Audit 2002 - Energy

With the recent energy crisis in California, soaring gas prices, and to an extent the controversial issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska raises important national environmental issues and concerns over energy consumption and awareness. At Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota, this year’s long winter along with the newly constructed Campus Center and Kagin Commons, which are both online for a full energy measurement period, it would seem energy consumption will again increase. Combine that with last year’s record high fuel costs and one would think energy issues would be more visible among students and administration. However, this is not the case.

Two years ago on May 4, 2000, Macalester College signed on the Talloires Declaration and thus made a commitment to be an environmentally responsible campus. In the Talloires, there are ten identified steps the participating college is to perform. One such action states, “set an example of environmental responsibility by establishing institutional ecology policies and practices of resource conservation, recycling, waste reduction, and environmentally sound operations (Macalester College Environmental Studies Program, 2001).” The opportunity to reduce energy consumption is definitely there, but for the most part students/faculty/administration are not making a strong effort to address this, as energy awareness at Macalester is one of the least recognized and prioritized issues.

This report represents the third consecutive audit performed by the Macalester College Environmental Studies Senior Seminar and covers the time period of June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001. This report will synthesize results and suggestions made in the past two energy audits and also identify possible solutions to reduce both electricity and fuel consumption. The report will conclude with an update of progress in energy reductions made by the Macalester College Physical Plant and will offer ideas and suggestions to increase energy awareness on campus in an effort to both conserve energy usage and maximize energy efficiency. It is a goal that by increasing general energy awareness on campus, students and faculty will make a concerted effort to reduce energy consumption, which in turn helps to preserve natural resources. In doing so, thousands of dollars could be saved yearly and Macalester would be making significant strides in making its campus sustainable.

For the first time in nine years, Macalester’s combined (electricity and fuel) energy budget was exceeded. The difference was $90,512 and the main reason for this was very high fuel prices and a cold winter (Bergstrom, 2002). This severity of winter can be measured by heating degree days. They are measured at every degree below 65 degrees Fahrenheit, thus a low temperature of 64 degrees would count as one degree heating day, 64 degrees as two degree heating days, and so on (Dooley and Lozada, 2000). For the record, the number of degree heating days (7,959) was the second highest on record (see Appendix Table two). Overall, the central plant consumed over 134 billion BTUs (118 billion BTUs in 1999-2000) of fuel and electricity, which was the third highest total in the past sixteen years of record keeping. About 70 percent of this total was from fuel consumption, with electricity accounting for the remaining 30 percent.

The news for the year 2000-2001 was the extremely high cost of fuel. The average cost of $.5353 per one hundred thousand BTUs was an 86 percent increase over 1999-2000 and by far the highest price in the past sixteen years. That combined with the high 2000-2001 fuel consumption total of 94 billion BTUs (compared to 77 billion BTUs the year before), accounted for a total cost of $506,962, or $207,962 over budget. Last year’s spike in prices prompted the College to sign a long-term fuel contract and currently pays $.40 per one hundred thousand BTUs (Bergstrom, 2002). In the past, Macalester used a monthly program and today would pay about $.35 per one hundred thousand BTUs, but chose to switch to the long-term program to avoid such occurrences of last year’s volatile prices.

There are several suggested actions that could further help conserve fuel and save the college large sums of money. One such way would be the installation of more thermostats in buildings throughout campus. Doing this would allow room temperatures to be controlled individually and eliminate the need for the entire building to be heated. An example of this can be seen in the Dupre and 30 Macalester residential halls, where students are allowed to control their room temperature. Secondly, decreasing the standard temperature a few degrees lower to perhaps 68 degrees Fahrenheit (or lower) in the winter would result in further energy and money savings. In the middle of winter, it is quite common to see students strip down to tee-shirts inside due to overheated classrooms and buildings.

Electricity usage totaled $567,550 for 2000-2001 and was $117,449 under budget. It accounted for 53 percent of total energy costs (74 percent the year before). There has been a decrease in electricity usage in the past two years, however, last year’s savings was in large part due to a lower building count (Campus Center and Kagin Commons construction). According to David Bergstrom (2002), Assistant Director of Macalester College Physical Plant, another contributing factor for lower costs was a reduction in air flow through Olin-Rice (during off-peak hours) and better operational procedures of the central chilled water plant, where pumping levels were reduced. See Figure one for summary of electrical consumption by building for 2000-2001.

Looking at Macalester energy use by building, Olin-Rice consumed the most electricity and accounted for about 18 percent of electricity used on campus. This level of consumption was similar to last year and slightly lower than 1998-1999 totals. Rounding out the top five are the library, chiller, gym/pool, and the stadium. It is expected in the next report that the campus center will be in the top five, since it will be online for a full energy measurement period.

Figure 1: Individual Building Electricity Consumption for 2000-2001 (Bergstrom, 2002)

A pamphlet created by Rebuild America (2002) states that in general, “the greatest potential for energy savings in the higher education market comes from improvement of building controls and control capabilities.” As is the case at Macalester, some college facilities are in use around the clock but a large number of buildings and classrooms sit idle for long periods of time. Using centralized monitoring systems, to control non-occupancy lighting, heating, and cooling across the campus, is an important step for saving energy. Other areas where energy can be saved are: indoor lighting, central plant and distribution system (upgrade old systems), HVAC systems (heating, ventilation, and cooling systems), building shut down protocols during vacations, and vending machines and exit lights (Rebuild America, 2002). Turning off lights, computers, and televisions when not in use are simple steps all students and faculty could participate in. Another idea presented in last year’s audit is to centralize nighttime study activities (Wiedemer and Cooke, 2001). Rather than leaving all academic buildings late at night open for a few students, two or three could be left open where students could study.

In an effort to illustrate possible energy and monetary savings by simply turning off classroom, laboratory, and office lights, the Watt Stopper, which measures time a specific room is lit versus when it is occupied, was installed by the Macalester College Physical Plant in several classrooms. In Figure two above, the results are shown for a room in Olin-Rice.

As one can see for April 13, and 15-16, 2000, when the lights were on, the room was occupied. In contrast, for the days of April 14 and 17 lights remained on for long periods of time without the room being occupied. This data was measured over the time period of April 5 through April 24, 2000 (462.53 total hours). As seen in Figure three, results showed that 25.2 percent of the time the room was lit and unoccupied, and only 13.8 percent of the time was the room lit and occupied.

Based on the measurements, turning off the lights or installing occupancy-based lighting controls (i.e. library bathrooms) for this room would result in a savings of 2,206.4 power-on hours per year. Monetarily, this equates to (assuming energy cost of 5.0 cents per kWh and an additional savings from reduced HVAC requirement) a total savings of $196.34 per year with the opportunity to save more from lighting load reductions during peak demand hours (Bergstrom, 2002). Multiple this savings by all the lab, class, and office rooms on campus and this would result in a huge savings, both energetically and monetarily speaking.

Physical Plant at Macalester has begun to address some of these energy concerns and realizes the importance of maximizing fuel and electricity usage. This can be seen in the newly constructed Campus Center and Kagin Commons. The windows in Kagin are high-efficiency glass that is estimated to save about 12,000 BTUs/year (Bergstrom, 2002). Here, the high initial cost of top-grade windows is offset by the future savings Physical Plant would enjoy. The Campus Center also has air-to-air heat exchangers, efficient lighting, and high-efficiency motors that result in money and energy savings. It is also important to note that in an interview with David Bergstrom (2002), he pointed out that both the Campus Center and Kagin Commons are not as energy efficient as possible since the designs for the buildings was completed several years ago. Design for energy efficiency buildings is just recently becoming mainstream and the next two huge construction projects, renovations of the Fine Arts and Athletic buildings ($20-30 million each), will have more energy efficient measures taken. Also, Bergstrom pointed out that in retrospect, air-to-air exchangers in the Olin-Rice building could have been installed (concerns about chemicals used in classes) and saved the school a significant amount of money and energy consumption. A major lighting retrofit project was completed in February 2001 in the Weyerhauser, Carnegie, and Humanities buildings and is expected to save the college 40,000 kilowatt hours/year. Building renovations for the Wallace dormitory this summer is expected to save $7,000 yearly. Physical Plant has also received (from March 2000 through December 2001) $62,568.85 worth of energy efficiency rebates from Xcel energy (Bergstrom, 2002).

The Physical Plant at Macalester has taken an initiative, but students and faculty at Macalester must take a more pro-active attitude to campus energy concerns. In a recent Mac Weekly school newspaper article the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) made its intentions known by suggesting the college purchase wind-generated power (recently available from Xcel Energy) as a means to demonstrate the College’s commitment to the environment. This is similar to a program just implemented in Pennsylvania, where 25 colleges and universities have committed to purchase wind power (PCIEP, 2002). Committees such as the Campus Environmental Issues Committee (CEIC), which have not met for a while, need to revitalize efforts and keep urging school administration members and students to lead the charge in making energy issues more prominent on campus. This is a difficult task since there are a diverse number of issues that students and faculty devote their time to, however, a host of campus activities can work to increase energy awareness amongst the campus population. Not only is it important to relay the message of energy conservation to the college population, but students and faculty need to know why they are doing this. For example, informing students that the production and use of energy accounts for nearly 80 percent of all air pollution may raise some eyebrows (Wiedemer and Cooke, 2001). Below, are some guidelines college officials and students can take to reduce the amount of energy consumption.

Unoccupied space setback temperatures should be maintained at or below 60 degrees F.
During weekends, breaks, and holidays reduce temperature settings and turn off unnecessary exhaust fans and air handling equipment. Also, consolidate programs within buildings during these periods to maximize energy savings. Reduce humidity levels.
Open window blinds to maximize daytime illumination and shut the blinds at night to conserve heat.
Turn off lights, office machines, computers, etc. when not in use. Reduce lighting where possible.
Make sure operable windows are closed and storm windows are closed.

As suggested in previous audits, several activities could be done to increase student/faculty awareness. Collaborating with other nearby colleges presents an intriguing opportunity. For example, the University of Saint Thomas has recently hosted environmental conferences and the University of Wisconsin at River Falls (UWRF) has made significant strides to become one of the most energy efficient schools in the Wisconsin school system. Another idea could involve the Associated Colleges of the Twin Cities (ACTC) or the Associated Colleges of the Midwest (ACM) in some type of collaborative initiative to support energy conservation and raise campus awareness. In the 2000 campus audit, the idea of creating a Macalester College “Ecological Footprint” could serve as a class project, internship, or independent project that could be carried on for several years to determine both the positive and negative impacts Macalester has on the environment (Pascoe and Ullmer, 2000). It was also suggested in the same report that the creation of “Action Days” during Earth Week or throughout the school year, where students could have a “No Paper Day,” “Conserve Energy Day,” “Reuse Day,” and a “Sustainable Food Day” to inform students about certain environmental issues and challenge them to be more environmentally conscious. Also, as suggested in the 2001 energy audit, an Energy Council or Committee could be formed consisting of Physical Plant members, students, faculty, and administration members to study energy use and promote and prioritize environmentally responsible practices (Wiedemer and Cooke, 2001).

New activities intended at raising awareness include dormitory challenges, EnviroThursday presentations, or (if available) participation in Energy Challenge Grants. The University of Hartford and other schools have held competitions between dorms to see who can conserve the most energy in a given timeframe (NACURH). At Macalester, residential halls themselves consume very little energy compared to other campus buildings, but the thought is that by having these contests, the initiative will be there to conserve energy elsewhere on campus and increase awareness as a whole. In speaking with Sarah Griesse (2002), Director of Residential Life and Associate Dean of Students, she was “aware of projects like these at other institutions periodically” and “we could definitely work with you next year to see what impact we could make.” Andrea Conner, Dupre and Veggie Coop Residence Hall Director, adds “in a lot of ways, I think the idea is a good one. It’s a way to rally a large number of people around an important issue.” Additionally, these are mostly students who are just beginning their college career, and emphasizing environmental responsibility is generally easier and done more effectively sooner than later. Secondly, having presentations (i.e. Enviro Thursday) or student forums about campus environmental issues could serve as a means of piquing interest. Lastly, the Associated Colleges of the South (ACS) has given financial assistance to “Energy Challenge Grants,” where small-scale projects to enhance energy usage on campus are awarded. These ACS schools will be able to initiate pilot projects designed to demonstrate the potential savings in energy use and demonstrate their commitment to “environmental citizenship,” which is defined by the ACS as “having attitudes that are respectful to the earth; of being mindful of the need for a sustainable environmental and of feeling intelligent in one’s understanding of interactions between humans and the biosphere (ACS, 2002).” Macalester and other institutions, who are apart of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest (ACM), could request funding related to the ACS program and students at each respective school could participate in these projects, which began in 1999.

In conclusion, there is a great opportunity for Macalester to become more energy efficient and responsible community, as simply shifting one’s personal habits or preferences could have a big impact. A necessary first step in doing this would be to inform students, faculty, and administration of these issues and then act on them. In doing so, the school would not only save money and conserve valuable natural resources, but would also be promoting itself as a more environmentally sustainable campus that is in accordance with the Talloires Declaration.

Associated Colleges of the South (ACS). <http://www.college.org/~enviro/funding/ecg.html> Accessed March 2002.

Bergstrom, David. Personal Interview. Macalester College Physical Plant. Conducted 22 April 2002.

Bergstrom, David. “Lighting/Occupancy Graphs of Olin-Rice Room 2_ _.” Lighting/Occupancy Analysis Report. Macalester College Physical Plant. 22 April 2002.

Bergstrom, David. Macalester College 2000-2001 Annual Energy Summary. Macalester College Physical Plant. March 2002.

Bergstrom, David. “Macalester Demand Side Management Program.” Macalester College Physical Plant. April 2002.

Conner, Andrea B. Interview. Macalester College Dupre/Veggie Coop Residential Hall Director. Conducted 30 April 2002.

Dooley and Lozada. “2000 Energy Use at Macalester College.” Macalester College Environmental Studies Program Campus Energy Audit 1998-1999. May 2000.

Griesse, Sarah. Macalester College Associate Dean of Students and Residential Hall Director. Interview. 30 April 2002.

National Association of College and University Residential Halls (NACURH). <http://www.nacurh.org> Accessed March 2002.

Pascoe and Ullmer. “Environmental History of Macalester 1970-2000.” Macalester College Environmental Studies Program Campus Audit. May 2001.

Pennsylvania Consortium For Interdisciplinary Environmental Policy (PCIEP). <http://www.paconsortium.state.pa.us/> Accessed May 2002.

Rebuild America. <http://www.rebuild.org/sectors/col_uni_faqs.html> Accessed March 2002.

University of Wisconsin at River Falls (UWRF). 2001. <http://www.uwrf.edu/news_bureau/1204011.html> and <http://www.uwrf.edu/thisweek/20010205.htm> Accessed March 2002.

Wiedemer and Cooke. “Macalester’s Energized Campus.” Macalester College Environmental Studies Program Campus Energy Audit 1999-2000. May 2001.

Macalester Energy

By Marcel Korvela
May 2002

Macalester Energy

By Marcel Korvela May 2002

By Marcel Korvela
May 2002