Shippensburg University of PA West Virginia Health Science Center - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

shippensburg university of pa
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Shippensburg University of PA West Virginia Health Science Center - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of


slide-1
SLIDE 1

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

Shippensburg University of PA

Presenters: Erica Barbuto and Emily Medina January 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Who Partners with Sightlines?

Robust membership includes colleges, universities, consortiums and state systems

2

* U.S. News 2016 Rankings Sightlines is proud to announce that:

  • 450 colleges and

universities are Sightlines clients including over 325 ROPA members.

  • Consistently over 90%

member retention rate

  • We have clients in
  • ver 40 states, the

District of Columbia and four Canadian provinces

  • More than 125 new

institutions became Sightlines members since 2013 Sightlines advises state systems in:

  • Alaska
  • California
  • Florida
  • Hawaii
  • Maine
  • Massachusetts
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania
  • Texas

Serving the Nation’s Leading Institutions:

  • 70% of the Top 20 Colleges*
  • 75% of the Top 20 Universities*
  • 34 Flagship State Universities
  • 14 of the 14 Big 10 Institutions
  • 9 of the 12 Ivy Plus Institutions
slide-3
SLIDE 3

A Vocabulary for Measurement

The Return on Physical Assets – ROPASM

Asset Value Change The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life “Keep-Up Costs”

Annual Stewardship

The accumulation

  • f repair and

modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them “Catch-Up Costs”

Asset Reinvestment

The effectiveness

  • f the facilities
  • perating budget,

staffing, supervision, and energy management

Operational Effectiveness

The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers

  • pinion of service

delivery

Service

Operations Success

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Key Concepts

4

Space: As space ages, expensive systems need to be replaced. Capital: Risk profile can be used to identify buildings for renovation. Operations: Customers are satisfied with campus overall, though E&G spaces need more attention.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Space Profile

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Putting Your Campus Building Age in Context

6

Pre-War

Built before 1951 Durable construction Older but typically lasts longer

Post-War

Built from 1951 to 1975 Lower-quality construction Already needing more repairs and renovations

Modern

Built from 1976 to 1990 Quick-flash construction Low-quality building components

Complex

Built in 1991 and newer Technically complex spaces Higher-quality, more expensive to maintain & repair

Pre-War Post-War Modern Complex

Percent of Total Space 34% Percent of Total Space 49%

The campus age drives the overall risk profile

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

% of GSF

Sightlines Database- Construction Age Shippensburg

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Gut Renovations Make Campus Younger

Peers have reduced their campus age by an average of 14 years

7

10 20 30 40 50 60

A B C SH D E F G H I J K L M

Weighted Age

Construction Age vs. Renovation Age

Construction Age Renovation Age

SH

15 Year Decrease

slide-8
SLIDE 8

13% 20% 81% 58% 43% 27% 4% 19% 30% 33% 16% 15% 15% 20% 8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ship E&G E&G Peers Ship Aux Aux Peers

% of GSF

Campus Age by Category Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Campus Age Profile

High Risk

Buildings Under 10 Little work. “Honeymoon” period. Low Risk Buildings 10 to 25 Short life-cycle needs; primarily space renewal. Medium Risk Buildings 25 to 50 Major envelope and mechanical life cycles come

  • due. Functional obsolescence prevalent.

Higher Risk Buildings over 50 Life cycles of major building components are past due. Failures are possible. Core modernization cycles are missed. Highest risk

8

The E&G campus is older, driving the capital investment need High Risk High Risk High Risk

slide-9
SLIDE 9

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $ in Billions

Total Database Need 1950-2050

3-Year Moving Average Using ROPA+ Prediction

Capital Implications of Existing Space

The first boom needs major renovations; the complex second boom needs expensive upkeep

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Capital Investment

slide-11
SLIDE 11

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ in Millions

Total Capital Investment

Existing Space Investment New Space Investment Average

Majority of Capital Spending Goes to Existing Space

Spending almost entirely into existing space in FY15 and FY16

11

64% 36%

New Space Spending: Performing Arts Center Student Rec Center Ceddia Union Building Expansion Chiller Plant Building

slide-12
SLIDE 12

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $/GSF

Total Capital Investment Over Time Compared to Peers

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Average

Ship Investing at PASSHE Average

12

Peers

Ship

slide-13
SLIDE 13

$17.2 $6.7 $5.0 $8.9 $3.1

$0.0 $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $14.0 $16.0 $18.0 $20.0

3% Replacement Value Life Cycle Need Annual Investment Target

$ in Millions

FY16 Annual Investment Target

Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program

Defining an Annual Investment Target

13

Functional obsolescence drives investment prior to life cycles & discounts the annual investment target

Annual Funding Target: $8 million

Replacement Value: $573 M

slide-14
SLIDE 14

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $30.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ in Millions

Total Capital Investment vs. Funding Target

Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Infrastructure Annual Investment Target Life Cycle Need

Spending Meets Capital Target in FY16

14

Increasing Backlog & Risk Lowering Risk Profile Increasing Net Asset Value

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Backlog Now Accounts for Demolitions

15

$0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150

A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M $/GSF Asset Reinvestment Need vs. Peers

Institutions arrayed by tech rating

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200

$ in Millions Total Asset Reinvestment Need

Demolitions reduce backlog *Benchmarked backlog does NOT include elevators or fire safety needs as identified in capital renewal needs

slide-16
SLIDE 16

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30

Dollars in Millions

10 Year Capital Forecast

Current Need Renewal Need Modernization & Infrastructure Projected Investment

  • Current funding will NOT address all

the needs over the next 10 years.

  • Prioritizing buildings needs is critical

Projected Investment vs. 10 Year Needs

16

$82 $49 $60 $39

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200

Asset Reinvestment Need Projected Investment

Dollars in Millions

Asset Reinvestment Need

*Projected investment is a 5 year average of existing space spending without infrastructure

slide-17
SLIDE 17

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30

Dollars in Millions

10 Year Capital Forecast

Current Need Renewal Need Projected Investment

  • Current funding will NOT address all

the needs over the next 10 years.

  • Prioritizing buildings needs is critical

Projected Investment vs. 10 Year Needs

17

$82 $49 $60

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200

Asset Reinvestment Need Projected Investment

Dollars in Millions

Asset Reinvestment Need

*Projected investment is a 5 year average of existing space spending without infrastructure

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Over Half of Current Need is High Risk

Need to start addressing high risk backlog

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16

Total $ in Millions

10 Year Renewal Need by Risk Level

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

18

65% 3% 32%

$13 $13 $57

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

Current Need Total $ in Millions Current Need by Risk Level

High = HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing Medium = Exteriors, Roofing Low = Interiors, Equipment/Specialties

slide-19
SLIDE 19

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10

Millions

Envelope/Mech Spending

AS Env/Mech AR Env/Mech Env/Mech Target Need Env/Mech Equilibrium Need

Continuing to Spend Above Targets will Reduce Backlog

19

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10

Millions

Space/Prog Spending

AR Space/Prog AS Space/Prog Space/Prog Target Need Space/Prog Equilibrium Need

Buildings with Env/Mech Upgrades Reisner Dining Hall Dauphin Humanities Huber Art Center

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Buildings 10-50 Years Old Have Most Upcoming Need

Age category can be used to prioritize spending

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16

Total $ in Millions

10 Year Renewal Need by Age Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

20

18% 38% 39% 5%

$9 $50 $23

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

Current Need Total $ in Millions Current Need by Age Category

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Most Labor-Intensive Buildings

Each of these buildings required over 1,000 maintenance labor hours last year

21

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Horton Hall Heiges Field House Old Main Ezra Lehman Memorial Library Seth Grove Stadium McLean Hall Franklin Science Center Grove Hall Martin House Mathematics & Computing Tech Center

  • H. Ric Luhrs Performing Arts Center

Kriner Dining Hall Chilled Water Plant Reisner Dining Hall Ceddia Union Building

Buildings with Highest Labor Hours for FY16

(excludes Reed Operations and PH housing)

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 100

*labor hour counts exclude hours from automotive, grounds, custodians, spec crew, and move crew

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Prioritizing Buildings by High Risk Need

22

Priority Matrix

0 – 50% Over 50% $0 - $5M Systemic Renovation Repair/Maintain Capital Upkeep

Total Need % High Risk Need

$5 - $10M Over $10M

  • Ezra Lehman Memorial

Library

  • Heiges Field House
  • Horton Hall
  • McLean Hall (99,878 GSF)
  • Old Main
  • Henderson Gym
  • Mathematics and

Computing Technologies Center

  • Memorial Auditorium
  • Mowrey Hall (91,015 GSF)
  • Ceddia Union Building
  • Chilled Water Plant
  • Dauphin Humanities Center
  • Huber Art Center
  • Kriner Dining Hall
  • Reed Operations Center
  • Reisner Dining Hall (original and addition)
  • Rowland Hall
  • Shearer Hall
  • Street Hockey Pavilion
  • Student Recreation Building
  • Franklin Science Center
  • H. Ric Luhrs Performing

Arts Center

  • GB Luhrs School
  • Gilbert Hall
  • Seth Grove Stadium
  • Shippen Hall
  • Stewart Hall
  • Wright Hall

Includes all buildings with current and/or 10 year renewal need as identified in capital renewal data

High Risk Low Risk More Need Less Need

*academic buildings are in bold font

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Operations

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Total Operating Expenditures

Ship and PASSHE are operating below the rate of inflation

24

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9

$/GSF

Facilities Operating Expenditures

Daily Service PM Utilities Rate of Inflation

Peers Ship

slide-25
SLIDE 25

FY16 Facilities Operating Expenditures vs. Peers

Ship is operating with 19% less investments than the PASSHE average

25

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9

A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M

$/GSF

FY16 Facilities Operating Actuals

Daily Service PM Utilities Average

* Institutions arranged by Tech Rating

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Planned Maintenance Above Peer Average

Proactive investments extend life cycles and avoid operational failures on campus

26

$0.00 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M

$/GSF Planned Maintenance Compared to Peers

Peer Average 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M

Percent of Budget Planned Maintenance As A % of Budget Sightlines Best Practice Zone: >$0.50/GSF

slide-27
SLIDE 27

All Shops Devoting Some Time to PM

Zone maintenance and energy shops perform high amounts of PM

27

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Labor Hours Hours Spent on Corrective and Preventative Maintenance by Shop

Corrective Maintenance Preventive Maintenance

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Maintenance – Heavy Coverage and Supervision

Staffing levels appropriate given technical complexity

28

1 2 3 4 5

A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M

Tech Rating

  • 20,000

40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M GSF/FTE

Maintenance Staffing

  • 2

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M FTE/Super

Maintenance Supervision

Tech Rating Affects:

  • Operational costs
  • Maintenance staffing
  • Energy Consumption
  • Capital Investment Need
slide-29
SLIDE 29

Aux buildings score higher on general repair in both Sightlines inspection and customer satisfaction survey

29

E&G Buildings Need Additional Attention

3.89 3.62 3.53 4.26 3.93 3.90 1 2 3 4 5

Exterior Interior Shell Furnishings

Customer Ratings of Exterior and Interior General Repair E&G Auxiliary

3.9 4.2

1 2 3 4 5 E&G Aux

Campus Inspection – General Repair Score “Windows are loose, rattle in the wind, vent cold air inside in winter…” (Horton Hall) “Ceiling tiles bend downward…” (Wright Hall) “Many chairs need to be reupholstered.” (Grove Hall)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Custodial – Light Staffing and Supervision

30

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 A B C D E SH F G H I J K L M Users/ 100,000 GSF

Density Factor Custodial Staffing

  • 10,000

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 A B C D E SH F G H I J K L M GSF/FTE

  • 5

10 15 20 25 30 A B C D E SH F G H I J K L M FTE/Super

Custodial Supervision

Staffing levels appropriate given density factor

Density Affects:

  • Wear & tear on facilities
  • Custodial staffing
  • Maintenance staffing
  • Capital investment need
slide-31
SLIDE 31

E&G buildings are kept clean despite their age

31

E&G and Aux Score Similarly in Cleanliness

3.72 3.76 3.98 3.78 3.95 4.10 1 2 3 4 5

Interior Restrooms Restroom Resources

Customer Ratings of Cleanliness E&G Auxiliary

4.0 4.1

1 2 3 4 5 E&G Aux

Campus Inspection – Cleanliness Score “Custodian Dale does a fantastic job and is very friendly.” (Seavers Hall) “Other than need of being updated, the building is fairy clean and a comfortable environment” (Franklin Science Center)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Ship Has Less Intense Grounds than Most PASSHEs

Staffing levels about at peer average

32

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 A B C D E SH F G H I J K L M Buildings/Developed Acre

Grounds Intensity

  • 10

20 30 40 50 60 70 A B C D E SH F G H I J K L M Acre/FTE

Grounds Staffing

  • 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 A B C D E SH F G H I J K L M FTE/Super

Grounds Supervision

Grounds Intensity Affects:

  • Operational costs
  • Demand on grounds staff to

maintain acreage

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Hardscapes Need More Focus

Customers love the look of campus, but highlighted disrepair of sidewalks

33

3.89 3.91 3.81 4.14 4.16 1 2 3 4 5

Hardscapes Green Space Flower Beds Trees Athletic Fields

Customer Ratings of Grounds

“I love the trees and green space. Have heard comments from visitors that SU has a beautiful campus.” “Lovely plantings. I feel a sense of pride when I walk across our campus and when we welcome visitors to campus at an Admissions Open House or New Student Orientation.” “More flowers and more trees would be great. (Facilities is already doing an excellent job at tree planting, but you can never have too many trees).” “Sidewalks need to be fixed, they are uneven and someone could easily fall and hurt themselves.” “Put more sidewalks where students have made dirt paths…”

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Measuring Service Outputs

34

84.8% 73.2% 82.3% 71.7% 82.1% 86.0% 85.5% 84.8% 87.1% 81.0% 83.0% 80.8% 82.4% 76.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A B C D E F SH G H I J K L M

Inspection Index (1-100)

Campus Inspection Index

72.0% 76.4% 72.8% 71.6% 74.0% 71.1% 75.9% 73.2% 69.4% 70.4% 69.4% 71.8% 73.5% 67.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A B C D E SH F G H I J K L M

Inspection Index (1-100)

Customer Satisfaction Index

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Concluding Comments

Space

  • The E&G campus is aging and will have increasing renewal needs.
  • Ship will see an overlap of needs of the post-war spaces and the young auxiliary

buildings in the next 10 years, resulting in an increased demand of capital investment.

Capital

  • Existing space spending met targets in FY16, and recent demolitions have reduced
  • backlog. However, current funding will not address upcoming need.
  • When planning renovations, focus on buildings in the 10-25 and 25-50 age categories,

as these are high need and high risk spaces.

Operations

  • Overall, Shippensburg has been able to do more with less – service output remains

strong despite budget cuts.

  • Continue to maintain strong PM spending, focusing on extending the life cycles of low

risk spaces.

  • Though staffing performance is strong, maintenance is unable to keep up on the aging

E&G spaces. Consider aligning capital investment to buildings that consume major

  • perational resources. Grounds should focus on campus hardscapes.

35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

ROPA+ Appendix

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Maintenance Coverage and Supervision

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Custodial Coverage and Supervision

38

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Grounds Coverage and Supervision

39

slide-40
SLIDE 40

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

Shippensburg University of PA

Presenters: Erica Barbuto and Emily Medina January 2017

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Ship spends 28% less on utilities than peers

41

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 BTU / GSF

Energy Consumption Since FY13

Fossil Electric Peers

Decreasing Energy Consumption Creates Savings

$0.0 $0.2 $0.4 $0.6 $0.8 $1.0 $1.2 $1.4 $1.6 $1.8 $2.0

A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M $/GSF

Utility Actuals Compared to Peers

*Peers arrayed by tech rating

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Ship Now Second Lowest Consumer in PASSHE

42

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000

A B C SH- FY13 D E F G H I J K L SH - FY16 M BTU / GSF

FY16 Energy Consumption vs. Peers

Composite Fossil BTU/GSF Composite Electric BTU/GSF

Institutions ordered by decreasing consumption

31% below peer average

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Sustainability Solutions Peer Institutions

43

Peer Institutions Babson College* Bentley University* Boston College Emerson College Fitchburg State University Hamilton College* Loyola University Maryland* Millersville University* Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Stockton University The Catholic University of America

Key Concepts:

  • Major Reductions in Scope 1 Emissions

due to Infrastructure Overhaul

  • Opportunities to Reduce Scope 2 and 3

*Institutions previously benchmarked in Shippensburg’s GHG analysis

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Carbon Management for Energy

44

AVOIDANCE:

Don’t consume energy

ACTIVITY:

Consume less by increasing efficiency

INTENSITY:

Switch high-carbon energy sources for low-carbon ones

OFFSET:

Offset the emissions from consumption

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control

Scope 1 makes up the smallest portion of Ship’s emissions footprint

24% 39% 37%

Emissions by Scope

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Scope 1 – Direct GHGs

  • Natural Gas, Coal
  • Vehicle Fleet
  • Refrigerants
  • Fertilizer

Scope 2 – Upstream GHGs

  • Purchased Electricity

Scope 3 – Indirect GHGs

  • Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting
  • Directly Financed Travel
  • Study Abroad Travel
  • Solid Waste
  • Wastewater
  • Paper Purchasing
  • Transmission & Distribution Losses

Less Control

45

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control

Purchased electric and commuting/travel generate the most emissions

5,010

  • 2,000

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 MTCDE

Scope 1 Sources

Other On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation Refrigerants Agriculture

9,059

  • 2,000

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 MTCDE

Scope 2 Sources

Purchased Electricity

6,421 979

915

  • 2,000

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 MTCDE

Scope 3 Sources

Commuting Travel Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses

46

24% 39% 37%

Emissions by Scope

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Infrastructure Project Led to a Strong Emissions Profile

47

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 MTCDE

Gross Emissions from FY13 to FY16

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Gross emissions decreased 32% since 2013, driven by scope 1

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Two Ways to Compare Emissions to Peers

48

5 10 15 20 25 MTCDE/1,000 GSF

Gross Emissions per 1,000 GSF

2 4 6 8 10 12 MTCDE/Student FTE

Gross Emissions per Student FTE

Benchmarking by GSF is useful for emissions that are affected by space characteristics, such as age, technical complexity, and systems efficiency. Benchmarking by Student FTE is useful for emissions that are affected by individual habits, such as commuting and waste production/recycling.

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Infrastructure upgrades have kept campus efficient

49

  • 35%
  • 30%
  • 25%
  • 20%
  • 15%
  • 10%
  • 5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 2013 2014 2015 2016 % Change Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and Population

Indexed to FY2013

Campus GSF Student Enrollment Emissions 8%

  • 8%
  • 32%
  • 25%
  • 37%
  • 40%
  • 35%
  • 30%
  • 25%
  • 20%
  • 15%
  • 10%
  • 5%

0% 5% 10% 15% % Change Change in Space, Population, and Emissions

Indexed to FY2013

Emissions Dropping Despite Increasing Space

Nation-wide emissions dropped 3% since 2013

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Drastic Drop in Scope 1 Emissions Due to Coal Avoidance

Fuel carbon intensity affects scope 1 emissions

50

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTCDE

Emissions from Stationary Sources 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2013 2014 2015 2016 Shippensburg’s Stationary Fuel Mix Coal Natural Gas 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MTCDE/ 1,000 MMBTU Carbon Intensity of Commonly Used Fossil Fuels

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Success in Reducing Refrigerants Emissions

Though these sources are a smaller portion of scope 1, they provide additional successes and opportunities

51

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTCDE

Direct Transportation

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTCDE

Refrigerants

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTCDE

Agriculture (Fertilizer)

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Ship Emissions Below Peer Average

Fleet and refrigerants make up a greater portion of Scope 1 emissions for some peers

52

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 A B C SH D E F G H I J K MTCDE

2016 Scope 1 Emissions/1,000 GSF

Stationary Fleet Agriculture Refrigerants Peer Average 27% below peer average

slide-53
SLIDE 53

No Change in Scope 2 Emissions

Scope 2 includes electric consumption

53

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTCDE

Scope 2 Emissions

5 10 15 20 25 30 2013 2014 2015 2016

KwH Millions

Scope 2 Consumption

RFCE Grid Fuel Mix (2007)

Natural Gas Nuclear Renewable Coal Other Fossil

RFCE Grid Fuel Mix (2012)

Natural Gas Nuclear Renewable Coal Other Fossil

slide-54
SLIDE 54

Scope 2 Emissions Below Peer Average

Ship outperforming peers in both Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions levels

54

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 A B C SH D E F G H I J K MTCDE

2016 Scope 2 Emissions/1,000 GSF

Electric Steam Peer Average 36% below peer average

slide-55
SLIDE 55

No Change in Scope 3 Emissions

55

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTCDE

Total Scope 3 Emissions

Commuting 75% Directly Financed Travel 5% Study Abroad 6% Wastewater 2.0% T&D Losses 11% Paper 1%

FY16 Scope 3 Breakdown

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Scope 3 Emissions Closer to Peer Average

FTEs (rather than GSF) has greater impact on Scope 3 emissions

56

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 A B C D E SH F G H I J K MTCDE

2016 Scope 3 Emissions/student FTE

19% below peer average

slide-57
SLIDE 57

Ship Commuting Emissions are Among Highest in Peer Group

Carpool and mass transit incentives could reduce Scope 3 footprint

57

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 A B C D E F G H I J SH K

% Commuters MTCDE/Campus User FTE

Total Commuting Emissions Compared to Peers

Carbon Free 20% Mass Transit 2% Carpool 6% Drive Alone 72.3%

Shippensburg Commuter Mode Mix

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Peers Do More Recycling and Composting

Total waste in FY16 was about 290lbs/campus user

58

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 A B C SH D E F G H I J K Lbs/Campus User

Waste Stream Compared to Peers

Peer Average

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A B C SH D E F G H I J K

Waste Mix Compared to Peers

Total Trash Recycling Composting Other Diversions

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Scope 1 Accounts for Almost All Emissions Reductions

Scope 2 and 3 should be prioritized for gradual decreases moving forward

59

  • 5,000

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 2013 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 2016 MTCDE

Emissions Change by Scope

  • 31%
  • 0.03%
  • 0.29%

Ship Emissions Decrease 32% FY13-FY16 Peers reduced emissions by 6% FY16 Emissions Baseline Year

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Concluding Comments

Scope 1

  • The infrastructure project

has produced a drastic drop in Scope 1 emissions – focus must now turn to smaller and consistent reductions

  • ver time.
  • Continue reducing

emissions by switching to less intense refrigerants and improving fleet fuel efficiency.

  • Consider implementing

anti-idling policies and combining work order requests to reduce travel

Scope 2

  • Identify a plan for electric

reductions and implement efficiency measures.

  • Focus on implementing

LED lighting across campus.

Scope 3

  • Educate commuters

about less carbon intense commuting

  • ptions.
  • Review options to

condense class scheduling to increase more carpooling

  • pportunities.
  • Continue to improve

recycling program, and consider composting as an additional option to divert waste.

  • Electric reductions will

also decrease emissions from T&D losses.

60