Transforming Our Institutions: The Harvard Green Campus Initiative Case Study

Leith Sharp,

Leith_sharp@harvard.edu

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: Leith_Sharp@harvard.edu

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/