Contact Information

Client

Jessica Davis, Director

IUPUI Office of Sustainability

Lockefield Village
980 Indiana Avenue, Room 4408
Indianapolis, IN 46202

317-278-1308

GHG STARS

Erskine (Pete) Hunter

Point of Contact

317-650-2541

Katherine Boyles

317-709-0904

Meredith Ollier

317-414-5580

Elspeth (Elby) O'Neil

765-543-1437

Kindra Orr

317-431-3879

SPEA V600 Faculty

Teresa Bennett

317-278- 9173

Dr. Seth Payton

317-278-4898

Objective 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Literature Review

Sustainability in Higher Education

Scholars have noted an array of dimensions that distinguish a sustainable university. Typically, these include an effort to minimize negative environmental effects, the production of research and the promotion of social justice, as well as a balance between social and economic interests (Valezquez et al., 2005; Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008). As institutions that develop learners and decision makers, universities are perceived to have a unique role in fostering sustainability within a given culture (Viebhan, 2002).

While most universities have a goal of practicing what they teach with regard to sustainable practices and seek to manage operations with environmental goals in mind, unique pressures can make this challenging. Among other things, campuses face management challenges “akin to small cities”, as well as shrinking revenues, which may limit investment in sustainability programs. Furthermore, the typical structure of universities can impede the kind of large-scale change that a comprehensive approach to sustainability might require (Krizek et al., 2011).

The Business of Campus Sustainability

Research has demonstrated that non-residential buildings consume 30-40% of the entire nation’s energy (Smith, 2015) and add 30-40% percent to atmospheric emissions (Garza-Reyes, 2015). While many universities dismiss green building practices as too costly, in fact, the “first costs” involved in designing and building a sustainable building are small as compared to the longer-term “life cycle” costs involved. “Facility operations and maintenance and demolition/capital renewal cost over the useful life of the building can be up to 40 times greater than the design and construction costs,” (Hodges & Elvey, 2005, p. 50).

For existing facilities, monitoring and managing energy use can have a substantial impact on the bottom line. Benchmarking studies demonstrate that a significant portion of a campus operating budget is likely to be spent on utilities, at a typical rate of $1.50-$2.00 per square foot (Hodges & Elvey, 2005). As many universities maintain millions of square feet of campus buildings, capturing even incremental savings for any given structure has the potential to yield millions of dollars in savings. This is the most recognized gain associated with utility cost avoidance programs, but additional, less obvious benefits of such conservation efforts also include: avoidance of expensive plant investment fees from utility suppliers; the potential to defer or eliminate the need to invest capital in additional equipment installations or upgrades, the possibility of deferring costly utility infrastructure upgrades; general maintenance savings; improved indoor environmental quality; free publicity; and an effective recruiting tool (Morris, 2005).

Best Practices

Increasingly, universities with medical and public health programs are considering the connection between campus sustainability and health. With a renowned hospital and schools of public health, nursing, and medicine, Johns Hopkins University self-identified as having a unique responsibility for embedding sustainability in its operations and curriculum. As the largest private employer in the state of Maryland, they recognized an opportunity to serve as an example and to help shape policy by developing sustainable practices related to recycling, energy use, food services, purchasing, green building strategies, as well as transportation (Walker & Lawrence, 2004). Similarly, Medical University of South Carolina, which reformed their medical school curriculum in conjunction with the Sustainable Universities Initiative, cited the fact that environmental health risks are a primary cause of illness in the US, but most healthcare professionals receive only minimal training in environmental health (Jeman et al., 2004).

Sustainability at an institution of higher education requires “more than just information dissemination to influence and close the attitude – behavior gap” (Too & Bajracharya, 2013, p. 58). This oftentimes begins with the institution incorporating sustainability into their university vision and mission. The administration for each campus ultimately determines how to characterize their sustainable university, but all definitions will include some aspects of minimizing the negative impacts of resource utilization. One example of this is greenhouse gas emissions. These gasses are a negative impact resulting from the utilization of other resources on college campuses. The individual institutional definitions for sustainability influence the structure, policies, goals, and objectives for the campus. Strategies for improving sustainability for the campus can then be developed, implemented, and evaluated for effectiveness.

Sustainability on urban campuses comes with increased challenges. Urban campuses reside within larger communities; upon which they are dependent. Issues of policy, mass transportation, recycling and waste removal, and availability of alternate sources of renewable energy are all reliant, to some degree, on the greater community within which the university resides. These urban institutions may have some influence over these factors, but are oftentimes at the mercy of decision-makers within the larger community. The community engagement initiatives for institutions of higher education on urban campuses are vital in influencing these factors.

Technical Background

GHGs are atmospheric gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting infrared radiation from the sun (Tufts Institute of the Environment, 2002). The Kyoto Protocol identified six major GHGs: The most prevalent GHGs--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20)--are naturally occurring. Man-made GHGs-- hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) -- are less prevalent (UN, 2014; Tufts Institute of the Environment, 2002). Human activities produce both naturally occurring and man-made GHGs (WRI, 2013).

Scientists widely agree that increasing concentrations of GHGs contribute to global warming and that global warming causes climate change (Franchetti & Apul, 2013). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific body, is the leading authority on the state of knowledge on climate change. The IPCC reviews climate change information produced worldwide and provides assessments of the scientific basis of climate change to governments at all levels in order to develop climate-related policies (IPCC, 2013). IPCC assessments form the baseline knowledge for United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) / Kyoto Protocols as well as the GHG Protocols (IPCC, 2013; WRI, 2013). IPCC identified changes in atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic GHG emissions as the dominant cause of global warming and linked global warming to increased atmospheric and ocean temperatures, diminished snow and ice, and sea level rise (IPCC, 2014; IPCC, 2007).

STARS 2.0 Technical Manual

AASHE published the STARS 2.0 Technical Manual in 2013. The manual addressed sampling and data standards for a GHG inventory. Included in the manual are three salient issues regarding methodology, measurement timeframes, and supplemental descriptions. First, the methodology is to be consistent with the World Resources Institute (WRI) Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard. AASHE permits campuses to use online inventory calculators, such as the Campus Carbon Calculator (AASHE, 2013).

Second, the two measurement timeframes are the baseline year and performance year. The baseline year may be any year from 2005 to the present. The performance year is the year in which the most recent GHG emission data are available from the three years prior to the last STARS submission (AASHE, 2013). To ensure baseline and performance year data are valid and reliable, campuses follow the same standards and collection practices for both timeframes. While collection practices will be institution-specific, the manual specified three standards. First, GHG emissions data must be from a single consecutive single year or an average of three consecutive years. Second, building space and annualized population figures must closely overlap the same period as from which GHG emission data are drawn. Lastly, campuses may choose the annual start and end dates based on fiscal year or calendar year (AASHE, 2013). IUPUI presently lacks a baseline year. Without historical data, IUPUI may use performance year data for both the baseline and performance year. However, points will not be awarded in the first STARS submission. Points may be awarded in subsequent submissions in which the established baseline is used (AASHE, 2013).

Third, supplemental descriptions to the GHG inventory are required for the following five circumstances (AASHE, 2013):

1.  If an independent third party verifies IUPUI’s GHG emissions inventory, then the internal and/or external verification process must be described.

2.  If institution-catalyzed carbon offsets are reported for the performance year, then the local offsets program(s) are described.

3.  If carbon sequestration is reported for the performance year, then the carbon sequestration program and reporting protocol used are described.

4.  If carbon storage from on-site composting is reported for the performance year, then the composting and carbon storage program is described.

5.  If purchased carbon offsets are reported for the performance year, then the purchased carbon offsets, including third party verifier(s) and contract timeframes, are described.

Greenhouse Gas Accounting Concepts

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) developed the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard (“GHG Protocol”) to standardize how GHG emissions are measured, managed, and reported (Ranganathan et al., 2004). The GHG Protocol provides GHG accounting standards, a set of common concepts, systems, and protocols that guide institutions toward transparent and accurate emission reporting.

Per the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised Edition (“GHG Protocol”), campuses are to track and report GHG emissions listed in the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol. The primary focus of a GHG inventory is on CO2 emissions. Emissions of CH4, N2O, and HFCs are likely to account for only a small portion of total emissions, and emissions of PFCs, NF3, and SF6 are unlikely on campuses (Second Nature, 2016).

Boundaries

The carbon management process, from GHG inventory to institutionalization, involves three types of boundaries: organizational, operational, and temporal (Ranganathan et al., 2004; UNHSI, 2015).

Organizational boundaries contain the facilities and/or property that an institution owns or controls in terms of operations and from where the institution will measure and report emissions (Ranganathan et al., 2004). There are two approaches to determine organizational boundaries: the (financial or operational) control approach and equity share approach (UNHSI, 2015). GHG Protocol recommends institutions select the most comprehensive approach, and then consistently apply the approach across processes and time (Ranganathan et al., 2004). However, the control approach is most common (UNHSI, 2015).

There are two control approach types: financial control and operational control. The financial control approach accounts for all building space that the institution has monetary control over. Examples of monetary control include utility payments and the maintenance and repair of buildings. The operational control approach accounts for all owned or leased buildings over which the institution has practical ownership of operations (UNHSI, 2015). The equity share approach accounts for all facilities over which an institution has some degree of ownership, based on the institution’s economic interest and percentage of ownership of operations (UNHSI, 2015).

Operational boundaries contain emissions sources that an institution will measure and report. The process of determining operational boundaries involves identifying emissions associated with operations, defining the level of responsibility for emissions, and categorizing emissions (Ranganathan et al., 2004). GHG inventory and management presents two challenges for higher education institutions. First, defining responsibility for emissions has the potential for “double counting” of GHG sources between entities and individuals. Second, institutions must balance competing objectives: be accountable for their impact on global warming and undertake pragmatic, operational reduction strategies (UNHSI, 2015).

The “scopes” accounting concept developed by the GHG Protocol assists institutions in overcoming GHG inventory and management challenges by delineation of direct and indirect emission sources for accounting and reporting purposes (UNHSI, 2015; Second Nature, 2016). Classification of direct and indirect emissions is dependent on an institution’s approach for setting organizational boundaries (Ranganathan et al., 2004).

Figure 1 illustrates the parameters of the three emissions scopes. Scope 1 emissions originate from stationary combustion, mobile combustion, and fugitive emissions sources. Scope 2 emissions result from purchased electricity to benefit the campus. Scope 3 emissions are related to off-campus activities or operations such as travel or purchased goods and services. While there are three scopes, GHG STARS limited its literature review and inventory data collection to Scope 1 and Scope 1 emissions pursuant to the Statement of Work.

Figure 1. Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Scopes 1-3

Source: UNHSI, 2015

Scope 1: Direct Emissions

Direct GHG emissions are physically produced on campus and originate from sources that are completely owned or controlled by the institution (Ranganathan et al., 2004). Scope 1 emissions include stationary combustion, fugitive emissions, mobile combustion, and agricultural emissions.

Stationary Combustion: On-campus stationary fuel emissions result from stationary fuel combustion of oil, coal, natural gas, and other fuel sources by on-campus equipment, excluding vehicle fuel use. Direct combustion of fossil fuels is used for heating, cooling, and/or electricity generation. Thus, common on-campus stationary fuel emission sources are boilers, furnaces and cogeneration plants (UNHSI, 2015; Ranganathan et al., 2004). Emissions from cogeneration sources are separated from other stationary fuel sources. In accordance with IPCC protocol, Scope 1 emissions do not include CO2 emissions from biogenic sources.

Mobile Combustion: Emissions from all fuel used in direct transportation sources. All vehicles owned and leased by the institution are included.

Fugitive Emissions: Fugitive emissions originate from agricultural sources, such as fertilizer use and animal husbandry. Fertilizer application on grounds can lead to the production and emission of nitrous oxide (N2O), while livestock produces methane (CH4) through their digestive process of enteric fermentation (EPA, 2015). Nitrogen-containing fertilizers can release up to 10% of N2O after ground application (UNHSI, 2015). At the university-level, methane emissions from livestock are likely to be less than 1% of total emissions (UNHSI, 2015). Additionally, fugitive emissions originate from refrigerant and chemical sources and from intentional or unintentional releases of GHG compounds (Ranganathan et al., 2004; EPA, 2014). IPCC and the GHG Protocol do not require the inclusion of CFCs or HCFCs in greenhouse gas inventories (UNHSI, 2015). However, HFCs and PFCs are strong greenhouse gasses that have 100-year global warming potential (GWP) factors generally greater than 1,000 times that of CO2 (EPA, 2014). Common refrigerant and chemical sources are refrigeration and air conditioning systems and the purchase and release of industrial gasses (EPA, 2014).