Sustainability at Missouri State University:
A Comparison to
Benchmark and Sister Missouri InstitutionsSecond Annual Update
May 1, 2015
Prepared For:
The Sustainability Advisory Committee
Missouri State University
Springfield, Missouri
Prepared By:
The Benchmarks Subcommittee
A subcommittee of the Sustainability Advisory Committee
Table of Contents
Section
Page
Introduction
1
Benchmark Subcommittee Membership and Charge
1
Methodology
1
Comparative Analyses
2
American College and University President’s Climate Commitment
2
Campuses Beyond Coal
4
Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Ratings System-
6
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
Summary and Conclusion
9
Selected References
11
List of Tables
Table 1:
ACUPCC Actions by Benchmark Institutions as of April 2015
Table 2:
ACUPCC Actions by Missouri Institutions as of April 2015
Table 3:
Campus Beyond Coal Status Summary for 2015
Table 4:
AASHE Membership and STARS Summary of Benchmark Institutions
Table 5:
AASHE Membership and STARS Summary of Missouri Institutions
Table 6:
Comparison of STARS Rating Groups 2013 through 2015
List of Figures
Figure 1
Comparison of STARS Ratings 2013 through 2015
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Physical Data Comparison for Sister Institutions
Appendix B
Additional Institutional Detail for Campus Beyond Coal
Deleted: Sister
Introduction
This report is an update to the original Sustainability at Missouri State University: A Comparison to
Benchmark and Sister Missouri Institutions report dated May 7, 2013. The intent of this update is to
highlight changes in our Benchmark Institutions over the past year in regard to those areas specified in
the original charge by President Clif Smart.
Benchmark Subcommittee Membership and Charge
The Benchmarks Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the MSU Sustainability Advisory Committee. It was
formed under a charge from President Clif Smart in February 2013. The members of the subcommittee for
2015 are:
Emma Donovan, Sustainability Intern
Terrel Gallaway, Faculty, Economics Department
Pilar Karlen, Energy Manager
Brad Kielhofner, Director of Facilities Management
Jordan Schanda, Sustainability Coordinator
David Vaughan, Chair, Director of Environmental Management
Deleted: Jordan Schanda, Sustainability
Coordinator¶
Deleted: l
Deleted: Galloway
President Smart’s original charge is listed below. The portion of the charge driving this update is shown in
bold print.




Prepare a summary of which agreements have been signed by our benchmark institutions and
sister institutions in the State of Missouri,
Prepare a summary of accomplishments from each institution noted above related to the
agreements signed (American College and University President’s Climate Commitment and the
Campuses Beyond Coal Commitment),
Prepare a summary of AASHE membership and AASHE STARS ratings for all benchmark
institutions and sister institutions in the State of Missouri,
Initial summaries are due May 1, 2013. Summary will be updated annually.
It should be noted that this is a very specific review; it does not encompass or represent the full breadth
of MSU’s sustainability efforts.
Deleted: programming
Methodology
The methodology utilized in developing the reporting parameters is detailed in the original report, and is
not duplicated here. This report was generated following the same approach and simply updating the
status of each institution within the three programs reviewed. As with the original report, a majority of
the information contained in this report comes from website postings.
1
Deleted:
Comparative Analyses
American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment
The American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) originated through a group
of twelve college and university Presidents that made institutional commitments to eliminate net
greenhouse gas emissions from specified campus operations and promote the research and educational
efforts of higher education to address climate concerns. From the founding in December 2006 through
May 2013, approximately 660 institutions had signed the Commitment. As of the date of this report, the
number of signatories stands at 680 (http://presidentsclimatecommitment.org/).
ACUPCC signatories commit to development of an institutional action plan to become climate neutral and
initiating two or more of seven specified tangible action options to reduce greenhouse gases within the
two years after their implementation start date. The seven options are:
1. Establish a policy that all new campus construction be built to at least the U.S. Green Building
Council's LEED Silver standard or equivalent.
2. Adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy requiring purchase of ENERGY STAR
certified products in all areas for which such ratings exist.
3. Establish a policy of offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions generated by air travel paid for by our
institution.
4. Encourage use of and provide access to public transportation for all faculty, staff, students and
visitors at our institution.
5. Within one year of signing, begin purchasing or producing at least 15% of our institution's
electricity consumption from renewable sources.
6. Establish a policy or a committee that supports climate and sustainability shareholder proposals
at companies where our institution's endowment is invested.
7. Participate in the Waste Minimization component of the national RecycleMania competition, and
adopt 3 or more associated measures to reduce waste.
Tables 1 and 2 list actions taken to date by MSU’s Benchmark Institutions and other select Missouri
educational institutions that have signed the ACUPCC. Changes in the past year are shown in bold print.
Seven out of eleven of our Benchmark Institutions are signatories and seven out of thirteen of our sister
institutions in Missouri are signatories. Though not a signatory to the ACUPCC, actions on the options
that MSU has taken are listed in each table for comparison.
2
Table 1
ACUPCC Actions by Benchmark Institutions as of April 20151
Institution Name
Ball State
Grand Valley State
Illinois State
James Madison University
Louisiana Tech University
Missouri State University
Towson University
University of MontanaMissoula
University of N CarolinaCharlotte
University of Northern
Iowa
University of TexasArlington
Wichita State University
ACUPCC
Signer?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Year Signed
2007
2007
1,4,7
1,2,4
2009
2010
Yes
2009
1,2,4,7
2012
2008
2006
2009
2005
Tangible Actions
Taken
1,2,3,4,7
1,2,4,7
4,7
1,2,4,7
Climate Action
Plan
2010
2010
Not submitted
2012
2,4,7
No
No
No
Table 2
ACUPCC Actions by Select Missouri Institutions as of April 20151
Institution Name
ACUPCC
Signer?
Yes
No
Drury University
Crowder College
Lincoln University
Yes
Missouri Southern
No
Missouri State University
No
Missouri Western
No
Northwest Missouri State
No
Southeast Missouri State
No
Truman State
No
University of Central
Yes
Missouri
University of Missouri System
University of MissouriYes
Columbia
University of Missouri-StL
Yes
University of Missouri-KC
Yes
University of MissouriYes
S&T
1
Year Signed
2007
Tangible Actions
Taken
1,2,3,4,5,7
Climate Action
Plan
2011
2013
None listed
2015
2,4,7
2008
1,3,4,6,7
2010
2008
1,2,4,5,7
2011
2006
2009
2009
1,4,7
1,4,7
1,7
2013
2011
2011
Information per ACUPCC website: http://rs.acupcc.org/
3
The tables illustrate the following updates for 2015:
o University of Missouri – Columbia has added tangible actions 1 and 5 to their list.
o The average number of actions taken by the listed ACUPCC signatories remains approximately 3.
o To-date, MSU has implemented 3 of the tangible action items.
As in the original report, tangible actions are not listed for non-signing benchmark institutions because
this information is not listed on the ACUPCC website. It is possible/likely that several of these institutions
could claim some actions, but specific details are not readily available.
Campuses Beyond Coal
The Campuses Beyond Coal campaign is a joint initiative by the Sierra Club and the Sierra Student
Coalition. The main objective of this campaign, as stated on the organization’s website
(http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/about-the-campaign) is “to replace dirty coal with clean energy by
mobilizing grassroots activists in local communities to advocate for the retirement of old and outdated
coal plants and to prevent new coal plants from being built.” The Sierra Club also currently has Beyond Oil
and Beyond Natural Gas campaigns.
Deleted: listing would require significant
additional effort to research each individual
institution.
Formatted: Font: Italic
Deleted: n
Deleted:
The stated goals for the Beyond Coal campaign include:



Retiring one-third of the nation’s more than 500 coal plants by 2020
Replacing the majority of retired coal plants with clean energy solutions such as wind, solar, and
geothermal
Keeping coal in the ground in places like Appalachia and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.
In 2013 there were 16 universities that had committed to the Beyond-Coal goal. As of the May 2014
update, seven additional institutions made the commitment. Since then, no additional institutions were
listed on the Sierra Club website as making the commitment, so the total number participating remains at
23. Southeast Missouri State University and Missouri University of Science & Technology are the only
Missouri State sister institutions to join the campaign.
Deleted: Campuses Beyond Coal is a joint effort
between the Sierra Student Coalition and the Sierra
Club that focuses on the nation's universities to
“retire the entire fleet of campus-owned coal plants
and end our schools' dependence on the coalgenerated electricity they purchase.” The Sierra
Club also currently has Beyond Oil and Beyond
Natural Gas campaigns. ¶
Three of the Beyond Coal institutions, the Missouri University of Science and Technology, the College of
Wooster and Penn State University, reported notable updates as of the date of this report. Table 3
presents a summary of those activities, with MSU included for comparison. Current information detail for
each of the Beyond Coal institutions can be found in Appendix B.
Deleted:
Deleted: ;
Deleted: a
Deleted: report
Deleted: year
Deleted: As of the date of this report update
4
Deleted: ¶
Table 3
Campuses Beyond Coal Status Summary for 2015
Institution
Name
Goal for
Coal
PhaseOut
Campus Power Plant Technology/
Fuel Type
Other Energy Sources
College of
Wooster
2013
College has recently made the switch
from coal to natural gas at power
plant (steam generation).
Missouri State
University
NA
Existing: natural gas. Steam plant has
4 boilers; 2 new in 2012, 2 rebuilt in
2010.
Missouri
University of
Science &
Technology
2015
Penn State
University
2015
Actively working on installation of
geothermal system, consisting 600
wells serving 3 plants (James, McNutt,
and Bertlesmeyer Halls). Each of the
three plants will contain heat pump
chillers, supplemental cooling towers
and gas-fired boilers.
Currently converting coal-fired steam
plant to natural gas (has installed 2.2
miles of 12-inch steel pipe). Anticipate
savings of approximately $5.5M/year
from conversion and the increased
efficiency. Plant will have two new gas
fired boilers.
New athletic center has 20K
ft2 solar array, generating
271K kWh/year. Balance of
campus electrical needs
supplied by AEP Ohio;
primarily coal- and natural
gas-fired plants.
Campus electrical needs
provided by local utility;
coal/natural gas/solar. Have a
solar power purchase
agreement (400K kWh/yr).
System will supply energy to
15 campus buildings and the
campus chilled-water system
for all of the University.
Anticipated savings up to
$2.8M annually.
Has a wind power purchase
commitment with the local
utility company (20M
kWh/yr).
Some general observations on the Campuses Beyond Coal institutions include:



Currently, four of the 23 have no set date for elimination of on-campus coal use.
Seven of the institutions have eliminated on-campus coal use, and Penn State University is
expected to join that list soon. MSU is also a coal free campus.
More than 20 of the 23 currently have campus electricity needs supplied by a local utility; mostly
coal and/or natural gas
o Five (Clemson, Wooster, Cornell, Oberlin, and Penn State) currently have a portion of
campus electrical needs met through renewable sources. MSU entered into a solar power
purchase agreement in late 2014.
5
Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Ratings SystemAssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)
Deleted: ¶
¶
The AASHE national organization has worked since 2006 to facilitate and advance sustainability in higher
education. The stated intent of the organization is to provide administrators, faculty, staff and students
with leadership and knowledge resources to make sustainable practices the norm within higher
education.
The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System™ (STARS) was developed by AASHE and the
higher education community as a self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure
sustainability performance. Any college or university located in the United States or Canada may
participate in STARS.
Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the status of AASHE membership/participation in STARS of MSU’s
benchmark and sister institutions from 2013 through 2015.
Table 4
AASHE Membership and STARS Summary of Benchmark Institutions
Institution Name
Benchmark Institutions
Ball State University
Grand Valley State University
Illinois State University
James Madison University
Louisiana Tech University
Missouri State University
Towson University
U. of Montana – Missoula
U. of North Carolina Charlotte
U. of Northern Iowa
U. of Texas – Arlington
Wichita State University
1
2013
2014
2015
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gold
Gold
Bronze
Not Rated
Gold
Gold
Bronze
Silver
Gold
Gold
Expired
Silver
Bronze
Not Rated
Bronze
Bronze
Not Rated
Not Rated
Silver
Bronze
Not Rated
Not Rated
Yes
Yes
No
Gold
Reporter1
Gold
Silver
Gold
Silver
Reporter – rating that shows that the institution participated but does not want their score made public.
6
Deleted: -
Table 5
AASHE Membership and STARS Summary of Select Missouri Institutions
Institution Name
Current AASHE
Member
Crowder College
No
Drury
No
Lincoln University
No
Missouri Southern
No
Missouri State University
Yes
Missouri Western
No
Northwest Missouri State
No
Southeast Missouri State
Yes
Truman State
Yes
U. of Central Missouri
No
University of Missouri System
Missouri S&T
Yes
MU
Yes
UMKC
Yes
UMSL
No
Deleted: Sister
2013
2014
2015
Not Rated
Not Rated
Bronze
Bronze
Silver
Not Rated
Not Rated
Bronze
Not Rated
Not Rated
Not Rated
Bronze
Not Rated
Not Rated
Expired
Silver
Silver
Silver
Not Rated
Silver
Silver
Silver
Not Rated
Deleted: Sister Institutions
...
Formatted Table
Silver
Silver
Silver
Notable changes from previous years include:




The University of Montana-Missoula is now listed as an AASHE Member but is currently Not Rated
in STARS
Truman State and Illinois State University have not submitted a reassessment and are currently in
expired status (but remain AASHE members)
Four institutions (Drury, NW MO State, Central Missouri, and UMSL appear to no longer be AASHE
members, bringing the total number of non-AASHE institutions in this group to 10.
Missouri State University submitted a reassessment in April 2015 which brought the ranking up
from Bronze to Silver.
Table 6 illustrates a compilation of STARS ratings for both the benchmark and the Missouri institutions
from 2013 through 2015.
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Reporter
Not Rated
Non-AASHE
Expired
Total
Number
3
3
3
1
8
7
-
2013
Percentage (%)
12
12
12
4
32
28
0
Total
Number
3
5
4
0
6
7
7
2014
Percentage (%)
12
20
16
0
24
28
0
Total
Number
3
6
1
0
3
10
2
Deleted: comparison
Comment [TG1]: Who are these schools? Peer
and in-state combined? Ttile should say so
explicitly?
Table 6
Comparison of STARS Rating Groups 2013 through 2015
Rating
Deleted:
2015
Percentage (%)
12
24
4
0
12
40
8
Figure 1 provides a comparative graphic illustration of the Table 6 date showing the progression of STARS
rankings over the 2013-2015 review period. Over this timeframe, the number of Gold ratings has
remained at three, the number of Silver ratings has increased by three, and the number of Bronze ratings
has reduced by two. These changes are a result of:




Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1
+ Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
UT-Arlington going from Reporter to Silver,
MSU going from Bronze to Silver,
James Madison going from Not Rated to Silver, and
The expiration of Truman State and Illinois State Bronze ratings.
Figure 1
Comparison of STARS Ratings 2013 through 2015
STARS Ratings
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2013
2014
Reporter
Bronze
8
2015
Silver
Gold
Summary and Conclusion
The report was generated in accordance with the original committee charge requiring an annual update
to the Sustainability at Missouri State University: A Comparison to Benchmark and Sister Missouri
Institutions report dated May 7, 2013. The sections below generally summarize changes noted since the
2014 report update.
Comment [SJE2]: Should the two references to
2013 be changed to 2014?
Deleted: 2013
The ACUPCC Two of the ACUPCC signatories showed an increased number of tangible actions taken under the
Commitment in the 2014 report; since the 2014 report, only one signatory, University of Missouri
Columbia increased their tangible actions.
o Average number of actions taken overall by signatories from this set of institutions
remains at approximately three (out of a possible seven).
o MSU has implemented three of the seven tangible actions from the Commitment,
meeting the average actions of the signatory institutions.
Campuses Beyond Coal The 2014 report noted seven new institutions had signed on to the Sierra Club’s Campuses
Beyond Coal campaign to add to the original 16; no new institutions were identified for this
reporting period, so the total number of signers remains at 23.
o The most commonly-planned strategy of signatories is the conversion of campus boilers
from coal to natural gas.
o For this reporting period, two institutions have either completed or are in the
construction phase of converting campus power generation from coal to natural gas,
which will bring the coal-free total to eight (approximately 35%). The Missouri University
of Science & Technology is in the construction phase of a system that utilizes geothermal
energy.
o Five institutions (approximately 22%) currently have a measureable portion of campus
electrical needs met through alternate sources. MSU is currently purchasing some solargenerated power from the local utility.
o Most of the signatories, whether currently coal-free or working toward that goal,
continue to be dependent on local utilities that largely utilize coal and/or natural gas to
meet most or all of their electrical demand.
 As noted in the previous reports, MSU is not a signatory to this campaign, though is part of the
minority set of the signatory campuses that are currently coal-free and that have some campus
electrical needs met through renewable sources.
AASHE STARS MSU achieved a Silver rating in 2015, and shares that rating with 6 other benchmark institutions.
 The University of Montana – Missoula became an AASHE member within the last year.
 Two institutions have ratings in Expired status, meaning the 3-year term has run out and they
have not yet submitted a reassessment, but they remain AASHE members.
 There are 10 benchmark institutions that are not currently AASHE members (from 7 in 2014).
While the explanation for this change is unclear, at one of those institutions, Drury University,
Deleted: STARS
Deleted: currently
Deleted: here has been a sharp decline in the
number of schools that are either not
Deleted: , or whose membership has expired.
Together, these schools were 28% of our
comparison group in 2013. Today they account
for 48%.
Deleted: currently a total of
9
recent sustainability personnel changes have resulted in a vacancy in the position that would
normally be responsible for maintaining that membership.
Like the original 2013 report and the 2014 update, this update shows that MSU continues to compare
relatively well in actual achievements toward the goals of the above-listed commitments, matching the
average of actions taken by ACUPCC signers, being a coal-free campus and supplementing electrical use
with a renewable source (solar), and achieving a Silver AASHE STARS ranking in 2015.
The value of benchmarking is clear, in that it shows us how we are doing in comparison to institutions
with similar characteristics, and can also show where opportunities/strategies for improvement exist.
After three years of benchmarking, it is clear that MSU is making good progress in sustainability with
regard to the measured parameters; however, while not diminishing MSU’s achievements, two of the
benchmarking parameters, the ACUPCC and the Campuses Beyond Coal, are particularly focused on
specific sustainability performance measures, and are therefore somewhat limited in scope with regard to
the full definition of sustainability (environment/economic/social). Benchmarking against a limited scope
program is less likely to fully achieve the benchmarking goal of identifying the range of
opportunities/strategies for improvement.
Given the specific focus of the ACUPCC and Campuses Beyond Coal, the relatively minor changes
identified in the benchmarking group with regard to these two areas over the past 3 years, MSU’s
standing with regard to these areas, and the recent achievement of the Silver STARS rating, the
subcommittee respectfully submits that the original intent of the sustainability benchmarking effort has
been satisfied, and that continued comparison in these areas will not provide significant future benefits.
As noted earlier; however, benchmarking does have value, as long as it utilizes appropriate measures. For
the purposes of future benchmarking, the subcommittee recommends consideration of the AASHE STARS
program. Because the AASHE organization is focused exclusively on higher education, the STARS program
has been created with the unique needs and concerns of the higher education community in mind, as
opposed to other sustainability rating systems that are more oriented to private industry. The breadth of
topic areas in the STARS program incorporates the full definition of sustainability, and offers a ‘menu’ of
actions that allows the campus community to select areas most appropriate to the needs/abilities of the
campus for future sustainability efforts. The STARS program also provides clear feedback in the form of a
rating (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum) that is easily understood by the internal campus community as well
as the external community.
While participation in the STARS program will require the appropriate resources, the experience of
successfully completing two assessment efforts through the STARS program to-date shows that this
program is a viable option for the University, and one we feel the full Sustainability Advisory Committee
should consider.
10
Deleted:
Deleted: Declining participation in the program by
our peer institutions is a concern and should be
monitored.
Selected References
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education STARS https://stars.aashe.org/
The American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment
http://presidentsclimatecommitment.org/
http://rs.acupcc.org/
Ameren Missouri http://ameren.com/sites/aue/Pages/Home.aspx
City Utilities of Springfield Solar Initiative http://www.cityutilities.net/renewable/rnw-solar.htm
College of Wooster https://www.wooster.edu/about/sustainability/
Duke Energy http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/de-factsheet.pdf
Purdue University http://www.purdue.edu/sustainability/initiatives/energy/wadeupgrade.html
Sierra Club http://www.sierraclub.org/
Xcel Energy http://www.xcelenergy.com/xeen/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_Generation/Power_Generation_Main
11
Appendix A
Physical Data Comparison for Sister Institutions
12
Institution Name
Type
Public
Private
Public
Public
Public
Undergraduate
Student
Population
5,410
1,560
3,013
5,363
5,903
Post
Graduate
Population
N/A
3,914
192
54
171
Undergraduate
In-State Tuition/
Semester ($)*
$1,080
$10,787
$3,363
$2,278
$2,626
Size of Main
Campus
(acres)
608
88
167
373
744
Crowder College
Drury
Lincoln University
Missouri Southern
Missouri Western
Northwest Missouri
State
Southeast Missouri
State
Truman State
U. of Central Missouri
Missouri S&T
MU
UMKC
UMSL
Missouri State
University
Public
6,281
944
$3,087
370
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
10,386
5,600
9,683
5,843
26,996
8,740
9,285
1,124
250
2,195
1,804
7,752
5,358
2,747
$2,700
$3,489
$2,944
$4,892
$4,636
$3,877
$3,789
328
140
1,561
284
1,262
157
350
Public
17,135
3,244
$3,454
225**
*If tuition was provided on a credit hour basis, costs above reflect tuition calculated on a 12 credit -hour schedule
**Includes main and downtown campus acreage only
13
Appendix B
Additional Institutional Detail for Campus Beyond Coal
(2015 Updates Shown in Bold)
14
Campus Beyond Coal
University
Coal
Phase
Out Date
Power Plant Technology
Notes
Case Western
Reserve
University
2011
Contact: Sham Kapil 216-3681909 for more information.
Clemson
University
2030
The University will have the Combined
Heat and Power system at the
Medical Center Company. The CHP
will burn a combination of natural gas
and biofuels.
Also, the plan includes a project to
implement geothermal, solar and
wind energy systems.
The University will convert the coal
plant but there is no decision at this
point of the technology or fuels
involved on the conversion.
College of
Wooster
2013
College has recently made the switch
from coal to natural gas at power
plant (steam generation).
Cornell University
2011
-Combined heat and power (CHP)
provides the majority of campus
electrical power; generates about 180
million kWh/yr.
-Cogeneration facility uses natural
gas. All power is generated at 80%
efficiency; generates 12% of campus
electric needs, about 35 million kWhr/yr.
-Hydroelectric plant that generates up
to 1000 kW and the annual
production meets 2% of campus
needs, 5 million kW-hr/yr.
15
Produce 90 gallons of
biodiesel/ week on the
Biofuel Pilot Plant. Around 30
equipment and vehicles run
on B20.
New athletic center has 20K
ft2 solar array, generating
271K kWh/year. Balance of
campus electrical needs
supplied by AEP Ohio;
primarily coal- and natural
gas-fired plants.
-Cornell utilizes Lake Source
Cooling to remove heat from
campus buildings. System
saves 86% on energy use for
central cooling, 25 million
kW-hr/yr.
-Have two solar heating
systems in operation
(120,000 and 65,000 Btu/hr).
-Biodiesel production will
convert 6,000 gallon of waste
vegetable oil from dining
facilities into biodiesel for use
in the tractors and machinery
and/or for heat of buildings.
Eastern Illinois
University
2011
Eastern’s Renewable Energy Center, a
Biomass gasifier replaced a coal plant
which fills the University heating and
cooling needs by burning non-treated
wood chips (biomass) obtained as
lumber industry by-products. Capacity
to serve 100% of the campus steam
load on the biomass boilers.
EIU’s Renewable Energy
Center includes two biomass
and two natural gas boilers
(fuel oil backup). Needs can
be met by running any two of
the four boilers.
Also have a back-pressure
steam turbine for cogeneration of the steam load
from one of the biomass
boilers.
Contact: Ryan Siegel (Energy
Mgr) Ph: 217-581-8395
Indiana
University
Not set
Planning to convert Central Heating
Plant from coal to natural gas as aging
boilers are replaced.
The plan is to move towards
geothermal energy, which the
University has already at Stoddard
Hall and Elliott Hall.
Miami University
of Ohio
2025
Missouri State
University
NA
Existing: natural gas. Steam plant has
4 boilers; 2 new in 2012, 2 rebuilt in
2010.
Missouri
University of
Science &
Technology
2015
Morehead State
University
Oberlin College
Not set
Actively working on installation of
geothermal system, consisting 600
wells serving 3 plants (James,
McNutt, and Bertlesmeyer Halls).
Each of the three plants will contain
heat pump chillers, supplemental
cooling towers and gas-fired boilers.
Switching to natural gas
Also plan to move from
steam system to distributed
hot-water heating plants.
Electric power for campus is
provided by Duke Energy,
which operates primarily
coal-fired and natural gas
fired plants.
Contact: Yvette Kline.
2017
The college will convert the heat
source using electricity, natural gas,
ground source heat pumps and landfill
gas/heat options.
The local municipal utility company
(OMLPS) will have 85% of its
electricity from renewable sources.
16
Campus electrical needs
provided by local utility;
coal/natural gas/solar. Have a
solar power purchase
agreement (400K kWh/yr).
System will supply energy to
15 campus buildings and the
campus chilled-water system
for all of the University.
Anticipated savings up to
$2.8M annually.
No renewable energy sources
on campus.
The University purchases
almost 100% of its electricity
from local utility company
(OMLPS). Balance generated
by the parking lot roof PV
array. OMLPS plans to have a
portfolio of 85% electricity
from renewable sources by
the end of 2013.
Ohio University
2016
Penn State
University
2015
Purdue University Not set
The University will replace the
Lausche heating plant (3 coal-fired
boilers and 1 natural gas boiler). At
this point, the source of energy has
not been selected but leaning to
natural gas.
Currently converting coal-fired steam
plant to natural gas (has installed 2.2
miles of 12-inch steel pipe).
Anticipate savings of approximately
$5.5M/year from conversion and the
increased efficiency. Plant will have
two new gas fired boilers.
Convert coal-burning boiler to natural
gas, install natural gas CHP unit, and
increase steam distribution.
Conversion of coal-burning boilers to
natural gas.
The University has a wind
power purchase
commitment with the local
utility company (20 M kWh).
Contact: Shelley McKeague
(Energy & Sustainability
Manager).
No information on campus
electrical generation
Southeast
Missouri State
University
SUNYBinghampton
2013
Approx.
2015
The University may convert the
central heating plant to 100% biomass
firing for thermal production and/or
to cogenerate electricity. Also, it will
install a 3,000 kW capacity solar
power and a 1,500 kW of wind
generation on campus.
University of
Illinois UrbanaChampaign
2017
University of
Louisville
University of
Minnesota-Twin
Cities
2015
2016
The campus operates and maintains a
central power plant (Abbott Power
Plant) and three chiller water plants.
Central chiller is powered with steam
Abbott creates as a byproduct of
electrical generation.
Abbott Plant has three natural gas
boilers, three coal boilers and two
heat recovery steam generators,
totaling 1,265,000 lbs/hr of steam.
Plant supplies 75% of the electrical
energy used on campus. Plan to
convert the existing power plant to
100% natural gas.
Will replace coal burning boiler with a
natural gas boiler.
The University is replacing boilers with No information on campus
25 MW CHP plant (75% efficiency).
electrical generation.
Projecting $2M/year.
University of
2020
The University will convert coal boilers
17
No information on campus
electrical generation
The University purchases
100% of its electricity to
Upstate New York electricity
supply and requires
quantities of renewable
energy credits to the utility
company (high amount of
hydro and nuclear electricity
generation).
The existing power plant
produces 20,429 MWh, about
85% of campus’s energy use.
Main sources of biomass are
North CarolinaChapel Hill
to 100% biomass.
University of
TennesseeKnoxville
University of
WisconsinMadison
Not set
Plan to convert coal-fired steam plant
to run on natural gas.
2012
Western Illinois
University
2012
The coal burning plant will be
converted to burn natural gas and
biofuels, such as switchgrass (250,000
tons per year). A new boiler capable
of burning 100% biomass was
installed and the four coal boilers
converted to natural gas.
The coal-fired portion of the heating
plant was converted to natural gas
dried wood pellets and
torrefied wood (similar to
charcoal)
No information on campus
electrical generation.
Under the State’s plan, about
40% to 50% of all the steam
generated by the Charter
Street (coal plant) would be
from biomass and the rest
from natural gas.
Electric utility provider is
Ameren, source is multiple
coal-fired plants.
Western
2012
Converted the steam plant to burn
The University recently
Kentucky
100% natural gas.
installed two new natural gas
University
boilers.
CHP = Combined heat and power, simultaneous production of electricity and utilization of “waste” heat
for campus heating requirements.
18