Sightlines Sustainability Solutions Report

University of South Florida University of Southern University of Southern Maine University of St. Thomas University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas - Austin University of Texas at Dallas University of Texas Health University of Texas Rio Grande Valley University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Toledo University of Vermont University of Washington University of West Florida University of Wisconsin - Madison Vanderbilt University Clemson University Virginia Commonwealth University Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington State University Washington State University - Tri-Cities Campus FY2019 Sustainability Solutions Final Washington State University - Vancouver Washington University in St. Louis Wayne State University December 2019 Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Widener University Williams College Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester State University Xavier University Clemson Commitment to Sustainability Efforts

Clemson University 2030 Net-Zero Presenter at 10+ years of Commission on Goal for Comprehensive 2019 AASHE GHG Inventory Sustainability Carbon STARS Report Conference Established Neutrality 2009

Sustainability Peer Institutions American University

George Mason University*

Nova Southeastern University

Texas A&M University*

The University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa)

The University of Tennessee – Knoxville*

University of Arkansas*

University of Vermont

Virginia Commonwealth University

Sustainability Solution Measurement and Analysis Members • Sightlines has ~ 50 Sustainability Members • Approximately 2/3 are private Comparative Considerations • Approximately 1/3 are public • Approximately 2/3 have signed a Climate Leadership Commitment Size, Scale of Operations, Climate Zone • Approximately 40% are Climate Leadership Charter Signatories *Peers with co-gen 3 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Sources of Campus Emissions Collected carbon emissions at Clemson University

Scope 1: Scope 2: Scope 3: From sources owned From the generation of From sources not or controlled by electricity purchased directly controlled by Clemson University by Clemson University Clemson University

Directly Financed On-Campus and Study Stationary Abroad Travel

Waste and Vehicle Fleet Wastewater

Student, Refrigerants Faculty, and Staff Commuting

Fertilizer Purchased Electricity Paper Purchasing Transmission and Distribution Losses

Increasingly Difficult to Track, Control and/or Mitigate

AVOIDANCE: AVOIDANCE Prevent activities before they start Example: Increase space utilization instead of building or acquiring new space

ACTIVITY ACTIVITY: Reduce the existing level of an activity Example: Consume fewer BTUS’ of energy/travel fewer miles INTENSITY

INTENSITY: MARKET Lessening the carbon intensity of activities Example: Fuel switching (coal to biomass)

MARKET: Utilizing Market mechanisms to neutralize unavoidable GHGs

5 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. FY19 Gross Emissions Profile at Clemson Scope 2: Purchased Electricity produces 48% of total emissions on campus Scope 1 Sources Clemson FY19 Total Emissions

28,379 5,337 3,351

MTCDE 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 37,899 Stationary Fuels Fleet Fuel Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture 61,065 Scope 2 Sources

90,085 189,049 MTCDE MTCDE 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Purchased Electricity

Scope 3 Sources

2 1,56 14,697 31,201 10,225 4,711 90,085 MTCDE 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater Paper Purchases T&D Losses

6 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Impact of Space and Population on Campus Emissions Greenhouse gas emissions increased as campus grew in space and in population since FY2010 *Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and Population 40%

35% 33%

30% 27% 25% 23% 26%

20% 19% 15%

10% % Change from FY10 from Change % 5% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% -5% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019* Campus GSF Campus Population FTE Total Emissions *GSF increase also due to remeasurement

Historical Gross Emissions 250,000 Location-based Market-based

2% Increase 200,000

2% Decrease

150,000 MTCDE 100,000 GSF On-line GSF On-line • Watt Family Innovation • Douthit Center Hills 50,000 • Core Campus

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

8 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Clemson’s Normalized Reported Emissions: Scope 1, 2, 3 With more space and more users on campus, Clemson’s normalized emissions are on a downward trend Normalized Reported Emissions Normalized Reported Emissions - Per 1,000 GSF - Per Campus User 30 12.0 Location-based Market-based Location-based Market-based

25 10.0

20 8.0

15 6.0

Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted -

10 4.0

5 User Campus Weighted MTCDE/ 2.0 MTCDE/1,000 EUI MTCDE/1,000 0 0.0

Scope I Scope II Scope III

9 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Clemson Produces More Emissions Than Peer Group Normalized by GSF, Clemson emits 61% more than peers; normalized by campus user, 75% more than peers Emissions vs Peers - Per 1,000 GSF Emissions vs Peers - Per Weighted Campus User 25 10 9 20 8 7 15 6

13 5 5

Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted - 10 4 3

5 2 MTCDE/ Weighted Campus User Campus Weighted MTCDE/

MTCDE/1,000 EUI MTCDE/1,000 1 0 0

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Peers listed by density factor

11 MTCDE for Commonly Used Scope 1 Fuels Clemson benefits from using a lower carbon intense fuel Carbon Intensity of Commonly Used Fossil Fuels 100

50 94 40 79 74

MTCDE/ 1,000 MMBTU 1,000 MTCDE/ 30 58 53 20

10 10 0 Coal Residual Oil Distillate Oil Propane Natural Gas Biomass

More Intensity Less Intensity

12 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Continuous Growth in Space & Population Attribute to Emissions Increase Stationary Fuel is the biggest driver of Scope 1 increase; Fleet Emissions doubled since 2010

Scope 1 Emissions by Source 60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000 MTCDE

20,000

10,000

0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Stationary Fuel Fleet Refrigerants Agriculture

13 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Additional GSF Results in Overall Decrease of MTCDE’s Normalized to peers, Clemson’s stationary fuel emissions per GSF are similar to peer average Stationary Fuel Emissions Trend FY19 Stationary Fuel Emissions vs. Peers 7.0 7.0

6.0 6.0

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0

Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted Area Floor Adjusted - - 3.2 3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

MTCDE/1,000 EUI MTCDE/1,000 EUI MTCDE/1,000

0.0 0.0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fleet Fuel Emissions Refrigerant Emissions Agriculture Emissions 6,000 1,200 4,000

3,500 5,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 800 2,500

3,000 600 2,000

MTCDE MTCDE MTCDE 1,500 2,000 400 1,000 1,000 200 500

0 0 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

15 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. In FY19, Clemson Produced 15% More Scope 1 Emissions Than Peers When normalized to peers, Clemson decreased total scope 1 emissions per space FY2015-FY2019 Scope 1 Emissions by Source Scope 1 Emissions vs. Peers 6.00 7.00

6.00 5.00 4.59 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.64

3.00 3.00

Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted

Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted - 2.00 2.00

1.00 1.00

MTCDE/1,000 EUI MTCDE/1,000 0.00 MTCDE/1,000 EUI MTCDE/1,000 0.00 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Stationary Fuel Fleet Fuel Refrigerant Agriculture Average

*Peers ordered by Density 16 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Scope 2 Emissions Profile Electricity Consumption Increased 17% Since FY2010 Clemson consumes the second most electricity when compared to peers Historical Electricity Consumption FY2019 Electricity Consumption vs. Peers 200.0 25 Location-based Market-based

20 150.0

15 16

100.0

10 Total kWh (Millions) kWh Total

50.0

kWh/EUI Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted kWh/EUI 5

0.0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Grid Purchased Electric Co-Generated Electric Peer Average

18 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Methods of Electricity Procurement vs. Impact on Scope 2 Emissions Clemson consumes more grid purchased electricity than peers How Energy is Procured on Campus % Electricity with Zero Emissions 25 Grid Purchased Electric: Contributes to emissions 100% Renewable: Clean energy that does NOT contribute emissions 90% 20 80% 15 16 70% 60% 10 50%

5 40%

kWh/EUI Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted kWh/EUI 30% 0 20% 10% 0% Co-Generated Electric Grid Purchased Electric Renewable: Purchased and/or Retained % Zero-Emissions Peer Average

*Peers ordered by Density 19 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Scope 2 Emissions Decrease as New Space Came Online Normalized to peers who use offsets and RECs, Clemson produces more Scope 2 emissions per space Historical Electricity Emissions Trend FY19 Purchased Electricity Emissions 18.0 12.0

16.0 10.0 14.0

12.0 8.0

10.0

Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted 6.0

Adjusted Floor Area Floor Adjusted - 8.0 5.0 4.0 6.0

4.0 2.0

HillsOnline MTCDE/1,000 EUI MTCDE/1,000

MTCDE/1,000 EUI MTCDE/1,000 2.0

Scope 2 emissions 100% 100% emissions 2 Scope Sources Renewable by offset 100% emissions 2 Scope RECs by offset offset by RECs by offset

0.0 100% emissions 2 Scope

Core Campus Online Campus Core Douthit Online 0.0 Center Innovation Family Watt 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Peer Average

21 Travel Contributes to Over 50% of Clemson’s Scope 3 Emissions

Scope 3 Emissions by Source Clemson FY2019 Scope 3 Emissions 80,000

70,000 0.38% 8% 10% 60,000

50,000 17% 14%

40,000 61,064 MTCDE

MTCDE 30,000

20,000

10,000 51% 0

Student Commuting* Employee Commuting* Travel Solid Waste/Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses *Commuting information pulled from FY2018 Clemson has a new commuting survey pending 22 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Normalized Scope 3 Emissions Decreased 5% Since FY2010 Travel emissions per Weighted Campus User push Clemson’s Scope 3 total highest among peers

Clemson’s Scope 3 Emissions Scope 3 Emissions vs. Peers 4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0 2.9

2.0 2.0 1.7

1.0 1.0

MTCDE/Weighted Campus User Campus MTCDE/Weighted MTCDE/Weighted Campus User Campus MTCDE/Weighted

0.0 0.0

Student Commuting Employee Commuting Travel Solid Waste/Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses Clemson Average Peer Average

Example Key Words Included:

• Airfare • Airline names (e.g. Delta, United) • Mileage • Rental Car • Van

Example Key Words Excluded:

• Airbnb • Baggage Fees • Hotel names (e.g. Hilton, Marriott) • Lodging • Meals

➢ Historically, Sightlines utilized a Scope 3 ➢ In FY2017, SiMap was released and updated the Template when processing Clemson’s travel methodology of how carbon emissions are information. calculated, including travel. ➢ The template calculated total dollars to miles ➢ With SiMap, travel dollars can be directly using an annual standard conversion rate. converted to MTCDEs. ➢ Miles were translated to MTCDEs using UNH’s ➢ The new methodology performs a behind- historic Carbon Calculator. the-scenes calculation that results in higher emissions than what was produced historically. ➢ A more accurate depiction of travel emissions is through the aggregation of travel miles.

30,000

25,000

20,000

61,064 MTCDE

MTCDE 15,000

10,000

5,000 51% 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 SiMap 2019 Historic Method Student Faculty/Staff Mileage Reimbursement & Ground

*SiMap converts dollars into miles 26 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Current Method of Data Tracking Shows Users at Clemson Travel More Robust travel programs on campus produce more emissions than peer group FY19 Travel Emissions vs. Peers 1.6 Differences in Travel 1.4 Clemson vs. Peers • Some peers may not be tracking 1.2 travel as extensively. 1.0 • Some peers may be providing more robust/accurate tracking 0.8 of miles, destinations of travel. • Clemson also includes athletic 0.6 0.6 travel, other peers may not 0.4 participate in the same capacity

MTCDE/Weighted Campus User Campus MTCDE/Weighted of athletic programs. 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.0 A B C D Clemson E F G H I

Peer Average

27 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Campus Population Growth Results in Additional Landfill Waste Clemson produced more landfill waste and composting, less recycling FY2018 to FY2019 Total Waste Stream Waste Stream by Source vs. Peers 6,000 12,000

5,000 10,000

4,000 8,000

3,000 6,000

2,000 4,000 3,061

Total Waste Stream in Tons in Stream Waste Total 1,000 2,000

Pounds/Weighted Campus User Campus Pounds/Weighted No data available data No 0 0 available data No

*C&D waste excluded from totals

Current: 189K MTCDE 250,000 in 2019 Baseline: 172K MTCDE in 2007 200,000 Emission reduction goal

150,000 MTCDE

100,000

50,000 From 2019, Clemson needs to reduce GHG emissions by 11K MTCDE/year (3%/year) to reach its 2030 goal. 0

• Clemson will purchase electric from a new system Duke Energy will build on campus. • This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is produced compared to purchased electricity from the grid. • As a by-product of the electric generation, the new system will also produce steam. • The steam will be used in conjunction to the natural gas to provide heat to campus. • Since the system will be owned by Duke Energy, the additional natural gas usage should not be considered part of Clemson’s consumption.

30 © 2019 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Key Takeaways by Scope Scope 1: Clemson has increased total Scope 1 emissions by 25% since 2010. Revision in the procurement policies of de minimis sources provides an opportunity for demonstrated commitment to “green practice”. This includes a transition to electric/hybrid fleet vehicles and organic fertilizers. Scope 2: Although Clemson has added new space, its Scope 2 electric consumption has been consistent since 2017. Utilizing renewable sources of energy and collaboration with energy partners on strategic generation can help Clemson reduce consumption, minimize costs and lower emissions. Scope 3: Clemson has increased Scope 3 emissions by 44% since 2010. Travel emissions make up 51% of Scope 3 emissions, and have increased by 61% since 2010. Better tracking of travel data will provide a clear baseline for next steps towards achieving emissions reduction goal.