report contact: [email protected] sustainability dashboard august 2010 – draft 1 mission: “to...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
1Report Contact:
Sustainability DashboardAugust 2010 – DRAFT
MISSION: “To positively enhance our local and global environment”
Key processes include:
Value (VL “Role Model”) Resources Provide global sustainability leadership Control costs Be a responsible global citizen Attract new resources
Internal Processes Staff Learning & Growth (VL “Culture”)Reduce consumption Develop awarenessReduce toxins/pollutants indoors & outdoorsIncrease sustainable practices
2
The University of Washington has 3 campuses and owns property in downtown Seattle, on San Juan Island (the Friday Harbor lab), Pack Forest (near Mount Rainier) and other locations (50 total).
UW also operates and manages three Medical Centers; The UW Medical Center on campus, Harborview Medical Center and Northwest Hospital (both of which are less than 5 miles from the Seattle campus).
(VL)With UW’s vast reach comes a great responsibility and opportunity as an environmentally sustainable leader. The dashboard is an attempt to:1. Identify our areas of impact and areas of improvement2. Communicate to our wide range of constituents our efforts and direction3. Create a common foundation to generate discussion and projects that benefit Sustainability.
Report Contact: [email protected]
CUSTOMER PROCESS/THEME MEASURE (Strategy Map Objective) ACTUAL TARGET GAP
FINANCIAL
PROCESS/THEME MEASURE (Strategy Map Objective) ACTUAL TARGET GAP
Provide global leadership
1. Peer comparison report rankings (Sustainability Endowment, Princeton Review, Cool Schools)
A-96%4th
A+99%1st
Control Costs 16. Utilities Cost Avoided $9.89M $8.78M
Be a responsible global citizen
2. Number of office green teams (ESS metric) 4 5 1 Control Costs
17. Cost avoided by diverting waste from landfill
$795,000??
Be a responsible global citizen
3. Commuter mode split – percent SOV (Single Occupancy Vehicle)
21% <20% 1+% Control Costs 18. Cost avoided by reducing paper consumption
TBD TBD
PROCESS/THEME OPERATIONAL
MEASURE (Strategy Map Objective) ACTUAL TARGET GAPAttract new resources
19. Growth of the Husky Green Fund$500 $1000
Reduce consumption /Move to more sustainable practices
4a. Paper purchased through purchasing4b. % recycled
not yet available
- <5%
Attract new resources
20. CSF $ allocated, $ spent0
$340,000
Reduce ../..more sustainable practices
5. Waste landfill diversion rate 54%60% in 2012
6%
Reduce…/… more sustainable practices
6. Average MPG of fleetUNDER CONSTRUCTION
? ? ? PROCESS/THEME LEARNING & GROWTHMEASURE (Strategy Map Objective)
ACTUAL TARGET GAP
Reduce consumption
/Move to more sustainable practices
7a. % organic7b. % local
8%8%
10%10%
2% Develop awareness
21 We would like to have an Academic metric
Reduce consumption
8. Estimated yearly CO2 emissions from professional travel
18,301 MgCO2
No goal Develop awareness
22. Number of sustainability Qs addressed by the ESS website
100%
Reduce consumption
9. Scope 1 & 2 GHG emissions ?? ?Develop
awareness23. ? Work with OSP to track
research related to sustainability
Reduce consumption
10. GHG emissions per capita & per gross square foot (metric tons CO2)
.0054/ gsf, 2.44 /capita
?
Reduce consumption
11a. Water consumption (in 1000 galls)11b. Electricity Consumption
1125gpd ?
1188gpd?
Move to more sustainable practices
12. Number of LEED projects 11 19 8
Reduce consumption13. Network traffic
Reduce …/…more sustainable practices
Cleaning: 14a. garbage bag liners disposed14 b. water for cleaning14 c. gallons of floor stripper
Reduce …/…more sustainable practices
15a. Waste converted to Mulch15b. Pesticide/Fertilizer use15c. Fuel use
SUSTAINABILITY DASHBOARD – summer, 2010
CUSTOMER MEASURES
SEI Report Card2009
Princeton Honor Roll2010
Sierra Cool Schools
2010University of WashingtonUW goal: Achieve the highest rank possible
A-Goal: A+
96Goal: 99
4thGoal: 1st
Arizona State U - Tempe A- 99 34th
UC San Diego A- 96 15th
UNC - Chapel Hill A- 95 40th
Stanford A- 97 5th
Colorado - Boulder A- 87 13th
Oregon State U B+ 98 24th
UC Davis B+ 94 16th
University of Michigan B+ 84 47th
UC Berkeley B 99 32nd
University of Connecticut B 95 49th
University of Oregon B 96 NA
Maryland - College Park B 99 NA
UCLA B 87 25th
University of Arizona B60* (not sure what *
means)NA
MEASURE 1: Peer comparison report rankings
Our ratings: SEI report card Princeton Green Rating Sierra Cool Schools2008 B 99 9th2009 A- 99 2nd2010 ? (available in September) 96
4thGOAL: achieve the highest rankings possible (A+, 99 & 1st place).
MEASURE 2: Number of office green teams
•UW Tower Green Team•Environmental Stewards (Financial Management, Treasury, Strategy Management) •Student Fiscal Services Sustainability Team•Health Sciences Building Green Team
Green teams create more sustainable office environments by enabling people who are committed to sustainability to make changes in their own work setting. The ESS office plays a role in providing support to these groups and facilitate communications between them.
To date, there are 4 active green teams (listed below). We would like to see at least one more established during the fall quarter, 2010.NOTE: Updates to this data will be made quarterly
Existing teams:
UW Green Team logo designed & donated byDavid Wolbrecht of uwcreative
Report Contact: [email protected]
Report Contact: [email protected]
19891994
19982002
20060
50
100
transit%
1989
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
bicycle
walk
other
transit
carpool/vanpool
drive alone
19891994
19982002
20060
50
100
drive alone
%
MEASURE 3: Commuting Mode split
Walking and transit have increased while driving alone has decreased to 21%. Our goal is to get below 20% driving alone.NOTE: This data is gathered and processed every 2 years (we’re moving toward gathering this data yearly). 2010 data will be available in 2011.
21%
19891994
19982002
20060
50
100
other
%
19891994
19982002
20060
50
100
bicycle
%
19891994
19982002
20060
50
100
walk
%
19891994
19982002
20060
50
100
carpool/vanpool
%
This is a visual representation of the community mode split which gives a sense of the traffic created by UW staff, students & faculty):
Report Contact: [email protected]
OPERATIONAL MEASURES
Jan 07 - Dec 07
Jan 08 - Dec 08
Jan 09 - Dec 09
050,000
100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000
Reams of paper consumed
Num
ber
of
Ream
s
MEASURE 4a. Paper purchased through PurchasingMEASURE 4b. % recycled contentIn July 2009, Washington State passed a paper conservation and recycling act (Substitute House Bill 2287) directing state agencies to create programs to reduce paper consumption by at least 30% and use 100% recycled copy paper.In response, the UW has created the following goals:
To decrease total paper consumption from 2008-2009 levels by 5% by the end of the first quarter of 2011, 15% by the second quarter, 22.5% by the end of the third quarter and 30% by the end of the fourth quarter.
2006 2007 2008 20090%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Recycled content of paper consumed
perc
ent
of
tota
l paper
consu
mpti
on
2006 2007 2008 20090%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
100% recycled
To increase the amount of 100% recycled paper by 5% by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2011 (and to establish more long-term goals at that point).
NOTE: Updates to this data are available quarterly
2006 2007 2008 20090%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
30-50% re-cycled
2006 2007 2008 20090%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
non-recycled
Report Contact: [email protected]
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 5. Waste diversion rate
In 2010, 56% of our waste was diverted from landfills. Our 2012 goal is 60% diversion.
A sample of our garbage was analyzed in the March, 2010 ‘trash-in’. The results suggested that more waste can be diverted. Roughly 1/3 of the material headed to the landfill was recyclable or compostable.
See the following pages for a breakdown of materials diverted.
NOTE: Updates to this data are available yearly
Breakdown of waste by category (see following page for item-by-item display)
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
garbage
recycled special waste
mixed recycled
food waste
organics (excluding food waste)
construction & demo-lition
combined fiber
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Percentage of waste, by weight Tons of waste
This graphs shows the total amount of waste we produce year-to-year.
MEASURE 5. Waste diversion rate, cont…
Report Contact: [email protected]
200520062007200820090%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
garbage (landfill)
200520062007200820090%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
organics (excluding food waste)
200520062007200820090%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
construction & demolition
20052006
20072008
20090%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
recycled special waste
200520062007200820090%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
mixed recycled
20052006
20072008
20090%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
food waste
200520062007200820090%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
combined fiber
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
-1%
0%
1%
2%
recycled special waste (detail view)
Item-by-item breakdown of waste materials showing percentage of total waste stream for each category
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MEASURE 5. Waste diversion rate, cont…
Report Contact: [email protected]
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 6. Average MPG (miles per gallon) of fleet
The UW fleet consists of over 650 vehicles. Vehicles are being transitioned to electric vehicles to reduce costs and environmental impact.
The chart on the right shows the current make-up of fleet vehicles by fuel type.
[The metric for the Fleet is under construction, it will be MPG]
Fleet vehicles by fuel source
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 7. Food served: 7a. % organic 7b. % grown or raised locally
The amount spent on locally grown or raised food increased by 1.1%The amount spent on locally processed food increased by 15%The amount spent on organic food increased by 1.5%NOTE: This data is gathered and processed yearly. New data is available in late July/early August
locally grown or raised food locally processed food organically grown or processed food
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
7%
17%
7%8%
31%
8%
% of $ spent on food
2008-2009
2009-2010
There are many elements of food production that affect overall sustainability. The charts below show the percentage of our food budget spent on locally grown/processed food and organically grown food.
MEASURE 8. Estimated CO2 emissions from professional air travel
Since professional air travel plays a role in the research mission of the University, no goal has been set, though tracking it important as it is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.Yearly data is available for 2006, 2007 & 2008 and monthly data for 2009 to the present. In December 2008, an out-of-state travel freeze was instituted in response to state budget cuts. The freeze is still in place, but travel is increasing. Total estimated emissions in calendar 2009 was 18,301 MgCO2.NOTE: Updates to this data are available quarterly
Janu
ary
2006
Mar
ch 2
006
May
200
6
July
2006
Septe
mbe
r 200
6
Novem
ber 2
006
Janu
ary
2007
Mar
ch 2
007
May
200
7
July
2007
Septe
mbe
r 200
7
Novem
ber 2
007
Janu
ary
2008
Mar
ch 2
008
May
200
8
July
2008
Septe
mbe
r 200
8
Novem
ber 2
008
Janu
ary
2009
Mar
ch 2
009
May
200
9
July
2009
Septe
mbe
r 200
9
Novem
ber 2
009
Janu
ary
2010
Mar
ch 2
010
0500
1,0001,5002,0002,500
CO2 emissions - professional air travel(all travel reimbursed through UW accounts - the break-down is approximate; the campuses are not tracked sep-
arately)Other outlying
Bothell
Tacoma
Seattle
Mg
CO
2
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 9. Scope 1 & 2 GHG emissions
By far the dominant source of scope 1&2 emissions is the Seattle Power Plant which produces steam for heating. Emissions are largely driven by weather (expressed here as Heating Degree Days).
Report Contact: [email protected]
January
2008
Febru
ary 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August
2008
Septem
ber 2008
October
2008
November
2008
December
2008
January
2009
Febru
ary 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August
2009
Septem
ber 2009
October
2009
November
2009
December
2009
January
20100
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
-450
-250
-50
150
350
550
750
950
UW Scope 1&2 January 2008-January 2010
CO2 emissions Heating Degree Days (HDD)
MgC
O2e
(mill
ion
gram
s CO
2 eq
uiva
lent
)
Heati
ng D
egre
e Da
ys
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
0
0.001
0.00200000000000001
0.00300000000000001
0.00400000000000002
0.00500000000000002
0.00600000000000002
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
GHG emissions per person/per square
foot
GHG/square foot GHG/capita
met
ric
ton
s C
O2e
met
ric
ton
s C
O2e
These graphs show building and student population growth on the Seattle campus and the GHG emissions per square foot and per capita. Current values are .0054 metric tons CO2 per gsf, and 2.44 metric tons CO2 per capita.
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
Growth of student population and building space
(2005-2009)Student population Building Gross square feet
stud
ent p
opul
ation
gros
s squ
are
feet
MEASURE 10. GHG emissions per capita & per gross square foot (gsf)
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 11a. Water consumption
Aggressive water conservations efforts begun in 2001 have resulted in dramatic reductions in consumption. The downward trend is clear in the graph below (indicated with the orange line). The summer peaks are also apparent reflecting the fact that significant amounts of water are used for cooling and irrigation. We currently consume 112,500 gallons per day which is less (better) than the targeted 118,800 gallons per day.
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
July January July January July January July January July January July January July January July January July January July January July January0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000Gallons of water per month
July, 1999-June, 2000
gallo
ns
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 11b. Electricity ConsumptionThis graph shows total electricity consumption for the Seattle campus over a 4-year period. The overall trend in consumption is slightly upward, but this trend is less steep than the upward trend in in building space (the next page shows a monthly breakdown of this data).
2006 2007 2008 20090
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
26,81825,763 26,401 26,807
Electricity consumption and gsf 2006-2009Total MWh Total Seattle Campus (owned)
MW
h
gros
s squ
are
feet
Report Contact: [email protected]
This chart shows that electricity consumption fluctuates, but is fairly consistent throughout the year. The green line shows the trend over this 4-year period. Note that increase in gross square feet of buildings space (which is shown by the orange line) is greater than the increase in consumption.
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 11b. Electricity Consumption, cont.
January
2006
March 2006
May 2006
July 2006
Septem
ber 2006
November
2006
January
2007
March 2007
May 2007
July 2007
Septem
ber 2007
November
2007
January
2008
March 2008
May 2008
July 2008
Septem
ber 2008
November
2008
January
2009
March 2009
May 2009
July 2009
Septem
ber 2009
November
20090
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
UW Seattle Campus electricity consumption by monthElectricity consumption (MWh) Linear (Electricity consumption (MWh)) Linear (Electricity consumption (MWh))Linear (Electricity consumption (MWh)) "Campus size (gross square feet)"
MW
h
cam
pus s
ize (g
ross
squa
re fe
et)
MEASURE 12. Number of LEED projects
The number of LEED-certified buildings has increased from 6 in 2009 to 11 in 2010. The number of buildings pending certification has gone from 3 to 8.12.5% of UW building space is LEED (either certified or pending certification).The UW was rated 4th in the nation for LEED projects in higher education institutions http://greenbuildconsult.com/pdfs/higher-ed.pdf.
Report Contact: [email protected]
total LEED gsf
13%
non-LEED87%
LEED square footage versus total footage
certi
fied level g
sf
silver-l
evel gsf
gold-level g
sfsil
vergold
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
Square feet of LEED-certified building
2009 2010
LEED structures on the Seattle campus (as of August, 2010):
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 12. Number of LEED projects, cont.
MEASURE 13: Network traffic
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
UW network trafficaverage gigabites per second for each month
aver
age
giga
bite
s per
seco
nd
Network traffic is used here as a proxy for power consumption by computers (both in the form of electricity demand and cooling demand in data centers). Ultimately, our goal is to reduce energy consumption by maximizing efficiency which isn’t captured directly with this metric.
Report Contact: [email protected]
Green Cleaning
14a. Number of garbage bag liners disposed of14b. Water consumed for cleaning14c. Gallons of floor stripper used
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 14 a. Garbage bags: In 2009-2010 we replaced some of our garbage can liners with lighter-gage liners reducing the amount going into the landfill
by 6,542 pounds:
In addition, the number of liners consumed has been reduced by converting 3,000 office waste cans to the MinMax system which means smaller liners that are replaced less frequently saving an estimated 156,000 liners.
Another goal of Custodial Services is to reduce the amount of water and electricity consumed by cleaning. An estimated 819,000 gallons of water was saved FROM ENTERING THE SEWER SYSTEM by moving to a BUCKET-less system for cleaning floors:
Daily water savings = 3.5 gallons per bucket x emptied 3 times x300
buckets = 3,150 gals.
Est. Annual savings = 3,150 gals. x 260 = 819,000 gals.
MEASURE 14b. Water consumed for cleaning
One of the ongoing goals of Custodial Services is to eliminate products that are hazardous to human health or the environment. One of the remaining hard-to-replace products is floor stripper.
2009-2010 will be the baseline year against which to measure reduction. The amount consumed was:
415 gallons of Bravo 1500+ (Total cost = $3,612.99)
Approximately 94 gallons of 3M #22H (Total cost = $6,233.56)
Total strippers used in 2009 = 509 gallons. Total cost = $9,846.55
MEASURE 14c. Gallons of floor stripper consumed
Report Contact: [email protected]
Amount of yard waste converted to mulch
Decrease in pesticide and fertilizer use
Decrease in fuel usage: reduce carbon footprint by using smaller vehicles and electric vehicles
Future: water consumption for irrigationFuture: green belt maintenance
MEASURE 15: Grounds – UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Report Contact: [email protected]
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Working to identify a metric related to Environmental Health & Safety
FINANCIAL MEASURES
Report Contact: [email protected]
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
water
gas
electricity
other
SCL conservation measures
19961998
20002002
20042006
20080
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
water
19961998
20002002
20042006
20080
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
gas
19961998
20002002
20042006
20080
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
electricity
19961998
20002002
20042006
20080
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
other
19961998
20002002
20042006
20080123456789
SCL conservation measures
MEASURE 16. Utilities Cost AvoidedThe amounts below represent savings resulting from conservation measures. An estimated 9.89 million dollars were saved in 2009, 1.11 million above the 8.78 target.
A project for which the UW usually receives an financial incentive from Seattle City Light for reducing electricity consumption.
MEASURE 17. Cost avoided by diverting waste from the landfill
The environmental costs of burying waste in a landfill include the production of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, and the emissions from shipping (our landfill waste is sent to Oregon).
The monetary costs of sending our waste to a landfill are also high and continue to rise. While there are expenses associated with gathering and transporting material for recycling, composting and other forms of re-use, they are significantly lower. As a result, the more we divert from the landfill, the more we save. In 2008-2009 we saved $795,442
$795.442
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 18. Cost avoided by reducing paper consumption
….awaiting data for this metric
Report Contact: [email protected]
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 19. Growth of the Husky Green Fund“The Husky Green Fund supports activities that continue the University's
vision and leadership for environmental stewardship.” The fund was established in the fall of 2009 and has not yet been promoted. As of May, 2010, the fund contained approximately $500. Our goal for the year is to reach $1000 [I made this up - we need to set a goal]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
Husky Green Fundcumulative amount gift amount
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 20. Campus Sustainability Fund (CSF) $ allocated & spent
The Campus Sustainability Fund will bring in $340,000 from Student Activity fees. The fund will support campus sustainability projects in which students will participate. In August of 2010, two students will be hired by the Office of Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability to set up the process for managing the fund.
Our target for the first year is to spend $340,000 on projects.
June, 2010CSF approvedby students andRegents
August, 20102 students will be hired to manage the fund
December, 2010GOAL: $ allocated $ spent
LEARNING & GROWTH MEASURES
This is a place-holder for an academic metric. We initially considered counting the number of students who graduate with a sustainability-oriented degree. We’ve decided this is not necessarily meaningful or easily measured, but haven’t yet defined an alternative.
MEASURE 21: Sustainability education
Report Contact: [email protected]
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 22. Number of sustainability questions addressed by the ESS website
For each of the topic areas listed below, the following questions should be addressed:•How is the UW doing (compared to previous years and compared to peers)•What actions are we taking and who is taking these actions?•What can individuals do in this area?
EmissionsGreenhouse gas emissions? Commuting? Professional travel?
Continued on next page…
This metric is addressing our goal of informing ourselves and others about sustainability efforts on campus. Much of this information is already online, but we recognize a need to tie those pieces of information together to create a coherent sense of our efforts across campus (something many other campuses have already done).Ultimately, our goal is an informed campus. This metrics pushes us to reflect upon how well the ESS website helps people become informed. Our goal is that ESS website will address all of the following questions either by providing the information or pointing to it:
Report Contact: [email protected]
UtilitiesWater consumption? Electricity consumption? Natural gas consumption?Onsite energy production (solar)?
PurchasingRecycled paper? Local & organic food?Meat consumption/availability of non-meat options?Sustainable seafood consumption? Other purchasing practices
DisposalElectronic waste? Recycling? Composting? Landfill waste? Hazardous waste?
MaintenanceCleaning products & practicesIrrigation and pest management practicesStorm-water runoff management
MEASURE 22. Number of sustainability questions addressed by the ESS website Questions continued…
Report Contact: [email protected]
MEASURE 23. Sustainability-related research projects
We want to look into the possibility of having OSP (the Office of Sponsored Projects) track which research projects have a sustainability component.