The Obama Effect: Driving Energy Efficiency and Economic Recovery
Witty, Justin AOC 2012 Energy Goals and Actions at UHM
1. !
Campus!Sustainability!Planning:!
An!Evaluation!of!the!University!of!Hawai’i!at!Mānoa’s!!
Energy!Goals!and!Actions!
!
!
Justin!Witty!!
!
Urban!and!Regional!Planning!AOC!
November!19,!2012!
!
!
Abstract:
Energy reduction at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa has largely been dependent on
mechanical upgrades and weekend/holiday conservation methods. These methods have not
achieved the success envisioned in the stated 30% reduction goal by 2012 and have over-
relied on Facilities and Grounds personnel to do the majority of the work. I argue that
energy reduction efforts are needed from everyone on campus and increased collaboration
and incentives are required to meet energy reduction goals. Drawing from common
organizational barriers of public universities and of some energy reduction best practices I
present a more complete understanding of the critical leverage points to successful campus
energy reduction. These best practices highlight ways that others have encouraged energy
conservation behavior, developed physical infrastructure upgrades, and purchased
renewable energy platforms. Besides the actual projects themselves, three of these leverage
points are crucial to campus energy management: strategic planning as an act of creating
collaborative vision; encouraging and incentivizing energy education and behavior; and
lauding the success of those making strides toward energy reduction goals.
7. ! 1!
1.##Introduction#
The University of Hawai’i higher education system (UH) is the second largest user of energy in
the State, behind the US Military (UH Mānoa , 2006). Of the 183 million kWh of electricity used
in 2011 by the UH system, the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa accounted for roughly 60% of the
total (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, 2012; Newcomb, Anderson &
McCormick Consultants, 2011). Over $23 million was spent on electricity alone for the Mānoa
campus in 2011, not including costs for other energy sources such as natural gas or transportation
fuels that are also used on campus (Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011).
These numbers are particularly troubling in the current economic recession where higher
education is usually high on the list for budget cuts, increased State and Federal regulations
create need for more administrators, and national alumni donations are at an all-time low
(Grummon, 2011). Other prospective realities such as rising oil and gas prices, an interest rate
that can only get higher, and an economic recovery that could be several years to a decade away
all loom on the horizon (Grummon, 2011). These issues, combined with other obstacles for UHM
such as aging infrastructure and maintenance backlogs, will continue to challenge energy
reduction efforts.
However, tight budgets and rising energy costs also provide an opportunity to promote energy
conservation, efficiency, and the use of renewable energy (Simpson, 2003). When the budget is
tight there is more focus put on financial savings methods and perhaps incentives to become
more energy efficient. Many colleges and universities around the country have developed and
instituted their own methods for achieving energy savings goals on campus. This paper reviews
College and University planning efforts with regard to energy consumption and discusses
UHM’s energy plans and their to-date accomplishments.
Section 2 will discuss some of the organizational strengths and weaknesses of the University of
Hawai’i at Mānoa. Section 3 focuses on the key aspects of strategic planning and how it can
help build awareness and consensus related to campus energy use. Sections 4 and 5 review and
discuss methods used at other US colleges and universities to establish key elements to a
comprehensive energy plan and examples of best practices that could potentially be introduced to
the UHM campus and other locations in Hawai’i. Section 6 proposes some recommendations for
systemic change and energy reduction on campus, followed by a conclusion in Section 7.
2.##UHM#Context#
The University of Hawai’i at Mānoa is the flagship campus of the University of Hawai’i system
and is the main research institute in Hawai’i. It is a land, sea, and space grant university which
enrolls over 20,000 students, and employs almost 8,200 full or part time employees including
2,300 faculty (Mānoa Institutional Research, 2011). Of the 20,000 students, over 4,000 reside on
campus in UHM managed housing. UHM has over 300 buildings and 6 million total square feet
of building floor space used for various purposes such as housing, food service, instruction,
research, and administration (Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011).
8. ! 2!
Due to the remote location of Hawai’i, approximately 2,500 miles from the western United
States, 91% of the consumed energy is imported to the islands, with petroleum making up 85%.
Other fuel sources include small amounts of imported coal (6%), waste burning for energy, and
local renewable energy such as geothermal, wind, hydro, and solar (State of Hawaii Energy
Resource Coordinator, 2010). The University uses Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) and Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG) also known as Propane, to provide an alternative to electricity; however,
these fuel sources are made from coal and the byproducts of crude oil during the refining process
(Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011).
Spending over $23 million for electricity in fiscal year 2011, UHM used a total of 109 million
kWh of electricity, 415,000 Therms of SNG, and an undisclosed amount of diesel and gasoline
(Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011). Since the energy rate in Hawai’i is
substantially higher than the continental US it is important when making comparisons to focus
on the kWh or Therms used rather than the dollar cost, otherwise UHM would rank with other
universities two or three times its size. The dollar cost will be used to significant effect when it
comes to deciding which energy reduction projects to pursue. Many projects that wouldn’t
normally produce a high enough rate of return for other campuses in the contiguous United
States may prove worth the investment in Hawai’i. This could provide a more diverse selection
of energy saving projects and programs from which to choose.
According to a 2011 energy audit of the campus, UHM uses approximately 1% of the total
energy consumed in Hawai’i (Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011). Reduced
energy use and increased renewable energy production on the UHM campus will have a
substantial impact on the Hawai’i Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) goals of 40% renewable
energy production and 30% energy reduction across the state. UHM also represents the cutting
edge of research and access to environmental sustainability knowledge through programs such as
the Hawai’i Natural Energy Institute (HNEI) and UH Sea Grant. UHM’s influence over the
other University of Hawai’i (UH) System campuses and Hawaiian businesses and industry could
be profound in affecting transformation across the State.
UHM has committed to several energy goals, endorsed by Interim Chancellor Denise Konan in
2006. These goals are in line with other universities and could position the university as a leader
in sustainability if achieved. However, no UHM Chancellor since 2006 has publicly endorsed
these policy goals. The University of Hawai’i at Mānoa’s Green Building Design and Clean
Energy Policy (2006) states that it will reach a:
• 30% reduction of campus-wide electricity use by 2012, based on a 2003 benchmark;
• 50% reduction of campus-wide electricity use by 2015, based on a 2003 benchmark;
• 25% of campus-wide energy use supplied by renewable sources by 2020; and
• by 2050, the Mānoa campus will achieve self-sufficiency in energy and water, will treat
and transform its wastes into useable resources through conservation and re-use, and
through its adoption of renewable energy technologies.
The FY 2011 electricity reduction was only 15% from the 2003 baseline, meaning UHM has
only one year to reduce an additional 15% to make the 2012 goal of 30% reduction (Newcomb,
Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011). In order to reach these goals there are a variety of
barriers and critical leverage points that can either hinder or help the energy reduction process.
9. ! 3!
A tool developed by the Harvard Business School to identify potential issues and opportunities is
called Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) analysis (Paris, 2003). It is a
process of delineating both internal (strength, weakness) and external (opportunity, threats)
conditions that allows self-discovery, consensus building, and organizational visioning.
Strengths Weaknesses
S.1 High energy costs that make energy reduction
projects have shorter payback periods in Hawai’i
W.1 Lack of driving University Leadership and
commitments
S.2 A research university with systems to take
advantage of energy research grants
W.2 Diminishing budget to put toward Capital
Investment
S.3 In house expertise on numerous renewable
energy technologies within HNEI and REIS
W.3 Low importance of energy due to its small
percentage of the overall UHM operating budget
S.4 Strong tradition of Strategic Planning and
Research with necessary systems already in place
W.4 Complex organizational structure with transient
executive administration and student body
S.5 Design, build, and operate their own physical
infrastructure
W.5 Aging Physical infrastructure and lack of
facilities staff
S.6 State resources are aligned with university
priorities
W.6 Large deferred maintenance resource necessity
S.7 “Right timing” energy efficiency projects with
necessary building renovations gives a higher
investment return
W.7 Limited installed sub-metering for
benchmarking and data analysis
S.8 Student participation with little to no cost
through volunteers, class projects, or student jobs
W.8 Low individual awareness for UHM energy
reduction efforts or Renewable Energy utilization
W.9 Narrow focus of UHM Energy Policy on
electricity only
W.10 Limited rooftop area to meet renewable
energy needs with Solar PV
Opportunities Threats
O.1 Increased funding through renewable energy
and energy infrastructure research grants
T.1 Non-compliance with State Mandates
O.2 Healthier classrooms, higher productivity, and
less maintenance from better designed buildings
T.2 Low incentives for students, faculty, or staff to
save energy
O.3 Reduced uncertainty and risk from fuel and
energy price increases
T.3 Excessive energy use with increasing amount of
personal electronics and appliances on campus
O.4 Existence of off-campus sites for renewable
energy production
T.4 Risk of increased energy costs lead to increased
tuition and loss of student enrollment
Figure 1. UHM Energy SWOT Matrix
10. ! 4!
Strengths)and)Opportunities)
Ranked by the National Science Foundation as one of the top 30 public universities for federal
research in engineering and science, UHM garnered 34% of its FY 2009-2010 budget from
federal grants and contracts (Mānoa Institutional Research, 2012). With an additional 3% of
funding coming from State and local grants or contracts, UHM brings in more money from
research than State and Federal appropriations or tuition and fees at 29% and 24% respectively
(Mānoa Institutional Research, 2012). The strength of having the relationships established,
contracting offices in place, and a background in earth sciences and engineering gives UHM a
good advantage when it comes to energy related research.
The Hawai’i Natural Energy Institute (HNEI) is a research arm of the School of Ocean and Earth
Science and Technology (SOEST) and conducts research and testing of innovative renewable
energy technology. These resident energy experts are working “right next door” and could be
leveraged to become more engaged with the energy solutions for the campus or better perpetuate
their knowledge to the UHM students, faculty, and staff. Other UHM leverage points are the
Center for Renewable Energy and Island Sustainability (REIS), at the College of Engineering,
and the Hawai’i Energy Policy Forum, part of the College of Social Sciences, which are both
inter-disciplinary research groups that explore issues regarding energy and energy policy in
Hawai’i.
Another advantage is that there is a history of participatory planning within the university
setting. The UHM Strategic Planning Coordinator, Susan Hippensteele, has used this planning
format when developing the 2011-2015 UHM Strategic Plan. The collaborative process included
over 1400 students, faculty, staff, and various stakeholders and includes a 15-person Strategic
Plan working group to oversee the implementation (UHM, 2011).
Public institutions can also lead the way for investing in better buildings because they are one of
the few sectors that build, own, and operate the spaces in which they invest (UNEP, 2007). Many
times in the residential or private business sector the investment and design of a building is
separated from those who occupy and pay the operational costs of a building, providing little
incentive for energy efficiency. By integrating “life cycle costs” into the analysis of building
design and investment, it is more apparent that spending a little more upfront can save drastically
over the lifespan of a building. Governments and public institutions construct, own, and operate
a large proportion of the country’s infrastructure and will see larger returns on good design
investment than private developers (Lovins, 2011).
Many unseen additional benefits exist such as healthier classrooms, more student involvement,
and more practical learning for students, however these areas are not easily quantifiable.
Measuring performance is complex and challenging; although some have tried, such as
Heschong, L., Wright, R., & Okura, S. (2002) who show a 20-26% rate of improvement in
student test scores in well day lit classrooms throughout several elementary schools in the US.
Improved learning, fewer employees’ sick days, and higher worker productivity are difficult to
measure and even harder to monetize making it tough to compare projects objectively. For this
reason a Cost Effectiveness analysis is used in many health related fields that require comparison
in natural units like lives saved or in this case test score improvement (Robinson, 1993). This may
11. ! 5!
make it easier to compare health or academic benefits between projects since these areas are not
easily monetized.
There are also the benefits such as student/faculty retention, environmental benefit, and brand
value of the UH Mānoa name. This may in turn garner more research grant dollars and more
opportunities for collaboration with other private partners. According to the UHM Strategic
Plan, Achieving our Destiny, goals of improving retention, raising graduation rates, and reducing
the maintenance backlog are all high priorities for the university. Linking the budgetary
requirements of projects to certain strategic goals is also important toward project justification
and priority. When a project can fulfill multiple strategic goals it should be taken into
consideration for a higher priority even when facing budgetary or contracting difficulties.
Other unseen benefits of retrofits and downsizing also show reduced but un-quantified
maintenance costs. Less time spent changing light bulbs due to longer life spans, smart meters
that send electricity data to a central computer, or installing environmental management tools
that allow understanding of multiple systems can all help reduce workloads and save man hours
(Lovins, 2011). Also some energy reduction projects have synergistic effects when combined
with other projects. According to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme
(2007) their rule of thumb is that for every three watts of lighting energy saved an additional watt
of air-cooling can be saved as a result. In effect, a reduction in lighting makes it possible for a
follow on reduction in HVAC either from making the AC work less to possibly downsizing the
entire system.
Another benefit that university leadership must keep in mind is the reduced threat from fuel price
spikes allowing for better long term budgeting and planning. All these additional factors
attributed to better design, a healthier campus, a more aware student body, and energy reduction
all reduce risk for the future and will help achieve some of the strategic goals of the university
(Lovins, 2011).
Having access to State Government resources is another advantage since Hawai’i has developed
its own energy goals, state mandates, and State Energy Office. According to Berke and
Godshalk (2009), state mandates produce consistently higher quality plans because they
encourage local government to develop a better information base. Extra emphasis due to
knowing someone else is invested in the same outcomes, collaborative team building, and access
to extra resources are additional reasons for better implementation results. This concept can be
expanded to include internal policies and mandates. Just as the State develops resources to
facilitate energy conservation and reduction at the public facility level, UHM can institute
policies that require individual departments or colleges to reduce energy in some ways. This
could allow for more systemic learning and behavior change and can decentralize some of the
implementation to the deans, faculty, and students, rather than leaving implementation to
Facilities and Grounds staff only.
Weaknesses)and)Threats)
Hawai’i pays the highest electricity rates of any state in the United States. On Oahu the current
rate is approximately $0.35 a kWh for residents and an industrial rate of $0.21 plus appropriate
12. ! 6!
fees, as of September 2012 (HECO, 2012). An average cost in 2011 for the University was
$0.212 per kWh meaning that the difference between meeting the 30% savings goal as opposed
to only making 15% reduction costs the university $4 million a year. An increase of just five
cents to $0.26 and that figure increases to $5 million. In 2006 the rate was $0.16 so it is not
uncommon for significant rate increases to occur in short time spans (UHM Facilities Management,
2008). Even as electricity use is being reduced, prices are rising and the total electricity bill may
exceed last year. Starting energy reduction projects near-term is essential to take advantage of
these avoided costs.
A major problem for prioritizing projects is that some benefits are hidden from view. Pearce and
Miller (2006) believe one of the four main barriers for sustainability at the university level is the
“relative invisibility of operations for decision makers.” Energy reductions are a relatively low
priority overall because of the aforementioned rising costs despite energy use reductions, the
hidden benefits such as improved health or reduced maintenance costs, and the relative scale of
the energy costs in comparison to an overall administrative budget. For example in 2008 energy
costs comprised only 2% of the $902 million budget, which included personnel and operations
(Office of Vice Chancellor for Administration, Finance, and Operations, 2009). Additional barriers
they identify include deferred maintenance backlogs, lack of initial capital/labor, and sub-
optimal behavior of building occupants, which will be addressed later in the paper.
A university is a public institution with a complex organizational hierarchy. It is often said that
“the faculty are the university” but a modern research university, much like a modern
democracy, has many checks and balances and has several bases of power. Often these power
bases are the Board of Regents, the President or Chancellor, and the Faculty (O'Brien, 1998). In
many places the students also play a large part in campus decisions and as the “clients” hold
much more power than many give credit (Moore, J., Pagani, F., Quayle, M., Robinson, J., Sawada, B.,
Spiegelman, G., & Van Wynsberghe, R., 2005). Organizing the variety of interests into a common
vision is time consuming but can be very successful and productive. Other barriers to change are
organizational culture, power pockets, and an individual belief that their actions have little effect
on the whole (Sharp, 2002).
The University is a public state institution, so funding and Board of Regents appointments come
from outside the university, which may make systematic or sweeping changes difficult internally.
This is in spite of the fact that the amount of public funding that comes from state tax dollars is
only 26% of the total funding in 2009-2010 (Mānoa Institutional Research, 2012). Even though
institutional change is difficult the energy reduction goals of the university fit in with the HCEI
goals mandated by the State, so it should be supported externally. This is tempered by the fact
that even though people may express a need for change they are still resistive due to uncertainty,
risk, or potential power shifts (Chaskin, R., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A., 2001).
The aging infrastructure of the UHM campus is also a problem. With a mean age of 33 years,
the building envelopes are not sealed properly, the HVAC systems are out of date, and some
buildings and spaces are not being utilized as they were originally designed (Figure 2). Some
students though are working to better understand how these spaces are currently being used in a
program called UHM Building Information Model (BIM). They are inventorying and modeling
over 3.5 million square feet of classroom, office, and laboratory space in an effort to better
13. ! 7!
understand the infrastructure needs of the campus and to better organize the utilized space for
departmental and classroom scheduling (Simonich, 2012). By better integrating the energy use
data from electricity smart meters, building sub meters, and mesh networks into the already built
floor plan database, there is an opportunity to have a real time picture of the energy use by space,
for the campus. This project could eventually be used for advanced energy simulation and
building energy performance analysis, turning what was merely meter data into knowledge
campus planners can use to make better-informed decisions for the future.
Figure 2. UHM Campus Building Age Graphs, (UHM, 2008)
This presents an opportunity for deep energy retrofits, which are focused more on improved
architecture and design than on system upgrades. An example of this is the comparison of a
lighting retrofit program that replaces high wattage incandescent light bulbs for low wattage
Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs) versus integrating more day lighting and reducing the
amount of total light bulbs, as well as using low wattage CFLs where needed. The second option
will cost more and take longer to implement, however, these deep retrofits tend to be cost
effective when the building energy efficiency is very poor or when the building and internal
systems are approaching the end of their useful life, thus requiring a major retrofit anyway.
These projects are sometimes referred to as Capital Investment projects rather than just energy
efficiency upgrades. By “right timing” or synchronizing these upgrades with necessary
replacement of equipment that has come to the end of its useful life, the costs can usually come
out the same as basic replacement. This is especially effective if you can downsize the original
equipment and use smaller (hence more efficient) models. This requires a full understanding and
projection of the building maintenance schedule so a retrofit is not planned after a new system
has recently been installed. With the amount of planned renovation on the campus currently
there may not be enough personnel or resident knowledge to take advantage of these right timing
scenarios and using an Energy Service Company (ESCo) may be advantageous.
Act 96 of the 2006 State Legislature stipulates that UHM is obligated to reduce energy
consumption 30% by 2030. It also states that all new construction and large scale retrofit
projects meet or exceed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver ratings
and all new laboratories built on campus must meet the LABS 21 Environmental Performance
Criteria (Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011). Since 2006, UHM has added three new
14. ! 8!
buildings on campus since and all have been LEED certified (DBEDT, 2012). Though adding new
LEED buildings and electric vehicles to the campus is good practice, it doesn’t serve to reduce
the total electricity bill.
Figure 3. UHM Building Condition Survey (Hafner, 2011)
With almost five and a half million square feet of building space and 320 acres managed by
UHM Facilities, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) is a daunting task even without electricity
consuming 43% of the O&M budget. According to the UH System Performance Measures
brochure (2011) the actual total deferred maintenance is $455 million for the UH System and
missed the 2011 deferred maintenance reduction goal by $209 million (UH System: Office of
Executive Vice President , 2011). This maintenance backlog creates not only a burden to the
facilities staff but creates immediacy for short-term fixes rather than solutions to long-term
problems. The maintenance dilemma is compounded by a deficit in staffing by 100 persons on
the UHM Facilities and Grounds staff (Hafner, 2011). Deferred maintenance is a problem for
many universities, at least $26 Billion across the US, especially for research and doctoral
universities (Pearce, J. & Miller, L., 2006).
Another weakness is due to the increased amount of personal electronics that are used in and out
of the classroom. According to projections made in 2012 by the Department of Energy, that
trend will continue at slightly over 2% annually. Energy use for personal computers remains
even at 0.0% annually but increases for additional office equipment such as mainframe
computers and servers grows at 2.3% annually (U.S. EIA, 2012). Nearly every campus office has
personal computers, monitors, printers, wireless Internet and other devices that all plug in for
power. Usually termed simply “miscellaneous plug loads”, many universities and departments
have instituted polices that attempt to curb this growth.
Finally, making the energy goals solely focused on electricity could also have negative side
effects if purchasing decisions are based on simply not increasing electricity use. Replacing less
efficient internal combustion engines with electric vehicles could potentially save much more in
operating costs, even though it would negatively affect the electricity goals. The State of
Hawai’i Act 156 has taken this more holistic view and mandated conversion of publically
operated vehicles to more sustainable fuel sources as well (SOH 25th Legislature, 2009). Increased
growth of campus infrastructure will continue to challenge the energy management goals for
UHM in the near and long term future.
15. ! 9!
Past)Energy)Reduction)Methods)
Energy reduction by 15% is still a tremendous accomplishment for such a large institution and
UHM utilized a variety of methods to achieve this reduction. A building energy metering and
benchmarking program was initiated on campus that will allow 25 buildings on campus to be
sub-metered and consequentially have some form of energy benchmark in place (Newcomb,
Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011). There are also some sub-meters for the SNG on
campus, which allows for benchmarking on 26 campus buildings. Performance measuring and
benchmarking is an essential step in reducing energy use throughout the campus but is
challenged by its basic design. The UHM electrical grid was developed years ago when there
was no need for the electricity to be monitored at the building level so the campus buildings
don’t all have sub-meters. It is also difficult to disaggregate electricity use for a chilled water
loop, used in air conditioning, which services multiple buildings but is only monitored on one
building meter. These problems make benchmarking a fundamental challenge to any
environmental management or energy savings program.
Metering and benchmarking are essential methods of evaluating the success of campus energy
conservation or efficiency projects. Without a baseline there is no way to know if a decrease in
energy use is contributable to the energy reduction project, the weather, or some unknown factor.
Especially when electric vehicles, constructing more buildings, or increasing student enrollment
adds to the total energy bill, it can be very hard to see value in energy saving projects unless they
are closely monitored for analysis. For this reason, in 2009 the State of Hawai’i enacted Act
155, which states that any state department managing buildings must benchmark each building
over 5,000 square feet using the ENERGY STAR portfolio management tool (HCEI, 2010). This
shows that it is not only something that UHM should do; it must be done according to State law.
Building simulation and modeling conducted by Newcomb, Anderson, and McCormick (2011)
show the average breakdown of energy use for buildings on campus in Figure 4. While the
models could not be compared to actual data due to the energy benchmarking problems
mentioned above, for general purposes they appear consistent with data collected from other
sources in Hawai’i (Peppard, E., Maskery, J., & Witty J, 2011). The current major energy
expenditures at UHM are cooling for buildings 46%, plug loads at 22% and lighting at 20%
(Figure 4). With this kind of data it is easy to see that efficiency gains from natural ventilation,
day lighting, and appliance awareness should be utilized. Understanding actual building energy
disaggregation can be a tool for energy project targeting and is a necessary step toward energy
reduction and net-zero energy use by 2050.
16. ! 10!
Figure 4. Campus Electrical Loads by End Use (Newcomb, Anderson & McCormick Consultants, 2011)
Facilities managers have attempted to combat the largest “piece of the pie”, which is Heating,
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC). Twenty-two projects before 2008 had been updates
or replacements to the chillers and ventilation systems on campus, saving an estimated total of
1,100,000 kWh. Air condition scheduling is another way that facilities managers have been
cutting back. Temperatures in buildings are raised at night and building coordinators have been
selected to help set air-conditioning schedules during the week and weekends. Just turning air
conditioning systems off from 11pm to 5am produces an estimated 10% reduction in annual
energy expenditure (UHM Facilities Management, 2008). Another campus program is Mānoa
Green Days (MGD), which is the collective reduction of all building functions during winter and
spring breaks. With few students and no classes, faculty are encouraged to work from home and
building cooling and lighting levels are drastically reduced. MGD is estimated to reduce the
campus energy usage by 1% annually (UHM Office of Facilities and Grounds, 2012). A lighting
retrofit campaign has also been initiated at UHM although no results have yet been published.
Some of the other successful energy reduction or sustainability projects on campus were:
, Kukui Cup – A freshman energy dorm challenge that teaches energy efficiency and
conservation to new students while allowing them to compete against 1,000 peers.
, Green Roof on C-MORE Hale – Absorbs solar heat gain, catches water run-off and
recaptures carbon dioxide (McElhinny, 2012).
, Sustainable Saunders (2007) – Students surveyed occupants of Saunders Hall to find
ways to de-lamp offices, decrease air conditioning use, and improve occupant comfort.
, First Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) approved for the UHM at Coconut Island to
install 260 kW of solar Photovoltaic (PV) panels (Meder, 2012).
, Four Solar PV Projects – Saunders Hall, Shidler Hall, C-MORE Hale, and Sinclair
library for a total of 47 kW (McElhinny, 2012; Honolulu Star Advertiser, 2011; UHM
Administration, 2010).
17. ! 11!
, Kuykendall Hall (prospective) – Hawaii’s first net-zero building on campus integrating
natural ventilation, LED lighting design, and integrated solar PV.
, Energy Curriculum (prospective) – Currently undergoing development and strategic
visioning.
Even with a succession of profitable and sustainable programs and projects there has still not
been transformational change on the campus in relation to energy use. UHM hasn’t scaled up
from these demonstration projects to influence large enough energy reductions across the entire
campus. A difference must be realized between successful projects and institutional change
(Sharp, 2002).
3.##Strategic#Energy#Planning:#Key#Aspects#
Strategic planning is a tool used for long term planning, especially during uncertain times, in
order to shape the direction and vision of an organization. It incorporates many different aspects
of the specific environment, organizational missions, and budgets to provide a way ahead toward
the envisioned future. Strategic planning is much more concerned with imprecise variables and
probable trends as opposed to long term planning which usually assumes a linear future or status
quo along the planning horizon (Paris, 2003). One of the most notable hallmarks of strategic
planning is that there is a sense that something needs to change and it is a systemic change. As a
public organization, any change must be nested into the mandated directives set by the State and
Board of Education. There are defined limitations and implied expectations that the university
must uphold with regard to the level of education provided to its students. There are also
cultural, environmental, and economic expectations that must be met in order to achieve success.
To navigate these competing requirements and trends it is necessary to take a more holistic view
of campus energy use and go through a strategic planning process specifically focused on
energy. Strategic planning will allow for more participation and input from students, faculty,
staff and the local community and can begin to shape their collective vision for the future of the
university, ensuring that everyone is working toward the same outcome.
Figure 5. Duke University Energy Efficiency Process (CGGC, 2011)
)
Participatory)Process)and)Leadership)
In many ways energy planning follows the same basic tenets as any other form of urban
planning. One must go through the same core problem solving steps. The first step is usually
identifying and understanding specific problems (i.e., is high energy use really a problem).
Though there is nothing wrong per se with energy use; for example some departments require a
large sum of energy either for safety reasons (ventilation or temperature control), or because they
are inherently energy intensive (Information Technology or data centers). A problem occurs
when large portions of the campus energy use are wasted, causing secondary pressures on
18. ! 12!
budgeting and maintenance. Energy use hasn’t traditionally been monitored or even understood
because of relatively cheap energy costs though in recent years this has changed dramatically.
Throughout planning literature there emerge several different approaches to planning (Bryson,
1988; Baer, 1997). The most conventional is a technocratic, problem solving like blueprint,
focused on implementation and outcomes. Another path is a more inclusive, participatory, and
visioning style of planning that focuses on process and can be successful irrespective of
outcomes (Alexander, E.R. & Faludi, A., 1989). Though the first type of planning pervades most
typical organizations the latter has been used with great success at other universities and when
conducting Strategic Planning at UHM. Involving students, faculty, and staff in the planning
process turns consumers into stakeholders. Not only does the institution widen its feedback for
good ideas, it also creates external advocates for the organization if the process is inclusionary
(Paris, 2003).
Embarking on this inclusionary process requires support from the administrative leadership to
both facilitate and give direction to the process. Leaders provide an impetus for collaboration
and cooperation between differing factions and sometimes come to a final decision if opposing
parties can’t come to agreement. Due to the complex organizational structure of modern
universities no one person is totally in control which requires the use of strategic planning to
resolve conflicts, gain consensus, and create a singular vision.
The typical university has several different silos of power including students, faculty, and
administration. When deciding upon changing the curriculum toward more sustainability related
material that may be a primarily faculty driven decision or it may not. Whether thousands of
students “request” a change, faculty see a need for change, or administrators see an opportunity
for change everyone must be on board. Faculty can come up with a curriculum and it can be
funded by the administration but if students don’t see a benefit from taking the classes the
program will die. There must be leaders in each of these power silos that are all pushing in the
same direction in order to make transformative change and believe in a collective vision.
Presidents and chancellors serve at the request of the Board of Regents and often must “toe the
line” on what is publicly acceptable in supporting policies. On average the Chancellor tenure is
2.75 years since 2001 with UH Presidents slightly longer at 5.66 years since 1955 (UH System,
2012). Students are much the same and many students don’t get involved on campus until their
junior or senior years. Having short time frames to get involved in energy projects that are
primarily long-term is a fundamental problem. Increasing continuity in order to build on small
successes with such a transient population for both students and head administrators is a
challenge. Strategic planning though can create stability in times of changing leadership by
creating a stable vision of the future (Paris, 2003).
Faculty, on the other hand, sometimes spend a majority of their careers at UHM, 20 years or
longer. This longevity does not imply an aligned vision and faculty can become quite segregated
between those in research, instruction, and specialist fields. Faculty may be focused on their
students, research and research grants, or making tenure so much so that they barely interact with
the larger social organization with which they are a part (Sharp, 2002; O’Brien, 1998). If
organizational culture dictates that faculty only focus on their specific areas of interest and not
on the campus environment, then participation will continually be low and opportunities for
19. ! 13!
collaboration will be missed. Both O’Brien (1998) and Sharp (2002) believe that the most
significant problem is how the faculty views their role, as employees or as managers. This is a
fundamental argument in allowing faculty to unionize but more importantly it affects how the
faculty see their position of power. Organization and awareness are thus two areas with the
potential to help or hinder energy projects on campus.
Another important group is the administrative staff, including facilities managers. Many of these
workers also have longevity and are the ones implementing these projects. They may not have
direct power to make decisions or enact policies but they have a great influence over how
smoothly a project goes and how fast it is implemented. By including the middle management
and staff at the decision making table as well, they become stakeholders in a positive outcome
rather than barriers if they aren’t. Getting through bureaucracy can be a monumental task given
that the governing structure at universities is often top down, very rarely a linear hierarchy, and
includes many differing parties. Though the complex hierarchical organization is difficult to
navigate, both a top-down and bottom-up approach is recommended (Moore, et. al, 2005).
Figure 6. UHM Hierarchy
Budgeting)and)Implementation)
Besides the problems caused by complex organizational structures there are also issues of
turning a conceptual plan into an operational plan. Areas such as budgeting, implementation,
review, and transparency determine the success of a plan as much as its formulation. Paris
(2003) finds that it is not uncommon for institutions’ strategic plans to have no connection to
their budget. Without linking financial resources to the strategic plan actions, the value of that
20. ! 14!
plan is limited. For complex organizations where departments may sometimes compete for
financial resources it may be beneficial to separate energy funds into a discretionary account or
revolving fund allowing energy savings to accumulate and be used for future energy projects.
In some places a concrete implementation plan that links policy, projects, and accountability to
real outcomes is needed (Moore, et al., 2005). Implementation takes the “What” and “Why” of
visioning and turns it into the “How, When, Where, and Who” of action. This is usually not a
prescriptive process though certain people can be held responsible for certain actions by relative
dates while still retaining a fair amount of flexibility in the plan. Alexander (1989) believes that
planning outcomes can be evaluated separately from the planning process as long as outcomes
are beneficial, even if they don’t match planned outcomes directly. Another belief from
Wildavsky (1973) is that plans not implemented indicated failure. In the case of energy planning
a good process could be viewed as a success separately from the implementation, however, I
would agree with Wildavsky (1973) that if stated energy reduction goals are not met then the
planning process will be seen as a failure by the larger population not involved in the planning
process.
In order to build momentum and energy awareness, a series of small victories centered on the
semester timelines are necessary. Uncertainty and flexibility can be embedded in the plan so that
even if outcomes don’t resemble the planning outcomes exactly it is not deemed a failure of
implementation in the long term but on a short term basis (semester or year) there need to be
visible and marketed successes (Bryson, 1988). Short term goals must be established along with
the long-term visioning and people must be held accountable. This is primarily a middle
management issue and is embedded in the organizational culture of the institution. According to
Bryson (1988) there are three main areas with which to evaluate the strategic planning process:
1) focus the attention of key decision makers on what is important for their organizations; 2) help
set priorities for action; and 3) generate those actions. Building this momentum is necessary to
take small-scale demonstration projects campus wide.
It is also beneficial if the plan actions are coupled with evaluation and review. A feedback loop
to change and modify practices and make adjustments along the way should be established to
influence what short-term goals could be met (Bryson, 1988). Benchmarking is critical to this
step since actual information must be compared to models that were used when justifying the
program. Establishing a baseline and trends will help delineate trends of weather, rebound
effect, or general growth in energy usage to determine actual energy saved. This will ensure
long-term goals stay on track while short-term goals are adjusted each semester or year.
Sharing the results of short-term projects and transparency are also important. Informing the
student population about sustainability projects, success stories, and energy savings on campus
are a good way to not only promote change but to also garner more participation (Paris, 2003).
For a 2011/2012 student class project, students in IS489, IS499, HON291, and HON491
conducted a version of the University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF) Sustainability
Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) with 497 student respondents. The results overwhelmingly
showed that most students either don’t know or think very little is being done to improve
sustainability on campus (UH Environmental Center, 2012). In truth, finding information on plans,
policies, and project outcomes was a time intensive process because most websites were not
21. ! 15!
updated and most inherent knowledge about energy projects is held by only a select few. This
becomes a major problem when some of those key people horde that information as a form of
retaining power or leave the university for other opportunities and take all knowledge of that
project with them. Collecting and providing data for future research is a good way to build on
past successes and perpetuate the learning curve so future students can excel.
4.##Demand#Side#Energy!
Reducing the demand for energy is usually the first goal in any energy management program.
Several different approaches to this are reducing demand through conservation, increasing the
efficiency of certain systems that use energy, or reducing the peak demand. Through personal
experience in conducting residential energy research it is clear that even when homeowners live
in exactly the same home with the same appliances, and similar lifestyles that energy use varies
wildly due to household behaviors, sometimes with one house using twice as much as another
(Peppard, et al., 2011). For this reason reducing the demand for energy is mostly focused on
changing people’s behavior with regard to how much energy they use. This can vary from
making them more aware of their actions, providing incentives to reduce energy use, or
physically removing the choice of wasting energy away by changing equipment or the systems
they use. When designing an energy conservation or efficiency program it is important to
identify who the targeted audience is and what method of influence should be used. The primary
devices used include information/education, economic instruments, administrative policy
instruments, and physical improvements.
These different techniques can be manifested in several different ways and while each has
advantages and disadvantages they are best used in combination to have the best overall effect.
According to Psychology professor Linda Steg (2008) in order to change an individual’s
behavior, they must first be made aware of the need for and possible ways to change. They must
then have the motivation to change and lastly adopt the new relevant behavior (Steg, 2008).
Below are several categories for affecting an energy use behavior change across the college
campus.
Figure 7. Policy Instrument Categories (Linden, A., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & Eriksson, B., 2006).
)
Information/Education)
Information campaigns are generally inexpensive but also tend to be one of the slowest
mechanisms to produce results and/or only produce short-term change (Steg, 2008; Bender, S.,
Moezzi, M., Gossard, M., & Lutzenhiser, L., 2002). Since energy information or education is a
voluntary measure it is only as effective as the information is helpful, relevant, and value
22. ! 16!
oriented. It must trigger a strong enough reaction to change behavior. Some common examples
of information campaigns are Energy Star or recycled content on packaging, media and
advertising campaigns, or seminars and sustainability education in applicable classrooms.
Information campaigns are put loosely into two categories: the attitude model and the social
diffusion model (Costanzo, M., Archer, D., Aronson, E., & Pettigrew, T., 1986). Many of the media
and advertising campaigns that are supplied to a mass audience belong in the attitude model
because they are simply trying to change attitudes and behavior with education and information.
It has been shown that energy education in this manner must be targeted effort and even then has
modest results (Steg, 2008). Two important ways to reach people on a more personal level are
through college curricula and energy use feedback mechanisms.
Numerous studies all show that information campaigns such as posters, brochures, and even
workshops rarely translate into actual behavior change (Marans, R. & Edelstein, J., 2010). A study
by Dr. Scott Geller (1981), which included questionnaires, before and after energy workshops,
showed that attendees were more concerned about energy, had increased perceptions of control
over their energy use, and learned some simple things they could do to save energy in their
homes. However, after multiple home visits, he concluded that “the results of this and other
behavioral field studies suggest that workshops, informational pamphlets, and media promotion
should not be relied on to promote energy conservation unless they are supplemented with other
techniques designed to motivate action” (Geller, 1981). It should be clear that providing energy
information and education will most likely result in a more informed population with better
energy awareness but will probably not manifest itself into large scale behavioral change.
The social diffusion model carries that most people will only adopt energy conservation methods
or use new technology after someone they know and trust uses it first and proves that the new
action is not overly costly or inconvenient (Costanzo, M., Archer, D., Aronson, E., & Pettigrew, T.,
1986). There are almost always some early adopters that seek new technology and enjoy being
the first on the block to try new things, but the vast majority must to be convinced. Malcolm
Gladwell, in his book “The Tipping Point” calls these people Mavens, the ones who spread new
ideas and make them acceptable to others through their knowledge and social skills. In places
such as a university campus this phenomenon is usually called “peer pressure” and has a
negative connotation. However, peer pressure with regards to energy conservation could be the
vital component the campus needs to ensure conservation in mass. The psychology behind this
has more to do with the memorable and interesting stories acquired from friends and family and
less on actual pressure.
One of the key ways these social networks can get the information is through college courses,
seminars, school organizations, and projects directed at energy efficiency or conservation.
College sustainability or energy classes could be provided for those primary early adopters who
are already excited about energy conservation or technology. As they learn new ideas from class
they then discuss energy conservation techniques with their friends and family and act on them
in their own lives. Getting more and more people on board and really showing them the
difference this can make in their own lives is essential to changing behavior. Programs of
information and awareness should be coupled with education and training to make the most
positive change.
23. ! 17!
Several programs are trying to provide feedback to students, faculty, and administrators in
attempts to elevate their awareness in non-conventional ways. One is through an online energy
“dashboard” that provides real time energy use and production data at universities like ASU and
UCSD. Due to their extensive metering projects they provide detailed performance data for their
renewable energy projects and energy usage for the major buildings on campus. This application
does two things; one is to database large amounts of historical energy data that can be used for
future research and the other is to provide a quick display that lets users see comparative data in
a functional way. The energy data can be shown in cost, green house gas (GHG) emissions, or
kWh and also in selected date ranges. Providing this information publicly and in easy to read
charts and graphs can also reduce the amount of reports produced by facilities workers in
addition to being an engaging way to inform a larger body of students, faculty, and
administration about energy related issues.
A different approach occurred at the University at Buffalo where they posted annual cost and
building energy use at the entrance to every building on campus. This was a comparatively low-
tech approach to inform students and faculty of the impact their individual building or
department was having on the campus as a whole. The general belief is that by providing
feedback to the building users they can create awareness that didn’t exist before and spur
conversations about the high dollar costs or the need to conserve (Simpson, 2003).
At UCLA they are implementing a student research project that aims at wiring residential
dormitories so that students can see their real time energy use. During several phases they
monitored lights, HVAC and eventually included a peer visualization tool that compared rooms
on a high, average, or low user level. UCLA researchers concluded that students cut their light
use by 20-30% and HVAC by about 30% as well, though it is unclear if this tool has created new
habits or if the constant feedback is necessary to influence behavior (UCLA, 2012).
)
Economic)Instruments)
There are numerous examples of economic instruments at higher levels such as tax incentives,
financial aid, or low interest bonds from either the Federal or State levels. Much less has been
seen at a university level though there are financial incentives or penalties that can influence
either a department, office, or an individual’s energy use.
One of UHM’s 2011 peer universities, Iowa State, has implemented a Green Billing Program
that gives incentives for energy use reduction by billing individual departments, buildings, and
colleges instead of facilities simply paying one whole bill. This not only allows department
heads to see and understand their energy needs and use but ISU created profit sharing incentives
for each entity to recoup some of the energy savings for their own budget. The decentralized
billing first needed all major facilities to be individually monitored by energy sub-meters and the
university budget office had to go through a major restructuring process. Individual departments
now have an extra incentive to initiate or request energy efficiency projects in their selected
buildings or areas. This does place more of a burden on departmental staff but with decreasing
budgets it may be an extra way for Deans and faculty to keep money in their respective
programs.
24. ! 18!
In recent years UHM has established a Building Coordinator program to help reduce air
conditioning schedules for individual buildings. These coordinators work with facilities
employees who are individually responsible for the maintenance of assigned buildings. If a form
of financial bonus or savings sharing for the building’s college could be implemented it would
encourage both facilities managers and volunteer building coordinators to collaborate and find
additional cost saving opportunities. Such rewards or incentive programs create a mutually
beneficial process for reducing energy and environmental waste. Basing employee performance
evaluations partially on good environmental or energy management practices is another way to
create the sense of importance across the campus staff. The university can also offer non-
financial rewards such as academic credit for students, tuition waivers for employees to continue
their education, or certificates and recognition before the larger campus community.
)
Administrative)Policy)
Many examples of administrative policy instruments also exist including State mandates,
building codes, and State energy goals. As an example the State of Hawai’i requires all new
construction on campus to meet LEED Silver certification but many times the certification is not
attained because of extra costs in time, effort, and money. A problem with this is that if there is
no post-construction evaluation by an independent third party to certify LEED Silver ratings then
designers and construction managers may not be held accountable for meeting certain standards.
The ramifications of not meeting this certification standard are unclear which illustrates that
enforcing the policies becomes just as important as creating the policies. Possibly due to the
enforcement problems there are fewer effective policy instruments at the campus level though
several areas such as purchasing, design standards, temperature setpoints, and personal
electronics are showing improved energy reductions at other universities.
Besides construction certification, another policy tool is to incorporate operating & maintenance
costs into procurement decisions. This is referred to as the Fully Burdened Cost or Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO) and for durable items or capital improvements it may save a lot of money in
the long term. Incorporating these life cycle costs into the decision making process usually
justifies more energy efficient and lower carbon purchases. At Arizona State University all new
computer purchases must meet Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)
Gold standards and all electronics must meet Energy Star standards or be in the top 25% of
energy efficient models (ASU University Policy Manuals Group, 2010). This means that they
consider energy efficiency and recycled content in addition to the cost of the equipment.
In addition to their 2004 Green Purchasing Policy, the Georgia Institute of Technology was
remodeling so many buildings to the LEED Gold standard that they decided to write a “Yellow
Book” stating required design standards for all new retrofits or remodeling projects (Georgia Tech
Facilities Managment, 2012). Design standards are basically building codes that exceed the state
standard and would require all remodeled buildings to perform similarly to newer buildings.
These standards could vary from energy efficiency, energy metering, indoor air quality, or
require locally produced products. LEED: Existing Buildings and LEED Operations &
Maintenance standards also exist as guidelines to help improve existing building stock. UHM is
currently developing the UHM Building Design, Performance, and Sustainability Standards and
will provide the same type of guidance for consultants and contractors to follow (UHM, 2008). In
25. ! 19!
2011, UH Sea Grant’s Center for Smart Building and Community Design published an
Environmental Product Guide for Hawai’i that lists eco-friendly construction products and local
businesses that sell these products in order to better educate and inform purchasing and
construction officials (Center for Smart Building and Community Design, 2011). The Hawai’i State
Procurement Office also provides price and vendor listings for environmentally preferred
products as well.
One last policy measure is to stipulate what the maximum temperature for cooling will be in all
buildings on campus. The State of Hawai’i recommends a 76 degree setpoint and Arizona State
University has instituted a cooling setpoint of 80 degrees (DBEDT, 2012; ASU, 2010). The
University at Buffalo calculated that they saved approximately $100,000 per year for each degree
Fahrenheit that they didn’t cool or heat a building, and they only have 100 buildings on campus
(Simpson, 2003). Despite relatively conventional policies like this energy costs continue to
increase across the nation.
Many programs ask workers to consolidate items like refrigerators, microwaves, and printers to
common areas that multiple people can share and to buy only energy star appliances. Another
approach is for the campus Information Technology Department to produce a set of guidelines
that inform students and faculty of the most efficient power settings on their computers. In a
study of office plug loads researchers found that 64% of desktop computers were left on
overnight and only 4% of those were in a low power mode (Roberson, J. A., Webber, C.A.,
McWinney, M.C., Brown, R.E., Pinckard, M.J., & Busch, J.F., 2004). A similar survey of Saunders
Hall at UHM, revealed that only 7% of respondents had set their computer hibernation settings
(Nixon, 2007). Reasons given for this low percentage were “its just easier to do”, there are no real
incentives, and a lack of awareness of environmental consequences. As stated above,
information and education may not be enough to induce behavioral energy conservation so a
program of someone systematically changing all those computer settings may be necessary
(preferably by student workers). If the above apathy of changing computer settings continues, a
systematic audit of computer settings may prove to be very productive.
Two programs that are going beyond asking people to think about their behavior are Iowa State
University’s College of Human Sciences Computer Management Plan and a student run Server
Management program at the University of California, San Diego. First, the IT specialists at ISU
discovered that the 500 computers managed by the College of Human Services were on and
idling 75% of the time. In an effort to curb that waste they used money from the University’s
Green Revolving Fund (GRF) to purchase and install $3,039 worth of energy conservation
software on these computers. This allows systems administrators to monitor the compliance with
the university wide Computer Use Policy and have reduced waste to 25%. This has proven a
sound investment and has saved enough to repay the loan in less than one year (Billingsly, 2010).
The second program, initiated by students at UCSD, describes a more in-depth process and
recommends a system called Somniloquy to lower the power setting even further than factory
hibernation settings yet still allows certain functions such as file sharing, remote desktop, and
remote access to local files. Through an informal survey at USCD they discovered that 75% of
107 survey respondents left their computers powered on after work hours and popular reasons
given for this were programs running in the background (57%), quick availability (45%), file
26. ! 20!
sharing/downloading (40%), and remote access (29%). By using this software to induce a “super
sleep state” that still allows for these listed functions to operate they can effectively reduce the
energy use of these computers by 60 to 80%. This is obviously not as good as turning off the
computer totally but it does remove most excuses as to why a computer is not at least idle when
not being used. By using this software, a typical desktop computer used 45 hours a week saved
620 kWh per computer per year, which in Hawai’i equates to a little over $200 annually per
computer (Agarwal, Y., Hodges, S., Chandra, R., Scott, J., Bahl, P., & Gupta, R., Unknown).
Physical)Improvements)
Another way to change energy behavior is to limit the choices that people have to use energy.
This is the idea behind making physical changes and is likely the most used energy efficiency
technique. By replacing older incandescent light bulbs with newer florescent light bulbs no
behavior modification is necessary, people can just turn on the lights as they would have before
and they are using less energy. It is the same idea with reducing the size of mechanical
ventilation systems or replacing them with natural ventilation. The user ultimately has no choice
and must conform behavior to fit the new environment unless the building is so uncomfortable
that a smaller less efficient air conditioner would be brought in to make the space more
comfortable. So in many ways the process of reducing energy with physical improvements is not
only about replacing systems but deciding what is a good or at least tolerable level of comfort.
Deciding on comfort levels is never easy since they vary from person to person, however, there
are scientific studies that place human comfort within acceptable ranges. This is true for light
levels as well as temperature, two major users of energy in our building spaces. Too much light
or glare in an office or classroom produces headaches and not enough light produces eye strain
so there is a range that most people find acceptable. It is always easier to add additional task
lights in certain situations than it is to take away overhead lights. To take a lighting retrofit a
step further means improving the natural light or day lighting of the space. There are numerous
techniques for adding light shelves, skylights, or just adding windows to a space to eliminate the
need for electric lights altogether except during periods of darkness. This can make offices and
classrooms more pleasant and pleasurable to work in while also making them more energy
efficient. Utilizing day lighting, rather than replacing lights or de-lamping, is generally easier to
do when doing a “deep retrofit” or when designing a new building from the ground up.
Based upon the level of retrofit there are numerous physical improvements that have both short
and long-term payback periods ranging from installing CO2 monitors to reduce ventilation
requirements to enhanced window glazing. With any physical change the first step is to
maximize efficiency downstream at the end user, which creates a multiplying effect for the
upstream systems like chillers, generators, and PV arrays. In the book “Reinventing Fire”
Amory Lovins (2011) recommends four priorities for choosing energy efficiency projects:
1. Reduce energy for fundamental processes - lighting, ventilation, data centers
2. Reduce systems that distribute energy - pipes, wiring
3. Improve efficiency of chillers and motors – reduced peak
4. Put wasted energy to good use – food waste, heat recovery
By reducing demand at the user level it is then possible to make adjustments at the classroom,
building, and campus level.
27. ! 21!
Commissioning a new building is the process of ensuring the function of all the systems and
making certain that they are all working in harmony. Thus the process of recomissioning or
retrocomissioning is ensuring that these systems are still working together properly after a
number of years. Mechanical equipment not only breaks down and gets replaced with new parts
or systems but settings get adjusted from time to time for various reasons and are not adjusted
back to the correct settings. The mission of the building or the occupants can also change
periodically as well so there needs to be continuous adjustment by facilities workers, or
continuous commissioning. This will be difficult if backlogs are still high and significant
training has not been conducted. However, in a study by the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (LBNL) of 24 buildings in the 2009 University of California System, a 9% average
energy decrease was seen from the recomissioning process alone (Matthew, 2009). A range of 2%
to 25% savings was seen overall with the most energy reduction and shortest payback times
coming from laboratory-type facilities. The average payback period was 2.5 years at $0.25/sf-
year. A majority of the deficiencies came from the HVAC and air distribution systems and the
“most common interventions were adjusting (thermostat) setpoints, modifying sequences of
operations, calibration, and various mechanical fixes” (Matthew, 2009). On a campus with over
300 buildings this would require a tremendous effort but significant savings may result by
recomissioning on a consistent basis rather than waiting for the capital investment required for
retrofits.
A key aspect to recomissioning is targeting and reducing the peak load of certain systems. Off
setting the peak load and running the generators more efficiently can be just as effective as
replacing them with newer models. In fact, Act 155 of the Hawai’i State Legislature determines
that “Public buildings shall be retro-commissioned no less often than every five years” (HCEI,
2010). Physical improvements are not always just about upgrading equipment or swapping
newer technologies for older ones. Recomissioning only requires a better understanding of the
physical systems and how they interrelate. Many would argue that day lighting and natural
ventilation are using older practices that were used in architectural design before there was air
conditioning or light bulbs. Physical improvement projects should not only focus on newer and
more efficient technologies but better, more holistic ways to do things.
A major barrier to campus energy improvement is the high capital costs of certain physical
improvement projects. One solution to this is hiring an outside ESCo to help not only with the
planning, design, and maintenance but also to utilize their no upfront cost contracting. In many
instances projects can be financed solely with the projected energy savings of the project with a
majority of the risk being taken by the ESCo. This not only will save the university money in the
long run but also will help improve deferred maintenance if energy retrofits are “right timed”
with necessary building renovations.
Other ways to pay for these improvements include Federal Grants such as the Pollution
Prevention (P2) or Source Reduction Assistance (SRA) grant programs. Managed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, these
grants are open to state universities and can match funds up to $180,000 (EPA, 2012). These
grants can be used for innovative energy technology demonstrations, conducting surveys,
assisting in research, or even purchasing CFLs and electric vehicles. Money used to further
28. ! 22!
research, experiments, surveys, or training in a broad spectrum of resource management or
pollution prevention techniques can be used to great advantage by a university willing to use the
campus as a living laboratory. An estimated $4,922,000 will be awarded in fiscal year 2013
(CFDA, Unknown). The State of Hawai’i has also established a “Building Energy Efficiency
Revolving Loan Fund” within the state treasury that could provide low or no cost loans for future
projects. It was established to help provide technical assistance, additional personnel,
equipment, or travel to assist in these projects and includes individual sub-accounts for public
entities like UHM (HCEI, 2010).
Additional sources of money could be garnered from non-profit, governmental, or even private
industry resources. Assistance from research grants at the local, state or federal level is possible
for a research university like UHM. The Department of Energy is a major funder of energy
research in Hawai’i and the EPA could provide building management technical assistance since
UHM participates in their Energy Star Battle of the Buildings Program. Other agencies such as
America’s College and University Presidents’ Climate Challenge (ACUPCC) or the Association
for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) provide assistance to
participating schools, or on a more local level the Building Industry Association or Hawai’i
Energy can provide additional technical or monetary assistance. The 2009 AASHE Bulletin
reported over $534 million in grants delivered to universities and colleges for sustainability
projects (AASHE, 2010).
5.##Supply#Side#Energy#
It is imperative that energy programs not only focus on efficiency and conservation but also
producing cleaner more renewable energy. Consistent growth on campus using non-fossil fuel
based energy may be the only way to significantly lower GHG emissions from current levels. In
the short term, the price of renewable energy isn’t drastically different than current primary
energy sources in Hawai’i, but as technology improves that price is expected to come down
(Lovins, 2011). Prices for renewable energy can also be locked in via long-term contracts that can
help reduce uncertainty in the market and lower expectations of risk surrounding rising oil and
gas prices. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the different sources of renewable
energy and which ones are best suited for UHM but there are a multitude of demonstration
projects in Hawai’i that could be implemented or use further research at UHM. Some examples
currently used around the world include solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, biofuels, methane
from landfill or waste water treatment, and ocean wave, temperature, and tide energy sources.
Some of these may seem inapplicable to UHM but the University just built the LEED certified
John A Burns School of Medicine near the Kaka’ako waterfront park, which used to be a landfill
and is just venting excess methane right into the air. It is hoped that opportunities such as using
that waste methane to provide some power for the building were analyzed and discussed as
practitioners need to be aware of new non-traditional power sources.
The question of when to invest in renewable energy rather than extra energy efficiency is not a
completely straightforward equation. First, energy efficiency only lowers the carbon emissions
produced from fossil fuel electricity generation, it doesn’t eliminate them. Even though reducing
energy use through energy efficiency or energy conservation is effective in saving money it is
only a means to an end, the end is an economical non-polluting renewable energy. Another
29. ! 23!
wrinkle is that energy efficiency has also shown to rebound slightly which decreases its
significance over time.
A direct rebound effect would be that as demand for electricity goes down so does the price,
making it cost effective to use more again. Researcher David Greene estimates that the direct
rebound effect is approximately 20% on a microeconomic level (Herring, 2006). An indirect
rebound effect would be that as energy use decreases, customers have more money allowing for
the purchase of additional goods and services that use energy. Both of these phenomena can be
envisioned on the UHM campus by looking at the typical office and its numerous appliances and
the campus capital improvement budget. Directly, if people use efficient appliances they may
feel that they can use them more often or plug in extra devices (Steg, 2008). Indirectly, if the
university saves a significant amount of money from energy reduction methods and invests that
money back into building more buildings on campus, the result is rebounded energy use.
Second, no amount of renewable energy sources will be adequate if there is still rampant energy
waste through lack of energy conservation or efficiency. Paying for extra renewable energy that
is not really needed will waste money and could be better spent on energy conservation programs
or efficiency upgrades. In a site survey done by energy consultants Newcomb, Anderson, &
McCormick (2011) there is only enough roof space on campus to support 4.9 MW of Solar PV.
This equates to only 7% of the current total campus energy use (Newcomb, Anderson &
McCormick Consultants, 2011). Improving energy efficiency and conservation efforts will increase
that 7% making renewable energy more effective and a better investment. In essence if UHM
can make their goal of 50% reduction by 2015 then almost 14% of energy can come from solar
PV and the goal of 25% renewable energy production by 2020 becomes more attainable.
Practitioners and designers now have whole hosts of energy computer modeling software that
can help maximize the benefits of certain retrofits and power sources. Programs such as BEopt,
design builder, ENERGY-10, and Energy Plus software packages not only help to design low
energy buildings or retrofits but also to conduct cost benefit analysis in order to determine which
retrofits or materials provide the best energy savings. It is important to note that this cost benefit
analysis only compares different retrofits against each other and a “no change” or status quo
model and shouldn’t be the sole estimation of benefits behind a retrofit decision. Energy design
programs also aid in determining when it becomes cost effective to invest in renewable energy
sources rather than more energy efficiency methods.
)
Renewable)Energy)Production)and)Purchase)
Deciding which fuel or energy sources are best has much to do with the location and climate, the
priorities of the school, and the capabilities of the local electricity grid. Aspects of the local
economy, political structure, and community will also determine which methods are acceptable
or desired. It is probable that a diverse array of fuel and energy sources will be necessary to
approach self-sufficiency levels due to the high density of buildings on the UHM campus. What
is important is that no matter what renewable energy sources are chosen, switching fuels and
purchasing new equipment will be expensive and require large sums of capital investment.
Therefore several ways that large public institutions have paid for these upgrades in the past are
presented.
30. ! 24!
Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are a low risk way to make renewable energy a possibility
for the campus without having the resident expertise and/or financial capital for the project. In
essence the contract would allow a third party provider to lease land or rooftop space for certain
renewable energy projects and sell the produced energy back to the university at a fixed rate. At
the end of the fixed term, the university would have the opportunity to buy the system, or
continue the contract. This places the majority of the risk and all the maintenance costs on the
service provider. Since private companies are able to exploit the full extent of state and federal
tax incentives and some state incentives are getting political pressure to expire, timing may be of
the essence.
Arizona State University is one university that has taken full advantage of PPAs. They have the
largest solar renewable energy portfolio of any university in the United States. With six different
Energy Service Providers fulfilling contracts that support 58 campus wide systems, solar energy
provides 15.3 MWdc of capacity or approximately 23 million kWh per year to the campus. Solar
power still only accounts for 30% of the total peak energy used by ASU requiring other
alternatives in their portfolio as well (ASU Solar, 2012).
Solar PV is a logical renewable energy source since ASU gets an average of 310 sunny days a
year (85% annual sunshine). In contrast Honolulu receives 260 sunny days or 71% annual
sunshine (NOAA, 2007). While it is tempting to maximize rooftop space with solar photovoltaic
panels, detailed analysis is required to understand structural limitations, shading from other
buildings, and sun angle in order to get a range of solar energy throughout the day. Some
rooftops may be better suited as green roofs, community gardens, or solar thermal panels as
opposed to solar PV. One area that was used to great effect with solar PV were the ASU parking
structures which both provided an easily accessible place for solar power generation and also
provided shading for cars parked on the top deck (photo below).
Figure 8. Solar PV Panels on campus parking structure at Arizona State University
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) are an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sponsored bond
program begun in 2005 as part of the Energy Policy Act and extended with the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Primarily used by public institutions, CREBs allow
zero or near-zero percent interest rate bonds to be issued for qualified renewable energy projects.
The borrower would pay back only the principal of the bond and the bondholders are “paid” with
a federal tax credit rather than an interest payment. The University of California San Diego
(UCSD) used this program to acquire almost $15M in bonds to finance 15 PV projects adding
2.9 MW of photovoltaic power to their campus (Ghram, 2009). It is important to note that four
engineering students in a Solar Power course at USCD helped to write and conduct analysis for
the proposals that garnered the $15M. Though these bonds are set to expire in October of 2012
there is a chance they will be extended based on the political elections later this year (U.S. DOE
EERE, 2010). If they are still available, CREBs are a good long-term financing option for a
31. ! 25!
variety of renewable energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal, closed and open loop
biomass, trash combustion, landfill gas, and hydropower.
Another zero or low interest financing option is through a Green Revolving Fund (GRF). GRFs
are usually started with university endowment funds or donations but can also be begun from
department and administrative budgets or even money saved from initial energy reduction
projects. The money from the GRF can be used to finance energy efficiency, community
outreach and education, or small renewable energy projects. The money is paid back into the
fund through energy savings in a long-term payment plan (typically five years). Depending on
how it is set up, some schools charge an interest rate varying from 1-10%, some require that the
extra savings be put back into the fund but some charge nothing at all. Ryan Hubbel of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) adds, “Incorporating some form of a
“matching” program (such as a utility rebate program) is a good way to enhance the size and
impact of the GRF” (Hubbel, 2012). Of the 52 colleges and universities that have GRFs, annual
returns on investment range from 29% to 47% (SEI, 2011). By comparison the average annual
return for the stock market since 1928 is 9.3% (Krantz, 2011). All types of universities are able to
capture these savings with public institutions making up 42% of the universities with GRFs and
they are fairly evenly distributed in both university size and endowment amount (Figure 6).
Figure 9. Distribution of Green Revolving Funds by student enrollment and dollar amount of the GRF (SEI, 2011)
Two main methods of repayment to the fund are recommended: for those entities that may pay
their own utility bill, a loan model may be appropriate and for those on a central billing system
an accounting model would work best (Hubbel, 2012). The loan model works as a normal bank
loan would with set payments and a negotiated interest rate that the building manager or
department head would pay at regular intervals. With a university utilizing central billing the
accounting model would allow for capital repayment either annually, semi-annually or after each
term, and can be repaid through an accounting office with savings being reinvested back into the
fund. The Sustainable Endowment Institute has also developed an online web tool called Green
Revolving Investment Tracking System (GRITS).
One requirement of this system is baseline utility consumption data and the ability to track
savings attributed to the individual project. This can be accomplished by tracking total utility
costs or by using consumption data but a direct partnership with facilities personnel is essential.
The additional stress placed on facilities personnel by this process has been noted at other
universities and an effort must be made to promote collaboration rather than give facilities
32. ! 26!
personnel more duties and no extra resources. Other issues include fluctuating annual utility
prices, which may adjust repayment plans, limited initial engagement from the student body, and
limited project management capacity (SEI, 2011). While there are potential institutional problems
the benefits can promote collaboration among university entities furthering numerous university
strategic goals.
Campus)System)Upgrades)to)Increase)Renewable)Energy)Effectiveness)
These programs may not produce any renewable energy but will better configure systems to
utilize renewable energy sources or at least switch from a more expensive, polluting, and
inefficient source of energy for another more sustainable source. It is one thing to upgrade a
system to a more efficient energy source such as with electric vehicles but it is another thing if
those electric vehicles are powered by renewable energy.
In this area there are numerous alternatives as well to include running the campus shuttle on soy
biodiesel like at UCSD or on hydrogen as they do at Hickam Air Base, purchasing solar powered
vehicles that can travel up to 15 miles per day as they did at the University of Central Florida,
and even purchasing energy-producing elliptical machines at the gym to recharge iPods and
create energy awareness like the University of Oregon and Pearl Harbor Naval Base (AASHE,
2010). Other projects could include installing solar controlled moisture sensors to help manage
irrigation, solar powered pedestrian lights, or even solar thermal water heating systems.
Focusing on systems that can use renewable sources directly is often very cost effective.
Solar thermal systems are much more cost effective than solar PV panels. In situations where
there is sufficient hot water use such as dormitories, athletic locker rooms, or food service
centers it may be economical to add solar thermal panels. While adequate roof space may not be
sufficient to cover the peak loads for some “tower” type dormitories, combining solar thermal
with other technologies such as drainpipe heat exchangers can effectively double the first hour
capacity of hot water heaters (E Source , 2010). These systems capture the latent heat from
wastewater by coiling incoming cold water pipes around the warm wastewater pipe. This can be
especially effective when many hot water intensive activities all occur at the same time such as
before class showering in the mornings or laundry day on Sundays at the dormitories. A
secondary method may be to use tankless water heaters and Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) or
LPG for all hot water needs. Tankless water heaters are more efficient than traditional tank-type
water heaters regardless of whether they use SNG or electricity.
6.##Recommendations#
Though many of the highlighted energy reduction best practices are technical in nature, the
barriers facing the University are primarily social and policy related. Organizational culture,
increased responsibility for students and employees, and a fear of the unknown all make
implementing one of these best practices at UHM a challenge. The trend of increased energy
cost and importance on campus will continue and because of that a more concerted effort needs
to be made involving the entire campus; students, faculty, administration, and third-party
stakeholders. An Energy Management Office should be set up that acts as a center for
collaboration, awareness, and project development giving it the $23 million dollar attention it
33. ! 27!
requires. More effort should also be allocated for incentives and recognition of successful
projects to not only increase awareness but also encourage more participation in energy related
learning and research.
The UHM energy reduction goals, first established in 2006, were the first major step to gaining
participation and effecting change at the university level from a non-facilities standpoint and
should be a renewed commitment with every president and chancellor after they are hired, for
continued support. The commitment to a set of energy goals is one of the most important steps
when creating a strategic energy plan. Integrating the University goals and values into energy
planning and policy is paramount when developing a strategic energy planning process.
Four goals taken from the UHM Strategic Plan, 2011-2015, show how integral energy is to
UHMs success (UHM, 2011).
Goal 1: A Transformative Teaching and Learning Environment
- # of students taking courses that include aspects of sustainability
- % of students with experiential learning
Goal 2: A Global, Leading Research University
- % of undergraduates involved in research and scholarship
- square footage and % increase of new/renovated research facilities
- # of faculty with expertise in key research areas including sustainability and Native
Hawaiian scholarship
Goal 3: An Engaged University
- # of students involved in campus leadership and decision-making (e.g., ASUH, GSO,
college/department committees)
Goal 4: Facilitating Excellence
- Resource usage measures in kilowatt-hours, gallons of wastewater, and tons of solid waste.
- # of searchable data sets and data systems.
Each of these strategic goals has within it numerous opportunities and barriers directly related to
energy use on campus. It is no longer acceptable to think of energy as just another bill that must
be paid, nor just what technology can be bought to reduce that energy use. Simply viewing
energy consumption as a number to be reduced is missing opportunities to achieve substantially
more than saving dollars alone. Understanding the what, how, and why of energy use on campus
can bring about new research opportunities, more engagement with students and extracurricular
student organizations, and help save money that can be reinvested into other more meaningful
programs on campus. Allowing facilities managers to turn the lights off at night or adjust
temperature settings is only the beginning to a strategic energy revolution on campus.
Campus)Involvement)
)
Many of these energy reduction or efficiency methods require efforts from a broad spectrum of
the campus. Facilities managers are central and key components but they alone cannot bring
about the desired change. Respected and committed “champions” must push for change
throughout the many different power structures. Faculty, students, Deans, IT personnel, and
third party service providers all must take some responsibility for their energy use if there is hope
for mass change. Individually they must rethink their own systems and make better use of their
34. ! 28!
resources but the university must give them access to resources, information, and in some cases
incentives.
Strategic planning and SWOT analysis are tools that enable better understanding of the complex
energy issues, inclusion of a diverse array of participants, and solutions that are supported by
various stakeholders. Another tool is a thorough plan critique or review before implementation,
preferably by those outside of the plan making process. More open input in the form of a review,
similar to academic review of papers before they are published, could generate the
interdisciplinary input needed for projects that touch many facets of the campus.
An asset that the university already possesses is the Mānoa Sustainability Council. This group,
made up of diverse faculty, students, and interested campus parties, could be a good review
board for project and plan critique. Since their various backgrounds, interests, and specialties are
focused on many aspects of sustainability they could properly review and make balanced
judgments on projects being proposed for implementation. The formulated plan would then have
both an internal and external review before it went to the Board of Regents for approval.
Third-party service providers may also bring unique solutions to the planning process. ESCos
are a proven way for universities to capture energy savings because of their no upfront cost
financing, the technical experience they bring, and their performance and maintenance
guarantees. There are potential challenges to be aware of such as contracting limitations, the
need for collaboration across multiple departments, and any Union pushback from perceived loss
of work to outside contractors (Pearce, J. & Miller, L., 2006). These relationships work best when
facilities workers have input into which building retrofits fit into their maintenance schedule and
also help the ESCo with technical solutions particular to the Mānoa campus. This collaboration
can benefit the facilities workers as well since there will be a transfer of knowledge and some
training by the ESCo employees to the university staff.
It also helps to look beyond the “low hanging fruit” retrofits and select a mixture of short and
long-term payback retrofits. Using short and long-term projects in the same portfolio allows
longer payback retrofits like chillers or energy management systems to become more
economically feasible. However, it is usually the long payback or “deep” retrofit that exceeds
the technical knowledge or capability of facilities’ personnel. With continually rising energy
costs some savings now may be better than delaying a project for several years until the training
and resources are present in-house. The State of Hawai’i has been recognized by the Energy
Services Coalition as First in the Nation in Energy Savings Performance Contracts for State
Building Efficiency and all UH System community colleges have implemented performance
contracts to implement “major energy conservation measures”(DBEDT, 2012).
Energy)Management)Office)
Besides utilizing a participatory planning process, which has been used for other purposes at
UHM, another important aspect is to appoint an Energy Management Officer with an associated
team. Rather than nesting those duties with someone already employed at the university or using
facilities workers as the energy team and giving them more work, a separate office should be
established so they can focus on energy/environmental issues full time. Though it is difficult to
35. ! 29!
find new money in the budget for extra positions they too can be looked upon as an investment.
Any money saved now rather than later can immediately be put to new salaries for an energy
team and with an energy bill in the millions, those salaries could be paid for many times over.
The Energy Management Officer should also have enough authority to maintain effective
collaboration across the campus. This should be relative to the priority placed upon energy
savings. By making the energy team an office of full time workers the University can
demonstrate the high importance that they place on energy savings and the reduction of student
tuition dollars.
The formulation of an energy office would not only send the right message it would allow staff
to properly conduct tasks such as campus energy benchmarking, project review, and
education/outreach. This would allow for a more fact based planning process and create a hub
for collaboration across the campus. Currently there are dozens of campus energy or
sustainability initiatives being driven by student organizations, class projects, or facilities
managers, most with no knowledge of the others efforts. Rather than working in divergent
directions an energy management office could help coordinate these efforts to have a more
synergistic effect. If groups became aware of each other’s efforts they might be encouraged to
expand their projects or perhaps collaborate. This propagation of knowledge would then create a
positive feedback loop and amplify the progress of energy projects on campus.
The energy office should coordinate efforts, promote energy reduction projects, aid with public
outreach, and possibly implement programs. Additional duties such as creating campus building
design and construction standards, pursuing funding options, and creating lessons learned from
past projects have also been proposed in the past (UHM, 2006). There is also potential for
linkages with campus energy data storage and research with HNEI and REIS, or linkage with a
new sustainability curriculum being developed for UHM.
To be effective at creating an energy plan it is essential that someone provide UHM stakeholders
with quantitative insight on UHM energy use, understanding of the energy dynamics in Hawai’i,
and a view of the price pressures for successful energy reduction projects and programs. It may
also foster better collaboration and technical assistance if implementing a Green Revolving Fund
by providing time and expertise for departments or student groups who may not be able to handle
the management on their own (Levy, J. I. & Dilwali, K. M. , 2000).
It is important to point out that an energy manager should act as a central coordinator for energy
projects not as the sole person or office responsible. The position could in fact have negative
consequences if other departments and staff forgo their own responsibilities with regards to
energy and pile it all onto the Energy or Sustainability office (Shriberg, 2000). The main function
of the energy office should be to coordinate, collaborate, and provide analysis and evaluations of
energy projects or programs on campus. Many of UHMs peer universities have offices of
sustainability, energy, or the environment and serve in a variety of capacities across campuses.
With a small office of full time energy management staff and the Mānoa Sustainability Council
(MSC) volunteers, a system of project idea creation, data analysis, and project review could be
created. Any student or faculty sustainability ideas could be brought before the MSC committee
for discussion or project ideas could be initiated inside the energy management office. The
