Achieving Carbon Neutrality at UCSB by 2025: A Critical ...€¦ · Prepared by: Henry Bart,...
1
Remaining Scope 1 Emissions (Onsite Combustion) Remaining Scope 2 Emissions (Purchased Electricity) 0K 10 K 20 K 30 K 40 K 50 K 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 P h a s e 1 P h a s e 2 P h a s e 3 Baseline without RPS LED & Controls Retrofits GHG Emissions (MtCO 2 e/year) MonitoringBased Commissioning Onsite Solar PV Hot Water Loop HVAC Retrofits Lab Retrofits Purchasing Carbon Offsets Decreasing carbon intensity of purchased electricity Energy efficiency measures and onsite renewables Offsetting remaining emissions to zero ① ② ③ Achieving Carbon Neutrality at UCSB by 2025: A Critical Analysis of Technological and Financial Strategies Prepared by: Henry Bart, Brandon Kaysen, Melissa Maggass, Hyemin Park, Owen Watson | Advisor: Sangwon Suh In order to develop a strategy for UC Santa Barbara to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025, UCSB’s Chancellor’s Sustainability Committee identified three objectives for this research project. Ultimately, this study identifies the most promising greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation strategies and the optimal investment schedule that will enable UCSB to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce long-term operating costs with minimal capital investments. This project’s specific objectives are as follows: As defined by the UC Office of the President (UCOP), carbon neutrality is achieved when a campus reduces Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to zero. While there are many potential strategies, reducing emissions as much as possible through energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy procurement are the most viable options. If necessary, purchasing carbon offsets to account for any remaining emissions is an accepted option for reducing emissions to zero. GHG emissions can fall into three categories: Scope 1, Scope 2, or Scope 3. Scope 1 emissions are those associated with on-site combustion, or direct emissions. At UCSB, 98% of Scope 1 emissions are associated with the on-site combustion of natural gas for space and water heating. Scope 2 emissions are those associated with electricity purchased from the grid, or indirect emissions. UCSB purchases electricity from Southern California Edison for energy services such as lighting, air conditioning, and ventilation. Scope 3 involves all other indirect emissions. While UCOP intends for each UC campus to achieve carbon neutrality for Scope 1-3 emissions by 2050, this study focused solely on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. 4 Step Create a Deployment Schedule 3 Step Analyze Cost Implications Acknowledgements and References Recommendations Carbon Neutrality Can be a Reality With an investment of $48M, UCSB can save $44M in total costs and 500,000 MtCO 2 e over a 20-year timespan What is Carbon Neutrality? Project Objectives Introduction We recommend that UCSB invest as much capital as possible early in the carbon neutrality process, and that they establish a green revolving fund to capture and reinvest avoided utility costs into new energy efficiency projects. As mentioned in Step 4, this mechanism will reduce required capital investments from $48M to below $16M. Our analysis shows that achieving carbon neutrality for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions can reduce UCSB’s long-term operating costs, improve campus resiliency, and assist in the recruiting of high caliber students and faculty. However, achieving this goal will require aggressive investments and ongoing efforts to ensure that promising GHG mitigation strategies still under development are considered as they gain feasibility. Recognizing the imperative to act on climate mitigation and the leadership of President Napolitano and Chancellor Yang, the University of California, Santa Barbara should make the investments necessary to achieve carbon neutrality of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2025. As a living laboratory for sustainability, it is within the scope of our mission to act as a global leader on this challenging endeavor. It was a privilege to work with such forward-thinking and dedicated individuals. UCSB is a particularly special environment to work in and the Chancellor’s Sustainability Committee was supportive throughout the entire process. Special thanks to Jordan Sager for providing technical expertise and David Auston for encouraging our work throughout the entire process. • Sangwon Suh – Advisor • David Auston – Executive Director, Institute for Energy Efficiency • Jordan Sager –Campus Energy Manager, Facilities Management • Jewel Snavely – Sustainability Coordinator; The Green Initiative Fund, Grants Manager • David McHale – Associate Director, Utility & Energy Services • Karl Brown – Deputy Director, California Institute for Energy and Environment (CIEE) • Mo Lovegreen – Executive Officer, Department of Geography; Director, Campus Sustainability • Katie Maynard –Event Manager; Sustainability Coordinator • Mark Rousseau – Housing & Residential Services • Bruce Tiffney – Chancellors Sustainability Committee, Co-Chair • Max Stiefel & Claire Dooley – 2015 CNI Fellows References: St. Clair, Matthew. “The University of California’s Commitment to Climate Solutions,” 2015. http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/uc-cni-doc.pdf. Yang, Henry. “Climate Commitment Pledge.” UCSB, November 12, 2015. In 2013 Janet Napolitano, the President of the University of California (UC), united the 10 UC campuses through the Carbon Neutrality Initiative. This initiative established a goal for each campus to identify and implement measures to reduce Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to zero by 2025. Achieving carbon neutrality would make the University of California the first major research university to accomplish this ambitious goal. The University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) is a sustainability leader, and currently has the third smallest carbon footprint in the UC system. In November of 2015, UCSB’s Chancellor, Henry Yang, pledged to support and lead the UC Carbon Neutrality Initiative, stating “we recognize the urgent need to act now and avoid irreversible costs to our global community’s economic prosperity and public health.” UCSB has a proven track record of making successful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, and aggressive actions must be taken in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025. Total UC Emissions: 1.2 Million Metric Tons CO 2 e Assess the efficacy of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies Estimate the implementation costs associated with the recommended strategies Recommend a deployment strategy for the identified strategies $ How Carbon Neutrality Can be Achieved at UCSB Understanding the challenges of achieving carbon neutrality, our group developed a four-step approach in order to break the project into manageable pieces. Each step contains critical elements of our recommended carbon neutrality strategy. The steps are as follows: 1) reduce energy demand; 2) procure renewable energy; 3) analyze cost implications; and 4) create a deployment schedule. While UCSB typically make decisions using a simple-payback model, this study developed and utilized a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) tool in order to quantify the discounted life cycle costs of each recommended strategy. In addition to up-front capital costs, this LCCA tool takes into account costs associated with ongoing energy expenses, operation and maintenance, and expected carbon offsets for each scenario. The figure below is a comparison between UCSB’s 2025 baseline scenario and our recommended scenario for reaching carbon neutrality. The baseline scenario assumes that UCSB does not implement any additional energy efficiency, conservation, or renewable energy projects over the next 20 years. Alternatively, our recommended scenario assumes that all five of the recommended demand-side strategies are implemented, and that on-campus solar capacity is maximized. The remaining 17,000 MtCO 2 e can be mitigated through the procurement of carbon offsets, renewable energy credits, or collaboration with utilities to purchase 100% renewable electricity. In our cost calculations, we assumed that the 2025 cost of carbon offsets will be $10/MtCO 2 e. Achieving carbon neutrality at UCSB has the potential to reduce utility expenditures while improving campus operations. However, technological maturity, labor availability, capital costs, and regulatory context must be considered when determining an implementation plan. Taking these constraints into account, we developed a deployment schedule that prioritizes projects with high returns on investment such that utility savings can be rapidly generated, captured by a green revolving fund (GRF), and reinvested into additional energy efficiency projects on campus. While these strategies require $48M in capital investments, we found that by establishing a GRF and leveraging avoided utility cost streams, this amount can reduced to below $16M. The blue bars in the figure below represent our recommended timing for each project. As a vital first step, our group reviewed the multitude of energy efficiency and conservation strategies that UCSB could implement. Assessing the efficacy of each project required an in-depth look at how buildings are operated at UCSB, a literature review of proven strategies, and collaboration with UCSB Energy and Utility Services. To the right are the five energy demand-reducing strategies identified by this study. Once these five strategies were identified in Step 1, the next step was to identify the on-site potential for renewable energy generation and assess viable off-site procurement options. This study performed a campus-wide solar capacity appraisal, identifying a potential expansion of 9 MW within existing rooftop and parking lot spaces. Through the execution of power purchase agreements (PPAs), UCSB can install solar photovoltaics (PV) with zero capital investment. Viable off-site renewable energy procurement options for the university include community solar arrays, direct access, and Southern California Edison's Green Rate program. LED & Controls Retrofits HVAC Retrofits Lab Retrofits Monitoring-Based Commissioning Hot Water Loop Solar PV Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies Reduction Potential 2025 Projected Emissions 25,000 metric tons of CO 2 e can be avoided in 2025 by implementing these greenhouse gas mitigating strategies. R E M A I N I N G 2 0 2 5 E M I S S I O N S A V O I D E D GR E E N H O U S E G A S E M I S S I O N S 60% Emissions Reduction Broad deployment of LED lighting with adaptive control technology has the ability to monitor occupancy, adjust for daylight, and dim lighting output to maximize comfort and avoid unnecessary energy consumption. Replacement or repair of existing HVAC equipment presents significant GHG mitigation potential, as aging equipment tends to function inefficiently. A multi-faceted approach to laboratory buildings that includes air quality sensing to reduce the number of air changes per hour and optimize fan speeds during non-occupied hours. This process requires an engineer to fine-tune a building’s energy systems to ensure they are functioning as intended. Additionally, the installation of submetering can provide building operators with high resolution data. Installation of a hot water loop that mirrors the current chilled water loop could capture waste heat from the cooling process and distribute hot water between connected buildings. Through solar PV PPAs, third-party contractors install, own, and maintain solar panels on campus in order to sell renewable energy to the university for a pre-determined price and duration. 2025 UCSB Scope 1 and 2 Emissions: 42,000 Metric Tons CO 2 e Scope 1 Emissions: 48% Scope 2 Emissions: 52% UCSB 2025 Projected Emissions Energy Demand Reduction Renewable Energy Procurement 13% 10% 7% 7% 11% 12% Life Cycle Costs Reduced by $44M 2025 UCSB Twenty-Year Life Cycle Cost Comparison 2025 Recommended Scenario 2025 Baseline Scenario On-Site Combustion Purchased Electricity 20-year life cycle cost of $182M 20-year life cycle cost of $138M 1 Steps Reduce Energy Demand & Procure Renewable Energy 2 & Strategies to Achieve Carbon Neutrality at UCSB by 2025 LED & Controls Retrofits HVAC Retrofits Lab Retrofits Monitoring-Based Commissioning Hot Water Loop Solar PV Phase 1 Projects with Highest Financial Returns Phase 2 Planning Intensive Projects Phase 3 Post-2025 Reduce Carbon Offsets 2030 2025 2020 2016 Initial Cost Increase by $48M “Seed” Funding Gaucho Green Revolving Fund Investment Energy Efficiency Projects Utility Savings
Transcript of Achieving Carbon Neutrality at UCSB by 2025: A Critical ...€¦ · Prepared by: Henry Bart,...
Remaining Scope 1 Emissions (On-‐site Combustion)
Remaining Scope 2 Emissions(Purchased Electricity)
0 K
10 K
20 K
30 K
40 K
50 K
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Baseline without RPS
LED & Controls Retrofits
GHG
Emiss
ions
(MtC
O2e
/yea
r)
Monitoring-‐BasedCommissioning
On-‐site Solar PV
Hot Water Loop
HVAC Retrofits
Lab Retrofits
Purchasing Carbon Offsets
Decreasing carbon intensity of purchased electricity Energy efficiency measures and onsiterenewables
Offsetting remaining emissions to zero
①
②
③
Achieving Carbon Neutrality at UCSB by 2025: A Critical Analysis of Technological and Financial StrategiesPrepared by: Henry Bart, Brandon Kaysen, Melissa Maggass, Hyemin Park, Owen Watson | Advisor: Sangwon Suh
In order to develop a strategy for UC Santa Barbara to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025, UCSB’s Chancellor’s Sustainability Committee identified three objectives for this research project. Ultimately, this study identifies the most promising greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation strategies and the optimal investment schedule that will enable UCSB to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce long-term operating costs with minimal capital investments. This project’s specific objectives are as follows:
As defined by the UC Office of the President (UCOP), carbon neutrality is achieved when a campus reduces Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to zero. While there are many potential strategies, reducing emissions as much as possible through energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy procurement are the most viable options. If necessary, purchasing carbon offsets to account for any remaining emissions is an accepted option for reducing emissions to zero.
GHG emissions can fall into three categories: Scope 1, Scope 2, or Scope 3. Scope 1 emissions are those associated with on-site combustion, or direct emissions. At UCSB, 98% of Scope 1 emissions are associated with the on-site combustion of natural gas for space and water heating. Scope 2 emissions are those associated with electricity purchased from the grid, or indirect emissions. UCSB purchases electricity from Southern California Edison for energy services such as lighting, air conditioning, and ventilation. Scope 3 involves all other indirect emissions. While UCOP intends for each UC campus to achieve carbon neutrality for Scope 1-3 emissions by 2050, this study focused solely on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.
4
St
ep
Create a Deployment Schedule3
St
ep
Analyze Cost Implications
Acknowledgements and ReferencesRecommendationsCarbon Neutrality Can be a Reality
With an investment of $48M,
UCSB can save $44M in total
costs and 500,000 MtCO2e
over a 20-year timespan
What is Carbon Neutrality?Project ObjectivesIntroduction
We recommend that UCSB invest as much capital as possible early in the carbon neutrality process, and that they establish a green revolving fund to capture and reinvest avoided utility costs into new energy efficiency projects. As mentioned in Step 4, this mechanism will reduce required capital investments from $48M to below $16M.
Our analysis shows that achieving carbon neutrality for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions can reduce UCSB’s long-term operating costs, improve campus resiliency, and assist in the recruiting of high caliber students and faculty. However, achieving this goal will require aggressive investments and ongoing efforts to ensure that promising GHG mitigation strategies still under development are considered as they gain feasibility. Recognizing the imperative to act on climate mitigation and the leadership of President Napolitano and Chancellor Yang, the University of California, Santa Barbara should make the investments necessary to achieve carbon neutrality of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2025. As a living laboratory for sustainability, it is within the scope of our mission to act as a global leader on this challenging endeavor.
It was a privilege to work with such forward-thinking and dedicated individuals. UCSB is a particularly special environment to work in and the Chancellor’s Sustainability Committee was supportive throughout the entire process. Special thanks to Jordan Sager for providing technical expertise and David Auston for encouraging our work throughout the entire process.
• Sangwon Suh – Advisor• David Auston – Executive Director, Institute for Energy Efficiency• Jordan Sager –Campus Energy Manager, Facilities Management• Jewel Snavely – Sustainability Coordinator; The Green Initiative Fund, Grants Manager• David McHale – Associate Director, Utility & Energy Services• Karl Brown – Deputy Director, California Institute for Energy and Environment (CIEE)• Mo Lovegreen – Executive Officer, Department of Geography; Director, Campus Sustainability• Katie Maynard –Event Manager; Sustainability Coordinator• Mark Rousseau – Housing & Residential Services• Bruce Tiffney – Chancellors Sustainability Committee, Co-Chair• Max Stiefel & Claire Dooley – 2015 CNI Fellows
References: St. Clair, Matthew. “The University of California’s Commitment to Climate Solutions,” 2015. http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/uc-cni-doc.pdf.Yang, Henry. “Climate Commitment Pledge.” UCSB, November 12, 2015.
In 2013 Janet Napolitano, the President of the University of California (UC), united the 10 UC campuses through the Carbon Neutrality Initiative. This initiative established a goal for each campus to identify and implement measures to reduce Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions to zero by 2025. Achieving carbon neutrality would make the University of California the first major research university to accomplish this ambitious goal.
The University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) is a sustainability leader, and currently has the third smallest carbon footprint in the UC system. In November of 2015, UCSB’s Chancellor, Henry Yang, pledged to support and lead the UC Carbon Neutrality Initiative, stating “we recognize the urgent need to act now and avoid irreversible costs to our global community’s economic prosperity and public health.” UCSB has a proven track record of making successful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, and aggressive actions must be taken in order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025.
Total UC Emissions: 1.2 Million Metric Tons CO2e
Assess the efficacy of greenhouse gas mitigation strategiesEstimate the implementation costs associated with the recommended strategiesRecommend a deployment strategy for the identified strategies
$
How Carbon Neutrality Can be Achieved at UCSB
Understanding the challenges of achieving carbon neutrality, our group developed a four-step approach in order to break the project into manageable pieces. Each step contains critical elements of our recommended carbon neutrality strategy. The steps are as follows: 1) reduce energy demand; 2) procure renewable energy; 3) analyze cost implications; and 4) create a deployment schedule.
While UCSB typically make decisions using a simple-payback model, this study developed and utilized a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) tool in order to quantify the discounted life cycle costs of each recommended strategy. In addition to up-front capital costs, this LCCA tool takes into account costs associated with ongoing energy expenses, operation and maintenance, and expected carbon offsets for each scenario.
The figure below is a comparison between UCSB’s 2025 baseline scenario and our recommended scenario for reaching carbon neutrality. The baseline scenario assumes that UCSB does not implement any additional energy efficiency, conservation, or renewable energy projects over the next 20 years. Alternatively, our recommended scenario assumes that all five of the recommended demand-side strategies are implemented, and that on-campus solar capacity is maximized. The remaining 17,000 MtCO2e can be mitigated through the procurement of carbon offsets, renewable energy credits, or collaboration with utilities to purchase 100% renewable electricity. In our cost calculations, we assumed that the 2025 cost of carbon offsets will be $10/MtCO2e.
Achieving carbon neutrality at UCSB has the potential to reduce utility expenditures while improving campus operations. However, technological maturity, labor availability, capital costs, and regulatory context must be considered when determining an implementation plan. Taking these constraints into account, we developed a deployment schedule that prioritizes projects with high returns on investment such that utility savings can be rapidly generated, captured by a green revolving fund (GRF), and reinvested into additional energy efficiency projects on campus. While these strategies require $48M in capital investments, we found that by establishing a GRF and leveraging avoided utility cost streams, this amount can reduced to below $16M. The blue bars in the figure below represent our recommended timing for each project.
As a vital first step, our group reviewed the multitude of energy efficiency and conservation strategies that UCSB could implement. Assessing the efficacy of each project required an in-depth look at how buildings are operated at UCSB, a literature review of proven strategies, and collaboration with UCSB Energy and Utility Services. To the right are the five energy demand-reducing strategies identified by this study.
Once these five strategies were identified in Step 1, the next step was to identify the on-site potential for renewable energy generation and assess viable off-site procurement options. This study performed a campus-wide solar capacity appraisal, identifying a potential expansion of 9 MW within existing rooftop and parking lot spaces. Through the execution of power purchase agreements (PPAs), UCSB can install solar photovoltaics (PV) with zero capital investment.
Viable off-site renewable energy procurement options for the university include community solar arrays, direct access, and Southern California Edison's Green Rate program.
LED & ControlsRetrofits
HVAC Retrofits
Lab Retrofits
Monitoring-Based Commissioning
Hot Water Loop
Solar PV
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation StrategiesReductionPotential 2025 Projected Emissions
25,000
metric tons of CO2e
can be avoided in
2025 by implementing
these greenhouse gas
mitigating strategies. R
EM
AIN
ING
202
5 EMISSIONS
AVOIDED GREENHOUSE GA
S EM
ISS
ION
S60% Emissions Reduction
Broad deployment of LED lighting with adaptive control technology has the ability to monitor occupancy, adjust for daylight, and dim lighting output to maximize comfort and avoid unnecessary energy consumption.
Replacement or repair of existing HVAC equipment presents significant GHG mitigation potential, as aging equipment tends to function inefficiently.
A multi-faceted approach to laboratory buildings that includes air quality sensing to reduce the number of air changes per hour and optimize fan speeds during non-occupied hours.
This process requires an engineer to fine-tune a building’s energy systems to ensure they are functioning as intended. Additionally, the installation of submetering can provide building operators with high resolution data.
Installation of a hot water loop that mirrors the current chilled water loop could capture waste heat from the cooling process and distribute hot water between connected buildings.
Through solar PV PPAs, third-party contractors install, own, and maintain solar panels on campus in order to sell renewable energy to the university for a pre-determined price and duration.
2025 UCSB Scope 1 and 2 Emissions:42,000 Metric Tons CO2e
Scope 1 Emissions:
48%Scope 2
Emissions:52%
UCSB 2025 Projected Emissions
Energy Demand Reduction
Renewable Energy Procurement
13%
10%
7%
7%
11%
12%
Life Cycle Costs Reduced by $44M
2025 UCSB Twenty-Year Life Cycle Cost Comparison
2025 Recommended Scenario
2025 BaselineScenario
On-Site Combustion
Purchased Electricity
20-y
ear
life
cyc
le c
ost
of
$18
2M
20-y
ear
life
cyc
le c
ost
of
$13
8M
1
St
ep
s
Reduce Energy Demand & Procure Renewable Energy2&
Strategies to Achieve Carbon Neutrality at UCSB by 2025
LED & ControlsRetrofits
HVAC Retrofits
Lab Retrofits
Monitoring-Based Commissioning
Hot Water Loop
Solar PV
Phase 1Projects with Highest
Financial Returns
Phase 2Planning Intensive
Projects
Phase 3Post-2025
Reduce Carbon Offsets
2030202520202016
Initial Cost Increase by $48M
“Seed” Funding Gaucho Green
Revolving Fund
Investment
Energy Efficiency Projects
Utility Savings
![(KAIST)] Hyemin Kim Comparative Analysis , Seung Wook Baek ...procom.kaist.ac.kr/Download/IJP/142.pdf · (KAIST)] On: 23 January 2015, At: 19:31 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/60aae848c75d46058c2efe35/kaist-hyemin-kim-comparative-analysis-seung-wook-baek-kaist-on-23-january.jpg)
![(KAIST)] Hyemin Kim Machine, Seung Wook Baek & Daejun ...procom.kaist.ac.kr/Download/IJP/136.pdf · (KAIST)] On: 30 May 2014, At: 19:10 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/60aaf15c5d50a409d6255f52/kaist-hyemin-kim-machine-seung-wook-baek-daejun-kaist-on-30-may.jpg)
