This document provides information about Harvard University's organizational structure, population, buildings and infrastructure, environmental impact, and the Harvard Green Campus Initiative. It discusses Harvard's decentralized structure with autonomous schools. It also details HGCI's funding models, staffing growth, and goal of transforming attitudes around sustainability through engagement, research, and targeted programs. HGCI uses an entrepreneurial approach to fund conservation projects and behavioral changes across the university.
7. Complexity in Infrastructure
Lab/studio Library Assembly &
17% 8% Museum
6%
Support
5%
Commercial
5%
Other
Office & 15%
Athletic
Classroom
4%
24%
Health care
0.4%
Residential
31%
10. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
School
HGCI Fin Mgr (capital budget)
Loan Fund Fin Mgr (operating budget)
1 2
Change Facility Director
Agent Building Manager (Superintendent)
House Master
Vendor
Univ. Ops House occupants (students)
Sales Rep REP coordinator (student)
Technician Maintenanc
e crew
11. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
School
HGCI 4 Fin Mgr (capital budget)
Loan Fund Fin Mgr (operating budget)
1 2
Change Facility Director
Agent Building Manager (Superintendent)
House Master
Vendor 3
Univ. Ops House occupants (students)
Sales Rep REP coordinator (student)
Technician Maintenanc
e crew
12. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
School
HGCI 4 Fin Mgr (capital budget)
Loan Fund Fin Mgr (operating budget)
1 2
Change Facility Director 5
6 Building Manager (Superintendent)
Agent
House Master
Vendor 3
Univ. Ops House occupants (students)
Sales Rep REP coordinator (student)
Technician Maintenanc
e crew
13. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making
Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
• Full Process = 3 months of constant facilitation by
HGCI
School
HGCI 4 Fin Mgr (capital budget)
2 1 1
Loan Fund Fin Mgr (operating budget)
0 1 7 8 8
1 2
9 Change Facility Director 5
6 7
Agent Building Manager (Superintendent)
1 9
1 House Master
4 0
Vendor 3 1 1 1
Univ. Ops 1 House occupants (students)
Sales Rep 5 2 1
3 REP coordinator (student)
Technician 1 Maintenanc
6 e crew
15. Harvard as Builder
• 600 campus buildings
• 21 million gross square feet
(gsf) of floor space
• Historical trends
- 1 million gsf per decade
16. Harvard as Landowner
• 657 acres of campus land area
– 219 acres in Cambridge
– 22 acres in Longwood
– 250 acres in Allston
– 137 acres in Southborough
– 29 acres in Watertown
• 4,100 acres of research land area
18. Harvard’s GHG
Inventory: Annual
Reporting
60+% growth in GHG emissions since 1992
Wide range in School GHG growth trends
FY06: Cambridge/Allston campus = 74% Longwood Campus = 26%
Buildings account for over 87% of emissions (to power, heat & cool)
Three of Harvard’s 11 Schools account for 66% of campus emissions
20. Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach
Total
Full Time Staff
FY01 1
FY02 4
FY03 8
FY04 11
FY05 11
FY06 16
FY07 19
FY08-FY09 24+
21. Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach
Base Program Total Annual
Funding Full Time Staff University
Savings
FY01 $ 80,000 1
FY02 $264,000 4 $400,000
FY03 $648,000 8 $700,000
FY04 $890,000 11 $1.5 million
FY05 $857,000 11 $3 million
FY06 $1,155,000 16 $5 million
FY07 $1,700,000 19 $6+million
FY08-FY09 $2,200,000 24+ $7+million
22. Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach
Green Campus Loan Fund: $12 million interest-free capital for conservation
projects
Existing New Construction
Buildings
5 year payback 10 year payback maximum
maximum
Lifecycle costing used
Simple payback used
$8.5+ million lent since 2001
200+ projects
30% average return on investment
23. Capacities: Time, Attention and Expertise
Harvard Green Campus Initiative:
Organizational Chart 2000
Co-Chair
Faculty, Harvard School of
Public Health
Prof. Jack Spengler
Director,
Leith Sharp
Co-Chair
Assoc. VP, Facilities &
Environmental Services
Tom Vautin
a
24. Capacities: Time, Attention and Expertise
Harvard Green Campus Initiative:
Organizational Chart 2000 Green Building Operations
Green Building Design
Co-Chair
Faculty, Harvard School of Campus Occupant Engagement Programs
Public Health
Prof. Jack Spengler
Environmental Procurement
Director, 23+ Full-time
Staff Residential Green Living Programs
Leith Sharp
20 Part-time
Renewable Energy
students
Co-Chair
Assoc. VP, Facilities & HGCI Base Program Staff
Environmental Services
Tom Vautin
HGCI Courses at Harvard Extension School
•Sustainability – The Challenge of Changing Our
Institutions
•Green Building Design, Construction and Operations
♦ FY07Operating Cost = $1.6million ♦ Annual Savings = $6+ million & 90+ million pounds of
CO2
20% Office of President and Provost & central administration sources.
25. 10 Elements of Organizational Transformation
1.Change Attitudes and Assumptions
2.Engage People and Foster New Capacities
3.Assessment, Research and Development
4.Pilot and Expand New Practices
5.Process Quality Control & Continuous
Improvement
6.Leverage Leadership
7.Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention
9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
27. Building Trust Based Relationships
TRUST
Three Types of
Relationship
Models in
Organizations
Transaction Authority
Reference: Professor Karen Stephenson, http://www.netform.com
28. 1. Change Attitudes and Assumptions
The Transformation of Hearts and Minds that Underpins Effective
Organizational Transformation for Sustainability at Harvard
There is no problem because….the planet is an infinite source of resources with an infinite
capacity to absorb our pollution
There is a problem but it’s not mine because…..what I do has little impact on the planet, I
just don’t count, my influence is too small
There is a problem, I am involved, I probably could do something except it’s so hard……I
can’t get the funds, I don’t know how, I don’t have the time, I keep forgetting, my manager
doesn’t seem to want it, there’s no reliable alternative, it’s too risky, I don’t get evaluated on
it etc
There is a problem and I am fully engaged in working on my part
of the solution in every way possible!
29. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
Occupant impacts on
building operations &
environmental impacts
30. 2. Engage People Motivation
and Foster New Capacities
MOTIVATION
There is much research to support the idea that learning is best served when
“motivation is intrinsic” that is to say when the individual is self-motivated
rather than externally motivated.
Experience that has no emotional engagement are not likely to be effective in
generating new mental representations.
Gardener, H. (1999) The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
31. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
PEER TO PEER PROGRAMS
Harvard University Dining Services:
Green Skillet Competition
Inter-Dining Hall Competition: 500+Dining Staff
In 2007 The winning kitchen reduced electricity
use by 23%
32. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
PEER TO PEER PROGRAMS
Residential Green Living Programs
9,000+ students from the College, Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School,
Kennedy School of Government
To reduce the environmental impact of dorm life at Harvard through…
• Peer education, and awareness. Major focuses
• Practical projects in the dorms. • Electricity, heating, & water
• Collaboration w/ administration to efficiency
identify barriers to conservation. • Reduce waste through re-
use and recycling
• Sustainable dining
33. In the College Quantified savings
are now well over $400,000/year.
• >13.8%reduction in electricity use
of dorms by 2007
• >4% reduction in fuel for heating
• 33% reduction in food waste
• 25% increase in recycling
• $50,000 annual water savings
• >60% reduction in move-out trash
• >$75,000/year of reusable items
salvaged and resold by REP and
Habitat
34. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
Targeted Behavioral Change
SHUT YOUR SASH COMPETITION
Harvard Medical
School
Faculty of Arts
and Sciences
HMS Fume Hood quot;Shut the Sashquot; Campaign
Average Sash Height & Energy Cost per Hood
$2,500
14
Avg Energy Cost /
Avg Sash Height
12 $2,000
Hood / year
10
(inches)
$1,500
8
6 $1,000
4
$500
2
0 $0
Over $250,000 of
WAB HIM Bldg C SGM Arm energy savings from
Pre-Campaign Sash Height Building Post Campaign Sash Height this targeted
Baseline avg cost / hood / year Post Campaign avg cost / hood / year competition
35. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
Large Scale Social Marketing Campaigns
2007 OnlineServices – 3 complexes (1,800 tenants) – 10 REPs
Harvard Real Estate
Sustainability Pledge
Last year over 8,000 8 dorms (700 students) – 4 REPs
Harvard Law School – people signed!
Harvard Business School – 5 dorms (420-students) – 6 REPs
5,700 people pledged to turn
off computers and lights at
night.
- 5,400 people pledged to
enable sleep mode on their
computer.
- 3,700 people pledged to buy
at least 30% recycled paper.
- 4,600 people pledged to
double-side copies.
- 3,821 people pledged to bring
their own coffee mug.
36. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities
Certoon: Annual Campus Energy Reduction Cartoon
Competition in the College
38. 3. Assessment, Research and Development
What is the Cost of LEED?
Over 20 LEED Projects at Harvard show that there are 34 credits and 6
prerequisites that can be achieved at no added cost if the process is managed
effectively.
Included in this number are 9 credits that all Harvard projects immediately get.
45
40
40
35
30
25
20
15
11 10
10
5 3
0
Silver = 33
Point is no cost and Potential cost impact, Point has cost Point has additional cost
often given in Harvard but will result in reduced implication and an impact with strictly an Gold = 39
projects operations costs associated human environment benefit
health / comfort /
productivity benefit
Platinum=52
39. Building Energy Assessments, Tracking & Reporting
HGCI has identified over 200 energy conservation measures in 60 building
complexes within a 12 month period for Harvard Real Estate Service.
Baseline Summary
Peabody Terrace Apartments
Square Feet Units Occupants Build Manager Org # UOS Bldg #
450849 495 696 Pam Cornell 53830 425
Heating Source Cooling Source Utilities Included in Rent Water Billing
TRUE
Blackstone Steam FALSE
#2 Fuel Oil FALSE Water
Chilled FALSE AC
Window Water and Sewer TRUE FALSE
Monthly
FALSE Gas
Natural FALSE
#4 Fuel Oil FALSE FALSE
Geothermal Electricity TRUE TRUEQuarterly
Chiller On-site
FALSE
Electricity FALSE
#6 Fuel Oil TRUE Heat TRUE
1 None TRUE
Annual Usage /
Utility Baseline Baseline Years Usage / SF Occupant
Electricity (kWh) 2,265,043 FY 2006-2007 5.024 3254.372
Natural Gas (therms) 5,044 FY 2006-2007 0.011 7.248
Steam (MMBTU) 24,956 FY 2006-2007 0.055 35.856
Water (ccf) 31,023 FY 2006-2007 0.069 44.573
Chilled Water (Ton-Days) 0 - - -
#2 Fuel Oil (gallons) 0 - - -
#4 Fuel Oil (barrels) 0 - - -
#6 Fuel Oil (barrels) 0 - - -
Combined Heating (KBTU) 24,956,034 FY 2006-2007 55.353 35856.371
Total KBTU 33,189,118 FY 2006-2007 73.615 47685.514
Electricity Heating
Normalized Annual Usage and Cost kWhs Normalized Annual Usage and Cost KBTU
Cost Cost
3,000,000 800,000 30,000,000 700,000
700,000 600,000
2,500,000 25,000,000
600,000
2,000,000 500,000
500,000 20,000,000
Cost ($)
kWhs
Cost ($)
KBTUs
1,500,000 400,000 400,000
15,000,000
300,000 300,000
1,000,000
200,000 10,000,000
200,000
500,000
100,000 5,000,000 100,000
0 0
Fiscal 2006 Fiscal 2007 Fiscal 2008 Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010 0 0
Water Chilled Water
Normalized Annual Usage and Cost Ccfs Normalized Annual Usage and Cost Ton-Days
Cost Cost
35,000 300,000 1 1
30,000 1 1
250,000
1 1
25,000
200,000 1 1
Cost ($)
Ton-Days
Cost ($)
20,000
Ccfs
1 1
150,000
15,000 1 1
100,000 0 0
10,000
0 0
5,000 50,000 0 0
0 0 0 0
Fiscal 2006 Fiscal 2007 Fiscal 2008 Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010 0 0
40. Onsite Renewable Energy
Big Belly Trash
Compactors
Photovoltaic
Ground Source Heat
Pumps
Collecting oil for Harvard Building Mounted
Solar Thermal
Recycling truck Wind
41. Technology Comparison
PV Wind Solar
Thermal
$/20 yr $.25-.35 $.03-.12 $.24
kWh
$/20 yr $400-550 $100-200 $70-350
MTCDE
Note: costs are AFTER rebates for PV and wind and factored over 20 years
Solar thermal is not eligible for MTC rebates
43. 4. Pilot and Expand New Practices
Occupancy sensor driven
temperature Setbacks
Biodiesel in University Shuttles
Ground Source Heat Pumps Green Cleaning
44. 4. Pilot and Expand New Practices
Harvard University
Diesel Emission Controls
For Construction Equipment
45. Process to Implementation
• Trial, Education, Buy-In, Meetings…
Harvard Transportation Services Vehicle
46. Harvard Emissions Spec
• Retrofits - 60HP+ onsite 20+ working days
• EPAs verified list, or approved by Harvard
• Ultra Low Sulfur Deisel. Preference for
biodiesel, ethanol
• Anti-idling, equipment location, electric
equipment
48. 4. Pilot and Expand New Practices
Green Building at Harvard :History
2001: HGCI
initiates first 3
pilot LEED
projects
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
7 LEED Projects 16 LEED Projects 21 LEED Projects 26 LEED Projects 50+ LEED Projec
2 Certified 4 Certified 5 Certified 7 Certified 12 Certified
5 Registered 12 Registered 16 Registered 19 Registered 38 Registere
49. Levels of
LEED
Ratings 52-69
points
39-51
points
33-38
points
Green Buildings
worldwide are certified
with a voluntary, 26-32
points
consensus-based
rating system.
USGBC has four
levels of LEED.
Test
Source: www.usgbc.org
50. Dunster / Mather Kitchen and Serveries LEED Silver Certified
First Institution Kitchen to Achieve LEED, Dual-Flush Toilets, Melink Variable Speed Drive Stove
Hoods, Composting System
Harvard Dining Services
51. Aldrich Hall LEED Silver Pending
Campus Lighting Master Plan, Preferred Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles, Green
Cleaning Program, high performance ventilation 13 Filters, 80% C&D Waste Diversion
Harvard Business School
52. 90 Mt. Auburn St. LEED Gold Certified
Ground Source Heat Pumps, No Irrigation, Indoor Air Quality Testing Prior to Occupancy,
Untreated Concrete Floors and Walls, Green Cleaning for All of HRES U&C,
Photo by: Nathan Gauthier Photo by: Nathan Gauthier
Harvard University Library
53. First Science Center Seeking LEED Gold
Highest energy performance goal of any lab design at Harvard, careful
attention to materials selections, onsite stormwater re-use
Allston Development
54. 46 Blackstone LEED Platinum Certified
Submitted to USGBC in September, 55 Points Pending – 52 Required for LEED Platinum,
Highest energy performance of any Harvard LEED building, bioswale, energy efficient
elevator
University Operations
Services
55. Landmark Center, HSPH LEED Certified
42,000 Build-Out, Underfloor Air Distribution, Digitally controlled Lighting w/T-5 Lamps
Harvard School of Public
Health
57. 5. Process Improvement
Did someone leave and
Do we need some
momentum lost?
in time research? Is there some unfounded
perception of risk or
Do we need more misunderstanding
management support? preventing engagement?
Has it fallen off the agenda Did we consider life cycle
due to other priorities? costs, rebates, grants,
integrated design related
Is the bigger picture savings etc?
still being addressed?
Does anyone have the
Does something have to time to project manage
be done and no else this properly?
knows how to do it?
Are we re-inventing the
Are we missing someone wheel instead of using
important at the table? what’s been done
already?
Continuously Diagnose and Address the Weakest Links in Every Process
58. Process Quality Control & Continuous Improvement
5. Process Improvement
Ten Commandments for Cost Effective Green Building
Construction & Renovations
1. Commitment
2. Leadership
3. Accountability
4. Process Management
5. Integrated Design
6. Energy Modeling
7. Commissioning Plus
8. Specifications
9. Life Cycle Costing
10.Continuous Improvement
59. 46 Blackstone LEED Platinum Certified
Submitted to USGBC in September, 55 Points Pending – 52 Required for LEED Platinum, Highest
energy performance of any Harvard LEED building, bioswale, energy efficient elevator
University Operations
Services
73. Reflective Roofing and Operable Windows
Window features:
• Double pane, argon-filled low-e glass
• U value .25
Roof Specifications:
• Solar reflectance 65%
• Emittance .92
• U values .024 to .032
74. HVAC Design Strategy
• Right-size the design:
– capacities to match building envelope thermal
performance
• Minimize energy use in delivery systems
– Air handler for ventilation only (100% fresh air)
– Energy recovery from exhaust air (enthalpy wheel)
– Fan-less valence units for space heating and cooling
– Variable frequency drives on all pumps
76. Mechanical Systems
• Cooling: ground-source heat pumps
• Heating: hot water from steam
• DDC controls:
– Outside air reset
– Occupancy sensors
– CO2 monitors
– Variable air volume
77. Air Handler/Heat Recovery System
• Provides up to 5100 CFM of 100%
outside air for ventilation
• Enthaply energy recovery system is
80% efficient
• Ventilation is demand controlled
with occupancy and CO2 sensors
78. Sustainable and Renewable Materials
Concrete Counters
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified Wood
83. TRADITION DESIGN PROCESS
A typical process involves a linear progression from the architect
down to the engineers and finally the contractors. A strict
hierarchy of communication is enforced by the project manager.
Architects
www.aangepastbouwen.nl
Engineers
www.hansa-klima.de
Contractors
84. Integrated Design
An Integrated Design Process is a more iterative process that provides
additional flexibility and dynamism in the engagement of all team members so
that there is scope for ongoing learning and the capacity to address emergent
features and strategies.
The project team is still required to adhere to clear communication protocols to
minimize conflict and confusion, however there are more deliberate
opportunities for cross communication between team members.
The design charrette is a key forum for integrated design.
Architects Engineers
Source: Leith Sharp 2008 Contractors
85. Integrated Design Requires Inclusiveness and Collaboration
Conventional Design Process Integrated Design Process
Involves team members only when essential Inclusive from the outset
Less time, energy, and collaboration exhibited Front-loaded — time and energy invested early
in early stages
More decisions made by fewer people Decisions influenced by broad team
Linear process Iterative process
Systems often considered in isolation Whole-systems thinking
Limited to constrained optimization Allows for full optimization
Diminished opportunity for synergies Seeks synergies
Emphasis on up-front costs Life-cycle costing
Typically finished when construction is Process continues through post-occupancy
complete
Source: ‘Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process’. Prepared Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec Consulting
87. The Integrated Design Process is as Much a Mindset as it is a
Process
Mindset Principle Strategies
Inclusion & collaboration Broad collaborative team • Careful team formation
Outcome oriented Well-defined scope, • Team building
vision, goals & objectives
Trust & transparency Effective & open communication • Facilitation training for team
• Expert facilitation
Open-mindedness & Innovation and synthesis • Visioning charrettes (with
creativity comprehensive preparation)
• Brainstorming
Rigor & attention to detail Systematic decision-making • Goals and targets matrix
• Decision-making tools
Continuous learning • Iterative process with feedback • Post-occupancy evaluation
and improvement cycles • Comprehensive
commissioning
Source: ‘Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process’. Prepared Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec Consulting
88. The Management Challenge of Integrated Design
The integrated design process requires skillful management. A number of integrated design
process management recommendations include:
Ask for it up front, include it in the RFPs, Owners Project Requirements etc
Select design team members with experience in integrated design where possible.
Include design team members at the right time, such as operational representatives,
commissioning agent, sustainability consultant, cost estimator, controls engineer etc
Engage the team in a process of internalizing all sustainability and project goals.
Establish an early dynamic of trust and mutual understanding across the team as the
foundation of effective collaboration.
Undertake a design charrette with full team participation to develop strategies and
allocate roles and responsibilities
Carefully and consistently diagnose when to bring the team together, when to drive them
to collaborate and when to implement linear task sequence management.
Continuously ask why particular strategies are being recommended and what other
options have been considered
Implement modeling strategies & life cycle costing to evaluate impacts of design options
Ensure the effective engagement of operations staff, the commissioning agent to ensure
the design meets operational needs
90. 6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions
Grass Roots CONFIDENCE & CAPACITY
Students, building Managers, •Evidence
facilities staff, project managers, •Confidence
custodial, transport & procurement staff •Business base for green
campus organization
Top Level Leadership AUTHORITY
President, Provost, Deans, •Legitimacy
VP’s •Priority
•Mood/culture
•Goals
Upper Middle Management SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
2nd Level Deans, Associate VP’s, •Capital Approvals Systems
CFOs, COO - Planning •Finance & Accounting
•University Contracts
91. 6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions
Leverage Leadership
Harvard-Wide Green Building Guidelines:
Development Process
Development and Approval Process
• 2001-4: LEED piloted and numerous projects
underway
• 2004: President Summers: Approves Sustainability
Principles including a commitment to integrate
sustainability into capital approvals process.
• 2004-7: LEED project experience expanded across
the University
• Feb 2007: University Construction Managers Council
asked HGCI to establish interfaculty sub-committee
to draft guidelines
• March – Oct: Guidelines developed by HGCI and
interfaculty committee over 11 meetings
92. 6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions
Leverage Leadership
Harvard-Wide Green Building Guidelines:
Development Process
Development and Approval Process: Oct-Dec 2007
• Financial Deans: Approval
• Capital Projects Review Committee: Approval
• University Construction Managers Council: Approval
• Administrative Deans: Approval
• University Construction Managers Council : Approve final draft
• President Faust: Notified of completion and adoption
Ongoing Efforts:
• Green Building Guidelines Committee: Tasked to review LEED
Gold option through 2008
• Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Tasked to integrate
guidelines into University contracts & standards, provide
training and project support to all Schools and Departments
94. Accounting Structures Are Getting in the Way of
Best Financial Practice
Barrier: Accounting
structures are driving
Capital Budget
inefficient design and Maintenance Budget
Managers operations by limiting Managers
the appropriate
movement of
investments and
savings
Utility Budget Human Resources
Managers Managers
95. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
Green Campus Loan Fund
$12 Million Fund - interest free capital for high performance
projects
Existing Buildings New Construction
5 Year Payback Maximum 10 Year payback maximum
Full project funded Cost premium of high
Can bundle projects performance option funded
Simple payback used Life Cycle Costing used
96. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
Green Campus Loan Fund
$12 Million Fund - interest free capital for high performance projects
Existing Buildings New Construction
$12 million interest-free capital for conservation projects
+$8.5 million lent since 2001
~200 projects
30% average return on investment
97. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
Provide Financial Access to the Champions
98. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
HARVARD
Green Building Guidelines
• Capital projects exceeding $5 million will seek minimum LEED
Silver certification.
• Harvard University requires a number of LEED credits to be treated
as pre-requisites (including minimum 6 energy credits ~2030 Challenge)
• An “Integrated Design” approach is to be adopted.
• Life Cycle Costing assessment is to be conducted throughout the
project
• Energy modeling is required
• Adopt an ongoing commissioning approach for the life of the building.
99. Life Cycle Costing
A method of project evaluation in which all costs
arising from owning, operating, maintaining and
ultimately disposing of a project over an agreed period
are accounted for and converted into today’s dollars.
In short, life cycle costing allows for the consideration
of medium and long term cost implications of today’s
decisions.
When can it be used?
► New Construction
► Major Renovations
► Capital Projects
► Routine Replacements or Upgrades
► Day to day purchases that incur any ongoing
costs
100. When Should We Introduce the LCC Approach in the Building Design
Process?
Get in Early and Get in Ugly! ( Favourite quote from GRT!)
101. Simplest Use of Life Cycle Costing
Present Value of the Present Value of
Investment Costs + Operational
Costs
Present Value = All costs in today’s
$
Provided by Bob Charette
102. How Should LCC Be Used in the
Decision Making Process?
1. To compare different options (e.g. ground
source heat pumps versus natural gas furnace)
2. To determine financially optimal efficiency level
(e.g. amount of insulation)
3. To identify medium and long term savings for
potential reinvestment or immediate justification
of integrated design solutions
103. 1. To compare different options (e.g. ground
source heat pumps versus natural gas furnace)
104. Vacuum Pump Replacement Study
Escalation
Discount Rate 8.00% Rate 3.50%
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Name Water Seal Dry Claw
Description Existing Replacement
Annual Utility Cost $ 38,768.20 $ 15,030.41
Annual Maintenance Cost $ 440.00 $ 190.00
First Cost $ - $ 46,500.00
Year 10 Replacement $ 47,340.00 $ 61,147.50
Year 20 Replacement $ 59,940.00 $ 77,422.50
Years 20 20
Total Net Present Value $ 808,819.73 $ 457,403.89
Savings $ 351,415.84
111. YALE: Campus GHG Reduction Framework: Progress to Date
A nnual C am pus Em issions
Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
5 Y
0 0 OR
E -2 C T
PR AJ E
TR
C O N S E R VA TIO N
YA L E A N N O U N C EM EN T
RE R E N EW A B LE
DU E N ER G Y
CT
IO
N
PA
TH
IF
P R O G R E SS TO D AT E LI
NE C A R BO N O FFS ET
• 8 % r educ tion f rom 04 p eak AR
P R O JEC TS
• 1 3 % below Pre -2005 Tra jecto ry
G O AL
•1. 5% C am p us G S F Incre ase sinc e ‘05
Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting
2008 Campus GHG Report
112. CORNELL: GHG Reduction Plan and Strategies
400
Emissions without
Energy Initiatives &
350
CHPP (2000-2012)
GHG Emissions (metric kilo-tons)
Status Quo
300
Kyoto Target by 2012 Green Development
250
Energy Conservation
200
Actuals
150
Fuel Mix
100
Projected 2007-2012
with CCHPP in 2010
50
Renewable Energy
/ Offsets
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 Future: 2025 2030 2035
2020 Climate Neutral 2040
Year
Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting
2008 Campus GHG Report
113. Accounting Reform for Building Climate
Neutrality
Adopting 20 years net present value accounting
framework for evaluating carbon neutrality investment
and return options for each building.
Track and reinvest savings from energy demand
reductions to fund onsite renewable energy, fuel
switching, additional efficiency efforts and carbon
offsets.
114. Costing Case Study
Building Name Leverett Towers F & G
Department Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Description Complex of 2 11-story towers
Age Built 1959; renovations every 4 years
Size 121,697 square feet
Occupancy 158 suites, 20 tutor apartments; 300 residents
Demographics Undergraduates, graduate tutors
Lease format Academic year appointments; temporary summer housing
Building systems and Heat/ventilation: Steam to forced air and radiant heat;
utilities Hot water: steam
Air conditioning: window units
Electricity: tutor kitchenette appliances
Natural gas: dryers (1990-2001 only)
2006 GHG emissions 1537 MTCDE
114
115. Costing Case Study
(Research provided by Debra Shepard 2008)
Leverett Towers Investment Summary
% of
Investment Period MTCDE/yr
Component Portfolio
Energy Conservation Measures
Renewable Energy Technology 17% 2007-2009 255
(onsite) 3% 2007-2009 49
Fuel Switch 22% 2012-2020 345
Offsets 58% 2012-2020 888
Behavior Program ((2%)) 2007-2020 ((33))
116. Costing Case Study
(Research provided by Debra Shepard 2008)
Leverett Towers Investment Summary
% of
Investment Period MTCDE/yr
Component Portfolio
Energy Conservation Measures
Renewable Energy Technology 17% 2007-2009 255
(onsite) 3% 2007-2009 49
Fuel Switch 22% 2012-2020 345
Offsets 58% 2012-2020 888
Behavior Program ((2%)) 2007-2020 ((33))
erette Towers Financial Summary for Climate Neutrality
Leverett Tow ers:
Net present value Climate Neutral Portfolio at 2020
Financial Category through 2020 17%
Investments (ECM, RET, Fuel Switch, Behavior) ($1,068,958) 3%
ECMs
RETs
Savings (ECM, RET, and Behavior) $1,142,947 58%
Fuel Sw itch
22% Offsets
Carbon Offset Purchases ($68,268)
TOTAL PROGRAM Net Present Value $5,721 116
117. Designing Programs for the Way We Are
8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention
by Institutionalizing New Practices
118. Designing Programs for the Way We Are
8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention
by Institutionalizing New Practices
Conscious Engagement
The findings of many studies suggest that the conscious self “plays a causal
role only 5% of the time” There is an active effort on behalf of the mind to
make what is conscious unconscious as quickly as possible.
While conscious choice and guidance are needed to perform new tasks, after
some repetition, conscious choice quickly drops out and unconscious habit
takes over, freeing up precious reserves of conscious awareness.
Bargh, J. A. and Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being.
American Psycologist, 54 (7) 462-479
119. Designing Programs for the Way We Are
8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention
by Institutionalizing New Practices
Conscious Engagement
The findings of many studies suggest that the conscious self “plays a causal
role only 5% of the time” There is an active effort on behalf of the mind to
make what is conscious unconscious as quickly as possible.
While conscious choice and guidance are needed to perform new tasks, after
some repetition, conscious choice quickly drops out and unconscious habit
takes over, freeing up precious reserves of conscious awareness.
Bargh, J. A. and Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being.
American Psycologist, 54 (7) 462-479
Implications for Creating a Learning Organization
•Make it a habit ASAP
•Institutionalize using organizational systems ASAP
5% Conscious
Behavior
120. 8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention
Designing Programs for the Way We Are
by Institutionalizing New Practices
EXAMPLES:
•Adopt new financial approval requirements
•Integrate new practices into contracts and specifications ASAP
•Redefine position descriptions, performance reviews & training programs
•Implement prompts & visible cues to trigger behavior (signs, bins, emails)
•Formalize new annual reporting requirements
•Establish routines of regular meetings and agenda items
122. 9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
Cambridge vs Longwood Emissions
247,224
250,000
233,663
220,407 219,104
204,449
200,000
145,572
150,000
MTCDE
Cambridge
Longwood
110,995 114,054
100,000
85,914
Life Cycle Costing
63,293
52,930
48,723
50,000
0
Finance and Accounting Frameworks
FY90 FY02 FY04 FY04 FY05 FY06
GHG Reduction Targets
Green Building Standards
123. Summary of Ivy GHG Commitments in 2008
Brown University
42% below 2007 baseline by 2020
Columbia University
30% below 2005 levels by 2017 [in line with PlaNYC]
Cornell University
Signed Presidents Climate Commitment. Will have strategic plan including timetable in 2009
(already have 7% below 1990)
Harvard University
30% below 2006 by 2016 including all growth (which equates to a net 50% reduction)
University of Pennsylvania
Signed Presidents Climate Commitment. Will have strategic plan including timetable Sept 2009
Princeton University
1990 levels by 2020 (18% reduction from 2007)
Yale University
43% reduction from 2005 (10% below 1990) by 2020
Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting
2008 Campus GHG Report
124. 9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
The Allston Sustainability Guidelines chart a course for Harvard to reduce the
emissions of its new campus in Allston by over 80% compared to a conventional
campus.
A llston E m issions R eduction S trategy
B uildings w ill use
30,000
40% less energy
C onventional D evelopm ent than stipulated by
25,000
A S H R A E 90.1
Allston Emissions (MTCE)
E nergy generation
20,000 w ill be 30% m ore
efficient than current
H arvard standards
15,000
22.5% of A llston's
energy dem and w ill
10,000 be provided by
renew able, G H G -
S ustainable D evelopm ent neutral sources
5,000
50% of rem aining
em issions w ill be
0
offset
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Y e ar
125. 9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
4 components associated with new development [First Science as a prototype]:
100
#1: Building
90 Design: Key for climate change:
Buildings 40%
80 more efficient incremental reduction of CO2
footprint
Percent of GHG Emissions
70
60 #2: Efficient
energy #3. Renewable energy
generation : strategies: On and off
50 site renewables: 22.5%
30% less carbon
intense (E.g. of energy demand
40
cogen)
#4. Purchase offsets:
30
Carbon offsets 50%
42%
20
10
14%
0
2010 2026
Produced by HGCI. Modified/adapted by ADG. November 2007
126. 10. Institutionalize Continuous Improvement
Trial Recommend Trial Recommendations Trial Recommend Trial Recommendations
Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process
Building Project Building Project Building Project Building Project
127. Harvard Campus-Wide Sustainability Principles
Sustainability Commitment
Harvard University is committed to continuous improvement in:
• Demonstrating institutional practices that promote sustainability.
• Promoting health, productivity and safety through building design & campus planning.
• Enhancing the health of campus ecosystems & increasing the diversity of native species.
• Developing planning tools to support triple bottom line decision-making.
• Encouraging environmental inquiry and institutional learning throughout the University.
• Establishing indicators for sustainability for monitoring & continuous improvement.
Implementation Commitment
• Continue Harvard Green Campus Initiative “As we plan for the future, these
principles will set a strong course
• Integrate into Harvard’s Capital Approvals process
that will benefit Harvard and
• Establish indicators for monitoring progress promote responsible growth and
environmental quality in our
• Integrate into annual financial reporting processes
community.”
President Lawrence H. Summers,
Harvard University Gazette,
October 14 2004
128. To Learn More About The Harvard Green Campus Initiative:
Contact: Leith_Sharp@harvard.edu
Visit our website
www.greencampus.harvard.edu
We offer Distance learning courses through Harvard Extension School:
ENVR –E117 Organizational Change for Sustainability.
ENVR –E119 Green Building Design, Construction and Operations
See: http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~envre117/
http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~envre119/