energy indicators e-3, e-4, e-5, & e-8
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK: ENERGY INDICATORS E-3, E-4, E-5, & E-8
Prepared by Noel Melton Michael Wolinetz
REM 646 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Simon Fraser University School of Resource and Environmental Management
1 April 2008
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Wendy Lee, Ron Sue, and David Agosti who provided us with much of the data that went into this report. We also thank them for taking the time to share their experiences, perspectives, and opinions on sustainability at SFU. Finally, thank you to Candace Bonfield for coordinating the efforts of those involved in the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework.
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report uses the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) to assess Simon Fraser University’s (SFU) performance on four energy indicators: (1) E-3: local energy sources; (2) E-4: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity from campus buildings; (3) E-5: GHG emissions intensity from commuting transport; and E-8: reduction in energy consumption. Table 1 shows that SFU is only meeting the short-term benchmark for one of the energy indicators assessed in this report, and none of the longterm goals. Targets have not been set for E-5, GHG emissions from commuting transport. Table 1
Summary of Results
NO.
INDICATOR
RESULT
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
E-3
Local Energy Sources
0%
Not met
Not met
E-4
GHG emissions: buildings
+1.3% intensity change from 2006
Not met
Not met
E-5
GHG emissions: commuting transport
-6% intensity change from 2000
No target set
No target set
E-8
Reduction in energy consumption
+2.4% intensity change from 2006
Met
Not met
Degree of Action Required
SFU must reform its policies on energy consumption if it is to meet all of the energy and GHG targets related to campus buildings (E-3, E-4 & E-8). Significant changes to existing buildings, to the addition of new buildings, and to behaviour will be required for SFU to continually reduce energy and GHG intensity over time. SFU should maintain its degree of action towards GHG emissions intensity from commuting transport (E-5). Although no benchmark exists, this indicator has improved significantly since 2000.
iii
Recommendations for Improving Performance on These Indicators
We make a variety of recommendations for how the University could improve its performance on each of the assessed indicators. Overall, the University should set clear campus-wide targets for energy consumption and GHG emissions. At present, little topdown direction seems to exist regarding energy consumption and GHG emissions at SFU. Clear and coordinated direction is needed if SFU is to make major progress towards energy sustainability. Further Analysis
The energy and GHG intensity indicators described by the CSAF are supposed to help assess whether the University is using energy in a sustainable manner. We examine the extent to which these indicators are appropriate for measuring sustainability of energy use. In addition to recommending specific changes to the energy indicators, we investigate the effectiveness of the CSAF as a whole. Unfortunately, a bottom-up approach such as the CSAF will never be able to compete with a staffed sustainability department which is integrated into the decision making hierarchy of the University. However, the CSAF is only in its infancy at SFU and many improvements can be made to maximize its consistency, effectiveness and efficiency. In particular, we recommend that SFU: •
Examine the extent to which the CSAF contributes to decision making, and identify opportunities to strengthen sustainability planning within the University; and
•
Investigate methods to streamline the data collection and analysis process for both students and faculty.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS Aknowledgements...........................................................................................................ii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ v Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................... 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Energy Indicators........................................................................................ 2 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 4 E-3: Local Energy Sources........................................................................................... 4 E-4: GHG Emissions: Buildings................................................................................... 4 E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport ............................................................... 6 E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption ....................................................................... 6 Results, Discussion & Degree of Action Required........................................................... 7 E-3: Local Energy Sources........................................................................................... 7 E-4: GHG Emissions: Buildings................................................................................... 7 E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport ............................................................... 9 E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption ....................................................................... 9 Recommendations for Improving Performance on These Indicators............................... 10 E-3: Local Energy Sources......................................................................................... 11 E-4 & E-8: Building Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions ................................ 11 E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport ............................................................. 12 Evaluation of CSAF Energy Indicators.......................................................................... 13 E-3: Local Energy...................................................................................................... 13 E-4 & E-5: Intensity of GHG Emissions .................................................................... 14 E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption ..................................................................... 16 Evaluation of Overall Framework .............................................................................. 17 Summary of Recommendations for Improving the CSAF Energy Indicators .............. 20 Appendix....................................................................................................................... 22 Reference List ............................................................................................................... 23
v
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Simon Fraser University is only meeting the short-term benchmark for one of the energy indicators assessed in this report, and none of the long-term goals. Overall, the University should set clear campus-wide targets for energy consumption and GHG emissions. Below we list specific actions that the University could consider in order to improve its performance on each assessed indicator: •
Local energy sources o Give further support to the solar hot water and photovoltaic trials being conducted by facilities management;
•
Building energy and GHG emissions o Further increase energy efficiency of existing buildings by allowing payback periods longer than 10 years for investments in energy efficiency; o Maximize the use of electricity relative to fossil fuels; o Identify opportunities for behavioural change, such as making individual departments accountable for the energy they consume through the use of energy metres; o Continue to meet high efficiency standards for new buildings and seek appropriate funding to accomplish this;
•
GHG emissions from commuting traffic o Determine reasonable short and long-term benchmarks for GHG emissions intensity from commuting transport.
INTRODUCTION The production and consumption of energy has many deleterious effects on the environment. In British Columbia, the majority of electricity comes from hydro power,
1
which destroys large amounts of natural habitat. The extraction of fossil fuels also destroys habitat in addition to producing GHGs and other pollutants when combusted. As a public institution, SFU has a responsibility to minimize the negative effects associated with the energy it consumes. SFU has adopted the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) to assess its performance in multiple areas of sustainability, including that of energy. This report evaluates SFU’s progress towards four energy indicators: (1) E-3: local energy sources; (2) E-4: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity from campus buildings; (3) E-5: GHG emissions intensity from commuting transport; and (4) E-8: reduction in energy consumption. This report also: •
Discusses options for improving performance on these indicators;
•
Compares the indicators with other assessment frameworks;
•
Critiques the effectiveness and efficiency of the indicators in measuring sustainability;
•
Evaluates the suite of CSAF energy indicators; and
•
Assesses the effectiveness of the overall CSAF process.
OVERVIEW OF ENERGY INDICATORS CSAF Energy indicators are split into three categories: (1) energy sources, (2) intensity of use, and (3) management. These indicators are summarized in Table 2. For a more detailed description of how these indicators are measured, see Cole (2003).
2
Table 2
Overview of energy indicators
CLASS
INDICATOR
Sources
E-1: Renewable energy: buildings E-2: Renewable energy: fleet and ground vehicles E-3: Local energy sources
Intensity of Use
E-4: GHG emissions: buildings E-5: GHG emissions: commuting transport E-6: GHG emissions: fleet and ground vehicles E-7: GHG emissions: campus travel E-8: Reduction in energy consumption
Management
E-9: Energy metering E-10: Energy efficient equipment E-11: HVAC&R system control E-12: Automatic light sensors
Table 3 contains the description of the four indicators we evaluated, as well as their short-term benchmarks and long-term goals. Note that due to data constraints, we could not fully assess indicators E-5 and E-8 as specified by the CSAF (see the following Methods section for more details). The short-term benchmark and long-term goals for E-3, E-4 and E-8 are the same as in the 2005 Campus Sustainability Report (Ezaguirre & Mau, 2005). No targets have been set for E-5, GHG emissions from commuting transport. Table 3
Description of assessed energy indicators
NO.
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
E-3
Local Energy Sources
Total GJ of energy consumed annually by the campus produced within 500km of the campus as a percent of all energy consumed on campus
20%
100%
E-4
GHG emissions: buildings
Total energy (of all types) consumed (in GJ) each year for heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical systems, converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total square metres of interior built space. Note: energy used for outdoor uses (lighting, signage, etc.) should be included in the energy use calculation, but will still be assessed relative to square metres of interior space.
5% real reduction over previous year
10% real reduction over previous year
E-5
GHG emissions: commuting transport
Total energy (of all types) consumed in GJ each year for commuting transportation, converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total number of Campus Community Members (CCM) in that year.
Not set
Not set
E-8
Reduction in energy consumption
Total change in energy consumption (of all types) in GJ for building, commuting and fleet/grounds vehicle uses in current year over previous year.
0 to 5% change (i.e. no more than 5% increase)
Negative percent change (i.e. reduction made)
3
METHODS E-3: Local Energy Sources Using the methods established by Ezaguirre and Mau (2005), we considered all energy not produced at SFU to be non-local. SFU is part of a large electricity and gas distribution grid, and there is no way to determine what proportion of energy used is coming from within the allowed 500km radius. E-4: GHG Emissions: Buildings Facilities Management collects building energy consumption data at SFU.1 To calculate E-4, GHG emissions from buildings, the following data were obtained from Facilities Management: (1) energy consumption by buildings, by source (electricity, natural gas and oil); and (2) interior built space. The most recent data available were for the 2006/2007 fiscal year.2 Energy Consumption
In 2006/2007 SFU consumed 471,224 GJ of energy to operate its campus buildings. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of energy sources. Natural gas provided 57% of energy demand and is mainly used for heating. Oil provides heating when BC Hydro cuts off SFU’s interruptible gas supply, and accounted for only 1% of energy consumption. Electricity provided the remaining 42% of energy requirements, being used for a variety of end-uses including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, and computing.
1
These data are presented in annual energy management reports, available online at: http://www.sfu.ca/FacilitiesManagement/campus/ca_energy.html 2 April 2006-March 2007. 4
Oil 3,512 Electricity 198,118 Natural Gas 269,594
Figure 1
Total energy consumption for buildings by source, GJ (2006/2007)
Calculating GHG Emissions
Many calculations were made in order to estimate GHG emissions from the energy consumption data.3 Table 4 shows the results of these calculations. In 2006/2007, SFU produced an estimated 15,203 tonnes CO2equivalent from energy consumption associated with its campus buildings. Ninety percent of these emissions originated through the direct combustion of fossil fuels on campus, the vast majority of which is natural gas. The remaining ten percent of emissions were produced indirectly through the production of electricity. The data indicate that electricity in BC has much lower carbon intensity than fossil fuel sources. Table 4
Energy consumption and GHG emissions (2006/2007) ENERGY (GJ)
GHG (TONNES CO2 EQUIVALENT)
PROPORTION
PROPORTION
Electricity
198,118
0.42
1,502
0.10
Natural Gas
269,594
0.57
13,443
0.88
3,512
0.01
257
0.02
471,224
1.00
15,203
1.00
Oil Total
3
The assumptions used for these calculations are summarized in the Appendix. 5
E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport Our report marks the first time this indicator has been evaluated at SFU. To evaluate it, we began with the number of trips by transportation mode (ex: transit, private vehicle) over two one-week periods, first in 2000 and then in 2007. These data are available from the 2007 Travel Count Program (MMM Group, 2007). We extrapolated the number of trips per week by mode over the entire year for 2000 and 2007, taking into account the change in volume during the summer months. The distance each individual travelled was not available, so we assumed a constant distance per trip for each campus community member (CCM) in 2000 and 2007. The number of trips was combined with vehicle type data (proportion of old cars, new cars and light trucks), and emissions per vehicle kilometre travelled taken from the CIMS4 energy economy model. We were then able to calculate the GHG emissions per CCM (GHG intensity) of commuter traffic at SFU. Because the distance travelled is arbitrary, the GHG intensity for a given year can only be compared to other years at SFU. The validity of the comparison is contingent upon the average distance each CCM travels per trip remaining constant through time. Table 10 in the Appendix lists the assumptions we used to evaluate this indicator. E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption Fully assessing indicator E-8 requires energy consumption data by buildings, commuting traffic and fleet/grounds vehicles. Estimating energy consumption by commuting traffic was not possible for the previous year, and due to time constraints we could not calculate energy consumption by fleet/grounds vehicles. Therefore, in keeping
4
CIMS is maintained by the Energy and Materials Research Group at SFU. 6
with Ezaguirre and Mau (2005), we applied E-8 to building energy consumption only. The required data were gathered when assessing indicator E-4.
RESULTS, DISCUSSION & DEGREE OF ACTION REQUIRED E-3: Local Energy Sources Table 5 shows the result for indicator E-3. There has been no change in this indicator since it was last evaluated in 2005. It is still not possible to purchase energy that is verifiably local. There are trials of solar hot water and photovoltaic energy underway at SFU, but the scale is negligible compared to the total energy consumption of the university. If the university feels strongly about this indicator, it must reform its actions to meet the short-term benchmark. Table 5
Results for E-3: local energy sources
NO.
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
RESULT
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
E-3
Local Energy Sources
Total GJ of energy consumed annually by the campus produced within 500km of the campus as a percent of all energy consumed on campus
0%
20%
100%
E-4: GHG Emissions: Buildings Table 6 shows the indicator results for GHG intensity. In 2006/2007, the GHG intensity for campus buildings was 0.048 tonnes CO2equivalent, which represents an increase of 1.3% over the previous year. The data indicate that SFU is not meeting the short term benchmark or the long-term goal, which call for 5 and 10% reductions over the previous year, respectively. However, since the first Campus Sustainability Report in 2005 (which covered 2002/2003 energy data) GHG intensity has decreased 13%.5
5
This value should be interpreted carefully due to potentially differing assumptions about the area of interior space used in this report and those used by Ezaguirre and Mau (2005). This report assumes the 7
Table 6 NO.
E-4
Results for E-4 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Buildings
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
RESULT
GHG emissions: Buildings
Total energy (of all types) consumed (in GJ) each year for heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical systems, converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total square metres of interior built space. Note: energy used for outdoor uses (lighting, signage, etc.) should be included in the energy use calculation, but will still be assessed relative to square metres of interior space.
+1.3% (0.048 t 2 CO2e/m )
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
5% real reduction over previous year
10% real reduction over previous year
In the last Campus Sustainability Report, Ezaguirre and Mau (2005) found that warmer temperatures in the lower mainland were reducing heating requirements at SFU, and hence influencing GHG intensity indicators. To avoid confounding changes in GHG intensity resulting from climatic shifts with changes resulting from university efforts, GHG intensity can be standardized by degree day to account for changes in annual temperature regimes.6 When the 2006/2007 data are standardized by degree-day, GHG intensity actually shows a decrease of 0.8% from the previous year. While this does not meet the targets for this indicator either, it is nonetheless important because it shows an improvement over the previous year. In any case, SFU must reform its policies on GHG emissions from buildings if it is to meet the short-term benchmark. Significant changes to existing buildings, and to the addition of new buildings, will be required to continually reduce GHG intensity over time.
larger of area serviced by natural gas or area serviced by electricity, as presented in the Facilities Management Energy Reports. 6 To standardize an indicator, it is divided by degree day (i.e. GHG/m2/DD). Degree Days = (Number of Days Below 18ºC) * (18-Average Temperature) 8
E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport Table 7 shows the result for indicator E-5. Contingent upon the validity of the assumptions we used to calculate this indicator, GHG emissions per CCM have fallen by 6% since 2000. Refer to Table 10 in the Appendix for a discussion of the assumptions. This result may be largely due to the introduction of the UPASS, and the reduction of parking space on Burnaby Mountain. Although there is no benchmark or goal for this indicator, we feel SFU should maintain its practice and policy with respect to this indicator. However, the benchmark and goal need to be developed for future assessments. Although the indicator is most sensitive to the number of people using public transit, SFU has likely used its trump card in this respect with the creation of the UPASS, an action that doubled transit ridership. More people could be using transit, but a repeat of the UPASS success is unlikely. The indicator is also sensitive to the fuel efficiency of private vehicles and buses, which are factors mostly outside the control of the University. Given these circumstances, a fair short-term benchmark would be no increase in the indicator. An ambitious long-term goal would be to reproduce the change of -6% by 2015, but there is no guarantee of success that is attributable to SFU’s actions. Table 7
Results for E-5: GHG emissions: commuting transport
NO.
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
RESULT
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
E-5
GHG emissions: commuting transport
Total energy (of all types) consumed in GJ each year for commuting transportation, converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total number of Campus Community Members (CCM) in that year.
-6%
Not set
Not set
E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption Indicator E-8 assesses the change in building energy intensity in the current year from the previous year. Table 8 shows that energy intensity in 2006/2007 was 1.48 9
GJ/m2, representing an increase of 2.4% from 2005/2006. Intensity of electricity use increased by 4.4%, while intensity of natural gas use increased by 0.9%.7 When corrected for degree day, intensity of energy use increased by only 0.2%. Both measures of energy intensity meet the short-term benchmark of no more than a 5% increase, but fail to meet the long-term goal of a decrease in intensity. SFU will need to reform its policies on building energy consumption if it is to continually meet the short-term benchmark over time, and eventually meet the long-term goal of reducing energy intensity. Table 8
Results for E-8: Reduction in energy consumption from buildings
NO.
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
RESULT
Total change in energy consumption (of all types) in GJ for buildings in current year over previous year.
+2.4%
E-8
Reduction in energy consumption
(1.48 2 GJ/m )
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
0 to 5% change (i.e. no more than 5% increase)
Negative percent change (i.e. reduction made)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE ON THESE INDICATORS This section outlines options SFU may consider to improve its performance on the four energy indicators evaluated in this report. Overall, SFU should set clear campuswide targets for all energy indicators. Targets should make reference to a specific date so that a clear direction exists and progress towards the target can be effectively measured. At present, little top-down direction seems to exist regarding energy consumption and GHG emissions at SFU. Clear and coordinated direction is needed if SFU is to make effective progress towards energy sustainability.
7
The increasing share of electricity consumption means that energy intensity increased to a greater extent than did GHG intensity. 10
E-3: Local Energy Sources The university could pursue the suggestions of Ezaguirre and Mau (2005), either harnessing solar energy on campus or creating research partnerships with faculty and students to produce local energy options. To a certain extent, SFU has acted on the first suggestion by initiating trials of solar hot water and photovoltaic. However, given the success of solar hot water heating at UBC (UBC, 2007a), more resources could be directed at this technology choice. E-4 & E-8: Building Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions To improve its performance on intensity of energy consumption and GHG emissions from buildings, SFU should consider the following: •
Increasing payback period for energy efficiency investments. Facilities Management has been engaged in numerous energy efficiency retrofits over the past two decades, and new buildings are quite energy efficient. Further opportunities exist to decrease energy consumption and GHG emissions through retrofits, although many of the low-cost options have already been implemented. Further efficiency gains will therefore require greater upfront capital costs, which would require the university to increase the required payback period beyond ten years.
•
Continuing to mandate high efficiency standards for new buildings. The best place to tackle energy efficiency is during the design stage of a new building. The new BC climate change plan requires that new university buildings meet LEEDGold standards. Recently completed buildings (such as TASC II) have been constructed to meet these standards but have not been certified due to the high costs involved (Ron Sue, personal communication, March 14 2008). While the provincial government has mandated that buildings be certified, it has not provided any additional funds for these requirements to be met, providing a challenge for SFU.
11
•
Maximizing the use of electricity relative to fossil fuels. The University can switch away from natural gas to electricity where possible. Electricity in BC produces very low GHG emissions, and should continue to do so because of the government’s climate change policy, which will require all additional electricity plants to produce zero net GHG emissions.
•
Identifying opportunities for behavioural change. Simple actions such as turning off lights and not leaving doors open can reduce energy consumption, and awareness of these issues is increasing. Making individual departments accountable for the energy they consume through the use of energy metres could be a way of consolidating such action.
E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport As noted above, this indicator is most sensitive to the number of people riding transit, to the emissions intensities of vehicles being used, and to the distance people travel to reach SFU. The latter two factors are essentially out of the University’s control. Differential parking rates based on the emissions intensity of vehicles could be implemented, where vehicles with lower intensities cost less to park. However this cost difference is likely to be a minor consideration when compared to the actual purchase price or operating cost of a new vehicle. In other words, the differential parking costs would probably have to be extreme in order to make a difference in the car choices of CCMs. This leaves increasing transit ridership as the only means to improve on indicator E-5. As noted in the student report by Bokowski et al. (2007), SFU could hold a referendum on the issue of including faculty and staff in the UPASS program. However, because the faculty and staff make up only 10% of the CCM (MMM Group, 2007), this would have a reduced effect compared to the introduction of the student UPASS.
12
EVALUATION OF CSAF ENERGY INDICATORS The CSAF energy indicators are supposed to help SFU assess its progress towards using energy in a sustainable manner. This section discusses the extent to which the indicators are appropriate for measuring sustainability of energy use. To inform this discussion, we contrast the CSAF indicators with those adopted by the University of British Columbia and those recommended by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).8 First, we focus on each of the four indicators evaluated in this report. We then discuss the suite of CSAF energy indicators as a whole and make recommendations on how to improve them. E-3: Local Energy This indicator did not perform well as an effective measure of sustainability because the benefits of local energy use are ambiguous. Energy transmission does cause losses, meaning more capacity and resources are needed for non-local generation to provide the same amount of energy service as local generation. As well, the land disturbances of energy transmission infrastructure can fragment ecosystems. We assume it is for these reasons that local energy is a part of the CSAF energy indicators. However, there are benefits of non-local generation. First, energy conversion can be more efficient if it happens near an energy resource rather than where it will be consumed, such as near a coal deposit rather than in a city. Second, non-local energy production could presumably occur in a less environmentally sensitive location, or where it has a lesser effect on human health or welfare.
8
The GRI has developed the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, a widely used sustainability reporting framework available online at: www.globalreporting.org 13
The local energy indicator is also inefficient as a measure of SFU’s level of sustainability. Because of the way gas and electricity are distributed in British Columbia, it is impossible to actually measure the indicator. A proper evaluation of the indicator would require changing the tariff and distribution structure of both BC Hydro and Terasen Gas. We recommend removing the local energy indicator from the SFU CSAF. The indicator is not an effective or efficient measure of SFU’s sustainability, and other institutions such as UBC and the GRI do not use a similar indicator. The benefits of the indicator, namely more efficient use of energy and perhaps greater use of renewable energy, are captured in other CSAF energy indicators. E-4 & E-5: Intensity of GHG Emissions Reducing GHG emissions is a critical step towards mitigating climate change and hence towards energy sustainability. All of the CSAF GHG indicators measure intensity, not total amount of emissions. Intensity-based indicators are useful because they allow for comparison as the University grows, or among universities of different sizes. However, an improvement in intensity does not necessarily mean progress towards sustainability, because overall growth can outweigh efficiency gains. For example, although SFU’s GHG intensity remained essentially the same between 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, absolute GHG emissions rose by 8%. Monitoring absolute change of GHG emissions is therefore essential to assess progress towards energy sustainability, and is recommended by the GRI.
14
E-4: GHG emissions: buildings
Due to insufficient data (discussed in the Methods section) it is not yet possible to estimate what proportion of SFU’s GHG emissions come from buildings, although it is likely that it is the majority.9 For this reason, coupled with ease of measurement, indicator E-4 is a prime indicator of university GHG emissions. UBC assesses the equivalent of indicator E-4, and actually had the same GHG intensity as SFU in 2006/2007 (UBC, 2007a). UBC also has a target to reduce criteria air contaminants from building emissions, as recommended by the GRI. Considering all the negative impacts associated with energy use (including GHGs, criteria air contaminants and other impacts) is necessary to assess progress towards energy sustainability. E-5: GHG emissions: commuting transport
Like indicator E-4, E-5 also suffers from the weaknesses of an intensity based indicator. Unless improvement against this indicator is large, the absolute amount of emissions being released may continue to grow if the university is also growing. Another issue with this indicator is how effective it is in measuring SFU’s progress towards sustainability. SFU has limited control over how people travel and where they come from, yet this indicator makes the university responsible for the resulting emissions. These sorts of indirect commuting emissions are considered an optional measure by the GRI, however UBC does include them in its sustainability reporting. Regardless, we find it difficult to justify measuring sustainability at SFU with an indicator that cannot be entirely within the power of the university to change.
9
UBC estimates that 73% of its GHG emissions are associated with the production of heat and electricity for its campus buildings (UBC, 2007c) 15
Furthermore, commuting emissions is also a difficult, hence inefficient indicator to measure. The problem lies in the fact that it takes extensive survey work to determine the distance travelled for each transportation mode. UBC did conduct this type of research, however there is an entire agency at the university that is responsible for monitoring the changes in traffic and the resulting emissions. This kind of study would be very costly to replicate at SFU, although a comparison to past years at SFU, such as the one in this report, can be done without further data. Because of the lack of control over the indicator, and the difficulty of measurement, we recommend SFU adopt a different indicator to assess commuting traffic. A suitable replacement could be the proportion of people not using single occupancy vehicles to travel to SFU. This indicator is easy to measure, and an improvement in the indicator would approximate a reduction of commuting GHG intensity. Most importantly, through a partnership with Translink and a decrease in the supply of parking on Burnaby Mountain, the university would have some control over this indicator. E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption Indicator E-8 recognizes that all forms of energy (including renewable sources) are inherently associated with some level of negative impacts. Therefore, reducing energy consumption of all forms represents some degree of progress towards energy sustainability. This indicator should be considered together with indicators E-1 to E-3 (energy sources) to gain a more complete picture of energy sustainability. The CSAF approach can be contrasted with that of UBC, which does not have an indicator similar to E-8. Instead, UBC evaluates the proportion of energy which comes
16
from renewable sources (the equivalent of indicator E-1). This method recognizes that it is not energy use itself that is a problem, but the impacts associated with specific forms of energy, particularly non-renewable sources. However, renewable energy sources also create negative impacts (for example, the displacement of natural habitat by the flooding of valleys for hydro power). Evaluating both total energy consumption and the source of energy is therefore the ideal way of measuring progress towards energy sustainability. Finally, this indicator was originally intended to measure not only building energy consumption, but also energy consumption by commuting transport and fleet/grounds vehicles. The latter was not assessed in this report due to time limitations, although it was previously assessed by Ezaguirre and Mau (2005). Estimating energy consumption by commuting transport is much more challenging, as was discussed in the evaluation of indicator E-5. Therefore, we recommend omitting energy consumption by commuting transport from indicator E-8, reduction in energy consumption. Evaluation of Overall Framework Decision making
The CSAF does not examine the extent to which it contributes to decision making. Assessing progress towards sustainability may be of little use if the decisionmaking bodies of the University are not guided by the results. For example, it appears that in the building energy and GHG sector, there have been efforts to conserve energy and improve fossil fuel efficiencies for some time now. Reporting goes back to the 1990’s, before the CSAF had been developed, so the CSAF may not be adding anything new in this regard. Indeed, it seems many decisions in the energy section are not making use of these assessments, especially in terms of short-term benchmarks and long-term goals. 17
Streamlining the Process
By using students to assess sustainability indicators, the CSAF is a low-cost initiative. However, this approach does have its disadvantages relative to a full sustainability department (such as exists at UBC). Overall, the CSAF is very time intensive for both students, who are not familiar with the process, and for staff who must help students with data collection. Methods of streamlining the data collection and calculation process should be considered. We suggest the use of standardized excel spreadsheets with previously collected data. In addition to making the process more efficient, such measures should also improve consistency in reporting. Unfortunately, it will always be difficult for the CSAF to compete with a staffed sustainability department which is integrated into the decision making hierarchy of the University. Targets
At SFU, the targets for building energy and GHG intensity are a sustained proportional decline (a set percentage reduction per year). Unfortunately, reducing energy or GHG intensity by a given percentage per year may not be possible to maintain over the long term. SFU targets can be contrasted with those of UBC, which specify a specific reduction in intensity by 2010 (UBC, 2007b). Specifying a deadline provides a more realistic vision and allows for progress to be better measured, although UBC’s short timeframe does not identify what changes are desired beyond 2010. Process versus Outcome
The CSAF energy indicators are all measures of outcomes: energy used, GHGs emitted, and monitoring devices installed. However, these outcomes are a result of various decision making processes, whether they involve the adoption of a policy or the redirection of resources. While the current energy indicators may give a clear picture of
18
where SFU lies in achieving sustainability, they do nothing to indicate what is driving the change. In fact, in the early stages of this change, SFU is performing poorly against the indicators. The key question is how performance can be improved, but the CSAF does not help answer this question. It has no indicators of process changes that may eventually result in outcome changes. In most of the interviews we conducted for this report, the interviewees expressed the need for both a stronger mandate and additional resources to make progress against the indicators. Several people expressed the feeling that without these changes, they would be hard pressed to collect the data for the CSAF, let alone make any changes that improve performance against the indicators. Indicators of process changes in decision making and resource allocation could help gauge where SFU lies in its capacity to improve, in addition to actual improvements within the CSAF. Attributing results
Indicators may improve or deteriorate over time for a number of reasons. For example, building energy intensity could improve due to retrofit programs or due to warmer temperatures. Identifying which portion of observed change results from actual efforts is an important component of measuring success. For this reason, the GRI recommends indicators describing initiatives to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions, together with indicators measuring the results of these initiatives. This would also increase the coverage of process changes within the suite of indicators. Unfortunately, attributing energy or emissions reductions to a specific policy may not always be possible. One area in which this report attempted to identify the cause of an indicator change was with ambient temperature. In addition to presenting raw data on building
19
energy and GHG intensity change, this report standardized these indicators by degree day to account for temperature variation. Correcting by degree day allows for comparison over time as temperatures fluctuate, and among universities in different climatic regions. It is important to consider how temperature variations may be affecting indicators, although absolute change in the indicator is also important. These indicators (E-3 and E8) should therefore continue to be calculated according to both methods. Summary of Recommendations for Improving the CSAF Energy Indicators We make the following recommendations to improve the CSAF energy indicators and to investigate and improve the overall CSAF process: •
Decision making o Examine the extent to which the CSAF contributes to decision making, and identify opportunities to strengthen sustainability planning within the University;
•
Streamlining the process o Investigate methods to streamline the data collection and analysis process for both students, staff and relevant faculty;
•
Target setting o Set targets which require a given intensity or level to be reached by a specific date, including a long-term schedule of change beyond 2010;
•
Changes to indicators o Assess total energy consumption and GHG emissions in addition to intensity of use indicators; o Discontinue the assessment of E-3: local energy; o Replace E-5, GHG emissions from commuting traffic, with a controllable and easily measured indicator such as the proportion of people travelling by single occupancy vehicles;
20
o Omit energy consumption by commuting transport from indicator E-8, reduction in energy consumption; o Assess criteria air contaminants in addition to GHG emissions; and o Attempt to attribute changes in indicators to university policy or action where possible; or o Develop an indicator of changes in mandate and resources directed towards achieving the CSAF goals.
21
APPENDIX Table 9
Assumptions – E-4: GHG emissions from buildings
Issue
Interior built space
ASSUMPTIONS The larger of (1) interior built space serviced by electricity or (2) interior built space serviced by natural gas heating is used: 2
2006/2007: 319,125 m
2
2005/2006: 298,898 m
Electricity
The majority of electricity in BC comes from hydroelectric sources, which produces a very small amount of CO2 emissions. To calculate CO2 emissions from hydropower, the following is assumed: 0.0273 kg CO 2/kWh To calculate GHG emissions from natural gas consumption, the following is assumed:
Natural Gas
49,680 t CO 2/GJ 0.52 t N 2O/GJ 1.1 t CH4/GJ To calculate GHG emissions from oil consumption, the following is assumed: 3
0.025853 m /GJ Oil
3
2830 kg CO 2/m
0.013 kg N 2O/m 0.026 kg CH4/m
3
3
To calculate CO2 equivalent for each GHG, the following is assumed: Global Warming Potential
CO 2 – 1 N 2O – 310 CH 4 – 21
Source of CO2 conversion factors: (NRCan, 2001)
Table 10
Assumptions – E-7: GHG emissions from commuting
Issue
ASSUMPTIONS
Summer traffic volume
The volume of summer traffic is 30% the volume of fall and spring traffic. The result that GHG intensity in 2007 is less than in 2000 is not sensitive to changes in this assumption
CCM
The residents of UniverCity (approximately 2000) were included in the CCM count. Although some are faculty, staff, or students, and therefore already in the CCM number, many are not, and their commuting is being counted as a part of the wider SFU traffic.
Bus type and emissions intensity
All busses are standard diesel. We determined that bus emissions intensity was 1.2E tGHG/vkt. The result was also insensitive to anything less than a tripling of this assumption.
Weekend bus traffic volume
The weekend bus traffic volume is 20% of the weekday volume. The result that GHG intensity in 2007 is less than in 2000 is also insensitive to this assumption
Vehicle emissions intensities
All private vehicles were assumed to have standard emissions intensities that were the same as in 2000. This means we did not account for the slight increase in hybrid and high efficiency vehicles. Future analyses of this indicator should consider that this may become an invalid assumption
Distance per CCM trip
The distance was arbitrarily set to one 1 km. Again, this means the value of the indicator can only be compared against the value from SFU in other years, and it is not informative on its own. Distance per trip may have fallen due to the opening of satellite SFU campuses in Vancouver and Surrey.
-3
22
REFERENCE LIST Bokowski, G., White, D., Pacifico, A., Talbot, S., DuBelko, A., Phipps, J., Utley, C., Mui, T., & Lewis, G. (2007). Towards Campus Climate Neutrality: Simon Fraser University’s Carbon Footprint. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sfu.ca/sustainability/pdf/Towards%20Campus%20Climate%20Neutrality. pdf Cole, L. (2003). Assessing sustainability on Canadian university campuses: development of a campus sustainability assessment framework. Master’s Thesis. Colwood, BC: Royal Roads University. Ezaguirre, J., & Mau, P. (2005). Energy. In J. Brahney (Ed.), Campus Sustainability Report, Fall 2005 (pp. 47-72). MMM Group. (2007, November). Simon Fraser University Travel Count Program: September 2007. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). (2001). Guide for computing CO2 emissions related to energy use. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://cetcvarennes.nrcan.gc.ca/fichier.php/codectec/En/2001-66/2001-66e.pdf Simon Fraser University (SFU). (2007). Energy Management Reports. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sfu.ca/FacilitiesManagement/campus/ca_energy.html University of British Columbia (UBC). (2007a). The UBC Sustainability Report 20062007. Retrieved March 19, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://sustain.ubc.ca/pdfs/ar/UBC-Sustainability_Report_2006-2007-final.pdf University of British Columbia (UBC). (2007b). The Sustainability Strategy: Vancouver and Okanogan Campuses 2006-2010. Retrieved March 19, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://sustain.ubc.ca/pdfs/ia/UBC_Sustainability_Strategy_2007.pdf University of British Columbia (UBC). (2007c). Carbon Neutrality and UBC: A First Glance. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/seedslibrary/files/Carbon%20Neutrality%20&%20UBC%2 0A%20First%20Glance.pdf
23
Prepared by Noel Melton Michael Wolinetz
REM 646 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Simon Fraser University School of Resource and Environmental Management
1 April 2008
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Wendy Lee, Ron Sue, and David Agosti who provided us with much of the data that went into this report. We also thank them for taking the time to share their experiences, perspectives, and opinions on sustainability at SFU. Finally, thank you to Candace Bonfield for coordinating the efforts of those involved in the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework.
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report uses the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) to assess Simon Fraser University’s (SFU) performance on four energy indicators: (1) E-3: local energy sources; (2) E-4: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity from campus buildings; (3) E-5: GHG emissions intensity from commuting transport; and E-8: reduction in energy consumption. Table 1 shows that SFU is only meeting the short-term benchmark for one of the energy indicators assessed in this report, and none of the longterm goals. Targets have not been set for E-5, GHG emissions from commuting transport. Table 1
Summary of Results
NO.
INDICATOR
RESULT
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
E-3
Local Energy Sources
0%
Not met
Not met
E-4
GHG emissions: buildings
+1.3% intensity change from 2006
Not met
Not met
E-5
GHG emissions: commuting transport
-6% intensity change from 2000
No target set
No target set
E-8
Reduction in energy consumption
+2.4% intensity change from 2006
Met
Not met
Degree of Action Required
SFU must reform its policies on energy consumption if it is to meet all of the energy and GHG targets related to campus buildings (E-3, E-4 & E-8). Significant changes to existing buildings, to the addition of new buildings, and to behaviour will be required for SFU to continually reduce energy and GHG intensity over time. SFU should maintain its degree of action towards GHG emissions intensity from commuting transport (E-5). Although no benchmark exists, this indicator has improved significantly since 2000.
iii
Recommendations for Improving Performance on These Indicators
We make a variety of recommendations for how the University could improve its performance on each of the assessed indicators. Overall, the University should set clear campus-wide targets for energy consumption and GHG emissions. At present, little topdown direction seems to exist regarding energy consumption and GHG emissions at SFU. Clear and coordinated direction is needed if SFU is to make major progress towards energy sustainability. Further Analysis
The energy and GHG intensity indicators described by the CSAF are supposed to help assess whether the University is using energy in a sustainable manner. We examine the extent to which these indicators are appropriate for measuring sustainability of energy use. In addition to recommending specific changes to the energy indicators, we investigate the effectiveness of the CSAF as a whole. Unfortunately, a bottom-up approach such as the CSAF will never be able to compete with a staffed sustainability department which is integrated into the decision making hierarchy of the University. However, the CSAF is only in its infancy at SFU and many improvements can be made to maximize its consistency, effectiveness and efficiency. In particular, we recommend that SFU: •
Examine the extent to which the CSAF contributes to decision making, and identify opportunities to strengthen sustainability planning within the University; and
•
Investigate methods to streamline the data collection and analysis process for both students and faculty.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS Aknowledgements...........................................................................................................ii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ v Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................................... 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Energy Indicators........................................................................................ 2 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 4 E-3: Local Energy Sources........................................................................................... 4 E-4: GHG Emissions: Buildings................................................................................... 4 E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport ............................................................... 6 E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption ....................................................................... 6 Results, Discussion & Degree of Action Required........................................................... 7 E-3: Local Energy Sources........................................................................................... 7 E-4: GHG Emissions: Buildings................................................................................... 7 E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport ............................................................... 9 E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption ....................................................................... 9 Recommendations for Improving Performance on These Indicators............................... 10 E-3: Local Energy Sources......................................................................................... 11 E-4 & E-8: Building Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions ................................ 11 E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport ............................................................. 12 Evaluation of CSAF Energy Indicators.......................................................................... 13 E-3: Local Energy...................................................................................................... 13 E-4 & E-5: Intensity of GHG Emissions .................................................................... 14 E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption ..................................................................... 16 Evaluation of Overall Framework .............................................................................. 17 Summary of Recommendations for Improving the CSAF Energy Indicators .............. 20 Appendix....................................................................................................................... 22 Reference List ............................................................................................................... 23
v
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Simon Fraser University is only meeting the short-term benchmark for one of the energy indicators assessed in this report, and none of the long-term goals. Overall, the University should set clear campus-wide targets for energy consumption and GHG emissions. Below we list specific actions that the University could consider in order to improve its performance on each assessed indicator: •
Local energy sources o Give further support to the solar hot water and photovoltaic trials being conducted by facilities management;
•
Building energy and GHG emissions o Further increase energy efficiency of existing buildings by allowing payback periods longer than 10 years for investments in energy efficiency; o Maximize the use of electricity relative to fossil fuels; o Identify opportunities for behavioural change, such as making individual departments accountable for the energy they consume through the use of energy metres; o Continue to meet high efficiency standards for new buildings and seek appropriate funding to accomplish this;
•
GHG emissions from commuting traffic o Determine reasonable short and long-term benchmarks for GHG emissions intensity from commuting transport.
INTRODUCTION The production and consumption of energy has many deleterious effects on the environment. In British Columbia, the majority of electricity comes from hydro power,
1
which destroys large amounts of natural habitat. The extraction of fossil fuels also destroys habitat in addition to producing GHGs and other pollutants when combusted. As a public institution, SFU has a responsibility to minimize the negative effects associated with the energy it consumes. SFU has adopted the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework (CSAF) to assess its performance in multiple areas of sustainability, including that of energy. This report evaluates SFU’s progress towards four energy indicators: (1) E-3: local energy sources; (2) E-4: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity from campus buildings; (3) E-5: GHG emissions intensity from commuting transport; and (4) E-8: reduction in energy consumption. This report also: •
Discusses options for improving performance on these indicators;
•
Compares the indicators with other assessment frameworks;
•
Critiques the effectiveness and efficiency of the indicators in measuring sustainability;
•
Evaluates the suite of CSAF energy indicators; and
•
Assesses the effectiveness of the overall CSAF process.
OVERVIEW OF ENERGY INDICATORS CSAF Energy indicators are split into three categories: (1) energy sources, (2) intensity of use, and (3) management. These indicators are summarized in Table 2. For a more detailed description of how these indicators are measured, see Cole (2003).
2
Table 2
Overview of energy indicators
CLASS
INDICATOR
Sources
E-1: Renewable energy: buildings E-2: Renewable energy: fleet and ground vehicles E-3: Local energy sources
Intensity of Use
E-4: GHG emissions: buildings E-5: GHG emissions: commuting transport E-6: GHG emissions: fleet and ground vehicles E-7: GHG emissions: campus travel E-8: Reduction in energy consumption
Management
E-9: Energy metering E-10: Energy efficient equipment E-11: HVAC&R system control E-12: Automatic light sensors
Table 3 contains the description of the four indicators we evaluated, as well as their short-term benchmarks and long-term goals. Note that due to data constraints, we could not fully assess indicators E-5 and E-8 as specified by the CSAF (see the following Methods section for more details). The short-term benchmark and long-term goals for E-3, E-4 and E-8 are the same as in the 2005 Campus Sustainability Report (Ezaguirre & Mau, 2005). No targets have been set for E-5, GHG emissions from commuting transport. Table 3
Description of assessed energy indicators
NO.
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
E-3
Local Energy Sources
Total GJ of energy consumed annually by the campus produced within 500km of the campus as a percent of all energy consumed on campus
20%
100%
E-4
GHG emissions: buildings
Total energy (of all types) consumed (in GJ) each year for heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical systems, converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total square metres of interior built space. Note: energy used for outdoor uses (lighting, signage, etc.) should be included in the energy use calculation, but will still be assessed relative to square metres of interior space.
5% real reduction over previous year
10% real reduction over previous year
E-5
GHG emissions: commuting transport
Total energy (of all types) consumed in GJ each year for commuting transportation, converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total number of Campus Community Members (CCM) in that year.
Not set
Not set
E-8
Reduction in energy consumption
Total change in energy consumption (of all types) in GJ for building, commuting and fleet/grounds vehicle uses in current year over previous year.
0 to 5% change (i.e. no more than 5% increase)
Negative percent change (i.e. reduction made)
3
METHODS E-3: Local Energy Sources Using the methods established by Ezaguirre and Mau (2005), we considered all energy not produced at SFU to be non-local. SFU is part of a large electricity and gas distribution grid, and there is no way to determine what proportion of energy used is coming from within the allowed 500km radius. E-4: GHG Emissions: Buildings Facilities Management collects building energy consumption data at SFU.1 To calculate E-4, GHG emissions from buildings, the following data were obtained from Facilities Management: (1) energy consumption by buildings, by source (electricity, natural gas and oil); and (2) interior built space. The most recent data available were for the 2006/2007 fiscal year.2 Energy Consumption
In 2006/2007 SFU consumed 471,224 GJ of energy to operate its campus buildings. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of energy sources. Natural gas provided 57% of energy demand and is mainly used for heating. Oil provides heating when BC Hydro cuts off SFU’s interruptible gas supply, and accounted for only 1% of energy consumption. Electricity provided the remaining 42% of energy requirements, being used for a variety of end-uses including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, and computing.
1
These data are presented in annual energy management reports, available online at: http://www.sfu.ca/FacilitiesManagement/campus/ca_energy.html 2 April 2006-March 2007. 4
Oil 3,512 Electricity 198,118 Natural Gas 269,594
Figure 1
Total energy consumption for buildings by source, GJ (2006/2007)
Calculating GHG Emissions
Many calculations were made in order to estimate GHG emissions from the energy consumption data.3 Table 4 shows the results of these calculations. In 2006/2007, SFU produced an estimated 15,203 tonnes CO2equivalent from energy consumption associated with its campus buildings. Ninety percent of these emissions originated through the direct combustion of fossil fuels on campus, the vast majority of which is natural gas. The remaining ten percent of emissions were produced indirectly through the production of electricity. The data indicate that electricity in BC has much lower carbon intensity than fossil fuel sources. Table 4
Energy consumption and GHG emissions (2006/2007) ENERGY (GJ)
GHG (TONNES CO2 EQUIVALENT)
PROPORTION
PROPORTION
Electricity
198,118
0.42
1,502
0.10
Natural Gas
269,594
0.57
13,443
0.88
3,512
0.01
257
0.02
471,224
1.00
15,203
1.00
Oil Total
3
The assumptions used for these calculations are summarized in the Appendix. 5
E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport Our report marks the first time this indicator has been evaluated at SFU. To evaluate it, we began with the number of trips by transportation mode (ex: transit, private vehicle) over two one-week periods, first in 2000 and then in 2007. These data are available from the 2007 Travel Count Program (MMM Group, 2007). We extrapolated the number of trips per week by mode over the entire year for 2000 and 2007, taking into account the change in volume during the summer months. The distance each individual travelled was not available, so we assumed a constant distance per trip for each campus community member (CCM) in 2000 and 2007. The number of trips was combined with vehicle type data (proportion of old cars, new cars and light trucks), and emissions per vehicle kilometre travelled taken from the CIMS4 energy economy model. We were then able to calculate the GHG emissions per CCM (GHG intensity) of commuter traffic at SFU. Because the distance travelled is arbitrary, the GHG intensity for a given year can only be compared to other years at SFU. The validity of the comparison is contingent upon the average distance each CCM travels per trip remaining constant through time. Table 10 in the Appendix lists the assumptions we used to evaluate this indicator. E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption Fully assessing indicator E-8 requires energy consumption data by buildings, commuting traffic and fleet/grounds vehicles. Estimating energy consumption by commuting traffic was not possible for the previous year, and due to time constraints we could not calculate energy consumption by fleet/grounds vehicles. Therefore, in keeping
4
CIMS is maintained by the Energy and Materials Research Group at SFU. 6
with Ezaguirre and Mau (2005), we applied E-8 to building energy consumption only. The required data were gathered when assessing indicator E-4.
RESULTS, DISCUSSION & DEGREE OF ACTION REQUIRED E-3: Local Energy Sources Table 5 shows the result for indicator E-3. There has been no change in this indicator since it was last evaluated in 2005. It is still not possible to purchase energy that is verifiably local. There are trials of solar hot water and photovoltaic energy underway at SFU, but the scale is negligible compared to the total energy consumption of the university. If the university feels strongly about this indicator, it must reform its actions to meet the short-term benchmark. Table 5
Results for E-3: local energy sources
NO.
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
RESULT
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
E-3
Local Energy Sources
Total GJ of energy consumed annually by the campus produced within 500km of the campus as a percent of all energy consumed on campus
0%
20%
100%
E-4: GHG Emissions: Buildings Table 6 shows the indicator results for GHG intensity. In 2006/2007, the GHG intensity for campus buildings was 0.048 tonnes CO2equivalent, which represents an increase of 1.3% over the previous year. The data indicate that SFU is not meeting the short term benchmark or the long-term goal, which call for 5 and 10% reductions over the previous year, respectively. However, since the first Campus Sustainability Report in 2005 (which covered 2002/2003 energy data) GHG intensity has decreased 13%.5
5
This value should be interpreted carefully due to potentially differing assumptions about the area of interior space used in this report and those used by Ezaguirre and Mau (2005). This report assumes the 7
Table 6 NO.
E-4
Results for E-4 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Buildings
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
RESULT
GHG emissions: Buildings
Total energy (of all types) consumed (in GJ) each year for heating, cooling, ventilation, and electrical systems, converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total square metres of interior built space. Note: energy used for outdoor uses (lighting, signage, etc.) should be included in the energy use calculation, but will still be assessed relative to square metres of interior space.
+1.3% (0.048 t 2 CO2e/m )
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
5% real reduction over previous year
10% real reduction over previous year
In the last Campus Sustainability Report, Ezaguirre and Mau (2005) found that warmer temperatures in the lower mainland were reducing heating requirements at SFU, and hence influencing GHG intensity indicators. To avoid confounding changes in GHG intensity resulting from climatic shifts with changes resulting from university efforts, GHG intensity can be standardized by degree day to account for changes in annual temperature regimes.6 When the 2006/2007 data are standardized by degree-day, GHG intensity actually shows a decrease of 0.8% from the previous year. While this does not meet the targets for this indicator either, it is nonetheless important because it shows an improvement over the previous year. In any case, SFU must reform its policies on GHG emissions from buildings if it is to meet the short-term benchmark. Significant changes to existing buildings, and to the addition of new buildings, will be required to continually reduce GHG intensity over time.
larger of area serviced by natural gas or area serviced by electricity, as presented in the Facilities Management Energy Reports. 6 To standardize an indicator, it is divided by degree day (i.e. GHG/m2/DD). Degree Days = (Number of Days Below 18ºC) * (18-Average Temperature) 8
E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport Table 7 shows the result for indicator E-5. Contingent upon the validity of the assumptions we used to calculate this indicator, GHG emissions per CCM have fallen by 6% since 2000. Refer to Table 10 in the Appendix for a discussion of the assumptions. This result may be largely due to the introduction of the UPASS, and the reduction of parking space on Burnaby Mountain. Although there is no benchmark or goal for this indicator, we feel SFU should maintain its practice and policy with respect to this indicator. However, the benchmark and goal need to be developed for future assessments. Although the indicator is most sensitive to the number of people using public transit, SFU has likely used its trump card in this respect with the creation of the UPASS, an action that doubled transit ridership. More people could be using transit, but a repeat of the UPASS success is unlikely. The indicator is also sensitive to the fuel efficiency of private vehicles and buses, which are factors mostly outside the control of the University. Given these circumstances, a fair short-term benchmark would be no increase in the indicator. An ambitious long-term goal would be to reproduce the change of -6% by 2015, but there is no guarantee of success that is attributable to SFU’s actions. Table 7
Results for E-5: GHG emissions: commuting transport
NO.
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
RESULT
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
E-5
GHG emissions: commuting transport
Total energy (of all types) consumed in GJ each year for commuting transportation, converted into GHG equivalent (tonnes), and divided by total number of Campus Community Members (CCM) in that year.
-6%
Not set
Not set
E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption Indicator E-8 assesses the change in building energy intensity in the current year from the previous year. Table 8 shows that energy intensity in 2006/2007 was 1.48 9
GJ/m2, representing an increase of 2.4% from 2005/2006. Intensity of electricity use increased by 4.4%, while intensity of natural gas use increased by 0.9%.7 When corrected for degree day, intensity of energy use increased by only 0.2%. Both measures of energy intensity meet the short-term benchmark of no more than a 5% increase, but fail to meet the long-term goal of a decrease in intensity. SFU will need to reform its policies on building energy consumption if it is to continually meet the short-term benchmark over time, and eventually meet the long-term goal of reducing energy intensity. Table 8
Results for E-8: Reduction in energy consumption from buildings
NO.
INDICATOR
MEASUREMENT U NITS
RESULT
Total change in energy consumption (of all types) in GJ for buildings in current year over previous year.
+2.4%
E-8
Reduction in energy consumption
(1.48 2 GJ/m )
SHORT-TERM BENCHMARK
LONG-TERM GOAL
0 to 5% change (i.e. no more than 5% increase)
Negative percent change (i.e. reduction made)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE ON THESE INDICATORS This section outlines options SFU may consider to improve its performance on the four energy indicators evaluated in this report. Overall, SFU should set clear campuswide targets for all energy indicators. Targets should make reference to a specific date so that a clear direction exists and progress towards the target can be effectively measured. At present, little top-down direction seems to exist regarding energy consumption and GHG emissions at SFU. Clear and coordinated direction is needed if SFU is to make effective progress towards energy sustainability.
7
The increasing share of electricity consumption means that energy intensity increased to a greater extent than did GHG intensity. 10
E-3: Local Energy Sources The university could pursue the suggestions of Ezaguirre and Mau (2005), either harnessing solar energy on campus or creating research partnerships with faculty and students to produce local energy options. To a certain extent, SFU has acted on the first suggestion by initiating trials of solar hot water and photovoltaic. However, given the success of solar hot water heating at UBC (UBC, 2007a), more resources could be directed at this technology choice. E-4 & E-8: Building Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions To improve its performance on intensity of energy consumption and GHG emissions from buildings, SFU should consider the following: •
Increasing payback period for energy efficiency investments. Facilities Management has been engaged in numerous energy efficiency retrofits over the past two decades, and new buildings are quite energy efficient. Further opportunities exist to decrease energy consumption and GHG emissions through retrofits, although many of the low-cost options have already been implemented. Further efficiency gains will therefore require greater upfront capital costs, which would require the university to increase the required payback period beyond ten years.
•
Continuing to mandate high efficiency standards for new buildings. The best place to tackle energy efficiency is during the design stage of a new building. The new BC climate change plan requires that new university buildings meet LEEDGold standards. Recently completed buildings (such as TASC II) have been constructed to meet these standards but have not been certified due to the high costs involved (Ron Sue, personal communication, March 14 2008). While the provincial government has mandated that buildings be certified, it has not provided any additional funds for these requirements to be met, providing a challenge for SFU.
11
•
Maximizing the use of electricity relative to fossil fuels. The University can switch away from natural gas to electricity where possible. Electricity in BC produces very low GHG emissions, and should continue to do so because of the government’s climate change policy, which will require all additional electricity plants to produce zero net GHG emissions.
•
Identifying opportunities for behavioural change. Simple actions such as turning off lights and not leaving doors open can reduce energy consumption, and awareness of these issues is increasing. Making individual departments accountable for the energy they consume through the use of energy metres could be a way of consolidating such action.
E-5: GHG Emissions: Commuting Transport As noted above, this indicator is most sensitive to the number of people riding transit, to the emissions intensities of vehicles being used, and to the distance people travel to reach SFU. The latter two factors are essentially out of the University’s control. Differential parking rates based on the emissions intensity of vehicles could be implemented, where vehicles with lower intensities cost less to park. However this cost difference is likely to be a minor consideration when compared to the actual purchase price or operating cost of a new vehicle. In other words, the differential parking costs would probably have to be extreme in order to make a difference in the car choices of CCMs. This leaves increasing transit ridership as the only means to improve on indicator E-5. As noted in the student report by Bokowski et al. (2007), SFU could hold a referendum on the issue of including faculty and staff in the UPASS program. However, because the faculty and staff make up only 10% of the CCM (MMM Group, 2007), this would have a reduced effect compared to the introduction of the student UPASS.
12
EVALUATION OF CSAF ENERGY INDICATORS The CSAF energy indicators are supposed to help SFU assess its progress towards using energy in a sustainable manner. This section discusses the extent to which the indicators are appropriate for measuring sustainability of energy use. To inform this discussion, we contrast the CSAF indicators with those adopted by the University of British Columbia and those recommended by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).8 First, we focus on each of the four indicators evaluated in this report. We then discuss the suite of CSAF energy indicators as a whole and make recommendations on how to improve them. E-3: Local Energy This indicator did not perform well as an effective measure of sustainability because the benefits of local energy use are ambiguous. Energy transmission does cause losses, meaning more capacity and resources are needed for non-local generation to provide the same amount of energy service as local generation. As well, the land disturbances of energy transmission infrastructure can fragment ecosystems. We assume it is for these reasons that local energy is a part of the CSAF energy indicators. However, there are benefits of non-local generation. First, energy conversion can be more efficient if it happens near an energy resource rather than where it will be consumed, such as near a coal deposit rather than in a city. Second, non-local energy production could presumably occur in a less environmentally sensitive location, or where it has a lesser effect on human health or welfare.
8
The GRI has developed the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, a widely used sustainability reporting framework available online at: www.globalreporting.org 13
The local energy indicator is also inefficient as a measure of SFU’s level of sustainability. Because of the way gas and electricity are distributed in British Columbia, it is impossible to actually measure the indicator. A proper evaluation of the indicator would require changing the tariff and distribution structure of both BC Hydro and Terasen Gas. We recommend removing the local energy indicator from the SFU CSAF. The indicator is not an effective or efficient measure of SFU’s sustainability, and other institutions such as UBC and the GRI do not use a similar indicator. The benefits of the indicator, namely more efficient use of energy and perhaps greater use of renewable energy, are captured in other CSAF energy indicators. E-4 & E-5: Intensity of GHG Emissions Reducing GHG emissions is a critical step towards mitigating climate change and hence towards energy sustainability. All of the CSAF GHG indicators measure intensity, not total amount of emissions. Intensity-based indicators are useful because they allow for comparison as the University grows, or among universities of different sizes. However, an improvement in intensity does not necessarily mean progress towards sustainability, because overall growth can outweigh efficiency gains. For example, although SFU’s GHG intensity remained essentially the same between 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, absolute GHG emissions rose by 8%. Monitoring absolute change of GHG emissions is therefore essential to assess progress towards energy sustainability, and is recommended by the GRI.
14
E-4: GHG emissions: buildings
Due to insufficient data (discussed in the Methods section) it is not yet possible to estimate what proportion of SFU’s GHG emissions come from buildings, although it is likely that it is the majority.9 For this reason, coupled with ease of measurement, indicator E-4 is a prime indicator of university GHG emissions. UBC assesses the equivalent of indicator E-4, and actually had the same GHG intensity as SFU in 2006/2007 (UBC, 2007a). UBC also has a target to reduce criteria air contaminants from building emissions, as recommended by the GRI. Considering all the negative impacts associated with energy use (including GHGs, criteria air contaminants and other impacts) is necessary to assess progress towards energy sustainability. E-5: GHG emissions: commuting transport
Like indicator E-4, E-5 also suffers from the weaknesses of an intensity based indicator. Unless improvement against this indicator is large, the absolute amount of emissions being released may continue to grow if the university is also growing. Another issue with this indicator is how effective it is in measuring SFU’s progress towards sustainability. SFU has limited control over how people travel and where they come from, yet this indicator makes the university responsible for the resulting emissions. These sorts of indirect commuting emissions are considered an optional measure by the GRI, however UBC does include them in its sustainability reporting. Regardless, we find it difficult to justify measuring sustainability at SFU with an indicator that cannot be entirely within the power of the university to change.
9
UBC estimates that 73% of its GHG emissions are associated with the production of heat and electricity for its campus buildings (UBC, 2007c) 15
Furthermore, commuting emissions is also a difficult, hence inefficient indicator to measure. The problem lies in the fact that it takes extensive survey work to determine the distance travelled for each transportation mode. UBC did conduct this type of research, however there is an entire agency at the university that is responsible for monitoring the changes in traffic and the resulting emissions. This kind of study would be very costly to replicate at SFU, although a comparison to past years at SFU, such as the one in this report, can be done without further data. Because of the lack of control over the indicator, and the difficulty of measurement, we recommend SFU adopt a different indicator to assess commuting traffic. A suitable replacement could be the proportion of people not using single occupancy vehicles to travel to SFU. This indicator is easy to measure, and an improvement in the indicator would approximate a reduction of commuting GHG intensity. Most importantly, through a partnership with Translink and a decrease in the supply of parking on Burnaby Mountain, the university would have some control over this indicator. E-8: Reduction in Energy Consumption Indicator E-8 recognizes that all forms of energy (including renewable sources) are inherently associated with some level of negative impacts. Therefore, reducing energy consumption of all forms represents some degree of progress towards energy sustainability. This indicator should be considered together with indicators E-1 to E-3 (energy sources) to gain a more complete picture of energy sustainability. The CSAF approach can be contrasted with that of UBC, which does not have an indicator similar to E-8. Instead, UBC evaluates the proportion of energy which comes
16
from renewable sources (the equivalent of indicator E-1). This method recognizes that it is not energy use itself that is a problem, but the impacts associated with specific forms of energy, particularly non-renewable sources. However, renewable energy sources also create negative impacts (for example, the displacement of natural habitat by the flooding of valleys for hydro power). Evaluating both total energy consumption and the source of energy is therefore the ideal way of measuring progress towards energy sustainability. Finally, this indicator was originally intended to measure not only building energy consumption, but also energy consumption by commuting transport and fleet/grounds vehicles. The latter was not assessed in this report due to time limitations, although it was previously assessed by Ezaguirre and Mau (2005). Estimating energy consumption by commuting transport is much more challenging, as was discussed in the evaluation of indicator E-5. Therefore, we recommend omitting energy consumption by commuting transport from indicator E-8, reduction in energy consumption. Evaluation of Overall Framework Decision making
The CSAF does not examine the extent to which it contributes to decision making. Assessing progress towards sustainability may be of little use if the decisionmaking bodies of the University are not guided by the results. For example, it appears that in the building energy and GHG sector, there have been efforts to conserve energy and improve fossil fuel efficiencies for some time now. Reporting goes back to the 1990’s, before the CSAF had been developed, so the CSAF may not be adding anything new in this regard. Indeed, it seems many decisions in the energy section are not making use of these assessments, especially in terms of short-term benchmarks and long-term goals. 17
Streamlining the Process
By using students to assess sustainability indicators, the CSAF is a low-cost initiative. However, this approach does have its disadvantages relative to a full sustainability department (such as exists at UBC). Overall, the CSAF is very time intensive for both students, who are not familiar with the process, and for staff who must help students with data collection. Methods of streamlining the data collection and calculation process should be considered. We suggest the use of standardized excel spreadsheets with previously collected data. In addition to making the process more efficient, such measures should also improve consistency in reporting. Unfortunately, it will always be difficult for the CSAF to compete with a staffed sustainability department which is integrated into the decision making hierarchy of the University. Targets
At SFU, the targets for building energy and GHG intensity are a sustained proportional decline (a set percentage reduction per year). Unfortunately, reducing energy or GHG intensity by a given percentage per year may not be possible to maintain over the long term. SFU targets can be contrasted with those of UBC, which specify a specific reduction in intensity by 2010 (UBC, 2007b). Specifying a deadline provides a more realistic vision and allows for progress to be better measured, although UBC’s short timeframe does not identify what changes are desired beyond 2010. Process versus Outcome
The CSAF energy indicators are all measures of outcomes: energy used, GHGs emitted, and monitoring devices installed. However, these outcomes are a result of various decision making processes, whether they involve the adoption of a policy or the redirection of resources. While the current energy indicators may give a clear picture of
18
where SFU lies in achieving sustainability, they do nothing to indicate what is driving the change. In fact, in the early stages of this change, SFU is performing poorly against the indicators. The key question is how performance can be improved, but the CSAF does not help answer this question. It has no indicators of process changes that may eventually result in outcome changes. In most of the interviews we conducted for this report, the interviewees expressed the need for both a stronger mandate and additional resources to make progress against the indicators. Several people expressed the feeling that without these changes, they would be hard pressed to collect the data for the CSAF, let alone make any changes that improve performance against the indicators. Indicators of process changes in decision making and resource allocation could help gauge where SFU lies in its capacity to improve, in addition to actual improvements within the CSAF. Attributing results
Indicators may improve or deteriorate over time for a number of reasons. For example, building energy intensity could improve due to retrofit programs or due to warmer temperatures. Identifying which portion of observed change results from actual efforts is an important component of measuring success. For this reason, the GRI recommends indicators describing initiatives to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions, together with indicators measuring the results of these initiatives. This would also increase the coverage of process changes within the suite of indicators. Unfortunately, attributing energy or emissions reductions to a specific policy may not always be possible. One area in which this report attempted to identify the cause of an indicator change was with ambient temperature. In addition to presenting raw data on building
19
energy and GHG intensity change, this report standardized these indicators by degree day to account for temperature variation. Correcting by degree day allows for comparison over time as temperatures fluctuate, and among universities in different climatic regions. It is important to consider how temperature variations may be affecting indicators, although absolute change in the indicator is also important. These indicators (E-3 and E8) should therefore continue to be calculated according to both methods. Summary of Recommendations for Improving the CSAF Energy Indicators We make the following recommendations to improve the CSAF energy indicators and to investigate and improve the overall CSAF process: •
Decision making o Examine the extent to which the CSAF contributes to decision making, and identify opportunities to strengthen sustainability planning within the University;
•
Streamlining the process o Investigate methods to streamline the data collection and analysis process for both students, staff and relevant faculty;
•
Target setting o Set targets which require a given intensity or level to be reached by a specific date, including a long-term schedule of change beyond 2010;
•
Changes to indicators o Assess total energy consumption and GHG emissions in addition to intensity of use indicators; o Discontinue the assessment of E-3: local energy; o Replace E-5, GHG emissions from commuting traffic, with a controllable and easily measured indicator such as the proportion of people travelling by single occupancy vehicles;
20
o Omit energy consumption by commuting transport from indicator E-8, reduction in energy consumption; o Assess criteria air contaminants in addition to GHG emissions; and o Attempt to attribute changes in indicators to university policy or action where possible; or o Develop an indicator of changes in mandate and resources directed towards achieving the CSAF goals.
21
APPENDIX Table 9
Assumptions – E-4: GHG emissions from buildings
Issue
Interior built space
ASSUMPTIONS The larger of (1) interior built space serviced by electricity or (2) interior built space serviced by natural gas heating is used: 2
2006/2007: 319,125 m
2
2005/2006: 298,898 m
Electricity
The majority of electricity in BC comes from hydroelectric sources, which produces a very small amount of CO2 emissions. To calculate CO2 emissions from hydropower, the following is assumed: 0.0273 kg CO 2/kWh To calculate GHG emissions from natural gas consumption, the following is assumed:
Natural Gas
49,680 t CO 2/GJ 0.52 t N 2O/GJ 1.1 t CH4/GJ To calculate GHG emissions from oil consumption, the following is assumed: 3
0.025853 m /GJ Oil
3
2830 kg CO 2/m
0.013 kg N 2O/m 0.026 kg CH4/m
3
3
To calculate CO2 equivalent for each GHG, the following is assumed: Global Warming Potential
CO 2 – 1 N 2O – 310 CH 4 – 21
Source of CO2 conversion factors: (NRCan, 2001)
Table 10
Assumptions – E-7: GHG emissions from commuting
Issue
ASSUMPTIONS
Summer traffic volume
The volume of summer traffic is 30% the volume of fall and spring traffic. The result that GHG intensity in 2007 is less than in 2000 is not sensitive to changes in this assumption
CCM
The residents of UniverCity (approximately 2000) were included in the CCM count. Although some are faculty, staff, or students, and therefore already in the CCM number, many are not, and their commuting is being counted as a part of the wider SFU traffic.
Bus type and emissions intensity
All busses are standard diesel. We determined that bus emissions intensity was 1.2E tGHG/vkt. The result was also insensitive to anything less than a tripling of this assumption.
Weekend bus traffic volume
The weekend bus traffic volume is 20% of the weekday volume. The result that GHG intensity in 2007 is less than in 2000 is also insensitive to this assumption
Vehicle emissions intensities
All private vehicles were assumed to have standard emissions intensities that were the same as in 2000. This means we did not account for the slight increase in hybrid and high efficiency vehicles. Future analyses of this indicator should consider that this may become an invalid assumption
Distance per CCM trip
The distance was arbitrarily set to one 1 km. Again, this means the value of the indicator can only be compared against the value from SFU in other years, and it is not informative on its own. Distance per trip may have fallen due to the opening of satellite SFU campuses in Vancouver and Surrey.
-3
22
REFERENCE LIST Bokowski, G., White, D., Pacifico, A., Talbot, S., DuBelko, A., Phipps, J., Utley, C., Mui, T., & Lewis, G. (2007). Towards Campus Climate Neutrality: Simon Fraser University’s Carbon Footprint. Retrieved March 30, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sfu.ca/sustainability/pdf/Towards%20Campus%20Climate%20Neutrality. pdf Cole, L. (2003). Assessing sustainability on Canadian university campuses: development of a campus sustainability assessment framework. Master’s Thesis. Colwood, BC: Royal Roads University. Ezaguirre, J., & Mau, P. (2005). Energy. In J. Brahney (Ed.), Campus Sustainability Report, Fall 2005 (pp. 47-72). MMM Group. (2007, November). Simon Fraser University Travel Count Program: September 2007. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). (2001). Guide for computing CO2 emissions related to energy use. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://cetcvarennes.nrcan.gc.ca/fichier.php/codectec/En/2001-66/2001-66e.pdf Simon Fraser University (SFU). (2007). Energy Management Reports. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sfu.ca/FacilitiesManagement/campus/ca_energy.html University of British Columbia (UBC). (2007a). The UBC Sustainability Report 20062007. Retrieved March 19, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://sustain.ubc.ca/pdfs/ar/UBC-Sustainability_Report_2006-2007-final.pdf University of British Columbia (UBC). (2007b). The Sustainability Strategy: Vancouver and Okanogan Campuses 2006-2010. Retrieved March 19, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://sustain.ubc.ca/pdfs/ia/UBC_Sustainability_Strategy_2007.pdf University of British Columbia (UBC). (2007c). Carbon Neutrality and UBC: A First Glance. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/seedslibrary/files/Carbon%20Neutrality%20&%20UBC%2 0A%20First%20Glance.pdf
23
