Green Cents White Paper 1126

8/3/2019 Green Cents White Paper 1126

1/41

USF Sustainability:

Green Returns or RedInk?

Team Green Cents

Marisa Billetz

Teneseia Lewis

Jamie Galvan Brian Stringfellow

Professor Tobienne November 26th, 2011


2/41

Table of Contents

1. Introduction2. Narrowing of focus3. What is sustainable & green building4. How are sustainable and green projects determined at USF

5. Financial decisions for USF sustainable and green projects6. Measuring up: Do sustainable & green building projects deliver?7. Lessons Learned8. Conclusions9. Executive Summary10.Works Cited11.Annotated Bibliography


3/41

1. Introduction

The University of South Florida has a rich tradition of sustainable programsto benefit the university and community at large. In fact, the university has

had recycling and water conservation programs dating back to the 1980s andhas had targeted sustainable goals and practices in place as far back as the1995 USF Tampa Master Plan.1 More recent actions include the 2006 hiring ofan Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Strategic initiatives witha focus of identifying campus and community sustainability and the signing ofthe American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment byPresident Judy Genshaft.1 These events culminated by the July 2009 establish-ment of The Office of Sustainability with the mission of being the controlling

entity for all sustainability related activities for all USF campuses and pro-grams.

The strategic goals of The Office of Sustainability are:1

Strengthening and supporting integrated and synergistic interdisciplinaryresearch across disciplinary, departmental, college and campus boundaries.

Building a sustainable campus environment at USF.

Constructing an up-to-date clearinghouse of information about all the sus-tainability engagement activities currently occurring at USF and encourag-ing and rewarding faculty, staff, and student engagement in sustainability ini-tiatives.

Creating a sustainable environment that supports an expanded and im-proved teaching and research mission, a more engaged residential commu-

nity, and a university-based global village.


4/41

To achieve its mission, the Office ofSustainability is led by a Directorwith the assistance of an AssistantDirector, Administrative Specialists,graduate assistants, and several un-dergrad assistants. The office re-ports to the Director of the PatelSchool of Global Sustainability andoversees the Sustainability InitiativeSteering Committee as well as theStudent Green Energy Fund. Thesteering committee and energy

fund develop programs, events, andinitiatives that help influence andshape university policy and curricu-lum. (See Fig. 1)

One of the programs the Office ofSustainability sponsors is the Sus-

tainability Champions Program.This program highlights outstandingfaculty and staff who demonstrate astrong commitment to making theUSF campus and community acleaner, greener place to live andwork.2 The office also sponsor theSustainability Mentors programwhich recognizes faculty and staffwho seek to encourage others asmentors to students and those fac-ulty and staff who provide exempla-ry mentorship.

Figure 1


5/41

There are many initiatives under way at this time. The studentinitiatives include projects by official formal university groups like theStudent Government Association, which in 2010 created the positionof Chief Sustainability Officer, to the Housing and Residential Educa-

tion organization which recently started recycling programs for theresidence halls. There are also a multitude of recognized clubs allwith the aim of improving sustainability on campus and in the com-munity. There are also initiatives under way for specific areas of cam-pus responsibilities including designed environment, academics, trans-portation, water, energy, recycling and waste management, and green

building.

As previously mentioned, the Student Energy Green Fund isoverseen by the Office of Sustainability. This fund was established tomeet the requirements of the Climate Committee and to providefunding for student projects intended to lower energy usage only onthe USF Tampa campus. Approved project funding occurs during thefall and spring semester; students and staff of the Tampa Campus can

apply. Projects can also be submitted in the interim for less than fiftythousand dollars and will be funded if excess program funds are

available and they will return a sufficient return on investment.3


6/41

The guidelines for submitted Student Green Energy Fund projects are:3

Proposals must address energy savings and/or renewable energy technologies thatdemonstrably lower energy consumption on the USF Tampa campus.

Proposals must include an educational component that informs the USF communityabout the results of the project.

All relevant university paperwork (e.g., Space Impact Request, Event Request, etc.)must be completed and approved. All proposed projects must have immediate application (i.e., should not be "pure" re-

search). Budgets cannot include salaries or stipends for USF employees but can include sti-

pends for undergraduate students and salaries (but not tuition) for graduate assis-tants.

Proposals must demonstrate that funding alternatives (such as fees, grants, etc.) arenot available/applicable, and all proposals and benefitting units must comply with thereporting requirements of the American College and University Presidents' Climate

Commitment and theSustainability Tracking,Assessment, and RatingSystem. Proposals shouldspecify or estimate thereturn on investment(eg, KWH reductions,GHG emissions reduc-

tions, and/or cost sav-ings realized by the in-stitution). Project manage-ment teams should in-clude a combination offaculty/staff and stu-

dents. Projects should seek internal/external funding matches or cost sharing with other

units. Proposals should show how the projects align with the USF Strategic Plan and/or

Master Plan.Proposals should demonstrate the sustainability of the project after the budget periodhas ended (e.g., a statement from the benefitting unit committing to maintain the projectafter the budget period has ended).

Projects should enhance student success and contribute to institutional sustainability.


7/41

The initiatives previously mentioned are for the Tampa Campusexclusively. The Saint Petersburg Campus is focused on sustainabilityand green programs as well, but based on its size and funding its pro-grams pale in comparison. Instead of an entire staff under a full

fledge college department the Campuss sustainability efforts fall toAshok K. Dhingra, DPA and his Administrative and Finance Staff.Campus coordination of student efforts is led by a single person, Da-vid ONeill, director of the Student Government EnvironmentalStewardship and Sustainability office. Resources are so limited thatthe Campus is unable to fund a sustainability website.

Schools in similar size and considered peers to the Saint Peters-burg Campus such as The University of Albany and The University ofSouth Alabama both show little information in regards to sustainabil-ity and green efforts. On the other hand, Colorado State Universityshows a considerable effort. CSU has a complete website dedicatedto their green initiatives. They have been pioneers in becoming agreen university. Their scientists created the world's first engineeredsolar heated and cooled building. CSU was the first university in the

world to obtain a LEED CI (Commercial Interior) Certification. Col-orado State was one of the first universities in the country to offergreen power as an option to the students living on campus. CSU es-tablished the nation's first emissions-control program. They use elec-tric and hybid electric vehicles on campus where ever possible. CSUis also home to a number of student organizations that provide op-portunities for students to gain awareness, involvement, and career

preparation related to environmental issues.


8/41

In comparison and on a size similar to the Tampa Campus, theUniversity of Florida be-lieves that students arethe heart of the sustain-

ability movement. Theystrongly encourage stu-dents to become in-volved in one of theirgreen organizations orto volunteer in the uni-versity's efforts to cre-ate a sustainable cam-pus. UF's green effortsdate back to 1994 whenthey joined 310 univer-sities world-wide insigning the TalloiresDeclaration, pledgingsupport to reduce envi-

ronmental degradationand natural resourcedepletion. Their Officeof Sustainability was es-tablished in 2000 and in2001 UF adopted LEEDcriteria for design and

construction for all ma-jor new constructionand renovation projects. Since 1994 UF has worked hard to plan formore comprehensive recycling and cradle-to-cradle efforts and tolaunch a new energy efficiency campaign.


9/41

Because of the concern about sustainability and the responsibili-ties of the Climate Committee, the University is annually audited bythe independent Sustainable Endowments Institute. The results of theaudit are published in the College Sustainability Report Card. This re-

port monitors the progress made by campus and endowment associ-ated activities and programs at its subscribing institutions, and pro-vides the opportunity to measure therating and progress of sustainabilityprograms versus other universitiesand colleges.

According to the Sustainable En-dowments Institute, the report cardfocuses on policies and practices in

the following areas:4

Administration Climate Change & Energy Food & Recycling

Green Building Student Involvement Transportation Endowment Transparency Investment Priorities

Shareholder Engagement


10/41

For each practice area, the report card has a detailed list of subareas that are examined and are called indicators. Each indicator hasa score that can be achieved based on achievement of the indicatorrequirements. Each indicator (there are 48) is equally weighted in the

total score, which is added up to compute a schools sustainabilityGPA.4 An unusual twist is that schools were given the ability toachieve extra credit just as in the classroom setting; this extra creditwas given to schools that demonstrated innovative solutions to satis-fying indicators.

The practice areas are: Administration, Climate Change and En-ergy, Food & Recycling, Green Building, Student Involvement, Trans-portation, Endowment Transparency, and Investment Priorities. As anexample here is the practice area for transportation and its indica-tors.


11/41

The Institute provides informative and useful tools on its web-site located at www.greenreportcard.org. It allows one to see howan institutions score has changed over time and to compare itsgrade versus other schools. For instance USFs grade has went

from a D+ in 2008 up to a C- in 2009 and has done progressivelybetter and reached B+ for 2011. Much like in football though, SouthFlorida continues to show outstanding growth the University ofFlorida Gainesville shows little change. Its score is still close to its in-itial 2008 score of B-, only achieving the same score as USF in thecurrent year. 4
http://www.greenreportcard.org/http://www.greenreportcard.org/http://www.greenreportcard.org/


12/41

When looking at Florida State University its overall score haswent down between 2010 and 2011 . They went from a grade of B-to a C, which indicates not only a lack of progress but regression. Inreviewing their sustainability website, it appears that they do not

have the same level of documentation and focus compared to theUniversity of Florida and the University of South Florida Tampa cam-pus.

Although the Saint Petersburg campus does not have a report card,we looked to see the results of its peers. Colorado State Universityhas outstanding scores on the report card. There green efforts canare reflected in their dedication to green initiatives. They have beenpioneers in becoming a green university, in spite of their relativesmall size. Their scientists created the world's first engineered solarheated and cooled building. CSU was the first university in the worldto obtain a LEED Commercial Interior Certification. The Universitywas also one of the first universities in the country to offer greenpower as an option to the students living on campus. CSU also es-tablished the nation's first emissions-control program. They use elec-

tric and hybrid-electric vehicles on campus where ever possible. CSUis also home to a number of student organizations that provide op-portunities for students to gain awareness, involvement, and careerpreparation related to environmental issues.

Comparatively the University of South Alabama comes in at theother end of the scale. They have an overall score of a D in every

year reported. We were unable to find out any information aboutthe universitys green movement and could not locate any website ordocuments other than the individual indicator results.


13/41

2. Narrowing of focus

As has been discovered, the Universitys Office of Sustainability is re-sponsible for the management and operation of a wide ranging num-ber of programs, initiatives, and events. It is also responsible for co-ordinating the both the Sustainability Initiative Steering Committeeand the Student Green Energy Fund. It also plays a key universityrole as the principle department for the overall coordination of in-formation used by the Sustainable Endowments Institute to com-plete each years College Sustainability Report Card.

Given there is such a breadth and depth to the Universitys sus-

tainability efforts we felt it impossible to examine the program as awhole and to be able to accurately validate and determine the Uni-versitys efforts given the time and scope of the project. We alsoclosely examined the criteria used by the College Sustainability ReportCardto determine what similarities existed between the report andthe Universitys efforts; we were looking to see if there was a naturalalignment between the two.


14/41

In completing our review of available information we observedthat there was not a significant reference to the overall financial im-pact of the Universitys sustainability programs, initiatives, and events,nor did we find any financial scoring system that compared net finan-

cial gains or losses to potential environmental improvements. Theonly mention of financial metrics found in our review of the availableinformation was in the Student Green Energy Fund, which requires ameasured Return on Investment. The return as utilized by the fund isthe number of kilowatt hours saved, which excludes any cost associ-ated with neither acquisition, implementation, and disposal costs. Itdoes include or mention a minimum Return on Investment for sub-mission. It also ignores any consideration for a payback period, netpresent value calculation using a prescribed hurdle rate. Further,when examining the College Sustainability Report Cardwe found no in-stances of financial metrics as a grading factor, nor mentioned as be-ing a measurement tool considered as part of the assessment pro-cess.


15/41

Why did we look for any potential financial considerations aspart of the either the Universitys efforts or the scorecards criteria?

Consider the following: The average cost of tuition has increasedover one hundred twelve percent since the year 2000 but food pric-es have only increased approximately ten percent. Healthcare bycontrast has increased approximately sixty eight percent.5 As a majorconcern of the project team the tuition at University of South Flori-da increased fifteen percent this year. The average 2010 USF gradu-ate toted not only a diploma but also over twenty one thousand dol-

lars in college debt.6

All of this is occurring while the nation strug-gles with the second greatest depression and college debt has re-placed credit card debt as the largest source of consumer indebted-ness.


16/41

As college students during these trying times we thought itwould be prescient to explore the financial impacts of the Universi-tys sustainability programs and initiatives. We wanted to examinethe financial impacts; both up-front costs and net cost savings that

the sustainability program is having on the University as well as theeffect on tuition both in the near and long term.

But once again, given the size of the sustainability efforts itwould be impossible to examine the financial impacts for sustainabil-ity impacts as a whole so we have narrowed our focus to the finan-cial impacts of the Universitys green building initiatives. To furthernarrow the scope, we have chosen to examine the financial impactsof the recently completed Student and Technology building and theStudent Multipurpose building which is currently under construction.We selected these buildings for several reasons. First, the Studentand Technology building is the St. Petersburg Campus first Gold Cer-tified LEED certified building. Second, both buildings are on ourcampus, and are major landmarks.


17/41

3. What is Sustainable and Green Building?

To understand green building one must understand what en-compasses the entirety of green building; who determines what are

considered green buildings, what constitutes a green building, andwhat is the process to achieve green building certification.

In the United States sustainable and green building certificationfalls under the jurisdiction of the United States Green BuildingCouncil, or USGBC. It is a non-profit organization based in Washing-ton, D. C. Its mission is to ensure that the country achieves a sustain-able future by changing the design and construction of buildings in anenvironmentally friendly manner. According to their website, theyenvision buildings and communities that create an sustainable and re-generative environment; all within a generation.7 One of the keyprograms of the USGBC is the LEED building program used tomeasure the sustainability and green aspects of buildings; be it eithernew construction of significant retrofitting or an existing structure.Another key program is education in the design, construction, and

operation of buildings in a green manner.7 It also provides advocacyin achieving a sustainable and green future within a generation.7


18/41

The sustainable and green program administered by theUSGBC is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Designcertification system, or LEED.8 According to the LEED website:LEED provides building owners and operators with a frame-

work for identifying and implementing practical and measurablegreen building design, construction, operations and maintenancesolutions.8 It also provides a rating system established by vol-unteers across many facets of the building and construction vo-cations. This rating system is applicable to all types of buildingsand construction projects ranging from single family homes tolarge commercial office space. It also includes the retrofitting of

buildings.

As part of the LEED program nine key performance areas

are measured:9

Sustainable SiteWater EfficiencyEnergy & Atmosphere

Materials & ResourcesIndoor Environmental QualityLocations & LinkagesAwareness & EducationInnovation in Design

Regional Priority

After examining the nine performance areas, the project is is-sued a LEED grade. The grade levels are on a hundred pointbasis with certification going from lowest rank of Certified to

Silver, Gold, and Platinum.10


19/41


20/41


21/41

Projects are submitted to the USGBC for evaluation. However,not all projects that add to the sustainability of the University or lo-cal community will necessarily quality for as a LEED project and theLEED program provides guidelines to access whether a project is a

good fit for the program. The certification process is as follows:

There are quite a large number of completed LEED buildings oncollege campuses today. As of this writing there are already nine hun-dred fifteen LEED higher education projects either completed or inprocess at this time.11 A local example of a completed project is theHillsborough Community College Ybor Campus Student Service

Center.


22/41

According to the Architects Hunton Brady, The building wasdesigned to meet USGBC LEED Gold Certification and includes alarge number of sustainable features, such as light pollution reduc-tion, double paned windows, low-flow plumbing, preferred parking

for energy efficient cars, occupancy sensors, regionally manufacturedmaterials with low VOCs, and maximizing daylight.12


23/41

Floridas first Platinum level college or university building has al-so recently been completed by Florida Atlantic University. The Uni-versitys Engineering and Computer Science Center was completedin the summer of 2011.


24/41

The University is doing its part in the area of green building aswell as it has completed two LEED Gold Certified buildings to date:The Dr. Kiran C. Patel Center for Global Solutions on the TampaCampus and the Science and Technology Building on the Saint Pe-

tersburg campus. Other LEED buildings projects that are underwayare the Interdisciplinary Science Building and Wellness and NutritionCenter on the Tampa Campus, the Multipurpose Student Center onthe Saint Petersburg Campus and the USF Polytechnic Phase I, onthe Lakeland Campus. The reason that building programs are beingconstructed to the LEED Gold Certified level is to improve the cam-pus and community and on the Tampa Campus to fulfill a require-ment of the College Sustainability Report Card, which requires this level

of certification to achieve the highest grade.

To achieve its sustainable and green building goals the Universi-ty has taken many steps. They have undertaken major renovationsthat include replacing roofs with higher insulation values and in-creased reflectivity, lowering energy needs and costs. It has also de-signing a system to remotely manage building energy management in-

cluding the individual metering of electricity and water use. It is alsoestablishing standards for all building materials to be used to ensurethat they are green and sustainable.13 These efforts have greatly im-proved the Universitys College Sustainability Report Cardgreen build-ing grade as the grade has went from the letter F in 2008 to its cur-rent year rating of the letter A.


25/41

4. How are sustainable and green projects determined at USF

Sustainable and green building projects primarily fall under theeach universitys Physical Campus Master Plan, which is part of each

campuss five year Strategic Plan, which in turn is part of the system-wide Strategic Plan. The Physical Campus Master Plan lays out pro-jected new building projects and renovations needed for the nextseven years and is based meeting space and sustainability require-ments as well as projected funding levels.

As pointed out by the Tampa Campuss Assistant Director Facil-ities Planning and Construction Barbara Donerly,Sustainability is

evaluated within the context of the three legged stool; addressingsocial, environmental, and economic aspects.

New building and renovation projects are financed by universitysourced funds, grants, or a combination of the two. Grants can befrom private companies, local, state, or federal agencies. An exampleof a building project that was a combination of university, federal, and

private funding is the new Science and Technology building on theSaint Petersburg Campus, which was funded by the university, federalgrants, and a grant from Florida Progress Energy. 18


26/41

A critical aspect of the Physical Campus Maser Plan is the Uni-versity not only needs to meet its internal sustainability and greengoals, but has to meet state mandated sustainability requirements as

well. The State of Florida requires that all new construction projectsbe completed to LEED certified Silver levels, which has caused somecomplexities. As with many standards, the LEED building standardscontinue to change over time as revisions to the requirements aremade. These standards change based on changes in current availabletechnologies and practices and what the thinking is about upcomingtechnologies and practices. Each revision then reflects the most re-cent views on what is possible in future building construction.18

A complication arises as buildings that may have been in the de-sign and then building stages for a significant period of time and un-der a different set of LEED standards must be certified to the mostrecent standards in accordance to the state mandate. This not onlyleads to a time and complexity issue but a cost issue as well. Fund-ing for a project may have been allocated well over three to four

years before the certification process may begin and the universitymust deal with potential cost overruns if changes to the LEED re-quirements have been significant.


27/41

The key financial measurement tool used to evaluate is payback

period.18

Typically the timeframe considered for payback is five years.As previously mentioned, building and remodeling projects have typi-cally been approved many years in advance to actual design and con-struction so there will always be changes that need to be made. Thisprocess is complicated by the fact that building project is not as sim-ple as taking something out and putting something else in. A buildingproject is comprised of many smaller projects that come tougher to

produce a unified result; it is just like baking a cake but on a muchgrander scale. Because of this the facilities staff is looking at theoverall impact one change may have on an entire project and howthis change may impact the overall balance between cost and sus-tainability. The department also looks to balance the cost of changes;can it offset a cost increase in one area with a reduction in anotherwithout impacting Sustainability or LEED certification level.

5. The Role of Financial Measures in Choosing Sustainable andGreen Building Projects


28/41

The facilities department even looks for ways to save costs onprojects if possible. At the Saint Petersburg campus they try to avoidprojects that utilize the cutting edge, or according to Assistant Di-rector Facilities Saint PetersburgJohn Trecastelli, bleeding edge,

which may have promise in being more cost effective or sustainablein the future but do not have a proven track record in real worlduse. The last thing his department wants to see is something thatcannot be effectively utilized for an extended period of time in acost efficient and reliable fashion given the limited resources the uni-versity. He mentioned an example that there are many new hightechnology systems to manage and monitor electricity and other

utility usage throughout the entire campus. However, these systemspromise savings but these savings exclude the costs associated withconversion and training. According to Trecastelli, a good example ofleading edge but not bleeding edge technology would be the replace-ment of the parking garage lights with LED lights. LED lights aremore efficient, but have been historically expensive. As the supply ofLED lights starts to increase, prices are coming down and getting po-tential project prices closer to a reasonable payback period. 18


29/41

6. Measuring up: Do Sustainable & Green building projects deliver

One of the major claims of going with sustainable and green

building programs is that they save energy costs versus traditional

construction. To statistically back up this claim, in 2006 the USGBCcommissioned the New Buildings Institute to verify that green build-

ings saved energy versus their standard built counterparts for both

site use energy and source use energy. Site use energy is the cost of

electricity to either light or control temperature at the building site.

The measurement for this is the utility bill that shows a kilowatt usage

and costs. The primary energy is the fuel used to eventually generateelectricity while source energy is primary energy and any losses due

to inefficiencies (no power generation source is one hundred percent

efficient and has parasitic losses so you do not get one hundred per-

cent out of what you put in.) as well as transportation costs to the fi-

nal usage site. This is then converted into secondary energy which is

the final product for use and it is either electricity or something used

for temperature control. For instance, a university may have a central

steam generation plant, but that steam has transportation and efficien-

cy losses as it makes it way to the building to be used. When that

steam reaches a building it can be fed through a series of radiators for

a source of heat or may be fed to a turbine to generate electricity. A

ratio of primary energy to secondary energy is calculated based in pri-

mary energy units and is called the source-site ratio. The higher the

ratio the more efficient a fuel source is. The most efficient energy

source is power off of the local electrical power grid. One interesting

fact is that solar is no more efficient than any other power source.14


30/41

In 2008, the New Buildings Institute (NBI) completed the studyand issued a final report stating that LEED certified commercialbuildings used twenty five to thirty percent less power than othercommercial buildings on average for both site and source energy. In

a review of the study several issues were raised.First, the data relied on self-reporting of the green building siteand source use. One would expect that individuals responsible forproviding this data would ensure that expected savings had achievedtargets or had exceeded them. There was no third party verificationof submitted responses. Further, the study used the median energyused for LEED commercial buildings and compared it to the averageenergy used for all commercial buildings. A median is the data pointthat is exactly in the center of all samples whereas the mean is a cal-culated weighted average for all buildings in the sample. Based onthe skewness of the data the median may be lower than the mean, soit is imperative to be consistent in data points used for comparison.15

The most critical point raised against the study was how meanenergy intensity was calculated. Mean energy intensity is intended to

show how much energy is used per a given unit and is a reflection ofefficiency. In the study the total energy used by each building wassummed together and then divided by the total number of buildings.By using the total number of buildings, the metric ignores the impactof the variation in energy used between large and small buildings.This is intuitive as a larger building (higher square footage) will havehigher energy usage, and due to its size would most likely more diffi-cult to make efficient. (Imagine making a single family home efficientversus a campus library.)


31/41

When the energy intensity was recalculated using square footagethe results were quite different. When measuring source energy, thegreen commercial building average was not lower than the overallcommercial average so primary energy uses were not lower which

would indicate greenhouse gases are not being reduced; the reductionof greenhouse gasses is a primary goal of green building programs.When the site energy average was recalculated on a square foot basis,the average savings was half of what the study had calculated; it endedup between twelve and fifteen percent. This would point to a need toreexamine the measuring tools to determine the impact of greenbuildings and that focus should be primarily on how to improve the ef-ficiencies of larger buildings which based on the data are those overthirty four thousand square feet in size.

We then looked at how the University was tracking its cost sav-ings in order to ensure that there were measurable savings for its pro-jects, in light of the study results. In our research we have found littlein the way of follow up studies, and based on our interviews and inter-actions knowledge of the study was very low, but this does not mean

that sustainability projects may not be generating higher levels of effi-ciencies as the certification bar continues to rise. We also could notfind any methodology the University uses to compare expected savingsversus what was being achieved, nor a system to facilitate a compari-son between a projects calculated cost savings and actual savings real-ized. For example comparing energy usage from an existing building toa new LEED certified building or comparing electricity usage from

what was anticipated from the building design and certification to whatthe actual bills turned out to be.


32/41

7. Lessons Learned Along the Way

As the sustainable and green building movement has continued togrow, questions have been raised on whether every building projectshould be completed under the LEED certification program. Benefitsof completing a building project under LEED certification are many.The community is improved by reducing the use of depleting re-sources. It encourages the use of sustainable building materials, reduc-es the amount of greenhouse gasses released, and enhances employeeproductivity and heath and increases resale values. It also provides anindependent third party to recognize what design, construction, andoperational features are contributing to sustainability. This third party

review assist in another way as it helps to encourage measurement ofsustainable and green building initiatives and help to communicatewhat the impact of different decisions have on the overall sustainabilityof a project. As the old saying goes, what gets measured gets man-aged.16

Criticisms of LEED certified projects start with the up-front

costs, which can increase by as much as ten percent. An example ofthe up-front costs is the LEED building certification expenses whichstart at two thousand two hundred fifty dollars to more than fiftythousand dollars depending on building size and professional costs toachieve certification. These costs should be examined and added tototal costs in computing payback period. As previously mentioned,LEED certification does not necessarily equate to increased efficiency,especially in larger square feet buildings. There is also the concernedthat the project may become LEED checkbox focused, where a teamadds design features in order to achieve LEED certification or a higherlevel of LEED certification although a feature does improve efficiencyor environmental benefit.16


33/41

Some of the benefits of sustainable and green building were al-ready taking place before there became a focus on sustainable building.For instance there was already a movement to recycle the concreteand rebar used in building construction. The increasing cost of con-

crete and rebar forced the need to look for cheaper sources of mate-rials. Instead of the traditional method of simply tearing old buildingsdown and depositing the materials in a landfill, the concrete and ironare separated from each other. The concrete can be broken down andreused and the iron rebar can be melted down and used again. Anoth-er example is improving the air quality in buildings. For quite sometime The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has been requiring that the airducts of all heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) ducts be coveredthroughout the building process to be recognized as utilizing bestpractices. This reduces contaminants that get in the ductwork duringconstruction and that either come out when the system is first oper-ated or remains in the ductwork for the life of the building. LEED cer-tification has picked up this best practice and made it mandatory with

the only modification that filters instead of covers be used.18

There is also the benefit that more and more building best practicesbecome the de facto standard. As more and more of the new con-struction projects must comply with LEED or some other equivalentcertification, designers and construction companies begin to utilizethese new standards as base requirements even if they do not seek

certification.


34/41

For the University some of the cost criticisms seem to be found-ed. If university was to attempt for LEED Platinum levels there is sig-nificantly more costs throughout the process. An independent thirdparty has to participate in the building process from design phase on.

This third party must approve all aspects of design, construction, andoperation. This also increases the number of categories in the certifi-cation process as well. Unfortunately, even though you have submittedthe project to extensive additional cost and oversight there is no guar-anteeing that the project will achieve LEED Platinum certification.

We were also able to confirm that the up-front costs are signifi-cant and the numbers stated above appear to be reasonable, there areno hard rules of thumb to calculate what the range of up-front costand differing levels of certification costs they University has experi-enced. This is due to the relatively small number and diverse use ofLEED certified buildings completed.18


35/41

8. Conclusions

The University of South Florida takes the call to create a sustaina-ble and green environment vary seriously and it reflected by its inclu-

sion in the strategic plan for the university system and for each univer-sity campus. This focus touches on all areas of the university systemfrom administrators, to faculty to students, to benefactors. However,because of the different physical, student population, and budget sizesamong the different campuses the money to promote, create, support,a mentor green programs are not the same. The Tampa campus has alarge staff and funding devoted strictly to sustainable and green move-

ments; there is even a degree programs and building dedicated to sus-tainability. The Saint Petersburg campus does not have the funding orresources to provide the multitude of programs offered by the Tampacampus but aims to be just a dedicated to sustainable and green efforts

which results in the administration wearing multiple hats at one time.

It is also apparent that the University system as a whole is fo-

cused on building projects that meet payback criteria and generatecost saving returns, in spite of the many changes in certification levelsbetween when a project is conceptualized and actually begins. There isalso a focus on trying to allocate potential savings to other buildingprojects when applicable. They are also conservative in adopting newand unproven technologies that may not yield any additional quantifia-

ble savings over current technologies.


36/41

8. Conclusions (contd)

It appears that the University system could benefit from some coordination of efforts though. As previously mentioned the Tampa cam-

pus has a much larger pool of available resources for its sustainabilityand green efforts. If these resources were leveraged in creating, moni-toring, and mentoring efforts at all of the campuses the system wouldbenefit as a whole. One instance where this could beneficial is estab-lishing a system to track how projected project energy usage com-pares to actual usage so projected returns could be verified. If the re-turns did not materialize determine what was the root causes and if

action needs to be taken for projects under development. This systemwould be useful for not only university projects but student projects

as well.

Web presence could also be advanced by leveraging the Tampacampus resources as well, so that each campus would have a similar if

not unified point of information access.

In conclusion the University of South Florida system strives todeliver sustainable and green programs that are sound for the environ-

ment, community, and its budget.


37/41

9. Executive Summary

The University of South Florida has a rich history in sustainable and green efforts starting all theway back in the 1980s. This commitment to sustainability gradually became part of each campuss five-year strategic plan, which is reflected in the University Systems Strategic Plan. Although campuses vary in

size and available funding for sustainable efforts, each campus tries to maximize the returns generated.These returns are financial, environmental, and social in nature.

Given the ever increasing cost of going to college and the constant reduction in available financialaid an scholarships research was focused on the returns generated from sustainable and green programs,specifically sustainable and green building programs.

To support these goals each campus is focused on having new buildings and building remodelingprojects that are sustainable but are financially responsible by delivering defined paybacks and targetedsustainability targets. Building projects are analyzed throughout the design and building process to findways to deliver the best bang for the buck, and avoids technologies and methods that have not demon-

strated real world returns. They are also built to LEED building standards, which ensure third party eval-uation of sustainability efforts.

Although the University is focused on projects that will be completed on time, on budget, and de-liver a healthier environment for all, there appear to be no methodologies in place to perform post pro-

ject audits and to ensure that estimated savings used are actually seen after completion. Further there ap-pear to be no post program debrief that reveals lessons learned that can be applied to future projects.There also appear to be no sharing or resources among the different campuses, even though they are allpart of the same university system. For instance, USF Tampa has a elaborate sustainability website whichcould be used as a template to facilitate the creation of a USF Saint Petersburg site.

The University has faced several challenges in trying to stay on track to achieve project costs, asthe state mandated LEED Silver certification to the most current standards even though a building mayhave been designed to meet the standards available at the time. This need may cause delays and addition-al costs as the University must find ways to change building parameters and stay on budget. If new, moreefficient, sustainable, and reliable technologies present themselves, the University always tries modify de-signs and apply the cost savings to other cost savings programs, when applicable. The University also fac-es significant up-front costs as part of a LEED certification program and there are significant costs be-tween the different levels of certification. Because the University must now build to Silver certification,there could be instances where the University spends more in certification and building costs than itwould like and these additional costs may more than outweigh increases in efficiency or societal well-being.

Given the current economic climate that exists, the University tries to constantly achieve the ap-propriate balance of financial, environmental, and social outcomes while still delivering on its strategicgoals.


38/41

10. Works Cited

1. History." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research I University, with 4 Campuses Located inCentral Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011..

2. "Sustainability Programs." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research I University, with 4 CampusesLocated in Central Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011..

3. "USF Office of Sustainability - Student Green Energy Fund: Overview." University of South Florida - AMetropolitan Research I University, with 4 Campuses Located in Central Florida. University ofSouth Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. .

4. The College Sustainability Report Card - Overview." The College Sustainability Report Card. Web. 09Nov. 2011. .

5. Short, Doug. "Inside the Consumer Price Index."Advisor Perspectives. Advisor Perspectives, 19 Oct.2011. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. .

6. "University of South Florida Tuition, Costs and Financial Aid - CollegeData College Profile."CollegeData: College Search, Financial Aid, College Application, College Scholarship, Student

Loan, FAFSA Info, Common Application. Peterson's Undergraduate and Undergraduate FinancialAid Databases. Web. 09 Nov. 2011..

7. "USGBC: About USGBC." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. United State Green Building Council.Web. 09 Nov. 2011. .

8. "USGBC: What LEED Is." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. US Green Building Council. Web. 09 Nov.2011. .

9. USGBC: What LEED Measures." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. U.S. Green Building Council. Web.09 Nov. 2011. .

10. LEED 2009: LEED for New Construction. Publication. Washington, D.C.: US Green Building Council,2011. Print

11. Certified Project Directory." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. US Green Building Council. Web. 09Nov. 2011. .

12. "Hillsborough Community CollegeYbor City | HuntonBrady." Orlando Architect Firm | ModernArchitecture | LEED Architect | Florida Architecture. Hunton Brady Architecs. Web. 09 Nov. 2011..


39/41

10. Works Cited (contd)

13. "Green Building Sustainable Initiative." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research IUniversity, with 4 Campuses Located in Central Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov.2011. .

14. Understanding Source and Site Energy : ENERGY STAR." Home : ENERGY STAR. United StatesEnviromental Protection Agency. Web. 09 Nov. 2011..

15. Scofield, John H. "Do LEED-certified Buildings save Energy? Not Really." Energy and Buildings41.12 (2009): 1386-390. Print.

16. Willson, Myron. "McGraw-Hill Construction - Intermountain Construction - Some Pros and Cons ofLEED Certification."Mountain States Construction | McGraw-Hill Construction. Mc Graw Hill,Nov. 2008. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

.

17. Points of Focus 2009-2013 Strategic Plan. Rep. Points of Focus 2009-2013 Strategic Plan.University of South Florida Saint Petersburg. Web. 9 Nov. 2011..

18. Trecastelli, John. "USFSP Sustainable Building Initiatives." Personal interview. 15 Nov. 2011


40/41

11. Annotated Bibliography

Fehr, Kimberly, and Sandra Estenger. "Going Green Means Going Trayless for USF."

The Oracle -University of South Florida. The University of South Florida, 7 Oct. 2008. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

.

Article states removing trays primarily to save money and going green was likely only a secondary reason for this. The exact amount of

money could not be calculated, unfortunately. However, the impact is expected to be significant. There will be a lot of water saved and

far fewer cleaning products used, due to no having to wash the trays every day. There also will be far less wasted food. One ofUSFs

first projects under the green movement

Cash, Jacqui. "USF One of Nation's Top Green Colleges - University of South Florida." University of South Florida News.

University of South Florida, 5 May 2010. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

.

Background on how USF ranks in green compared to other colleges good link to look for comparative information.

"USGBC: Resources." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. U.Sl Green Building Council. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

.

The U.SL Green Building Council is a great source of LEED project information, including case studies, presentations, and completed

university projects including project cost and savings from across the country so we can get an idea of what other projects are seeing

and that we can compare to how USF is doing.

Clayton, Kelly. "How Do You Feel about Paying Campus Fees to Go Green? | USA TODAY College." Untitled Document. USA Today,

5 Oct. 2011. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

.

The USF Sustainability Initiatives Steering Committee has fourteen subcommittees which are involved in various green-

related activities. USF itself is financially supporting the green movement. One of the subcommittees mentioned above is

Finance which we will try to directly interview.

"USF President Signs Historic Environmental Commitment-

Universit y of South Florida." USF President Signs Historic Environmental Commitment-

University of South Florida. University of South Florida, 12 Apr. 2008. Web. 09 Nov.

2011. .

USF was one of the rst colleges to commit to green programs and these programs covered all colleges at the university. USF also named their rst sustainabilit y chair.


41/41

11. Annotated Bibliography (contd)

"USF President Signs Historic Environmental Commitment - University of South Florida." USF President Signs Historic Environmental Commitment -

University of South Florida. University of South Florida, 12 Apr. 2008. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

.

USF was one of the rst colleges to commit to green programs and these programs covered all colleges at the university. USF also

named their rst sustainability chair.

"USF Office of Sustainability - Student Green Energy Fund: Overview." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research I University, with 4

Campuses Located in Central Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

.

Explains what students are charged to cover Green Energy Fund and what the process is to apply for project funding. Interesting part is

that there appears to be no metric to measure cost/benefit or payback on projects, just that they have to some type of savings.

Scofield, John H. "Do LEED-certified Buildings save Energy? Not Really." Energy and Buildings 41.12 (2009): 1386-390. Print.

Interesting research paper published in a major journal that states that green energy savings may be overstated due to different measure-

ment points. For instance for LEED certified buildings they use the statistical measurement of median and use the mean for non LEED

buildings who may vary in size from the sample used for LEED certification. Also, LEED measurements rely on self-reporting which

opens up the process to additional errors.

Willson, Myron. "McGraw-Hil l Construction - Intermountain Construction - Some Pros and Cons of LEED Certification." Mountain States Con-

struction | McGraw-Hill Construction. Mc Graw Hill, Nov. 2008. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. .

An interesting list of potential reasons for and against undertaking LEED building projects and the associated pros and cons for associat-

ed with each. Good source to see in the interviews what USFs thoughts are and do they have a similar list of pros and cons after com-

pleting several projects like the STG building.

"University of South Florida - Green Report Card 2010." The College Sustainability Report Card. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

.

The universitys report card for green programs. Interesting to note the university believes it comes up with a building score of D but

yet when it adds the parts it is higher at a C+ which is hard to follow why the total is lower than all of the pieces. It also allows to each

metric that then measure. Also the report card shows no LEED buildings but STG is supposed to be LEED certified through what was

read somewhere else so we will need to follow up to see if there is a report card for USFSP separately but we have not seen one yet.

Green Cents White Paper 1126

Documents

Transcript of Green Cents White Paper 1126