 levels in the state's greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2005. By signing onto the plan, the signers commit to the implementation of voluntary programs and initiatives to accomplish the plan's goal. (Go to http://www.ramapo.edu/njheps or http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/gcc/gcc.htm for more information on the New Jersey commitment.)

In addition, Oberlin College has begun a 20/20 project that has the goal of reaching campus-wide climate neutrality by the year 2020. Climate neutrality means having a net total of emissions for the college equal to zero. To do this, the campus has created an emissions inventory of all greenhouse gases emitted through the college and secondary sources. They are now working to create several scenarios to reach climate neutrality which include reducing emissions, increasing efficiency and using alternative sources or energy. To offset the emissions produced, some ideas are to look into carbon sequestration or projects helping other businesses in the area to reduce their emissions. When the report of scenarios for climate neutrality is completed, the College will decide what actions to take. (Go to http://www.oberlin.edu/~envs/2020proj/home.htm for more information on the Tufts 20/0 Project.)

At CU, students and staff are working with Off-Campus Housing to actively distribute wind power information to students looking for apartments off campus. Students are also working with Housing and making plans to work with several other departments to buy wind power. In addition, the Boulder Campus Planning Commission unanimously voted in support of the creation of an energy/resource committee.

Finally CU's natural gas contract will be ending within the next few years. As gas prices continue to rise, it may open up an opportunity to purchase other sources of energy, such as wind power for the campus.

Shortcomings

• The CU administration has not yet agreed to formally adopt the emissions reduction goal.
• Energy use continues to grow at 4 to 5 percent annually.

Discussion Topics

• How can individual departments continue to/ and begin to reduce emissions and decrease energy use?
• There was some discussion in BCPC to create a campus energy or resource committee. Who should be involved with BCPC's recommended campus energy/resource committee? What should the focus of the committee be?

Carbon Emissions Inventory
University of Colorado Boulder Campus

Introduction

In the United States, 98% of carbon dioxide is emitted as the result of the combustion of fossil fuels. Consequently, carbon dioxide emissions and energy use are highly correlated. At the University of Colorado, electricity and steam consumption have increased substantially between 1990 and 1999, However, the cogeneration plant has also substantially decreased the carbon output per unit of energy consumed. This inventory compares carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 and 1999 to see how the cogeneration plant and increased energy demand has effected emissions.

We calculate it using two different assumptions on the proper valuation of electricity exported from campus. One assumption shows emissions going down 7%over the 10 year period ; the other shows emissions going up 9% during the 1990s. For comparison, electricity use has been going up 4-5% every year.

Methodology

What this inventory includes:

• CO2 emissions due to heating, cooling, and providing electricity to campus buildings
• CO2 emissions due campus fleet vehicles
• Carbon equivalent due to leakage of natural gas in pipelines

What this inventory does not include:

• Emissions due to trips to and from campus by faculty and students in non university vehicles
• Emissions due to burning fuels other than natural gas on campus
• Emissions due to CFC's leaking from cooling systems
• Emissions due to gases other than CO2(except for natural gas leakage)

A "bubble" was placed around the CU campus. For 1990, this bubble includes the central steam and chiller plant and all the campus buildings. For 1999 the bubble now includes the cogeneration plant in place of the steam plant. Emissions are calculated at each interface of this bubble, whether energy is entering or leaving the campus. For example, in 1999-2000, emissions from natural gas are calculated in two places: 1) from natural gas that the cogeneration facility purchases and 2) natural gas that individual campus buildings purchase. In 1999-2000, emissions from electricity is actually calculated at three different interfaces: 1) electricity purchased form PSCO by the cogeneration facility, 2) electricity purchased by PSCO from the cogeneration facility, and 3) electricity purchased from PSCO from individual campus buildings. The campus is a net exporter of electricity. There is an unresolved conceptual issue on the appropriate carbon valuation for power export - should we value the net export based upon the actual fuel mix for CU power production Public Service's overall fuel mix, or the fuel used by PSCO for expanding their generating capacity? Reasonable arguments can be made for each of these, and this leads to substantial changes in the bottom line.

In 1990, this methodology is much simpler, simply because CU did not export any electricity before the cogeneration plant was built. Therefore all emissions are calculated based on energy, either in the form of natural gas or electricity, entering the "bubble" that represents the campus. The emissions coefficients used in this inventory assume, of course, that all natural gas that enters the campus is eventually combusted.

Natural Gas. Natural gas is actually purchased from both the central plant and individual campus buildings. Emissions were calculated by applying emission coefficients (obtained from the Department of Energy) to the amount of gas used at both points.

Electricity. In 1990, emissions from electricity were calculated by multiplying an emission coefficient by the amount of electricity bought from the utility. This is based upon the actual fuel mix of Public service (almost all coal). This methodology was somewhat complicated by the implementation of the cogeneration plant in 1992. Today, the cogeneration plant provides most of the campus with electricity in addition to selling back to the utility. However, the cogeneration plant (as well as several campus buildings) still purchases electricity from the utility. The emissions due to the net export of electricity are calculated and credited (subtracted) from the emissions inventory.

We calculated the emissions credit with two different sets of assumptions. One methodology is to assume that the net sales from the cogeneration plant are displacing electricity production that would have been produced at the average fuel mix of PSCO - overwhelmingly coal. Under this assumption, total emissions from CU actually drop from 1990-1999 due to the fact that our relatively low emissions cogeneration plant is displacing relatively dirty coal burning.

The other approach is to assume that the net exports are replacing electricity that would have been produced by PSCO in natural gas turbines. The argument for this assumption is that while the bulk of power production by PSCO is coal, the marginal production is in natural gas turbines. That is, the bulk of their new capacity, and the plants whose ouput can rapidly vary in response to load fluctuations are natural gas power plants. Under this assumption, total emissions have gone up over the last decade.

Fleet Vehicles. Emissions from campus fleet vehicles were calculated by multiplying the total number of gallons of gasoline used (obtained from the Transportation Center) by an emissions coefficient for gasoline.

Carbon Emissions Summary University of Colorado at Boulder    1990       Amount Unit Emissions Equivalent (Tons Carbon) Natural Gas Purchases         For Central Steam Plant   634,159 MMBtu 10,115 For Individual Buildings   55,326 MMBtu 882

+ Williams Villiage

60,649 MMBtu 967 Natural Gas Leakage (0.07%)   525 MMBtu - Electricity Purchases         -- Central Meter   66,024,000 kWh 18,476 -- Other buildings   15,596,910 kWh 4,365 -- Williams Villiage   5,185,600 kWh 1,451 Transportation         Unleaded fuel vehicles   62,410 Gallons 167 Diesel Fuel vehicles   16,133 Gallons 43                  Total 1989-1990 Emissions, in US Tons:  36,466

2000       Amount Unit Emissions Equivalent (Tons Carbon) Cogeneration Plant         Natural Gas Purchased By Co-Gen Plant   1,936,341 MMBtu 30,885 Electricity bought from Public Service Co.*   39,937,364 kWh   Electricity sold to Public Service Co.*   74,893,631 kWh   Net electricity sold to Public Service Co.   34,956,267 kWh (9,310) (this values net export at the PSCO fuel mix - primarily coal)         Net electricity sold to Public Service Co.   34,956,267 kWh - (this values net exports at the marginal fuel use by PSCO - natural gas)         Buildings not served by Cogen Plant         Electricity bought from PSCO   3,971,104 kWh 1,058

+ Williams Villiage 

5,998,904 kWh 1,598 Natural gas purchased (non-cogen)   596,402 MMBtu 9,513

+ Williams Villiage 

35,575 MMBtu 567 Natural Gas Leakage (0.07%)   442 MMBtu - Transportation         Total Campus Fleet Vehicles   96,878 Gallons 256

 

Total 1999-2000 Emissions, in US Tons
(based on valuing electricity exports as replacing coal generation) 34,567   Percent Change = -5.2%