DENISONAchieving Energy Efficiency with Green Revolving Funds

Denison’s GRF - The Green Hill Fund 2011 initiative with $1 million to fund energy & water

conservation projects. Part of the Billion Dollar Green Challenge initiative By 2016 grow the fund to $3 million with $500,000 in

annual savings.

Review and Selection of ProjectsThe fund is administered by the Vice President of Finance & Management. Potential projects are identified by the Director of Facilities and his administrative staff, along with the Sustainability Coordinator. In addition, any member of the campus community can propose a project using an online form.

Each year the Green Hill Fund makes up to $500,000 available for energy efficiency and water conservation projects. Of this, $50,000 is set aside for community-initiated projects.

Projects are evaluated using the following criteria:• Low implementation cost • High opportunity for cost savings• Estimated payback period• Ease (time, complexity, disruption, etc.) of implementation• Significant greenhouse gas emissions reduction• Significant environmental benefits• Significant educational/research potential• Significant social benefit• Partnership and collaboration opportunities within Denison and with

the surrounding community• High campus stakeholder buy-in and participation• Ability for long-term success

Potential projects are presented to the Campus Sustainability Committee for comment. The VP of Finance & Management will take the CSC recommendations into consideration and consult with the Director of Facilities and the Sustainability Coordinator when making final decisions on which projects should be funded and in which order.

What is a Green Revolving Fund (GRF)?Green revolving funds invest in energy efficiency projects to reduce energy consumption and reinvest the money saved in future projects. They are called “revolving funds” because the funds loan money to specific projects, which then repay the loan through an internal account transfer from savings achieved in the institution’s utilities budget.

Source: Sustainable Endowments Institute - http://greenbillion.org/the-challenge/

Highlights of our Success

$2 million invested into the GRF

64 projects funded and completed - including a complete

campus lighting retrofit and individual building monitoring

10% reduction in electric usage

10%

Positive PR and Marketing To Prospective Students

8% reduction in heating & cooling costs

8%

$300,000 in annual savings

15 million pounds of avoided CO2 emissions

15

Data & Results informing decisions

For more information contact: Jeremy King - Campus Sustainability Coordinator - kingje@denison.edu

Olin Hall Electric Consumption Pre & Post Efficiency UpdatesWork completed in June 2014

Before June 2014: average monthly kWh = 46,778 ~ $3900 in electric costsAfter June 2014: average monthly kWh = 26,757 ~ $2200 in electric costs

 Results:  over  a  40%  reduc2on  in  electricity  usage  and  costs  for  the  buildingWork  Completed

• Installed occupancy sensors in classrooms, offices, and labs• Updated controls on heating and cooling

Examples of our Projects and Data We CollectCampus-Wide Lighting Retrofits

Building Efficiency Work

Building-by-Building Energy Monitoring

Investing in Energy Efficiency Pays Off

Monthly kWh usage BEFORE efficiency upgrades

Monthly kWh usage AFTER efficiency upgrades

Installation of SHARKTM Meters allows for individual building monitoring and comparisons across campus of energy usage - This has proven most valuable in identifying areas of opportunity

Page%1%of%1

Investment kWh%Saved $%Saved Rebate Simple%PB%(years) Investment kWh%Saved $%Saved Rebate Simpe%PB%(years)

CURTIS%DINING% $17,018 47532 $3,674 $3,891 3.57

BEAVER%HALL% $10,086 14547 $1,088 $2,195 7.25

CRAWFORD%HALL $37,700 65308 $4,885 $2,281 7.25

EAST%HALL $26,392 33310 $2,492 $708 10.31

GILPATRICK%HOUSE $3,650 7876 $609 $576 5.05

HUFFMAN%HALL $35,812 100182 $1,494 $6,115 19.88

SAWYER $9,360 13287 $994 $1,511 7.90

SHAW% $16,817 32865 $2,458 $2,734 5.73

SHEPARDSON $50,604 61482 $4,599 $6,126 9.67

SMITH% $14,574 29647 $2,292 $2,944 5.07

BANCROFTHOUSE $1,672 2289 $177 $76 9.02

KING%HALL% $6,718 7248 $560 $215 11.61

MONOMOY%ANNEX $916 1976 $153 $255 4.33

ASH% $9,019 29283 $2,264 $1,450 3.34

BETA%HOUSE% $5,697 43623 $3,372 $1,349 1.29

KAPPA%SIGMA%HOUSE% $8,501 25044 $1,936 $718 4.02

MORROW%HOUSE% $8,036 22126 $1,710 $1,090 4.06

PRESTON $4,836 16086 $1,243 $1,500 2.68

SAE%HOUSE% $4,607 11022 $852 $1,053 4.17

TAYLOR% $5,001 6247 $483 $829 8.64

CURTIS%EAST $22,369 75929 $5,869 $3,184 3.27

CURTIS%WEST $11,394 36873 $2,850 $2,407 3.15

ELM%LOWER% $2,704 7413 $573 $268 4.25

ELM%UPPER $2,704 7413 $573 $268 4.25

HAYES%HOUSE% $2,708 7413 $573 $223 4.34

SHORNEY% $25,565 80918 $6,255 $6,414 3.06

SUNSET%A $4,681 15679 $1,212 $496 3.45

SUNSET%B $4,681 15679 $1,212 $537 3.42

SUNSET%C $4,609 15679 $1,212 $537 3.36

SUNSET%D% $6,198 16855 $1,303 $463 4.40

SUNSET%HOUSE $6,344 19687 $1,522 $749 3.68

WRIGHT%HOUSE $3,827 6908 $534 $223 6.75

ACE%MORGAN $7,346 11904 $920 $1,058 6.83

BARNEY%DAVIS $708 585 $45 $75 13.99

BURKE%HALL $1,027 1589 $123 $255 6.29

BURTON%HALL% $3,573 7529 $582 $1,464 3.62

BURTON%MORGAN $51 66 $5 $15 7.20

DOANE%DANCE $7,453 10609 $850 $631 8.03

DOANE%LIBRARY $125,424 143400 $11,085 $16,305 9.84

EBAUGH%/%HERRICK $533 356 $27 $53 17.47

FELLOWS%HALL $1,319 2696 $208 $140 5.66

HIGLEY%HALL $297 679 $51 $53 4.82

OLIN%SCIENCE% $23,382 47736 $3,690 $7,237 4.38

SLAYTER%HALL $9,840 29170 $2,182 $3,075 3.10

HEATING%PLANT $434 1310 $101 4.29

MULBERRY%HOUSE $100 189 $15 $30 4.82

PHYSICAL%PLANT $8,700 16457 $1,272 $3,263 4.27

Totals $374,801 877426 $61,022 $53,382 5.27 $190,187 274275 $21,157 $33,653 7.40

Final&Costs $321,420 Payback& 5.27 $156,534 Payback 7.40

Building2011?2012&(Residential&Buildings) 2012?2013&(Academic&&&Administrative&Buildings)

Retrofits included the transition from ballasted T-12 fixtures with 4 bulbs each to primarily T-8 and T-5 fixtures with 2 bulbs each.

In some applications incandescent bulbs were replaced with CFLs

LED bulbs were used in a few key areas

All lighting retrofit projects have a projected lifespan of 10 years

The annual savings do not take into account cost avoidance in labor and materials from not having to replace blown bulbs and broken fixtures as part of normal maintenance - because all fixtures and bulbs were replaced as new in 2011 - 2013.