Bakers Pride Universal Warmer UW-17 Specifications

OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
To: American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment Colleagues
As a campus of the University of Washington, the UW Tacoma has worked collaboratively with
the Seattle and Bothell campuses to develop the attached Climate Action Plan (CAP). As noted
by President Emmert, this plan to plan provides an important roadmap for the Tacoma campus as
we strive to achieve our climate goals while meeting the higher educational needs of the South
Puget Sound region.
The University of Washington Tacoma is excited to take a leadership role in supporting
sustainability and environmental stewardship in the region we serve. Our campus recognizes
that we are uniquely positioned as a growing campus to be at the forefront of innovative projects
that can demonstrate our commitment to the goals of climate neutrality.
UW Tacoma recently completed an update to the campus master plan and adopted in its guiding
principles the conservation of the environment by promoting stewardship and becoming a model
and learning laboratory of sustainability. In conjunction with the master plan, an infrastructure
master plan was developed with a focus on identifying sustainable strategies for energy, carbon
and water. The master plan integrates many of these strategies such as filtering stormwater with
rain gardens and developing sustainability guidelines for buildings.
As each campus of the UW develops its implementation plan, the Tacoma campus will track and
report its accomplishments individually on the ACUPCC site.
We are privileged to submit this plan in response to the climate challenge set by the ACUPCC
and look forward to working with our university and community partners to help make our world
a better place.
Patricia Spakes
Chancellor
University of Washington Tacoma
September 2, 2009
Dear American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment Colleagues,
The University of Washington Climate Action Plan (Plan) signed by the President of the
University of Washington and the Chancellors of UW Bothell and UW Tacoma is a first step
toward setting and achieving greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and setting
strategies for academic engagement in climate change as required by the American College
and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. The Plan outlines the strategies to be
undertaken and explored by the UW with the intention to become climate-neutral. UW
Bothell staff and faculty participated in the development of this plan through all the
academic and administrative sub-teams and are enthusiastic endorsers of this Plan.
As a campus, we continue to contribute to environmental research, education and
community outreach. Sustainability is one of seven priorities of UW Bothell’s 21st Century
Campus Initiative and resonates with the aspirations of the UW Bothell community. In 2009,
the campus Sustainability Plan emerged as a signature initiative outlining the environmental
and human sustainability strategies to be embraced and carried forward.
UW Bothell has a number of successes that are incorporated into the Plan. We see a
constant increase in programs to reduce commuting emissions. Our approach to curriculum
development infuses sustainability principles and practices across our curriculum to help us
generate the kind of new programs and courses that will make us distinctive. Our year-long
“Growing Sustainability” project has involved faculty and staff and received funding from the
Washington Center and the Russell Family Foundation. Our campus has relatively new
construction and features modern infrastructure making our campus a candidate for an
electronic dashboard system to baseline energy and water use to identify energy
conservation opportunities.
We have a strong commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and striving to
become climate-neutral. Our efforts will be in concert with our faculty, staff, students, the
UW and community at large. We look forward to continuing these efforts and achieving
greater success.
Sincerely,
Kenyon S. Chan
Chancellor
University of Washington Bothell
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Table
of
Contents
Glossary ...........................................................................................................1
1
Introduction...............................................................................................2
1.1
The
UW
Climate
Action
Plan
1.2
Climate
Action
and
the
UW
Vision
1.3
History
of
Climate
Action
at
the
University
of
Washington
2
Strategies
for
Academic
Engagement
in
Climate
Change ..........................11
2.1
Research
2.2
Curriculum
2.3
Outreach
and
Engagement
3
University
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
and
Emission
Targets ....................21
4
Strategies
for
Reducing
University
Emissions ...........................................26
4.1
Campus
Energy
Supply
4.2
Campus
Energy
Demand
4.3
Information
Technology
4.4
Commuting
4.5
Professional
Travel
5
Looking
Beyond
the
Inventory .................................................................50
5.1
Land
Use
5.2
Food
and
Composting
5.3
Reduce,
Reuse,
Recycle
6
Strategies
for
Financing
the
Climate
Action
Plan ......................................54
6.1
Funding
Mechanisms
6.2
Participation
in
GHG
Markets
7
Climate
Policy
Development
and
Implementation ...................................60
7.1
Setting
the
Leadership
and
Decision
Making
Framework
7.2
Moving
from
Strategies
to
Actions
7.3
Climate
Action
Plan
Administration
7.4
Making
Climate
Action
the
Everyday
8
Tracking
Progress.....................................................................................65
i
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
List
of
Figures
Figure
1
Climate
Action
History
at
UW………..6
Figure
7
Per‐capita
emissions
by
campus
..25
Sea!le 2,700
Department of Meteorology
1947
kg CO2 equivalent
Division of Health Services
1947
Established by Professor Phil E. Church with a
focus on climatology. Later became the
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
old Montlake landfill 140
Charged with providing on-campus environmental
health and safety services
professional
travel 270
New administrative department builds on
groundwork of Division of Health Services
330 electricity
commu!ng 660
Institute for Environmental
Studies
1973
62 buildings
Joint Institute for Study of the
Atmosphere and Ocean
1977
IES was founded after the first
UW-wide Earth Day in 1972.
It was the seat of UW’s environmental
program for over two decades.
Bothell 1,300
JISAO was formed in collaboration with NOAA,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
kg CO2 equivalent
vehicle fleet 4.6
W
U
UW
central utility plant
1987
590 electricity
professional
travel 100
U-PASS
1991
Program on Climate Change
2000
Tacoma 1,000
kg CO2 equivalent
Core departments are Atmospheric Sciences,
Oceanography, Earth & Space Sciences.
Figure
2
Emissions
and
building
size……………9
installed more
efficient boiler
74 electricity
professional
travel 100
350 buildings
commu!ng 560
Figure
8
Strategies
vs
emission
sources
…..27
su
pp
ly
d
installed 2nd more
efficient boiler
lowered building
temperatures
ve
l
President Emmert signed the American College
& University President’s Climate Commitment
u"
ng
Climate Commitment
2007
College of the Environment
2009
Includes Atmospheric Sciences, Forest Resources,
Earth & Space Sciences, Marine Affairs
de
m
an
UW adopted its Policy on Environmental Stewardship
107,020
vehicle fleet 3.4
W
U
UW
tra
PoE offers BA in Environmental Studies
and two graduate certificate programs.
Supersedes the IES
co
m
m
Program on the Environment
1997
Policy on Environmental Stewardship
2004
140 buildings
commu!ng 470
U-PASS program initiated to promote better
commuting options. By 2007, vehicle trips reduced
to pre-1990 levels despite 24% growth in student/
employee population.
IT
Power plant converted from coal to
natural gas reducing carbon emissions
by 40,000 MT per year
phased out coal as a fuel
1200 power plant
vehicle fleet 40
W
U
UW
Environmental Health & Safety
1966
13,000,000
89,432
metric tons GHGs
square feet served
by power plant
9,800,000
0
1980
behavior
0
1986-7
2000 2001-2
1994
2007
Figure
3
Effect
of
U‐Pass
on
commuting……10
today
30%
20%
$
Figure
9
Commuting
profiles
by
campus
…42
100 UW Sea!le commuters
he
r
ca
r
ot
ne
wa
lk
alo
tra
lic
dr
ive
pu
b
bic
yc
po
le
ol/
va
np
oo
l
0%
Figure
4
Alternative
fuel
vehicles
in
Fleet…11
344 standard fuel
offsets
10%
ns
it
commuters who use
this op!on
before U-Pass
40%
technology
5 ride-share
21 drive singleoccupancy vehicles
25 walk
39 take transit
8 bicycle
100 UW Tacoma commuters
59 drive single-occupancy vehicles
4 telework
2 walk
12 ride-share
2 bicycle
13 take transit
100 UW Bothell commuters
67 drive single-occupancy vehicles
4 ride-share
316 alterna!ve fuel
Figure
5
Emission
history
by
source………….22
1
2 walk
5 bicycle
14 take transit
Figure
10
Proximity
to
campus
……………….….43
60% live within 5 miles of campus
scope
90,000
80,000
power plant
scope
scope
scope
1
staff
faculty
50,000
40,000
2
3
students
60,000
commu!ng
30,000
Million grams CO2 equivalent
scope
70,000
3
electricity
20,000
professional travel
10,000
buildings
UW
UW vehicles
Old Montlake landfill
fugi!ve gases
2000
2001-2004
interpolated
(not inventoried)
2005 2006 2007 2008
0
Figure
6
'Business
as
usual'
projection……..23
Figure
11
Air
travel
expenditures
at
UW
…….47
2005
2008
$18.7 million
$25.6 million
300,000
business as usual
Million grams CO2- equivalent
250,000
200,000
150,000
CURRENT
(2008)
2020 target
(15% reduc!on)
100,000
2035 target
(36% reduc!on)
50,000
5
50
20
4
20
20
40
5
20
2
20
35
20
30
20
15
20
10
20
20
20
05
20
00
0
ii
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Glossary
CO2
carbon
dioxide
CO2‐equivalent
the
equivalent
mass
of
CO2
required
to
have
the
same
global
warming
effect
as
an
identified
mass
of
any
other
greenhouse
gas
CO2e
CO2‐equivalent
ESAC
University
of
Washington
Environmental
Stewardship
Advisory
Committee
GHG
greenhouse
gas
–
the
two
that
are
most
abundant
in
the
UW
inventory
are
CO2
and
methane;
1
unit
of
methane
has
the
global
warming
potential
of
21
units
of
CO2
LEED
Leadership
in
Energy
and
Environmental
Design,
a
certification
program
of
the
U.S.
Green
Building
Council
Mitigation
when
applied
to
climate
change,
means
reduction
of
GHGs
Offset
a
reduction
of
GHGs
attributable
to
a
particular
project
that
can
be
sold
to
a
party
other
than
the
owner
of
the
project
OPB
the
UW
Office
of
Planning
and
Budgeting
Submetering
measuring
electric,
steam
or
other
energy
use
on
a
building‐by‐building
basis,
even
when
energy
is
supplied
by
a
central
utility
plant
University
Advancement
the
fundraising
arm
of
the
UW
administration
UWESS
the
UW
Environmental
Stewardship
and
Sustainability
Office
Virtualization
the
practice
of
executing
computing
processes
that
normally
require
different
pieces
of
equipment
on
a
single
piece
of
equipment,
or
enabling
a
computing
process
that
normally
requires
a
specific
piece
of
equipment
to
operate
on
multiple
pieces
of
equipment
1
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
1
1.1
Introduction
The
UW
Climate
Action
Plan
The
UW
Climate
Action
Plan
describes
commitments
being
made
by
the
Univer‐
sity
of
Washington
(the
University,
UW)
to
meet
its
obligations
under
the
Ameri‐
can
College
&
University
Presidents’
Climate
Commitment
(ACUPCC).
Those
ob‐
ligations
include
intent
to
achieve
a
climate‐neutral
university
having
no
net
greenhouse
gas
(GHG)
emissions.
The
UW
Climate
Action
Plan
(the
Plan)
sets
out
broad
strategies
that
will
guide
us
toward
that
ambitious
goal
and
identifies
the
actions
that
can
fulfill
each
of
those
strategies.
Analysis
of
the
financial,
en‐
vironmental
and
social
aspects
of
the
actions
will
be
necessary
for
prioritization
of
implementation.
This
Plan
establishes
the
first
steps,
identifying
the
frame‐
work
strategies
and
providing
a
number
of
proposed
actions.
The
proposed
ac‐
tions
will
be
expanded
upon,
evaluated
and
prioritized
over
the
next
year,
with
a
detailed
Implementation
Document
produced
by
September
2010.
The
core
of
our
effort
is
to
expand
the
UW’s
already
rich
history
of
environ‐
mental
research,
education
and
community
outreach.
We
will
build
upon
our
unique
capabilities
as
a
world
leader
in
climate
research
by
developing
innova‐
tive,
groundbreaking
efforts
in
interdisciplinary
approaches
to
climate
change.
We
will
build
on
a
long
history
of
environmental
education
to
add
curriculum
de‐
velopment
on
climate
change
and
integrate
our
educational
efforts
with
re‐
search.
We
will
build
upon
our
reputation
for
providing
talent
and
knowledge
to
the
Pacific
Northwest
by
preparing
the
next
generations
of
UW
graduates
to
con‐
front
future
climate
issues
with
experience
and
innovation.
These
are
the
strategies
that
will
be
described
in
Chapter
2,
Strategies
for
Academic
Engage‐
ment
in
Climate
Change.
The
UW’s
talented,
committed
and
resourceful
community
is
extensive,
and
we
expect
to
break
new
ground
in
bringing
the
academic
and
administrative
sides
of
our
university
together
to
act
in
concert
to
meet
the
goals
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan.
With
a
population
of
roughly
70,000
students,
staff
and
faculty
throughout
its
three
campuses,
the
UW
has
the
size
and
complexity
of
a
small
city.
It
can
function
as
a
research
center
and
test
bed
for
GHG
goal‐setting,
reduction
tech‐
nologies
and
administrative
processes
that
can
be
expanded
upon
by
communi‐
ties
and
other
large
organizations
in
Washington
State.
Chapter
4,
Strategies
for
2
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Reducing
University
Emissions,
details
some
of
the
strategies
that
will
lead
our
community
in
mitigating
GHG
emissions.
The
UW
will
reduce
GHG
emissions
to
meet
or
exceed
the
goals
passed
by
the
Washington
State
Legislature
in
April
of
2009,
requiring
Washington
state
agen‐
cies
to
reduce
emissions
15%
below
2005
levels
by
2020,
and
36%
below
2005
levels
by
2035.
Climate
neutrality
is
not
specified
in
the
state
mandate.
The
UW,
hoping
to
achieve
neutrality
by
2050,
is
unable
to
set
this
as
the
firm
target
date
since
the
technologies
necessary
to
meet
it,
and
the
federal
and
international
policies
that
can
support
GHG
neutrality,
are
still
emerging.
Indeed,
accelerated,
interdisciplinary
work
at
the
University
will
play
an
important
role
in
guiding
the
very
developments
that
will
make
GHG
neutrality
possible.
1.2
Climate
Action
and
the
UW
Vision
The
UW
Climate
Action
Plan
builds
on
the
University
of
Washington’s
Vision
Statement,
which
highlights
seven
characteristics
that
make
the
UW
“Uniquely
Washington”:
We
strive
to
be
World
Leaders
in
Research
on
several
fronts
with
the
science
of
climate
change,
on
the
impacts
of
climate
change,
on
climate
pol‐
icy
and
on
greenhouse
gas
mitigation.
Through
the
integrative
College
of
the
Environment,
we
will
foster
an
Academic
Community
that
rallies
around
the
multidisciplinary
challenges
of
climate
change.
Careful
attention
to
the
effects
of
climate
on
the
Pacific
Northwest
Celebrates
Place,
and
Being
Public
means
we
work
with
Washington’s
citizens
to
manage
those
effects
wisely.
In
addition
to
managing
the
effects,
we
as
World
Citizens
work
actively
to
combat
global
cli‐
mate
change
by
bringing
our
Spirit
of
Innovation
to
mitigation
technologies.
Fi‐
nally,
the
UW
Standard
of
Excellence
calls
for
recruiting
the
best
faculty
and
staff,
pursuing
academic
excellence
and
holding
ourselves
to
the
highest
stan‐
dard
of
ethics.
Our
Vision
Statement
is
augmented
by
five
goals
known
as
the
Grand
Challenges,
all
of
which
are
addressed
by
the
Climate
Action
Plan:
1. Attract
a
diverse
and
excellent
student
body
and
provide
a
rich
learning
ex‐
perience.
The
Climate
Action
Plan
connects
the
UW
student
experience
to
the
intricate
web
of
relationships
required
for
successful
stewardship.
The
UW
educational
experience
is
concretely
linked
to
research
and
community
action,
both
on
and
off
campus.
3
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
2. Attract
and
retain
an
outstanding
and
diverse
faculty
and
staff
to
enhance
educational
quality,
research
strength
and
prominent
leadership.
The
Cli‐
mate
Action
Plan
boldly
places
the
UW
in
a
leadership
position
within
many
research
fields
and
academic
disciplines,
and
should
attract
visionary
faculty
and
staff.
The
Plan
explicitly
calls
for
supporting
new,
interdisciplinary
fac‐
ulty
positions.
3. Strengthen
interdisciplinary
research
and
scholarship
to
tackle
“grand
chal‐
lenge”
problems
that
will
benefit
society
and
stimulate
economic
develop‐
ment.
Tackling
the
demands
of
climate
change
mitigation
and
adaptation
is
quickly
evolving
to
be
one
of
the
grand
challenges
of
this
century.
4. Expand
the
reach
of
the
UW
from
our
community
and
region
across
the
world
to
enhance
global
competitiveness
of
our
students
and
the
region.
Highlighting
and
expanding
the
UW’s
research
on
global
climate
change
ties
our
education
to
the
world,
while
our
location
in
a
major
Pacific
Rim
port
city
reminds
us
of
the
tangible
implications
for
trade
in
climate‐related
technolo‐
gies.
5. Maintain
and
build
infrastructure
and
facilities
to
insure
the
highest
level
of
integrity,
compliance
and
stewardship.
The
Climate
Action
Plan
requires
in‐
tegration
of
UW’s
physical
infrastructure
with
academic
and
administrative
priorities
and
policies
to
identify
and
make
the
required
trade‐offs
to
create
an
effective
and
self‐perpetuating
path
forward.
1.3
History
of
Climate
Action
at
the
University
of
Washington
The
University
of
Washington
has
a
long
history
of
environment‐related
teach‐
ing,
climate‐related
research,
environmental
stewardship
and
energy
and
re‐
source
conservation.
4
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Figure
1
‐
Climate
Action
History
at
the
UW
Department of Meteorology
1947
Established by Professor Phil E. Church with a
focus on climatology. Later became the
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Division of Health Services
1947
Charged with providing on-campus environmental
health and safety services
Environmental Health & Safety
1966
New administrative department builds on
groundwork of Division of Health Services
Institute for Environmental
Studies
1973
IES was founded after the first
UW-wide Earth Day in 1972.
It was the seat of UW’s environmental
program for over two decades.
Joint Institute for Study of the
Atmosphere and Ocean
1977
JISAO was formed in collaboration with NOAA,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
central utility plant
1987
Power plant converted from coal to
natural gas reducing carbon emissions
by 40,000 MT per year
Program on the Environment
1997
PoE offers BA in Environmental Studies
and two graduate certificate programs.
Supersedes the IES
Policy on Environmental Stewardship
2004
UW adopted its Policy on Environmental Stewardship
College of the Environment
2009
Includes Atmospheric Sciences, Forest Resources,
Earth & Space Sciences, Marine Affairs
U-PASS
1991
U-PASS program initiated to promote better
commuting options. By 2007, vehicle trips reduced
to pre-1990 levels despite 24% growth in student/
employee population.
Program on Climate Change
2000
Core departments are Atmospheric Sciences,
Oceanography, Earth & Space Sciences.
Climate Commitment
2007
President Emmert signed the American College
& University President’s Climate Commitment
1.3.1 Climate
Research
and
Curriculum
Department of Meteorology
1947
Joint Institute for Study of
the Atmosphere and Ocean
1977
The
University
of
Washington
has
a
long
history
with
climate
research,
beginning
in
the
1940s
with
establishment
of
a
climate‐focused
Department
of
Meteorol‐
ogy
by
Professor
Phil
Church.
Today,
climate
research
at
the
University
of
Wash‐
ington
is
anchored
in
a
triad
of
organizations:
the
Joint
Institute
for
Study
of
the
Atmosphere
and
Ocean
formed
in
collaboration
with
the
National
Oceanic
and
5
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Climate Impacts Group
1992
Program on
Climate Change
2000
Institute for
Environmental Studies
1973
Program on the
Environment
1997
Atmospheric
Administration,
the
Climate
Impacts
Group
focusing
on
climate
im‐
pacts
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
and
the
Program
on
Climate
Change
(PCC).
PCC,
in
particular,
offers
a
stage
for
interdisciplinary
climate
research
through
collabora‐
tion
between
the
Atmospheric
Sciences,
Oceanography
and
Earth
&
Space
Sci‐
ences
departments,
as
well
as
a
point
of
focus
for
climate
science
teaching.
The
UW
has
a
rich
history
of
teaching
environmental
stewardship
across
a
broad
array
of
academic
programs.
This
capacity
was
first
formalized
in
the
Institute
for
Environmental
Studies
in
1973.
In
October
1995
President
Richard
McCor‐
mick
appointed
the
Task
Force
on
Environmental
Education,
which
eventually
led
to
integration
of
the
University
of
Washington’s
environment‐related
curricula
under
the
Program
on
the
Environment
(POE);
in
autumn
quarter
1998
the
UW
admitted
the
first
students
to
the
BA
program
in
Environmental
Studies.
Today,
the
University
of
Washington
offers
a
diverse
collection
of
academic
pro‐
grams
that
focus
on
environmental
policy,
climate
change
and
sustainability.
In
2009,
the
University
offers
over
500
individual
courses
on
its
three
campuses
that
focus
on
or
directly
relate
to
climate
change
and
sustainability.
Most
of
the
environment‐related
undergraduate
degree
programs,
including
POE’s
environ‐
mental
studies
program,
offer
minors
that
allow
students
to
explore
environ‐
mental
issues
while
pursuing
majors
in
other
fields.
Finally,
independent
study
and
Capstone
projects
connect
the
learning
experi‐
ence
with
climate
action.
POE,
the
Environmental
Management
Certificate
Pro‐
gram
and
the
Restoration
Ecology
Network
have
supported
student
projects
leading,
for
example,
to
an
analysis
of
the
potential
for
mitigating
GHGs
from
the
Montlake
Landfill,
recommendations
for
climate‐friendly
investing
of
the
UW’s
endowment,
and
a
sustainability
plan
for
UW
Bothell.
1.3.2 Environmental
Awareness
and
Stewardship
Division of Health
Services
1947
Institutional
action
on
environmental
health
and
safety
dates
back
to
1947
when
the
Chair
of
the
Department
of
Preventive
Medicine
and
Public
Health,
School
of
Medicine,
recommended
the
establishment
of
a
Division
of
Health
Services
charged
with
providing
on‐campus
environmental
health
and
safety
services.
Throughout
the
1950s
and
into
the
1960s
the
University
added
staff
and
pro‐
grams
in
sanitation,
occupational
safety,
radiation
safety,
fire
safety,
waste
man‐
6
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
agement
and
pollution
control.
All
these
entities
coalesced
into
our
current
De‐
partment
of
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
(EH&S)
in
1966.
Environmental Health
& Safety
1966
During
the
1970s
and
into
the
early
1980s
environmental
and
health
and
safety
regulations
at
the
federal
and
state
level
increased
significantly
with
the
Re‐
source
Conservation
&
Recovery
Act
(RCRA),
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(TO‐
SCA),
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
(NEPA)
and
the
State
of
Washing‐
ton’s
State
Environmental
Policy
Act
(SEPA).
EH&S
programs
grew
to
meet
the
challenges
of
these
new
regulations.
In
July
2004,
the
University
issued
the
Environmental
Stewardship
and
Sustain‐
ability
statement,
declaring:
“The
University
is
committed
to
practicing
and
pro‐
moting
environmental
stewardship
while
conducting
its
teaching,
research,
and
service
missions
as
well
as
its
facility
operations
in
all
of
its
locations.”
An
Environmental
Stewardship
Advisory
Committee
(ESAC)
was
chartered
by
the
Environmental Stewardship Provost
and
the
Executive
Vice
President;
it
includes
faculty,
staff
and
students
Advisory Commi!ee logo
from
all
three
campuses
and
has
responsibility
for
recommending
environmental
action
and
developing
policy.
ESAC
coordinated
the
first
GHG
emissions
inven‐
tory,
sponsored
student
capstone
projects,
recommended
new
strategies
to
promote
stewardship
and
sustainability
and
was
the
catalyst
for
many
adminis‐
trative
changes.
In
March
2007,
the
University
of
Washington
became
a
charter
member
of
the
Leadership
Circle
of
the
American
College
&
University
Presidents’
Climate
Commitment.
The
commitment
involves
all
three
UW
campuses.
Chancellors
at
both
UW
Bothell
and
UW
Tacoma
signed
the
commitment,
along
with
UW
Presi‐
dent
Mark
A.
Emmert.
In
August
2008,
based
on
ESAC’s
recommendation
to
the
Senior
Vice
President,
the
UW
office
of
Environmental
Stewardship
and
Sustainability
(UWESS)
was
created
to
coordinate
and
support
UW
activities
and
information
related
to
sustainability.
UWESS
is
part
of
the
Strategy
Management
group,
under
Finance
and
Facilities.
The
University’s
institutional
focus
on
stewardship
is
complemented
by
strong
student
involvement,
as
evidenced
by
over
one
dozen
student
organizations
that
are
active
on
environmental
issues.
Students,
staff
and
faculty
frequently
col‐
laborate
on
University‐wide
efforts
surrounding
environmental
stewardship;
re‐
7
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
cent
examples
include
the
2009
Focus
the
Nation
climate
change
teach‐in,
What
is
Sustainability?
An
Exploratory
Symposium
at
UW
Bothell
in
2009
and
the
2009
South
Sound
Sustainability
Summit
at
UW
Tacoma.
Reaching
beyond
its
own
walls,
the
University
of
Washington
works
together
with
governments,
corporations,
nonprofits
and
other
academic
institutions
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
and
elsewhere.
It
is
a
founding
member
of
the
Seattle
Climate
Partnership,
which
commits
many
of
Seattle’s
employers
to
reduce
emissions
and
contributes
to
meeting
the
city’s
community‐wide
GHG
reduction
goals.
The
University
hosts
many
events
open
to
the
public,
with
appeal
ranging
from
families
to
specialized
professional
audiences.
These
events
include
exhib‐
its
at
the
Burke
Museum
of
Natural
History
and
Culture,
educational
events
at
the
UW
Botanic
Gardens,
the
annual
Polar
Science
Weekend
in
partnership
with
the
Pacific
Science
Center,
the
recent
international
conference
on
microplastics
in
the
marine
environment
at
UW
Tacoma
and
the
UW
School
of
Law
Climate
Change
Conference
on
Law,
Economics
and
Impacts.
The
University’s
continued
attention
to
environmental
stewardship
has
been
recognized
with
the
Sustainable
Endowment
Institute’s
highest
awarded
grade
(A‐)
on
the
College
Sustainability
Report
Card
in
both
2008
and
2009.
1.3.3 Early
Actions
Reducing
Emissions
central utility plant
1987
The
most
important
driver
of
GHG
reductions
at
the
UW
is
energy
use.
The
Uni‐
versity
of
Washington
has
pursued
energy
efficiency
aggressively
for
a
long
time.
In
1987
the
Seattle
Campus’
central
utility
plant
began
burning
natural
gas
in‐
stead
of
coal,
improving
local
air
quality
and
simultaneously
reducing
GHG
emis‐
sions
by
about
40,000
metric
tons
CO2‐equivalent
(“metric
tons”)
per
year.
Since
that
time,
high‐efficiency
boilers
have
been
installed
to
reduce
fuel
consumption
even
further.
The
effects
on
UW
GHG
emissions
have
been
dramatic,
as
shown
in
Figure
2.
8
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Figure
2
–
Emissions
and
building
size
phased out coal as a fuel
installed more
efficient boiler
107,020
installed 2nd more
efficient boiler
lowered building
temperatures
13,000,000
9,800,000
89,432
square feet served
by power plant
metric tons GHGs
0
0
2000 2001-2
1980
1986-7
1994
2007
Since
the
1980s
the
UW
has
managed
to
keep
GHG
emissions
from
the
Seattle
campus’
central
utility
plant
in
check
on
a
per‐square‐foot
basis,
thanks
to
efficiency
measures
taken
both
at
the
plant
(the
sup‐
ply
side)
and
at
the
buildings
(the
demand
side).
The
gold
line
shows
the
increasing
square
footage
served
by
the
Seattle
campus’
central
utility
plant,
while
the
grey
bars
indicate
the
GHGs
emitted
in
the
course
of
serving
that
floor
area.
Recent
capital
improvement
projects
have
improved
the
average
efficiency
of
UW
structures
through
participation
in
the
U.S.
Green
Building
Council
(USGBC)
Leadership
in
Energy
and
Environmental
Design
(LEED)
program.
UW
properties
currently
include
three
Gold,
three
Silver
and
one
Certified
LEED‐rated
buildings,
with
22
additional
projects
in
the
design,
construction
or
post‐construction
stages
pending
certification.
Modern
integrated
design
processes
such
as
these
new
projects
have
resulted
in
an
average
of
30%
energy
savings
(relative
to
American
Society
of
Heating,
Refrigerating
and
Air‐Conditioning
Engineers
re‐
quirements
current
at
the
time
of
certification)
at
a
2%
increase
in
initial
capital
construction
cost.
Recent
efficiency
improvements
to
the
Seattle
campus’
data
center
resulted
in
over
450
kW
of
reduced
electric
demand,
or
a
26%
reduction
in
energy
usage
throughout
the
entire
building
within
which
the
center
is
housed.
Meanwhile,
consolidation
and
virtualization
of
computing
resources
is
reducing
campus‐wide
energy
demand
from
computing
even
further.
By
using
virtualization
technol‐
ogy,
UW
Educational
Outreach
(UWEO)
has
reduced
its
number
of
servers
by
20%,
with
a
net
savings
of
nearly
160,000
kW/Hr/Year
of
electricity
from
server
9
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
operation
and
cooling,
avoiding
95
tons
of
carbon
production
per
year.
At
the
completion
of
their
rebuild
project,
nearly
80%
energy
savings
will
be
achieved,
avoiding
475
tons
of
carbon
production
per
year.
Our
students,
staff
and
faculty
are
enabled
to
choose
energy‐efficient
commut‐
ing
modes
by
our
award
winning
U‐PASS
program
created
in
1991.
U‐PASS
en‐
compasses
an
unlimited
right‐to‐ride
transit
pass
covering
six
Puget
Sound
tran‐
sit
agencies,
discounted
carpool
parking,
vanpool
subsidies,
walking
and
biking
programs,
merchant
discounts
including
car
sharing
discounts,
plus
emergency
rides
home
and
discounted
occasional
use
parking
for
faculty
Figure
3
‐
Effect
of
U‐Pass
on
commuting
and
staff.
before U-Pass
commuters who use
this op!on
today
40%
U‐PASS
has
supported
a
significant
shift
of
commuters
20%
from
private
cars
to
transit:
10%
Today
39%
of
commutes
to
the
0%
Seattle
campus
are
made
by
bus,
and
30%
of
trips
are
by
foot
or
bicycle
–
producing
zero
GHG
emissions.
We
heavily
promote
bicycle
commuting
through
widespread
access
to
bicycle
facilities
and
three
team‐based
bicycle
commute
campaigns
each
year.
Despite
a
24%
growth
in
the
employee
and
student
population
between
1990
(the
year
before
the
launch
of
U‐PASS)
and
2007,
there
were
fewer
vehicle
trips
to
campus
per
day
in
2007
than
in
any
of
the
previous
24
years.
On
the
Bothell
campus,
a
rideshare
email
subscriber
list
implemented
jointly
with
the
adjacent
Cascadia
Community
College
provides
an
additional
mechanism
for
reducing
commuting
emissions.
r
ot
he
l
po
o
yc
le
l/v
an
oo
bic
ca
rp
k
wa
l
al
ive
dr
bl
ic
tra
ns
it
on
e
30%
pu
U-PASS
1991
Professional
air
travel
involves
substantial
GHG
emissions
but
plays
a
vital
role
in
research,
teaching,
and
administrative
activities
at
UW.
The
University
has
a
modest
but
expanding
set
of
videoconferencing
facilities
which
already
provides
an
alternative
to
some
of
the
functions
of
long‐distance
travel.
To
make
a
sig‐
nificant
impact
on
air
travel,
the
use
of
videoconferencing
would
have
to
grow
enormously
and
this,
in
turn,
entails
a
host
of
technical
and
cultural
challenges.
We
propose
that
the
University
embrace
these
challenges
and
thereby
play
a
leadership
role
in
developing
a
more
sustainable
form
of
global‐scale
communi‐
10
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
cation.
At
the
same
time,
we
recognize
that
many
functions
of
long
distance
travel
(e.g.
field
research,
face‐to‐face
meetings
at
conferences,
recruitment
vis‐
its
for
prospective
students
and
faculty)
cannot
be
replaced
by
videoconferenc‐
ing
and
will
therefore
have
to
be
addressed
via
carbon
offsets.
Of
the
University’s
vehicle
fleet,
(316
light,
medium
duty
and
heavy
duty
vehicles
out
of
660
total)
48%
are
alternative
fuel
vehicles
such
as
flex‐fuel,
biodiesel,
hy‐
brid,
plug‐in
hybrid
electric
and
all‐electric
Figure
4
‐
Alternative
fuel
vehicles
vehicles;
our
fueling
344 standard fuel
316 alterna!ve fuel
infrastructure
cur‐
rently
offers
a
B20
biodiesel
blend
and
is
positioned
to
offer
B100
and
E85
when
the
emerging
market
products
are
made
reliably
available.
Efforts
to
reduce
the
fleet
will
also
be
explored
2
Strategies
for
Academic
Engagement
in
Climate
Change
This
chapter
presents
a
set
of
initial
strategies
the
UW
will
explore
to
leverage
its
strengths
as
an
academic
institution
to
make
a
significant
contribution
to
climate
stewardship.
Research,
teaching
and
outreach
are
all
components
of
discovery,
the
heart
of
the
University.
We
educate
a
diverse
student
body
to
become
re‐
sponsible
global
citizens
and
engage
these
students
in
addressing
climate‐action
and
environmentally‐sustainable
issues
through
guided
research
and
academic
inquiry.
College of the Environment
2009
A
landmark
initiative
in
the
UW’s
academic
engagement
with
the
environment
is
the
new
College
of
the
Environment,
opening
Fall
2009
just
as
the
Climate
Action
Plan
is
being
released.
The
new
college
brings
together
a
critical
mass
of
aca‐
demic
units
and
interdisciplinary
scholars
to
lead
in
the
development
of
strategic
plans
for
curriculum
enhancements;
for
innovative
research
into
science,
tech‐
nology,
and
public
policy;
and
for
effective
outreach
initiatives.
This
opens
vast
but
as
yet
unfocussed
opportunities
for
detailing
and
expanding
the
strategies
in
this
chapter
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan.
New
ideas
will
be
spawned
as
the
incipi‐
ent
College
incorporates
more
academic
science
units,
builds
affiliations
with
11
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
other
departments
and
individual
faculty
members,
hires
its
first
permanent
dean
and
opens
internal
discussion
about
its
mission
and
strategic
plans.
Expert
and
thoughtful
planning
for
climate
research
in
the
sciences
and
technology
will
emerge
from
leadership
within
the
College
of
the
Environment
by
the
end
of
2010;
this
Climate
Action
Plan
considers
only
complementary
issues.
2.1
Research
Research
is
at
the
heart
of
inquiry
and
discovery
at
the
UW,
attracting
some
$1.2
billion
in
grant
funding
as
of
2007,
one‐third
of
the
University's
total
budget.
We
firmly
believe
that
engaging
our
students,
graduate
and
undergraduate
alike,
in
climate
and
environmental
research
will
support
and
inform
their
engagement
as
active
citizens
during
their
campus
years
and
beyond.
Our
goals
for
climate‐
related
research,
in
all
schools/colleges
engaged
in
environmental
work,
are:
•
continue
the
UW’s
position
as
one
of
the
leading
universities
in
research
on
climate
science
and
climate
impacts;
•
guide
our
students
on
all
three
campuses
into
a
rich
matrix
of
environmental
scholarship
opportunities
that
excite
them;
•
spread
environmental
research
and
scholarship
beyond
its
traditional
cam‐
pus
boundaries
in
science
and
technology;
and
•
link
the
academic
and
administrative
communities
in
joint
projects
that
are
likely
to
contribute
directly
to
UW's
climate
goals
in
this
report.
To
achieve
these
goals
we
will
interconnect
and
expand
our
multi‐campus,
multidisciplinary
research
activities,
and
remove
structural
impediments
that
hinder
coordination.
Undergraduate
students
will
be
provided
with
research
opportunities
across
our
campuses
through
venues
that
allow
them
to
discover
and
connect.
We
will
also
make
a
special
effort
to
support
young
research
fac‐
ulty,
particularly
in
economic,
social
and
technical
facets
of
climate
studies,
who
enter
colleges
or
departments
that
have
little
or
no
prior
engagement
in
these
areas
of
research.
UW’s
professional
degree
offerings
can
be
expanded
to
fill
the
region’s
growing
need
for
environmental
stewardship
and
leadership.
The
Environmental
Institute,
soon
to
form
within
the
College
of
the
Environ‐
ment,
is
designed
to
engage
the
entire
UW
community
in
environmentally‐
related
research.
The
Environmental
Institute
will
be
a
central
hub
for
combin‐
12
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
ing
scholarship
in
the
core
sciences
and
technologies
present
within
the
UW,
with
academic
disciplines
such
as
business,
economics,
law,
ethics,
political
sci‐
ence,
public
policy,
built
environments
and
public
health
and
with
administrative
areas
such
as
Facilities
Services,
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
and
UW
Tech‐
nology.
As
a
benefit,
many
of
our
scientific
and
technical
research
programs
can
be
enriched
with
social,
business
and
policy
dimensions
that
unite
students
and
faculty
from
across
the
campus(es)
in
common
purpose
and
teamwork.
Once
again,
what
we
offer
here
will
be
greatly
expanded
upon
by
work
within
the
new
College.
2.1.1 Strategy:
Foster
Undergraduate
Participation
in
Environmental
Research
environmental research
The
University
and
the
Puget
Sound
region
offer
an
array
of
research
opportuni‐
ties
to
UW
students.
Undergraduate
students
from
every
discipline
and
campus,
most
of
whom
are
facing
an
institution
of
the
UW’s
size
and
complexity
for
the
first
time
in
their
lives,
must
have
guidance
to
find
meaningful
research
and
off‐
campus
internship
opportunities.
Access
is
just
one
part
of
the
student
engagement
process.
Financial
support
of
undergraduate
environmental
research
requires
on‐going
funding
of
research
efforts
outside
the
formal
curriculum
and
during
the
summer.
Support
needs
to
be
made
available
at
UW
Seattle,
UW
Bothell
and
UW
Tacoma.
These
endow‐
ments
can
be
targets
for
University
Advancement.
Proposed
Actions:
Each
strategy
in
the
Climate
Action
Plan
will
be
followed
with
a
brief
list
of
Proposed
Actions
that
are
intended
as
a
seed
and
inspiration
for
the
complete
analysis
of
options
we
will
publish
in
2010.
The
Proposed
Actions
also
provide
a
more
concrete
anchor
for
visualizing
how
each
strategy
might
be
im‐
plemented.
For
this
strategy,
Proposed
Actions
include:
Create
a
web‐based
clearinghouse
for
current
environmental
research
opportunities
in
the
sciences,
engineering,
public
health
and
the
social
sciences;
include
in
the
clearinghouse
descriptions
of
exemplary
recent
student
accomplishments,
and
provide
clear
explanations
of
how
to
pursue
opportunities;
and
make
undergraduate
research
scholarships
available
on
all
campuses.
13
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
2.1.2 Strategy:
Support
Junior
Faculty
in
New
Areas
of
Environmental
Scholar‐
ship
Profound
change
occurs
across
generations.
Hence
junior
faculty
are
essential
for
building
new
research
foci
across
each
campus.
They
are
also
the
key
to
es‐
tablishing
UW’s
national
reputation
in
environmental
scholarship.
Senior
level
environmental scholarship leadership
will
be
needed
to
ensure
that
new
faculty
hired
for
environmental
scholarship
have
the
opportunity
to
develop
into
nationally
recognized
scholars,
especially
in
academic
units
for
which
environmental
scholarship
is
novel.
Additionally,
young
faculty
must
be
mentored
expertly
and
evaluated
using
clear
and
sensible
criteria.
One
concern
is
that
many
young
faculty
entering
depart‐
ments
with
little
prior
engagement
in
environmental
scholarship
may
need
sup‐
port
from
elsewhere
if
they
have
a
cross‐disciplinary
interest
in
environmental
topics.
They
will
need
seed
support
for
their
research,
peer
acceptance
and
fair
evaluation
for
such
activities,
encouragement
by
strategic
plans
in
their
units
and
mentoring
that
cuts
across
departments
on
all
three
campuses.
The
UW’s
pro‐
fessional
programs,
for
example
in
Business,
Public
Affairs,
Public
Health
and
Forest
Resources,
have
significant
experience
with
interdisciplinary
hiring
and
promotion
criteria
that
can
be
tapped.
Proposed
Actions:
Develop
a
high‐level,
tri‐campus
strategy
for
hiring,
support,
promotion
and
tenure
and
merit
criteria
of
new
faculty
with
environmental
scholarship
focus.
Develop
a
pool
of
expert
research
peers
across
the
globe
for
assisting
with
decisions
of
promotion
and
tenure.
2.1.3 Strategy:
Expand
Environmental
Foci
to
UW’s
Professional
Degree
Pro‐
grams
environmental focus in
professional programs
UW’s
professional
programs,
for
example
public
policy,
law
and
business,
have
had
profound
impacts
on
the
economic
and
social
vitality
of
our
region.
These
professional
degree
programs
will
need
to
assume
new
and,
in
some
cases,
un‐
familiar
roles
in
developing
community
leaders
with
environmental
specializa‐
tions.
We
have
already
seen
sustainable
business
practices
and
environmental
law
incorporated
into
professional
training,
but
a
fast‐growing
concern
about
climate
change
will
create
new
demands
for
professional
training,
perhaps
in
GHG
allowance
accounting
and
trading,
international
climate
policy
and
ethics
or
municipal
climate
policy
development.
14
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
The
Evans
School
of
Public
Affairs
is
ranked
in
the
top
five
environmental
and
resource
policy
and
management
programs
in
the
U.S.
It
has
already
taken
sig‐
nificant
steps
through
concurrent
degree
programs
with
the
School
of
Forest
Re‐
sources
and
other
schools,
through
hiring
of
new
faculty
with
environmental
ex‐
pertise
and
through
its
40‐year
focus
on
Environmental
Policy
and
Management.
The
College
of
Built
Environments
is
also
expanding
its
environmental
focus
through
some
of
its
new
professional
course
offerings.
Similar
efforts
in
other
departments
could
reach
deeply
into
other
areas
of
regional
life.
Proposed
Actions:
Develop
both
strategic
priorities
and
implementation
plans
for
high‐quality
environmental
professional
degree
programs
or
courses
in
rele‐
vant
schools
and
colleges.
2.1.4 Strategy:
Foster
Collaborations
between
Academic
and
Administrative
Activities
The
administrative
strategies
described
in
Chapter
4
are
also
research
opportuni‐
academic-administra!ve ties
for
students
and,
in
many
cases,
faculty.
As
one
example,
some
of
the
tech‐
collabora!on
nology
shifts
for
the
Seattle
campus
central
utility
plant
described
in
Sec‐
tion
4.1.4
are
engineering
research
projects
significant
enough
to
support
Ph.D.
dissertations.
Smaller
projects,
such
as
better
bicycle
and
pedestrian
access
to
campus
or
fostering
new
technologies
in
buildings
and
office
practices,
can
easily
engage
teams
of
undergraduates.
A
coordinating
infrastructure
that
closes
the
gap
between
administrative
and
academic
activities
on
the
campus
is
desirable.
Proposed
Actions:
Develop
an
approach
to
link
the
UW
environmentally
focused
academic
units
with
administrative
units
to
provide
research
opportunities
for
students
and
faculty.
2.2
Curriculum
The
new
College
of
the
Environment
initially
will
begin
as
an
academic
commu‐
nity
of
nationally‐renowned
natural
science
departments
(Atmospheric
Sciences,
Forest
Resources,
Earth
&
Space
Sciences
and
Marine
Affairs)
on
the
Seattle
campus.
Within
each
are
large
and
established
multi‐disciplinary
research
pro‐
grams
and
centers
(e.g.,
Joint
Institute
for
the
Study
of
the
Atmosphere
and
the
Oceans,
Climate
Impacts
Group
and
the
Bio‐Resource
Science
and
Engineering
interest
group).
The
College
will
also
include
the
interdisciplinary
Program
on
15
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
the
Environment,
connecting
the
College
to
biology,
statistics,
and
policy
studies
at
UW
Bothell
and
nearly
30
other
departments
and
programs
across
the
tri‐
campus
system.
The
member
units
will
retain
their
innovative
disciplinary
teaching
programs
while
new
interdisciplinary
undergraduate
and
graduate
degree
programs
are
created
to
foster
understanding.
Meanwhile,
the
Tacoma
Campus
is
in
the
proc‐
ess
of
expanding
its
offerings
further
by
adding
a
Bachelor
of
Science
in
Envi‐
ronmental
Engineering,
a
Bachelor
of
Arts
in
Sustainable
Urban
Development
and
a
Master
of
Science
in
Environmental
Science
and
Engineering.
Spanning
both
Curriculum
(this
section)
and
Outreach
and
Engagement
(Section
2.3),
University
of
Washington
Educational
Outreach
offers
another
important
platform
for
Climate
Action
Plan
academic
efforts.
Educational
Outreach
admin‐
isters
continuing
education
programs
and
online
learning
for
working
adults,
in‐
cluding
a
growing
number
of
environment
and
sustainability
certificate
programs
such
as
Environmental
Law
and
Regulation
and
Wetland
Science
and
Manage‐
ment.
Educational
Outreach
has
also
established
two
national
partnerships
that
focus
on
sustainability:
Action,
Sustainability
and
Growth,
which
has
created
two
programs
and
will
soon
launch
a
green
human
resources
certificate
program;
and
R1edu,
developing
and
offering
short
courses
about
sustainability
at
the
UW,
the
University
of
Wisconsin,
the
University
of
Toronto
and
UC
Irvine.
2.2.1 Strategy:
Develop
Environmental
Literacy
All
students
across
the
University
should
have
the
opportunity
to
learn
about
the
environmental
challenges
that
face
modern
society
and
their
potential
conse‐
quences.
Potential
topic
areas
include
environmental
systems,
climate
change,
sustainable
practices,
human
welfare,
social
implications,
policy
implications
and
Environmental educa!on economic
implications.
for everyone
Proposed
Action:
Develop
environmental
literacy
courses
at
the
College
of
the
Environment
that
all
students
may
take
as
part
of
their
general
education
re‐
quirements.
16
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
2.2.2 Strategy:
Enhance
Interdisciplinary
Environmental
Instruction
The
College
of
the
Environment
plans
to
create
two
new
units
focused
on
human
dimensions
and
technology
and
engineering
to
provide
opportunities
for
faculty
members
from
diverse
disciplines,
such
as
social
science,
law,
public
policy
and
engineering,
to
come
together
to
create
interdisciplinary
environmental
courses
and
academic
programs.
In
addition,
students
from
across
campus
will
be
able
Environmental educa!on to
earn
interdisciplinary
minors
to
complement
their
major
programs
of
study.
across domains
Discussions
need
to
be
initiated
with
other
Colleges
to
create
mechanisms
to
al‐
low
individual
faculty
members
to
participate
in
this
interdisciplinary
endeavor.
Proposed
Actions:
Establish
interdisciplinary
units
or
centers
at
the
College
of
the
Environment.
Offer
joint
appointments
allowing
faculty
to
retain
a
relation‐
ship
with
their
existing
department
while
joining
an
interdisciplinary
unit.
2.2.3 Strategy:
Explore
the
Boundaries
between
Disciplines
Collabora!ve
environmental educa!on
Understanding
the
environmental
challenges
and
opportunities
for
mitigating
the
effects
of
human
activity
will
require
an
exploration
of
the
boundaries
be‐
tween
the
many
disciplines
represented
in
the
College
of
the
Environment
and
across
the
University.
Not
only
is
research
needed,
but
students
need
to
have
an
opportunity
for
this
exploration
in
their
curriculum.
Individual
courses
need
to
be
created
that
are
collaboratively
taught
by
members
of
the
various
disciplines.
Proposed
Action:
Develop
courses
at
the
College
of
the
Environment
that
are
collaboratively
taught
by
faculty
members
from
multiple
disciplines;
these
courses
will
focus
on
exploring
the
relationships
among
the
various
disciplines
and
the
boundary
space
between
them.
2.3
Outreach
and
Engagement
The
university
already
disseminates
a
tremendous
amount
of
information
on
its
environmental
and
sustainability
research,
education
and
operational
programs
through
websites,
newsletters,
annual
reports,
news
articles,
posters
and
admin‐
istrative
communications
(e.g.,
President’s
Town
Hall).
Specific,
existing
re‐
sources
that
are
available
to
communicate
messages
associated
with
the
Climate
Action
Plan
include:
17
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
•
Websites
for
UW
Environmental
Stewardship
&
Sustainability
Office,
relevant
academic
programs
(e.g.,
College
of
the
Environment),
and
for
UW
Marketing
•
e‐communications;
•
Online
calendar
and
weekly
listserv
of
environmentally‐related
events
(both
on‐
and
off‐campus);
•
Competitions
and
peer
challenges;
•
Sustainability
toolkits
for
departments,
instructors
and
K–12
teachers;
•
The
university
daily
newspaper,
UW
Daily,
and
faculty/staff
magazine,
Uni‐
versity
Week;
•
Departmental
newsletters;
•
News
and
Information
releases;
•
Educational
posters
in
residence
halls,
dining
facilities
and
offices;
•
The
university
newsletter
for
campus
neighbors,
Front
Porch;
•
The
UW
Botanic
Gardens
website,
an
important
interface
to
the
larger
Seat‐
tle
community
When
implementing
specific
communications
tactics,
special
attention
should
be
paid
to
ensuring
that
they
themselves
are
environmentally
responsible.
There
are
two
communities
that
need
to
be
engaged
when
implementing
the
UW’s
Climate
Action
Plan:
first,
the
broad
community
of
UW
stakeholders
who
make
individual
and
collective
decisions
that
determine
the
university’s
GHG
footprint;
and
second,
external
constituents
of
the
university
who
have
an
inter‐
est
in
how
we
operate.
The
former
requires
us
to
develop
strategies
to
engage
the
entire
UW
community
(e.g.,
administrators,
staff,
faculty,
students,
alumni,
trustees
and
legislators)
so
that
there
is
broad
buy‐in
and
support
for
goals
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan.
These
strategies
will
support
the
implementation
of
the
Plan
and
dramatically
increase
the
probability
of
success.
The
latter
will
require
us
to
consider
what
key
messages
will
be
important
to
share
with
the
public
and
our
partners
to
make
sure
they
are
aware
of
the
UW’s
participation
in
and
progress
toward
implementing
the
Climate
Action
Plan.
Three
primary
goals
will
be
critical
in
developing
a
comprehensive
communica‐
tions
strategy
that
supports
the
UW’s
Climate
Action
Plan.
The
communications
18
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
strategy
will
need
to
build
toward:
Awareness,
Positive
Attitude
and
Positive
Ac‐
tion.
=
awareness
2.3.1 Strategy:
Awareness
Success
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan
is
dependent
in
part
on
creating
a
broader
understanding
of
the
science
and
policy
behind
the
goals
of
ACUPCC,
as
well
as
the
actions
being
taken
by
UW.
The
information
must
be
transparent,
easily
ac‐
cessible
and
specifically
geared
toward
a
variety
of
audiences.
Because
immedi‐
ate,
local
threats
are
generally
perceived
as
more
salient
and
of
greater
urgency
than
global
problems,
messages
should
highlight
current
and
potential
local
and
regional
climate
change
impacts.
Yet
it
is
important
to
openly
acknowledge
un‐
certainties
in
the
likelihood
and
severity
of
potential
impacts,
exhibiting
an
ap‐
propriate
respect
for
scientific
uncertainty
and
maintaining
the
University’s
role
as
a
credible
source
of
objective
information.
Concern
for
the
climate
should
be
a
topic
of
everyday
life
at
the
UW,
with
daily
reminders
like
climate‐related
purchasing
standards
(7.4.3)
and
highly
visible
Web
placement
keeping
the
topic
in
view.
Encouraging
individual
and
depart‐
ment‐level
reporting
also
keeps
climate
impacts
in
constant
view.
Finally,
the
University
needs
to
make
its
endorsement
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan
clear
by
proactively
distributing
the
information
to
its
constituents,
in
particular
packag‐
ing
it
for
easy
use
by
the
media
and
other
organizations
that
would
be
interested
in
the
actions
being
taken
by
the
University
to
mitigate
its
GHG
footprint.
Proposed
Actions:
Distribute
press
kits.
Establish
department‐
and
individual‐
level
reporting
tools.
Include
informational
pieces
on
climate
change
and
mitiga‐
tion
efforts
in
the
UWESS
web
portal.
Develop
a
sustainability
walking
tour
(with
an
online
component)
to
highlight
specific
university
efforts.
Incorporate
sustainability
information
into
undergraduate
orientation
and
new
faculty
and
staff
orientation.
2.3.2 Strategy:
Positive
Attitude
a!tude
Even
though
a
broad
understanding
of
environmental
science
and
policy
will
be
critical
to
making
long‐term
changes
in
the
UW’s
GHG
footprint,
it
will
not
be
sufficient.
A
recent
study
from
Yale
University
showed
that
although
92%
of
Americans
know
about
the
issue,
it
remains
a
low
priority
relative
to
other
issues
19
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
and
lacks
urgency.
There
is
a
significant
gap
between
the
percentage
of
people
with
an
awareness
of
climate
change
and
those
taking
action
to
solve
the
prob‐
lem,
and
it
is
principally
due
to
the
ineffectiveness
of
typical
climate
change
communication
strategies.
The
intent
is
to
foster
an
attitude
that
motivates
people
and
helps
people
participate
in
the
University’s
commitment
to
the
Cli‐
mate
Action
Plan.
Thus,
the
communications
surrounding
these
efforts
must
create
a
sense
of
teamwork
in
the
UW
community
by
instilling
the
notion
that,
combined
with
the
efforts
of
their
colleagues,
students
and
friends,
an
individual
can
have
a
larger
impact.
These
messages
will
need
to
evoke
hope
and
encour‐
agement
to
enable
action
and
avoid
provoking
guilt
or
fear.
Proposed
Actions:
Share
examples
of
1)
concrete
actions
initiated
by
both
indi‐
viduals
and
administrative
policy;
2)
quantitative
improvement
in
the
Univer‐
sity’s
GHG
emissions;
3)
opportunities
for
individuals
to
gradually
integrate
new
habits
into
their
every‐day
routine;
and
4)
actions
that
have
multiple
positive
benefits.
Prizes
and
awards
can
also
be
significant
motivators
(e.g.,
Ride
in
the
Rain).
2.3.3 Strategy:
Positive
Action
ac!on
An
understanding
of
climate
science
and
policy
and
a
positive
attitude
do
not
necessarily
translate
into
a
change
of
behavior
towards
positive
action.
In
order
to
stimulate
behavioral
change,
it
is
necessary
to
create
both
incentives
and
a
sense
of
urgency
or
desire
to
act
at
the
personal
level.
In
order
to
bridge
the
awareness/action
gap,
it
is
essential
that
we
develop
communication
strategies
that
are
capable
of
fostering
personal
behavior
change.
Beyond
simply
creating
the
desire
to
act,
specific
strategies
for
meaningful
action
must
also
be
provided.
It
will
be
effective
to
highlight
opportunities
that
are
likely
to
be
acted
upon
by
many
different
constituents,
such
as
opportunities
that
are
convenient,
save
money,
are
comfortable
or
are
otherwise
desirable.
Information
about
actions
already
taken
at
the
UW
that
are
replicable
provides
accessible
examples.
Even
information
about
what
did
not
work
at
the
UW
could
help
individuals
direct
their
actions
toward
effective
actions.
Proposed
Actions:
Demonstrate
commitment
by
leading
by
example.
Dissemi‐
nate
information
that
promotes
participation
(contact
info,
opportunities
to
re‐
20
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
spond
and
guidelines
for
participation);
showcase
personal
stories
and
provide
information
on
GHG
reduction
and
other
metrics.
3
University
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
and
Emission
Targets
The
University
of
Washington
has
been
tracking
annual
GHG
emissions
since
2005.
The
UW
has
also
calculated
emissions
for
its
GHG
management
baseline
year,
2000.
The
UW
GHG
inventory
accounts
emissions
from
all
equipment
and
property
owned
by
the
University
of
Washington.
This
includes
three
campuses
located
in
Seattle,
Bothell
and
Tacoma,
Washington.
The
inventory
also
includes
minor
fa‐
cilities
scattered
throughout
the
state.
The
Seattle
campus
supports
about
94%
of
the
UW’s
total
headcount
of
nearly
70,000
students,
staff
and
faculty,
and
therefore
dominates
the
GHG
inventory.
The
inventory
follows
the
Implementation
Guide
published
by
ACUPCC
and
the
GHG
Protocol
published
by
the
World
Business
Council
for
Sustainable
Develop‐
ment/World
Resources
Institute.
The
GHG
Protocol
prescribes
that
emissions
be
reported
in
three
different
categories,
or
“Scopes”:
Scope
2
–
Energy
Imports,
includes
emissions
from
power
plants
that
generate
the
electricity
purchased
by
the
University.
scope
1
scope
Scope
1
–
Direct
Emissions,
includes
emissions
that
originate
from
real
estate
and
equipment
owned
by
the
University.
On‐site
natural
gas
heating
and
vehicle
fleets
are
examples.
2
scope
Scope
3
–
Other
Emissions,
includes
any
sources
of
emissions
that
are
not
included
in
Scope
1
or
2,
for
which
the
University
wishes
to
take
responsibility.
An
example
is
emissions
from
vehicles
used
by
commuting
students,
faculty
and
staff.
UW
3
21
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Figure
5
–
Emission
history
by
source.
Emissions
from
major
sources
at
the
University
of
Washington,
2000
through
2008.
Emissions
from
each
source
are
shown
separately,
and
the
sources
are
labeled
with
their
GHG
Protocol
Scopes.
Actual
inventories
have
been
conducted
for
the
years
2000,
2005,
2006,
2007
and
2008.
The
inventories
for
the
years
2001,
2002,
2003
and
2004
are
estimates
interpolated
between
the
years
2000
and
2005.
1
scope
90,000
80,000
power plant
3
60,000
commu!ng
50,000
2
3
scope
scope
40,000
scope
1
30,000
Million grams CO2 equivalent
scope
70,000
electricity
20,000
professional travel
10,000
natural gas
UW
UW vehicles
Old Montlake landfill
fugi!ve gases
2000
2001-2004
interpolated
(not inventoried)
2005 2006 2007 2008
0
22
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Figure
5
shows
that
within
each
scope,
different
categories
of
sources
show
dif‐
ferent
trends
in
their
emissions
from
2005
through
2008,
and
relative
to
2000.
For
example,
Scope
1
emissions
from
the
central
utility
plant
dropped
below
their
baseline
levels
after
2000,
but
have
been
climbing
since
2005.
Scope
2
emissions
dropped
steeply
after
2000,
driven
primarily
by
policy
changes
at
Seat‐
tle
City
Light,
the
electricity
supplier
for
the
Seattle
Campus.
Scope
3
emissions
attributable
to
students,
staff
and
faculty
commuting
are
above
the
baseline,
but
show
a
decreasing
trend.
6
shows
the
total
emissions
in
the
inventory
–
the
solid
gold
line
shows
actual
emissions
from
2000
to
2008,
and
the
dotted
gold
line
shows
the
trajectory
we
expect
to
follow
in
meeting
our
GHG
targets.
Figure
6
–
“Business
as
usual”
projection.
The
grey,
“business
as
usual”
line
estimates
the
path
emissions
would
have
taken
from
2000
to
2050,
absent
any
policy
or
behavior
changes
since
2000.
The
solid
yellow
line
shows
actual
emissions
from
2000
to
2008.
The
dashed
yellow
line
indicates
the
path
emissions
are
expected
to
take
from
2009
to
2050,
with
implementation
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan.
300,000
business as usual
Million grams CO2- equivalent
250,000
200,000
150,000
CURRENT
(2008)
2020 target
(15% reduc!on)
100,000
2035 target
(36% reduc!on)
50,000
50
20
45
20
40
20
35
20
30
20
25
20
20
20
15
20
10
20
05
20
20
0
0
0
The
UW’s
total
emissions
have
fallen
substantially
from
the
baseline
year
(2000)
to
the
latest
inventory
year
(2008).
The
early
reduction
is
driven
in
part
by
Seat‐
tle
City
Light’s
commitment,
as
of
2005,
to
provide
zero
GHG
emission
electricity.
It
has
also
been
driven
by
an
aggressive
energy
conservation
plan
on
the
Seattle
campus,
keeping
building
energy
use
constant,
despite
increasing
campus
popu‐
lation
and
floor
space
(see
Figure
2).
23
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Figure
7
–
Per‐capita
emissions
by
campus.
The
area
of
each
pie
chart
is
equal
to
the
campus
emissions
divided
by
the
total
number
of
students,
staff
and
faculty
affiliated
with
the
campus.
Not
to
be
confused
with
total
emissions,
for
which
the
Seattle
campus
would
dwarf
the
other
two.
Numbers
printed
on
each
wedge
indicate
the
area
of
the
wedge,
in
kilograms
of
CO2‐equivalent.
All
values
are
rounded
to
two
significant
digits.
Sea!le 2,700
old Montlake landfill 140 kg
W
U
UW
kg CO2 equivalent
power plant 1200 kg
vehicle fleet 40 kg
professional
travel 270 kg
electricity 330 kg
commu!ng 660 kg
natural gas 62 kg
Bothell 1,300
kg CO2 equivalent
W
U
UW
vehicle fleet 4.6 kg
electricity 590 kg
professional
travel 100 kg
natural gas 140 kg
commu!ng 470 kg
Tacoma 1,000
kg CO2 equivalent
W
U
UW
vehicle fleet 3.4 kg
electricity 74 kg
professional
travel 100 kg
natural gas 350 kg
commu!ng 560 kg
Comparing
the
University’s
three
campuses
yields
some
interesting
information
about
how
GHG
emissions
are
generated.
Since
the
campuses
are
different
in
24
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
size,
we
can
compare
them
only
by
generating
estimates
of
per‐capita
emissions,
dividing
the
gross
campus
emissions
by
the
total
number
of
students,
staff
and
faculty
associated
with
that
campus.
Figure
7
shows
that
employees
and
stu‐
dents
on
the
Seattle
campus
are
associated
with
the
largest
GHG
“footprint,”
and
Tacoma
with
the
smallest.
Approximately
1,200
kg
of
the
1,500
kg
Scope
1
emissions
per
Seattle
capita
are
attributed
to
the
central
utility
plant,
which
provides
steam
to
heat
the
campus.
The
Scope
1
emissions
at
the
other
two
campuses
are
due
primarily
to
combust‐
ing
natural
gas
for
heating
buildings,
but
at
a
smaller
scale
than
performed
at
the
Seattle
campus’
central
utility
plant.
Scope
2
emissions
at
the
Bothell
Campus
are
higher
because
the
utility
that
supplies
electricity
to
the
Bothell
Campus
(Puget
Sound
Energy)
has
a
much
larger
share
of
coal
in
its
energy
mix
than
Seat‐
tle
City
Light
and
Tacoma
Power,
which
serve
the
other
two
campuses.
The
combined
Scope
1
and
Scope
2
per‐capita
emissions
at
the
Seattle
Campus
are
significantly
higher
than
at
the
Bothell
Campus
or
Tacoma
Campus.
There
are
several
reasons,
including
the
high
number
research
facilities,
a
Medical
Center
and
significant
on‐campus
student
housing
located
at
the
Seattle
Campus.
The
Seattle
Campus’
larger
load
of
Scope
3
emissions
is
related
to
the
higher
propor‐
tion
of
employees
to
students
at
this
campus
related
to
its
research
focus
and
medical
center
operations.
Students
generally
live
much
closer
to
campus
and
have
a
smaller
commuting
footprint
than
staff
or
faculty.
Furthermore,
the
greater
presence
of
research
staff
on
the
Seattle
campus
means
there
is
a
larger
amount
of
professional
travel
per
capita.
The
State
of
Washington
has
set
GHG
reduction
targets
for
state
government
by
law
(engrossed
second
substitute
senate
bill
5560
of
the
61st
Legislature,
2009).
The
law
requires:
•
By
2020,
reduce
emissions
15%
below
2005
levels;
•
By
2035,
reduce
emissions
36%
below
2005
levels;
•
By
2050,
reduce
emissions
the
greater
of:
‐
57.5%
below
2005
levels,
or
‐
70%
below
business‐as‐usual
levels
projected
for
2050.
The
legislation
does
not
specify
a
methodology
for
determining
the
projection
necessary
for
determining
a
2050
target.
25
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
With
this
Climate
Action
Plan,
the
University
of
Washington
adopts,
as
a
mini‐
mum,
these
reduction
targets
legislated
for
state
government.
In
addition,
the
University
of
Washington
hereby
states
its
intention
to
achieve
zero
GHG
emis‐
sions
by,
or
as
soon
after
2050
as
technology
will
allow.
4
Strategies
for
Reducing
University
Emissions
The
University
of
Washington
plans
to
reduce
GHGs
through
an
integrated
strat‐
egy
combining
three
approaches:
behavior
technology
$
offsets
1. Most
preferably,
students,
staff
and
faculty
will
adjust
behaviors
to
increase
energy
efficiency
and
reduce
emissions.
Education,
incentives,
policies
and
standards,
and
possibly
pricing
signals
will
be
deployed
to
affect
behaviors.
Approximately
20%
of
the
necessary
reductions
through
2035
are
planned
to
be
achieved
through
behavior
change.
2. Secondarily,
technology
will
be
deployed
to
reduce
energy
consumption,
to
acquire
energy
from
less
GHG‐intensive
sources
or
to
reduce
direct
emissions
of
gasses.
We
expect
that,
on
intermediate
time
horizons,
technology
can
provide
about
60%
of
the
UW
reduction
goal.
3. Where
behavioral
or
technological
options
do
not
exist,
the
University
can
purchase
and
retire
allowances
issued
in
GHG
regulatory
systems,
or
pur‐
chase
open‐market
GHG
offsets,
to
induce
reductions
outside
of
the
UW
campus
and
community.
It
is
our
ambition
to
limit
this
approach’s
contribu‐
tion
to
the
UW
reduction
plan
to
20%
or
less
by
2035.
Besides
viewing
GHG
mitigation
strategies
through
this
lens,
strategies
can
also
be
divided
into
categories
depending
on
the
institutional
system
or
sector
they
address.
In
Sections
4.1
through
4.5
below,
strategies
are
divided
into
these
five
categories:
1. Campus
Energy
Supply
includes
strategies
that
address
the
large
infrastructures
that
supply
energy
to
the
buildings
and
equipment
on
the
UW
campuses;
2. Campus
Energy
Demand
includes
strategies
that
address
the
demand
for
energy
from
buildings
and
equipment;
supply
demand
26
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
3. Computing
strategies
address
demand
for
energy
from
data
informa!on
centers
and
from
distributed
computing
resources;
technology
4. Commuting
strategies
address
emissions
associated
with
student’s,
faculty’s
and
staff’s
daily
commutes
to
UW
campuses
and
facilities;
included
in
our
scope
of
responsibility
and
commu!ng
5. Professional
Travel
strategies
provide
opportunities
to
address
emissions
from
air
travel
to
academic
conferences
and
other
meetings,
and
from
use
of
the
UW
vehicle
fleet.
travel
Combining
the
categories
with
the
approaches
results
in
a
simple
5×3
matrix
that
is
a
convenient
way
to
classify
the
GHG
mitigation
strategies
developed
in
the
UW
Climate
Action
Plan,
see
Figure
8.
l
tra
ve
IT
co
m
m
an
m
de
su
pp
ly
d
u"
ng
Figure
8
–
Strategies
vs.
emission
sources.
Five
different
emissions
categories,
each
of
which
can
be
ap‐
proached
with
three
different
methods.
Each
category
is
more
or
less
amenable
to
behavior
vs.
technol‐
ogy
approaches;
while
offsets,
the
method
of
last
resort,
can
be
applied
with
equal
ease
to
any
category.
The
sizes
of
the
circles
at
each
grid
intersection
indicate
the
anticipated,
relative
contributions
of
behav‐
ior,
technology
and
offsets
to
each
emission
category.
In
practice,
the
relative
contributions
will
be
de‐
termined
in
the
Implementation
Document,
and
may
be
strongly
affected
by
a
cap‐and‐trade
plan
such
as
that
described
in
Section
6.2.1
behavior
technology
offsets
$
27
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Within
each
of
the
five
emission
categories,
it
is
our
intent
to
achieve
the
great‐
est
amount
of
reduction
possible
through
the
behavioral
approach
first.
How‐
ever,
each
category
has
a
different
amount
of
room
for
cost‐effective
change
through
behavior,
and
what
cannot
be
achieved
through
that
approach
will
be
attacked
with
technology
instead.
Finally,
if
technology
is
not
up
to
the
task
of
meeting
our
emission
reduction
goals,
the
UW
will
search
for
high‐quality
offsets
to
make
up
the
difference.
Unlike
the
behavioral
or
technological
approaches,
offsets
are
equally
applicable
to
all
five
categories.
4.1
Campus
Energy
Supply
Most
of
the
University
of
Washington’s
Scope
1
and
Scope
2
emissions
are
at‐
tributed
to
fossil
fuels
burned
for
heating,
processing
steam
and
electricity
in
our
built
environments.
The
majority
of
these
GHG
emissions
from
Scope
1
occur
at
the
Seattle
Campus
central
utility
plant,
which
burns
natural
gas
to
produce
steam
for
heating
campus
buildings,
uses
electricity
to
chill
water
for
cooling
and
generates
a
small
amount
of
electricity
supplementing
electricity
received
from
the
grid.
Grid
electricity
at
the
Seattle
campus
is
provided
by
Seattle
City
Light
and
is
GHG
neutral.
Most
of
Seattle
City
Light’s
electricity
is
produced
from
hydropower
or
other
GHG
neutral
sources,
and
the
utility
purchases
and
retires
GHG
offsets
each
year
to
cover
any
remaining
power
derived
from
fossil
fuels.
Even
though
Seattle
City
Light
intends
to
meet
future
demand
with
renewable
energy,
the
UW
still
aspires
to
reduce
Seattle
campus
electricity
purchases
to
minimize
the
offset
burden
on
Seattle
City
Light.
Electricity
at
the
Tacoma
campus,
like
that
at
the
Seattle
campus,
consists
pri‐
marily
of
hydropower
but
includes
some
fossil‐fueled
resources;
however,
Ta‐
coma
Power
does
not
purchase
offsets
on
behalf
of
its
customers
like
the
Seattle
utility.
Each
building
at
the
Bothell
campus
is
heated
with
its
own
natural
gas‐fired
boiler
system,
but
cooling
is
supplied
by
a
central
plant
that
generates
chilled
water
with
electricity.
The
Bothell
campus
utility
is
Puget
Sound
Energy;
about
47%
of
its
resources
are
fossil‐fueled,
so
the
GHG
penalty
of
electricity
use
at
the
Bothell
campus
is
much
higher
than
the
other
two
campuses.
28
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
4.1.1 Strategy:
Central
Utility
Plant
Efficiency
Generating
steam
by
combusting
natural
gas
in
the
Seattle
campus’
central
util‐
ity
plant
is
the
University’s
largest
single
source
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions.
The
steam,
as
well
as
chilled
water,
is
delivered
to
the
various
buildings
on
cam‐
pus
through
a
distribution
network
including
more
than
ten
miles
of
steam
pipes
in
underground
utility
tunnels.
Opportunities
for
reducing
emissions
from
the
increase plant efficiency
plant
can
be
divided
into
those
affecting
the
plant
itself
and
those
affecting
the
distribution
infrastructure.
At
the
plant,
some
efficiency
gain
might
be
achieved
with
no
equipment
invest‐
ment
at
all,
representing
our
preference
for
behavioral
change
over
new
tech‐
nology
–
in
this
case
the
behavior
change
is
one
of
administrative
practices.
By
revising
the
central
utility
plant
operating
procedures
to
favor
the
most
efficient
boilers,
the
UW
can
minimize
the
practice
of
banking
“stand‐by
boilers”
for
guaranteeing
reliable
service.
Turning
to
technology,
numerous
vintage,
high‐horsepower
electric
motors
that
drive
pumps
used
for
circulating
cooling
water,
condensing
water
and
boiler
feed
water
can
be
replaced
with
modern,
more
efficient
electric
motors.
Another
more
capital‐intensive
improvement
would
be
to
recover
waste
heat
from
the
flue
gas
system,
and
use
the
recovered
energy
to
heat
buildings
in
close
proxim‐
ity
to
the
plant.
In
the
distribution
network,
heat
is
lost
as
steam
travels
through
the
pipes,
and
improvement
to
the
thermal
insulation
surrounding
the
pipes
would
reduce
heat
loss
and
the
demand
on
the
central
utility
plant.
Some
energy
is
also
lost
to
oc‐
casional
steam
leaks;
implementing
a
preventive
maintenance
program
would
reduce
the
frequency
of
the
leaks,
once
again
appealing
to
behavioral
ap‐
proaches.
In
the
chilled
water
distribution
system,
new
pressure‐independent
control
(PIC)
valves
could
improve
hydraulic
pumping
efficiency.
Proposed
Actions:
Accelerate
adoption
of
a
steam
leak
maintenance
program.
Accelerate
revisions
to
boiler
operating
procedures.
Immediately
begin
design
of
electric
motor
replacements
and
PIC
valves.
Launch
engineering
study
of
ther‐
mal
piping
insulation
improvements
and
feasibility
study
of
flue
gas
heat
recov‐
ery.
29
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
4.1.2 Strategy:
Discourage
Non‐Electric
Interconnections
fewer non-electric
interconnec!ons
Unless
a
major
technology
shift
occurs
at
the
central
utility
plant
(Section
4.1.4),
creating
a
new
connection
to
the
plant
induces
additional
combustion
of
GHG‐
intensive
fossil
fuels.
When
new
or
renovated
buildings
are
heated
electrically,
the
associated
GHG
emissions
will
be
much
lower
than
if
heated
with
a
steam
interconnection.
Though
the
new
electricity
demand
can
be
satisfied
with
a
GHG‐neutral
source,
the
demand
should
still
be
minimized
by
utilizing
the
most
efficient
electric
heating
technology,
for
example
ground‐source
heat
pumps
or
sewer
heat
recovery
systems.
The
GHG
reduction
achieved
will
be
somewhat
dependent
on
the
building
site;
sites
located
further
from
the
central
utility
plant
or
requiring
new
extensions
to
the
distribution
system,
would
experience
greater
thermal
losses
in
distribution,
and
should
be
preferred
candidates
for
electric‐only
interconnections
that
do
not
demand
central
utility
plant
steam
or
chilled
water.
Proposed
Actions:
On
the
Seattle
campus,
implement
a
moratorium
on
new
cen‐
tral
utility
plant
interconnections.
Apply
electric‐powered,
low‐GHG
and
high‐
efficiency
heating
and
cooling
methods.
4.1.3 Strategy:
Measure
and
Monitor
Building
Performance
measure & monitor
buiding performance
This
strategy
does
not
reduce
GHGs
directly;
rather,
it
provides
data
enabling
reductions
in
the
Campus
Energy
Demand
category,
4.2
below.
Measuring
and
monitoring
building
performance
is
a
technological
strategy
that
enables
multi‐
ple
behavioral
strategies.
The
quantities
of
natural
gas,
oil
and
electricity
consumed
at
the
Seattle
Campus
central
utility
plant
are
carefully
measured,
recorded
and
tracked.
However,
the
distribution
of
steam
and
chilled
water,
and
redistribution
of
electricity,
to
the
various
buildings
supported
by
the
central
utility
plant
is
not
universally
meas‐
ured.
In
this
strategy,
the
UW
will
install
automatic,
networked
metering
of
all
buildings
to
allow
for
near‐real‐time,
online
monitoring
of
all
energy
use.
An
on‐
line
“electronic
dashboard”
could
provide
immediate
behavioral
feedback
di‐
rectly
to
building
users,
but
perhaps
even
more
valuable
would
be
the
ability
to
create
an
online
energy
database
of
all
buildings
on
all
campuses.
For
each
building,
the
database
could
identify
total
natural
gas,
electricity,
steam
and
30
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
chilled
water
consumed
over
time,
together
with
corresponding
estimates
of
greenhouse
gases
generated.
The
database
could
be
used
for
setting
building‐
by‐building
energy
use
goals
driving
behavioral
changes
and
targeting
buildings
in
need
of
additional,
technology‐based
approaches.
The
Bothell
campus
consists
of
relatively
new
construction
and
features
modern
metering
infrastructure,
making
it
a
candidate
for
early
implementation
of
an
electronic
dashboard
system,
perhaps
as
a
test
bed
for
the
much
larger
project
of
monitoring
the
Seattle
campus.
Proposed
Actions:
Create
baseline
energy
and
water
use
information
for
all
buildings
on
all
three
campuses.
Provide
additional
metering
with
online
capa‐
bilities
as
appropriate.
Monitor
building
performance
and
use
information
to
identify
energy
conservation
opportunities.
4.1.4 Strategy:
Central
Energy
Supply
Technology
Shift
While
Strategy
4.1.1
offers
some
modest
to
moderate
reductions
to
fuel
con‐
sumption
at
the
Seattle
campus
central
utility
plant,
much
larger
changes
in
GHG‐intensive
fuel
consumption
can
be
achieved
with
capital‐intensive
projects
that
would
function
as
part
of
a
long‐term
strategy.
In
some
of
the
strategies,
system
efficiency
considerations
might
suggest
that
the
UW
build
a
combined
heat
and
power
plant
large
enough
to
generate
all
of
the
campus’
electric
needs,
perhaps
making
the
UW
a
net
exporter
of
electricity,
heat
or
both.
Candidate
projects
include:
switch to renewable
fuels
•
Switching
to
renewable
energy.
An
example
of
this
would
be
replacing
the
natural
gas
fired
boilers
with
electric
boilers
contractually
coupled
to
a
new
source
of
renewable
electricity.
Alternatively,
the
natural
gas
could
be
re‐
placed
with
a
liquid
or
gaseous
fuel
produced
from
renewable
resources
(i.e.,
bio‐fuel),
though
this
solution
requires
a
cautious
evaluation
of
the
true
life‐
cycle
GHG
savings
of
the
bio‐fuel.
•
Carbon
capture
and
storage.
This
approach
involves
separating
CO2
from
the
central
utility
plant’s
exhaust
stream
and
injecting
it
in
a
geological
reservoir
for
permanent
storage
or
(less
likely)
converting
it
to
a
solid
form
such
as
cal‐
cium
carbonate.
capture and
store carbon
31
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
•
Conversion
of
central
heating
system
from
steam
to
hot
water.
The
central
plant
currently
produces
high
pressure,
high
temperature
steam
for
distribu‐
tion
to
the
campus.
This
approach
allows
more
energy
to
be
delivered
per
pound
of
water,
thereby
reducing
the
size
of
piping
needed
in
the
steam
dis‐
tribution
system.
However,
the
higher
temperature
steam
results
in
higher
thermal
losses
in
the
distribution
system,
and
reduces
opportunities
for
low‐
level
heat
recovery.
A
potential
solution
would
be
to
convert
the
central
plant
to
a
hot
water
heating
system,
or
install
regional
hot
water
heating
sys‐
tems
throughout
campus.
•
Geothermal
heat
pumps.
The
need
to
combust
fuel
could
be
greatly
reduced
or
eliminated
by
installing
closed‐loop
heat
pump
technology
to
extract
heat‐
ing
energy
from
the
ground;
this
would
work
particularly
well
in
conjunction
with
conversion
to
a
hot
water
system
as
described
above.
•
Other
emergent
technologies.
New
GHG
neutral
technologies
are
being
de‐
veloped
and
commercialized
which
may
have
future
application
at
the
cen‐
tral
utility
plant.
One
such
technology
under
commercial
development
is
a
small‐scale
nuclear
battery
reactor
design,
which
has
its
core
buried
and
en‐
cased
deep
underground.
Other
technologies
with
possible
application
for
the
central
utility
plant
could
emerge
in
future
years.
convert from
steam to hot water
geothermal
heat pump
other emergent
technologies
At
the
Tacoma
campus,
centralized
heating
serves
the
eastern
half
of
the
cam‐
pus.
The
development
and
extension
of
a
central
plant
that
would
service
future
growth
in
the
western
half
of
the
campus
and,
perhaps,
tie
into
existing
facilities
is
a
preferred
option.
The
size
and
high
growth
potential
of
UW
Tacoma
makes
it
an
excellent
candidate
for
testing
new
technology
and
tracking
its
effectiveness.
UW
Tacoma’s
2008
Infrastructure
Master
Plan
proposes
that
such
an
expansion
to
the
central
utility
be
deployed
using
geothermal
technology.
4.1.5 Strategy:
Site‐specific
energy
resources
For
each
building,
on
each
campus,
there
may
be
solar,
wind
or
geothermal
re‐
sources
that
can
contribute
to
the
facility’s
energy
mix.
Opportunities
that
should
be
evaluated
under
this
strategy
include:
32
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
•
Solar
thermal
or
solar
photovoltaic
opportunities
exist
on
all
of
the
UW
cam‐
puses,
with
the
opportunity
varying
from
building
to
building
depending
on
architecture
and
site
geography.
The
integrated
design
techniques
that
will
be
used
for
new
projects
(Section
4.2.2)
will
enable
these
technologies
more
fully.
•
Wind
resources
are
extremely
limited
on
the
three
UW
campuses,
but
the
UW
could,
in
principle,
develop
its
own
wind
plant
at
a
remote
site,
in
col‐
laboration
with
local
utilities
for
management
and
for
electric
transmission.
•
A
portion
of
the
Seattle
campus
is
located
on
the
old
Montlake
Landfill,
which
was
closed
in
1966.
It
continues
to
generate
methane,
a
potent
greenhouse
gas.
It
may
be
possible
to
combust
this
methane
for
supplemen‐
tal
energy
generation,
though
there
is
significant
doubt
that
the
quantity
is
sufficient.
If
combustion
is
possible,
since
the
methane
is
currently
released
to
the
atmosphere
and
the
combustion
product
would
be
a
much
lower‐
potency
greenhouse
gas
(carbon
dioxide),
this
action
could
result
in
negative
GHG
emissions.
•
The
Seattle
campus
is
located
adjacent
to
Lake
Washington—a
large,
deep
lake.
The
campus
could
potentially
be
cooled
with
an
open‐loop
geothermal
system
in
which
cold
water
is
pumped
from
the
depths
of
the
lake,
used
to
cool
campus
buildings
in
place
of
mechanical
chillers
and
then
returned
to
the
lake.
Evaluating
this
action
would
require
a
thorough
and
costly
envi‐
ronmental
assessment,
but
initial
indications
are
that
the
very
small
increase
in
temperature
might,
if
anything,
be
beneficial
to
fish
migration.
solar panels
wind turbines
landfill
methane
deep lake chilling
4.2
Campus
Energy
Demand
This
category
covers
the
strategies
for
reducing
energy
demand
by
current
and
future
University
of
Washington
buildings
and
the
equipment
within
them.
Buildings
and
equipment
dedicated
to
information
technology
are
treated
sepa‐
rately
in
Section
4.3.
demand-side
Buildings
can
be
designed,
built
or
renovated
to
use
far
less
operational
energy
per
square
foot,
while
maintaining
high
quality,
health
and
comfort.
While
there
are
usually
additional
initial
costs,
energy
efficient
buildings
cost
less
over
the
life
of
the
building,
reduce
the
total
cost
of
ownership,
reduce
energy
and
opera‐
tional
costs
and
significantly
reduce
GHG
emissions.
33
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
But
in
addition
to
the
new
(and
old)
technologies
realized
with
efficient
building
design,
reducing
campus
energy
demand
is
equally
a
behavioral
measure,
requir‐
ing
development
of
new
policies,
well‐organized
implementation,
incentives
and
building
occupant
training.
4.2.1 Strategy:
Require
High
Performance
Building
Standards
ligh!ng
hea!ng
cooling
building performance
UW
buildings
are
currently
built
to
either
local
jurisdiction
standards
or
the
Washington
State
Energy
Code,
which
while
more
stringent
than
some
energy
codes,
does
not
currently
invoke
the
reductions
in
energy
necessary
to
stabilize
the
climate.
For
state‐funded
buildings,
the
UW
is
also
required
to
design,
con‐
struct
and
operate
to
the
LEED
Silver
level.
For
self‐funded
or
private/public
partnerships
the
UW
has
unofficially
adopted
a
LEED
standard
for
all
new
build‐
ings
and
major
renovations.
LEED
is
not
itself
an
energy
efficiency
standard,
though
it
does
include
metrics
for
achieving
energy
use
reduction
in
buildings,
and
much
more
can
be
achieved
in
reducing
energy
demands
of
new
and
reno‐
vated
buildings.
This
strategy
consists
of
adopting
a
quantitative,
energy‐focused
design
goal
for
UW’s
new
construction
and
major
renovations.
If
feasible,
the
goal
should
be
based
on
an
existing
program
external
to
the
UW
such
as
the
Architecture
2030
Challenge,
the
Living
Building
Challenge
or
the
Commercial
Buildings
Initiative.
•
The
Architecture
2030
Challenge
requires
new
buildings
to
use
50%
less
en‐
ergy
than
a
similar
building
in
a
similar
climate
through
2010;
after
2010
new
buildings
are
required
to
be
built
to
achieve
an
additional
10%
reduction
in
energy
use
every
5
years,
until
new
buildings
are
GHG
neutral,
as
of
2030.
•
The
Living
Building
Challenge
is
stewarded
by
the
Cascadia
Region
Green
Building
Council
and
is
intended
specifically
as
an
extension
of
LEED.
It
re‐
quires
buildings
to
generate
all
energy
from
onsite,
renewable
resources
on
a
net
annual
basis,
but
it
does
not
establish
a
progressive
timeline
for
achieving
the
design
standard.
•
The
Commercial
Buildings
Initiative
was
launched
in
the
Energy
Independ‐
ence
and
Security
Act
of
2007,
and
sets
goals
for
the
penetration
of
net
zero
energy
buildings
(NZEBs)
into
the
U.S.
buildings
stock,
such
that
all
new
con‐
struction
is
NZEB
by
2030,
half
of
the
gross
stock
is
NZEB
by
2040
and
all
commercial
buildings
are
NZEB
by
2050.
34
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Proposed
Actions:
Select
and
require
high
performance
energy
efficiency
re‐
quirements
for
all
capital
projects,
and
establish
a
timeline
for
penetration
of
the
standard
throughout
the
UW
campus.
engineers
code
officials
users
others
integrated design
4.2.2 Strategy:
Optimize
Building
Energy
Efficiency
with
Integrated
Design
Although
current
UW
standard
project
delivery
processes
foster
some
multidis‐
ciplinary
building
design
integration,
more
extensive
collaboration,
especially
earlier
in
the
process,
is
needed
to
achieve
further
energy
efficiency
goals.
An
integrated
process,
or
"whole
building"
design
process,
includes
the
active
and
continuing
participation
of
users,
code
officials,
building
technologists,
cost
con‐
sultants,
civil
engineers,
mechanical
and
electrical
engineers,
structural
engi‐
neers,
specifications
specialists
and
consultants
from
many
specialized
fields.
The
best
buildings
result
from
active,
consistent,
organized
collaboration
among
all
players.
Integrated
design
teams
are
able
to
apply
a
broad
array
of
techniques
supporting
energy
efficiency,
among
them
established
energy
reduction
design
practices
(Section
4.2.4),
the
use
of
on‐site
renewable
energy
(4.1.5),
energy
use
monitor‐
ing
(4.1.3)
and
launching
effective
operating
procedures
(7.4).
Proposed
Actions:
Implement
a
formal,
integrated
design
process
as
the
stan‐
dard
for
all
Capital
Projects
Office
and
Facilities
Services
capital
projects.
Update
language
in
design
contracts,
including
cash
flow
expectations,
to
better
support
the
collaborative
needs
of
integrated
design.
4.2.3 Strategy:
Make
Informed
Energy
Efficiency
Decisions
ini!al
cost
life!me
cost
Energy Efficiency
Decisions
Two
tools
available
for
making
more
informed
energy
efficiency
decisions
are
life
cycle
cost
analysis
(LCCA)
and
energy
modeling.
Using
either
tool
well
implies
energy
planning
over
the
expected
life
of
the
building,
with
capital
budgets
and
operational
budgets
considered
simultaneously.
LCCA
is
used
to
evaluate
the
lifetime
cost
of
ownership,
and
identify
the
best
ac‐
tions.
Inputs
to
the
analysis
for
a
given
action
are
total
capital
cost,
anticipated
life
of
the
relevant
systems,
total
operational
costs
including
utilities
and
staff,
total
maintenance
costs
and
total
replacement
costs.
With
this
information
LCCA
permits
campus
planners
to
identify
payback
and
return
on
investment
35
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
(ROI)
for
building
systems.
Like
integrated
design,
LCCA
benefits
from
systems
thinking
in
which
changes
to
one
system
may
reduce
demands
on
another.
For
example,
insulation
added
to
the
building
envelope
means
mechanical
systems
can
be
smaller.
Thus,
LCCA
is
best
applied
to
bundled
systems
to
maximize
syn‐
ergy.
Currently,
the
State
of
Washington
only
requires
an
LCCA
of
building
energy
sys‐
tems
for
state‐funded
projects
over
25,000
square
feet.
Energy
modeling
of
buildings
complements
LCCA
by
identifying
the
most
energy
efficient
building
systems
during
the
design
phase.
Modeling
allows
for
optimizing
and
integrating
systems
like
building
orientation,
window
size
and
location,
building
envelope
characteristics,
heating
and
cooling
systems
and
provides
the
most
comprehen‐
sive
and
accurate
possible
set
of
inputs
for
LCCA.
Proposed
Actions:
Implement
LCCA
policy
for
all
large
building
projects.
Identify
appropriate
energy
modeling
methodologies
for
all
large
capital
projects,
and
encode
in
policy.
4.2.4 Strategy:
Increase
Energy
Conservation
Projects
conserva!on projects
Of
all
the
campus
buildings
we
expect
to
be
in
use
in
2050,
over
70%
already
ex‐
ist.
A
comprehensive
plan
is
needed
to
significantly
expand
energy
conservation
in
existing
buildings.
Strategy
4.1.3,
Measure
and
Monitor
Building
Performance,
provides
the
energy
monitoring
and
auditing
capability
that
is
a
prerequisite
to
identifying
the
most
efficacious
conservation
opportunities.
Beginning
July
2010,
building
energy
usage
for
each
reporting
public
facility
at
the
University
must
be
entered
into
the
U.S.
EPA’s
Energy
Star
Target
Finder
tool;
buildings
not
meeting
state
expectations
will
be
targeted
for
energy
audits
followed
by
energy
LCCA
to
identify
the
most
desirable
improvements
to
building
performance.
Past
conservation
projects
have
focused
primarily
on
efficient
lighting
and
me‐
chanical
system
upgrades;
we
expect
that
an
increased
level
of
attention
to
con‐
servation
will
result
in
a
shift
of
focus,
perhaps
with
building
envelope
renova‐
tion
projects
coming
to
the
fore.
Building
envelope
projects
focus
on
reducing
winter
heat
loss
by
improving
thermal
barriers,
and
they
do
not
always
need
to
require
an
entire
building
renovation.
Laboratories
are
the
most
energy
inten‐
sive
type
of
building
on
campus
and
should
likewise
be
a
high
first
target
for
con‐
servation
projects.
The
2008
Tacoma
campus
Infrastructure
Master
Plan
already
36
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
identifies
a
host
of
potential
conservation
projects,
and
it
could
serve
as
an
inspi‐
ration
for
the
other
two
campuses.
The
University
owns
seven
downtown
Seattle
buildings
on
the
former
site
of
its
original
campus,
the
“Metropolitan
Tract,”
that
are
included
in
our
GHG
inven‐
tory.
The
buildings
serve
no
academic
function,
but
are
leased
and
managed
by
Unico
Properties.
The
University
will
work
cooperatively
with
Unico
to
imple‐
ment
many
of
the
innovations
deployed
on
campus
to
these
buildings.
Because
conservation
projects
reduce
energy
costs,
some
may
qualify
for
utility
rebate
funding,
adding
an
extra
financial
incentive.
Proposed
Actions:
Review
the
current
system
for
identifying,
prioritizing
and
funding
energy
conservation
projects
to
identify
obstacles
for
effective
expan‐
sion.
Improve
metering
to
identify
opportunities
and
monitor
progress.
Add
in‐
centives
that
apply
some
of
the
funds
saved
by
energy
reductions
to
expanded
personnel,
training
and
equipment
that
support
further
energy
reductions.
4.3
informa!on
technology
Information
Technology
According
to
the
U.S.
EPA’s
August,
2007
Report
to
Congress
on
server
and
data
center
efficiency,
power‐hungry
data
centers
in
the
U.S.
consume
the
annual
output
of
15
average‐sized
power
plants.
However,
data
centers
represent
only
a
fraction
of
the
total
energy
consumption
from
information
processing.
For
every
server
in
the
UW’s
data
center,
there
can
be
10
times
as
many
departmen‐
tal
and
rack
servers
distributed
across
the
campus,
and
there
can
be
from
50
to
over
250
end‐user
computers.
On
any
given
day,
more
than
95,000
computing
devices
are
connected
to
the
UW
network.
The
average
active,
powered‐on
desktop
computer
consumes
100
to
300
watts
of
electricity.
Much
of
the
elec‐
tricity
that
comes
through
the
power
cord
of
the
computer
is
turned
into
heat
and
power
conversion
waste
through
the
power
supply.
Thus,
the
problem
is
actually
greater
than
the
growth
in
power
consumption
by
the
data
center
itself.
Green
computing
initiatives
at
the
UW
can
be
divided
into
those
that
affect
the
central
data
center
and
those
that
affect
computing
at
a
distributed
level,
campus‐wide.
37
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
4.3.1 Strategy:
Buy
Green
more efficient
equipment
The
environmental
impact
of
computing
equipment
is
primarily
(though
not
only)
associated
with
its
energy
consumption
during
use.
Hence,
purchasing
policies
for
computing
equipment
should
include
the
costs
and
implications
for
energy
use
as
important
criteria.
In
some
cases,
favoring
particular
technologies
can
have
a
significant
impact.
Laptop
computers
are
more
efficient
than
desk‐
tops,
and
when
purchased
with
docking
stations
offer
the
same
look
and
feel
as
the
desktop
PC.
Flat
LCD
screens
consume
less
power
than
CRTs,
and
reduce
the
lead
and
mercury
contamination
associated
with
discarded
CRT
monitors.
Within
each
technology,
the
U.S.
EPA’s
Energy
Star
rating
offers
a
simple
and
meaningful
distinction
to
equipment
that
meets
reasonable
energy
efficiency
standards.
In
addition
to
the
Energy
Star
rating,
many
manufacturers
have
ob‐
tained
EPEAT
(Electronic
Product
Environmental
Assessment
Tool)
registration
for
their
products
by
adopting
a
set
of
green
manufacturing
standards.
By
in‐
cluding
an
EPEAT
Gold
registration
as
a
prerequisite
for
purchasing,
the
Univer‐
sity
could
ensure
that
clean
manufacturing
standards
have
been
followed
for
the
equipment
purchased.
Proposed
Actions:
Explore
costs
and
benefits
of
adopting
a
UW
policy
that
meets
faculty
and
staff
research,
teaching
and
administrative
needs
for
purchas‐
ing
computer
hardware
that
reduces
energy
use.
Where
possible,
require
the
Energy
Star
rating
and
EPEAT
Gold
registration
goal
for
all
computes,
including
workstation
quality
laptop
computers,
docking
stations,
standard
monitors
and
standard
keyboards.
Replace
CRT
monitors
with
LCD
monitors
and
configure
sys‐
tems
with
aggressive
power
management
or
install
power
saving
software
to
ac‐
complish
the
same
goal.
4.3.2 Strategy:
Exercise
Power
Management
OFF
equipment turned
off when not in use
Power
management
technology
enables
systems
to
automatically
turn
off
com‐
ponents,
such
as
monitors
and
hard
drives,
after
set
periods
of
inactivity.
In
ad‐
dition,
a
system
may
hibernate,
turning
off
nearly
all
components
and
greatly
reducing
the
system's
electricity
usage.
Ideally,
when
a
computer
is
not
needed
by
its
owner,
it
should
either
be
in
a
low
power
state
or
doing
research
calculations
by
participating
in
distributed
com‐
puting
for
the
benefit
of
science,
for
example
by
installing
and
running
the
Ber‐
38
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
keley
Open
Infrastructure
for
Network
Computing
(BOINC).
Distributed
comput‐
ing
for
science
introduces
an
energy
efficiency
dilemma
that
has
not
yet
been
resolved;
setting
future
UW
policy
will
require
a
deeper
understanding
of
appro‐
priate
computing
infrastructures
and
their
energy
demands.
Proposed
Actions:
Activate
automatic
sleep
and
hibernation
on
workstation
computers.
When
patch/update
procedures
permit,
shut
down
workstation
computers
at
night
if
not
running
BOINC.
Where
possible,
provide
power
strips
that
sense
the
power
of
a
control
device
to
automatically
turn
off
all
the
related
peripheral
equipment
when
the
control
device
is
turned
off.
Provide
economic
incentives
for
departments
to
manage
power
via
installing
monitoring
and
re‐
porting
technology.
4.3.3 Strategy:
Increase
Data
Center
Efficiency
As
with
workstation
computing
equipment,
purchasing
choices
for
data
centers
should
be
made
with
energy
efficiency
in
mind,
using
the
Energy
Star
rating
and
EPEAT
registration
as
standards
where
applicable.
more efficient
heat dissipa"on
Data
centers
have
large
energy
demands
for
ventilation
and
air
conditioning,
and
careful
attention
to
HVAC
systems
can
reduce
their
demand
on
the
campus
en‐
ergy
system.
In
particular,
installing
an
economizer
that
cools
the
data
center
with
outside
(rather
than
re‐circulated)
air
or
air‐cooled
water
may
result
in
sig‐
nificant
energy
savings.
This
equipment
has
already
been
installed
in
the
Univer‐
sity’s
primary
data
center.
There
may
also
be
opportunities
to
recover
and
reuse
waste
energy,
as
is
already
done
at
the
University’s
4545
Building,
but
many
of
these
opportunities
are
still
unknown
and
require
study.
Measurement
and
tracking
of
energy
use
by
each
piece
of
computing
equipment
can
also
enable
adjustments
for
efficiency
by
directing
more
demand
to
the
un‐
derutilized
equipment,
and
obviating
the
need
for
other
machines.
In
some
cases,
equipment
can
be
adjusted
to
meet
low
demand.
The
collective
energy
consumption
by
all
the
computing
equipment
in
a
data
center
can
be
divided
by
the
gross
energy
consumption
of
the
data
center
to
calculate
power
utilization
effectiveness,
“PUE,”
an
important
metric
describing
the
data
center’s
perform‐
ance
as
a
whole.
39
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Proposed
Actions:
Examine
the
costs
and
benefits
of
replacing
non‐rated
server
equipment
with
Energy
Star
equipment.
Conduct
research
projects
to
identify
best
practices.
Install
HVAC
economizer
equipment
and
controls.
Study
oppor‐
tunities
for
waste
energy
recovery.
Install
building
management
and
inventory
control
systems
to
monitor,
track
and
trend
energy
use
by
all
equipment
and
match
demand
accordingly.
task 1
task 2
task 3
task 1, 2 & 3
reduce number
of computers
4.3.4 Strategy:
Consolidation
and
Virtualization
One
option
is
to
consolidate
as
much
computing
power
as
practical
in
data
cen‐
ters,
rather
than
have
them
located
in
non‐technical
spaces.
Data
centers
are
special
facilities
designed
to
be
secure,
reliable
and
efficient
locations
to
support
the
continuous
operation
of
computer
equipment.
Data
centers
are
designed
to
handle
the
cooling
needs
of
computing
equipment
in
the
most
efficient
way
pos‐
sible
and
reduce
HVAC
demands
on
buildings
designed
for
housing
people
rather
than
machines.
Consolidation
provides
several
other
benefits
as
well,
including
reduction
in
energy
costs,
longer
life
for
equipment
(since
it
is
in
well‐managed
environmental
conditions),
removal
of
fire
hazards
from
occupied
buildings
and
increased
opportunity
for
virtualization.
Virtualization
is
the
practice
of
executing
computing
processes
that
normally
re‐
quire
different
pieces
of
equipment
on
a
single
piece
of
equipment,
or
enabling
a
computing
process
that
normally
requires
a
specific
piece
of
equipment
to
oper‐
ate
on
multiple
pieces
of
equipment.
Virtualization
gives
data
center
managers
more
ability
to
match
demand
and
supply
of
computing
resources,
and
hence
the
capacity
to
run
much
more
efficient
computing
for
the
University
than
is
possible
with
a
distributed
system.
Proposed
Actions:
Explore
new
computing
technologies
and
develop
appropri‐
ate
approaches
and
policies
given
emerging
opportunities.
Collaborate
with
fac‐
ulty
and
staff
to
migrate
distributed
computing
resources
to
data
centers
where
appropriate.
Remove
financial
incentives
for
departments
to
place
servers
in
locations
that
are
not
designed
to
support
computer
equipment.
Expand
capac‐
ity
for
virtualization.
40
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
4.3.5 Strategy:
Utilize
Cloud
Computing
In
cloud
computing,
commodity
IT
services
(e.g.,
email,
document
processing),
which
are
customarily
provided
at
desktop
computers
or
in
local
data
centers,
are
delivered
over
the
internet
instead.
Cloud
computing
offers
the
same
bene‐
fits
of
virtualization
described
above,
but
on
an
even
larger
scale.
Cloud
comput‐
ing
vendors
(in
particular,
Microsoft,
Google
and
Amazon)
have
enormous
econ‐
omy
of
scale
in
their
data
centers,
and
have
been
pioneers
in
improving
data
center
power
efficiency.
Enabled
by
advances
in
Internet
technology
and
deployment,
commodity
IT
serv‐
ices
are
now
widely
available
as
network‐accessible
web
services,
as
are
IT
infra‐
structure
components
such
as
storage
and
compute
clusters.
Although
this
mar‐
ketplace
is
young,
and
pricing
varies
from
"free"
to
"high,"
the
expectation
is
that
high‐scale
providers
using
power‐optimized
data
center
designs
and
best‐
possible
power
contracts
will
inevitably
be
able
to
offer
savings
over
servers
pro‐
visioned
locally
in
high‐cost
real
estate,
with
no
tax
or
power
cost
advantages.
There
will
continue
to
be
growing
pressure
on
local
data
center
resources;
there‐
fore,
we
can
and
should
take
advantage
of
these
new
cloud
opportunities
to
both
reduce
overall
GHG
footprint
and
save
precious
local
datacenter
resources
for
those
systems
that
must
remain
local.
Proposed
Actions:
Aggressively
explore
opportunities
for
using
cloud
services
rather
than
servers
provisioned
locally
in
our
own
data
centers
when
the
cloud
services
are
compatible
with
the
university's
functionality,
policy
and
cost
objec‐
tives.
This
would
include
applications
such
as
email
and
other
collaboration
tools,
as
well
as
"infrastructure
as
a
service."
4.4
Commuting
The
University
of
Washington’s
three
urban
campuses,
with
plentiful
transporta‐
tion
options,
are
well
situated
to
minimize
drive‐alone
commuting.
commu!ng
At
the
Seattle
campus,
decades
of
transportation
management
mean
only
21%
of
commute
trips
are
drive‐alone:
the
easily
achievable
changes
in
behavior
have
already
been
accomplished.
The
challenge
ahead
will
be
to
increase
the
use
of
non‐motorized
transportation
and
reduce
the
emissions
from
motorized
trans‐
41
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
portation,
including
transit.
Both
the
Bothell
and
the
Seattle
campus
are
served
by
the
Burke‐Gilman
Trail,
a
bicycle
artery
for
the
greater
Seattle
area.
Figure
9
–
Commuting
profiles
by
campus
100 UW Sea!le commuters
5 ride-share
21 drive singleoccupancy vehicles
25 walk
39 take transit
8 bicycle
100 UW Tacoma commuters
59 drive single-occupancy vehicles
4 telework
2 walk
12 ride-share
2 bicycle
13 take transit
100 UW Bothell commuters
67 drive single-occupancy vehicles
2 walk
4 ride-share
5 bicycle
14 take transit
At
the
University
of
Washington
Tacoma,
effective
transportation
demand
strategies
have
been
in
place
for
a
short
time,
and
progress
has
already
been
made.
Since
2006,
the
drive‐alone
rate
for
employees
has
been
reduced
by
18%.
42
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Commute
trip
reduction
has
been
expanded
to
students
for
the
first
time
this
academic
year
and
a
Student
Transportation
Coordinator
was
hired
for
this
work.
Figure
6
dramatizes
the
payoff
the
UW
has
gained
at
the
Seattle
campus
from
its
long
history
of
commuting
management
and
the
gains
still
to
be
made
at
the
Ta‐
coma
and
Bothell
campuses.
Students,
faculty
and
staff
using
public
transit
to
commute
to
UW
campuses
are
often
using
the
more
densely
populated,
urban
bus
routes,
so
that
their
per‐
passenger
emissions
are
likely
lower
than
the
bus
system
average
used
to
calcu‐
late
the
UW
Inventory.
In
the
future,
commuting
strategies
and
actions
could
be
refined
to
maximize
GHG
impact
by
using
an
improved
inventory
process
that
accounts
for
the
passenger
densities
of
the
buses
used
by
University
commuters.
4.4.1 Strategy:
Support
Bicycling
and
Walking
Walking
and
bicycling
are
GHG‐free
transportation
options.
Currently,
about
a
third
of
the
Seattle
campus
population
walks
or
bikes
to
campus,
with
around
4,300
cyclists
and
13,500
walkers
per
day.
Almost
60%
of
the
Seattle
campus
population
lives
within
five
miles
of
campus,
and
today
there
are
many
people
that
bicycle
or
walk
occasionally,
but
do
not
make
those
options
their
primary
commute
choices.
increase
bicycling & walking Figure
10
‐
Proximity
to
campus
60% live within 5 miles of campus
students
staff
faculty
A
secure
and
dry
place
to
store
one’s
bicycle
is
one
of
the
key
needs
of
cyclists.
Today,
the
roughly
600
bicycle
lockers
on
the
Seattle
campus
supply
less
than
half
of
the
demand
for
secure
parking.
The
provision
of
secure
parking
and
im‐
proved
campus
safety
is
a
key
factor
within
the
University’s
direct
control;
pro‐
viding
enough
supply
to
meet
demand
will
eliminate
a
significant
barrier
to
bicy‐
cle
commuting.
43
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Other
strategies
to
support
bicycling
and
walking
include
building
design
policies
to
provide
bicycle‐friendly
infrastructure,
showers
and
clothes
locker
facilities.
Beyond
the
optimization
of
on‐campus
facilities,
partnerships
and
investments
are
needed
to
improve
pedestrian
and
bicycle
infrastructure
in
the
neighbor‐
hoods
surrounding
the
campus.
Incentives
can
also
be
provided
to
students,
staff
and
faculty
such
as
offering
a
membership
club
for
walkers
and
bikers
with
commuter
benefits.
Finally,
education
campaigns
can
be
conducted
to
help
the
University
community
understand
how
to
walk
and
bicycle
safely
and
look
out
for
the
safety
of
walkers
and
bicyclists
when
using
other
transportation
modes.
At
UW
Bothell,
the
Burke‐Gilman
Trail
and
the
Sammamish
River
Trail
both
pro‐
vide
regional
connections
for
bicyclists
and
pedestrians,
but
additional
infra‐
structure
is
needed
to
support
bicycling
and
walking,
including
additional
show‐
ers
and
lockers
in
new
buildings,
additional
bicycle
racks
at
new
building
en‐
trances
and
secure
bicycle
areas
in
parking
garages.
Infrastructure
and
programs
to
support
bicycling
and
walking
are
needed
at
the
Tacoma
campus.
There
are
currently
no
covered
bike
shelters,
though
the
first
may
be
installed
by
this
summer.
Showers
and
clothes
lockers
are
scattered
across
the
campus
but
are
not
well
known.
Proposed
Actions:
Construct
sufficient
secure
bicycle
parking
spaces
to
meet
demand,
and
improve
campus
safety
generally.
Explore
options
and
adopt
poli‐
cies
for
building
and
campus
design
that
support
walking
and
bicycling.
4.4.2 Strategy:
Increase
Student,
Faculty,
and
Staff
Housing
near
Campus
Much
can
be
done
to
encourage
bicycling
and
walking
by
people
who
already
live
near
campus.
However,
to
have
a
large
and
lasting
shift
towards
reducing
commuting
emissions,
more
students,
staff
and
faculty
must
live
within
walking
and
bicycling
distance
of
campus.
UW
Bothell
is
working
to
provide
student,
faculty
and
staff
housing
in
close
prox‐
imity
to
campus.
At
the
Seattle
campus,
planning
for
the
addition
of
a
substan‐
decrease
commute distance tial
amount
of
student
housing
is
well
on
its
way.
Looking
longer‐term,
strate‐
gies
should
be
developed
to
encourage
staff
and
faculty
to
live
near
campus.
Staff
and
faculty
tend
to
live
farther
from
campus,
as
they
have
differing
housing
needs.
Affordability,
high
quality
schooling
and
day
care
and
the
perception
of
44
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
safety
and
quality
of
life
in
the
neighborhoods
surrounding
the
University
are
all
important
factors
in
increasing
the
number
of
staff,
faculty
and
students
living
near
the
University.
Proposed
Actions:
Explore
how
to
attract
faculty
and
staff
to
live
near
campus
and
advance
the
construction
of
new
student
residence
halls
that
are
energy
ef‐
ficient.
4.4.3 Strategy:
Maintain
Low‐Cost
Transit
Access
encourage
transit
The
University
of
Washington
has
enjoyed
great
success,
particularly
at
the
Seat‐
tle
campus,
in
shifting
commute
trips
from
private
vehicles
to
public
transit.
However,
due
to
increasing
costs
and
declining
funding
from
sources
other
than
user
fees,
an
unprecedented
increase
in
the
U‐PASS
fee
was
required
in
2009
to
keep
the
program
in
existence.
Rising
costs
may
reverse
past
gains.
Maintaining
current
commuting
practices
and
GHG
performance
will
be
jeopardized
if
U‐PASS
costs
continue
to
rise.
Proposed
Action:
Develop
and
implement
a
new
funding
model
for
the
U‐PASS
program
that
leverages
its
wide‐ranging
benefits
to
the
University
and
the
re‐
gion,
and
keeps
user
fees
low.
4.4.4 Strategy:
Reduce
Vehicle
Parking
on
Campus
discourage
driving alone
Increasing
the
cost
of
vehicle
parking
and
limiting
the
supply
of
parking
are
fun‐
damental
strategies
of
transportation
demand
management.
This
strategy
has
been
used
extensively
at
the
Seattle
campus
and
the
potential
for
further
gains
needs
to
be
explored.
The
strategy
is
underutilized
at
the
Bothell
and
Tacoma
campuses.
Free
and
inexpensive
parking
that
is
readily
available
to
the
campus
community
undermine
the
University’s
commute
trip
reduction
efforts.
The
cost
of
single
occupant
vehicle
parking
should
be
increased
and
preferential
parking
should
be
offered
to
carpoolers
and
vanpoolers.
At
all
campuses,
strategies
can
be
pursued
that
would
increase
awareness
of
the
total
cost
of
parking.
Proposed
Actions:
Explore
the
impact
of
increasing
the
cost
of
parking
and
iden‐
tify
improved
opportunities
for
other
commute
options.
45
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
4.4.5 Strategy:
Increase
Vehicle
Fuel‐Efficiency
decrease emissions
of vehicles
There
will
always
be
some
portion
of
the
campus
population
that
commutes
us‐
ing
motorized
transportation.
Promoting
transit
and
ridesharing
over
single‐
occupant
vehicle
travel
will
help
reduce
emissions.
For
example,
UW
Bothell
is
making
progress
in
increasing
carpool
permits
and
U‐PASS
sales.
However,
on
the
Seattle
campus
many
of
the
gains
from
this
strategy
have
already
been
achieved.
The
next
step
is
to
reduce
the
emissions
from
the
vehicles
themselves.
The
University
could
provide
incentives
to
employees
to
purchase
zero‐
or
low‐
emissions
vehicles
and
help
employees
access
incentives
offered
by
the
federal
government
and
others.
The
University
could
also
work
with
local
transit
pro‐
viders
to
support
their
efforts
to
reduce
transit
vehicle
emissions.
Proposed
Actions:
Research
and
identify
low‐
and
zero‐emission
vehicle
pur‐
chase
incentives
from
outside
sources
and
consider
developing
a
program
to
promote
them
on
campus.
Increase
the
level
of
investment
the
University
is
will‐
ing
to
make
to
reduce
vehicle
emissions
by
greening
the
commute
fleet,
includ‐
ing
public
transit.
4.4.6 Strategy:
Encourage
Telework
and
Distance
Education
reduce number of trips
The
emissions
from
any
potential
commute
trip
can
be
avoided
if
the
work
can
be
completed
without
the
need
to
make
the
trip.
Telework
and
distance
educa‐
tion
offer
options
to
reduce
commute
emissions
and
do
not
depend
on
a
short
commute
distance.
Increasing
the
use
of
telework
and
distance
education
re‐
quires
improved
infrastructure,
development
and
adoption
of
policies
and
changes
in
institutional
culture.
Increases
in
telework
will
need
to
be
carefully
considered
in
light
of
the
academic
and
teaching
missions.
In
addition,
it
is
im‐
portant
to
include
community
building
in
all
telework
and
distance
education
initiatives
to
ensure
that
students,
staff
and
faculty
feel
connected
to
and
in‐
vested
in
the
University.
Proposed
Actions:
Develop
a
comprehensive
University‐wide
effort
to
provide
staff,
faculty
and
students
with
the
tools,
resources
and
knowledge
needed
to
maximize
the
use
of
telework
and
distance
education.
46
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
4.5
professional travel
Professional
Travel
Professional
travel
is
associated
with
administrative
business,
scholarly
research,
conferences,
visitors
and
speakers,
intercollegiate
athletics
and
recruitment
of
graduate
students,
faculty
and
staff.
UW
faculty,
students
and
staff
travel
using
a
combination
of
modes,
with
the
vast
bulk
of
emissions
arising
from
retail
air
tickets
and
a
smaller
portion
associated
with
rented
and
UW
fleet
road
vehicles.
Hence,
the
Professional
Travel
category
includes
a
combination
of
Scope
3
and
Scope
1
emissions.
Travel
that
occurs
at
an
individual's
personal
expense
(e.g.,
trips
to
and
from
Seattle
by
students
living
in
other
states)
is
not
included.
Figure
11
‐
Air
travel
expenditures
2005
2008
$18.7 million
$25.6 million
Air
travel
expenditures
at
UW
increased
37%
over
the
past
three
years
from
$18.7
million
in
2005
to
$25.6
million
in
2008.
While
these
costs
are
accurately
known,
the
miles
and
associated
emissions
are
much
less
certain.
This
is
be‐
cause
air‐travel
miles
are
not
directly
monitored
at
UW.
Instead,
air‐travel
miles
are
estimated
from
expenditures
using
a
constant
conversion
factor
($0.25/mile).
Whether
this
conversion
factor
applies
to
the
mix
of
air‐travel
costs
actually
incurred
at
UW
is
unknown.
Moreover,
the
true
conversion
factor
undoubtedly
varies
from
year‐to‐year
such
that
using
a
constant
value
could
ei‐
ther
hide
or
exaggerate
trends
in
emissions.
Unlike
ground
transportation,
significant
GHG
reductions
from
changes
to
air‐
craft
technology
are
unlikely
in
the
immediate
future.
In
the
long
term,
there
is
potential
for
fueling
aircraft
with
low‐GHG
bio‐fuels
or
deploying
high‐speed
rail
powered
by
renewable
electricity.
While
the
UW
has
little
influence
on
the
fuel
efficiency
of
aircraft,
it
can
participate
in
research
and
take
action
to
affect
be‐
havior,
for
example,
reducing
miles
traveled.
Air
travel
plays
a
vital
role
in
UW's
mission
to
be
a
global
university
and
in
the
culture
of
academia.
UW
scholars
conduct
research
around
the
world
and
gather
regularly
at
conferences
where
ideas
are
exchanged
and
collaborations
are
formed.
The
face‐to‐face
interactions
at
such
conferences,
including
infor‐
mal
discussions
in
hallways
and
at
meals,
can
be
crucial
to
professional
success.
47
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Many
of
these
functions
would
be
difficult
or
impossible
to
achieve
with
video‐
conferencing
–
the
most
viable
alternative
to
air
travel.
Nevertheless,
videocon‐
ferencing
is
already
being
used
at
UW
to
replace
some
of
the
functions
of
long‐
distance
travel
and,
as
the
technology
improves
and
cultural
practices
evolve
to
make
use
of
them,
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
it
will
become
a
strong
substi‐
tute
for
travel.
This
transition
carries
benefits
beyond
the
reduction
of
GHG
emissions.
For
example,
videoconferencing
is
more
flexible
than
air
travel
in
many
respects:
It
facilitates
participation
by
larger
numbers
of
people,
and
it
is
far
less
expensive
in
terms
of
both
dollars
and
time.
Given
the
above
factors,
the
UW’s
overall
strategy
for
reducing
emissions
from
air
travel
is
to
work
vigorously
to
develop
videoconferencing
while
preserving
access
to
air
travel
for
the
many
functions
that
it
alone
can
fulfill.
Remaining
air
travel
emissions
might
be
mitigated
by
the
purchase
of
GHG
offsets.
4.5.1 Strategy:
Improve
Monitoring
of
Air
Travel
Emissions
25
20
15
10
improve monitoring
A
program
to
reduce
air
travel
emissions
cannot
proceed
without
accurate
moni‐
toring
of
year‐to‐year
changes.
The
cost‐based
method
currently
used
alter‐
nately
exaggerates
and
hides
real
trends
in
air
travel
miles
depending
on
fluctua‐
tions
in
airfare.
Two
improvements
are
possible.
One
improvement
is
to
obtain
a
more
accurate,
time‐sensitive,
cost‐to‐mileage
conversion
factor.
For
any
given
trip,
the
cost‐per‐passenger‐mile
can
be
ob‐
tained
from
the
cost
and
destination
information
on
the
travel
voucher.
We
propose
that
annual
averages
of
this
conversion
factor
be
estimated
by
ran‐
domly
sampling
a
small
portion
of
UW
travel
vouchers
from
each
year.
(This
work
has
already
begun
as
a
Summer
2009
research
project
by
students
in
ENVIR
235,
Introduction
to
Environmental
Economics,
taught
by
Dr.
Yoram
K.
Bauman.)
A
second
step
toward
improving
accuracy
would
be
to
record
all
air
travel
desti‐
nations
in
a
central
database
with
a
coded
system
that
allows
automated
calcu‐
lation
of
trip
length.
Accurate
estimates
would
require
recording
transfers
(lay‐
overs)
and
final
destinations.
The
cost
of
creating
such
a
system
needs
to
be
ex‐
plored
vis‐a‐vis
the
benefits.
48
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Proposed
Actions:
Sample
and
calculate
cost‐of‐mileage
annually.
Enhance
UW
eTravel
system
to
calculate
travel
mileage
from
the
entry
of
coded
destination
information.
4.5.2 Strategy:
Develop
Videoconferencing
as
an
Attractive
Alternative
to
Air
Travel
reduce number of trips
Videoconferencing
represents
an
increasingly
viable
means
of
achieving
many
of
the
academic
and
organizational
goals
of
long‐distance
travel,
although
it
will
never
replace
the
need
to
conduct
research
on
location
or
substitute
for
some
in‐person
collaboration.
Compared
with
air
travel,
it
incurs
almost
no
GHG
emis‐
sions
and
is
much
cheaper.
UW
already
has
a
small
number
of
videoconferenc‐
ing
facilities
that
are
being
used
in
a
variety
of
ways
that
both
enhance
education
and
reduce
the
need
for
long‐distance
travel.
Examples
are
meetings
that
in‐
clude
members
from
all
three
campuses,
guest
lectures
for
UW
classes,
guest
lectures
delivered
by
UW
faculty
for
other
universities,
classroom
discussions
with
students
or
experts
in
other
countries
and
Master's
and
Ph.D.
exams
where
one
committee
member
resides
at
another
institution.
Expanding
the
use
of
videoconferencing
to
the
point
where
it
is
a
satisfactory
substitute
for
air
travel
is
a
challenging
goal
and
will
evolve
as
technology
im‐
proves.
Classroom
and
conference‐room
facilities
require
capital
investment
and
trained
staff.
Smaller
scale
approaches
(e.g.,
personal
computers
and
webcams)
are
useful
for
many
purposes,
but
still
require
appropriate
hardware,
software,
training
and
support.
There
is
a
need
for
standardized
communication
protocols,
and
appropriate
cultural
norms
need
to
be
developed
as
well.
We
en‐
vision
UW
students,
staff
and
faculty
playing
leadership
roles
in
meeting
these
challenges.
Indeed,
these
challenges
speak
to
several
elements
of
the
UW's
vi‐
sion
statement
aspiring
toward
a
global
reach
for
UW
(see
Section
1.2).
Proposed
Actions:
Promote
the
improvement
and
expanded
use
of
videoconfer‐
encing
facilities
at
UW.
Work
with
peers
and
associations
to
develop
standard‐
ized
videoconferencing
protocols.
Consider
hosting
an
all‐remote
conference
as
a
way
for
UW
to
help
make
videoconferencing
a
normal
and
accepted
academic
and
administrative
practice.
49
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
4.5.3 Strategy:
Favor
Alternate‐Fuel
Vehicles
in
UW
Fleet
Services
UW
encourage use of
efficient UW vehicles
UW
Fleet
Services
has
an
automated
UCAR
car
share
program
that
provides
the
UW
community
various
models
of
alternative
fuel
fleet
vehicles
at
several
loca‐
tions
throughout
the
campuses.
University
employees
and
students
are
able
to
rent,
pick
up
and
drop
off
Fleet
Services
vehicles
24/7
via
an
online
web
reserva‐
tion
and
automated
key
manager
system.
In
2008,
UW
employees
travelled
close
to
three
million
miles
in
employee‐
owned
vehicles
while
on
University
business.
Promoting
use
of
Fleet
vehicles
in
lieu
of
personal
vehicles
will
ensure
that
vehicles
used
to
conduct
University
business
meet
emission
reduction
goals.
Accelerating
long‐term
changes
in
em‐
ployee
driving
behavior
will
also
require
changes
in
UW
policies
and
practices
with
regard
to
personal
mileage
reporting
and
reimbursements.
One
possibility
is
to
cap
the
reimbursement
for
personal
vehicle
use
at
a
UCAR‐equivalent
rate
so
that
personal
vehicle
use
is
only
financially
commensurate
when
the
vehicle
is
at
least
as
energy‐efficient
as
a
UCAR.
Proposed
Actions:
Complete
greening
of
UW
vehicle
fleet.
Develop
appropriate
caps
on
personal
mileage
reimbursement
rates.
Replace
program‐
or
depart‐
ment‐owned
vehicles
with
UCAR
participation
where
possible.
5
Looking
Beyond
the
Inventory
The
strategies
in
this
Climate
Action
Plan
for
reducing
campus
emissions
(Chap‐
ter
4)
are
crafted
around
the
concrete
and
limited
exercise
of
reducing
the
UW
GHG
inventory.
At
the
same
time,
the
Plan
makes
an
effort
to
embrace
climate
action
on
a
holistic
level
by
considering
our
academic
efforts
equally
important
to
the
straightforward
GHG
mitigation.
In
that
spirit,
the
UW
should
strive
to
endorse
behaviors
that
reduce
GHG
emissions
elsewhere
in
the
state,
U.S.
or
globally,
even
if
those
reductions
are
indirect
and
not
formally
reported
in
the
Inventory.
Land
use
decisions
have
impacts
on
commuting
(4.4),
campus
energy
demand
(4.2)
and
other
factors
affecting
the
inventory,
but
they
also
affect
carbon
se‐
questration
and
emissions
of
the
potent
greenhouse
gas
nitrous
oxide.
Food
choices
on
campus
have
GHG
repercussions
all
over
the
world.
The
stewardship
50
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
of
products
and
waste
streams
can
avoid
significant
GHG
emissions
induced
by
product
manufacture
and
disposal.
5.1
campus ecology
Land
Use
We
strive
to
envision
the
whole
campus
landscape
as
an
ecologically
sustainable
urban
system
that
satisfies
University
functions
while
promoting
healthy
aquatic
and
terrestrial
ecosystems.
Landscape
should
be
viewed
as
more
than
an
aes‐
thetic
amenity.
Understanding
the
campus
ecology
and
the
vulnerability
of
cer‐
tain
ecosystems
relative
to
new
construction
will
help
UW
design,
build,
restore,
maintain
and
manage
the
built
environment
more
knowledgeably
and
preserve
and
enhance
our
ecosystem
services.
Leveraging
the
stewardship
of
campus
ecology
to
create
synergies
between
the
built
environment
and
academic
research
and
teaching
will
optimize
the
condi‐
tions
for
education
and
learning
over
time.
The
hands‐on
knowledge
and
under‐
standing
that
would
be
gained,
if
fully
integrated
into
our
academic
programs,
can
be
expanded
to
regional
and
global
scales.
Finally,
land
use
and
real
estate
decisions
for
all
University
locations
should
con‐
sider
business
travel
and
commute
patterns
with
the
intent
of
minimizing
trans‐
portation
since
this
is
one
of
the
largest
sectors
of
climate
impact.
One
potential
tool
for
doing
this
is
to
assign
real
estate
market
value
to
all
land
on
the
UW
campuses,
ensuring
that
the
use
“pays
for”
the
value.
In
some
cases,
this
could
be
interpreted
literally;
for
example,
the
value
of
land
allocated
for
parking
pur‐
poses
could
be
added
to
the
cost
of
parking
permits.
Any
land
use
decisions
should
be
incorporated
with
the
UW’s
master
plan.
Proposed
Actions:
Create
guidelines
based
on
best
practices
that
support
a
comprehensive
understanding
of
sustainable
land
use
planning.
Determine
how
to
best
to
include
these
guidelines
in
the
decision
making
process
for
real
estate
and
capital
projects.
Following
a
suitable
period
of
pilot
testing,
translate
guide‐
lines
in
policies.
5.2
compos!ng
Food
and
Composting
UW
Food
Services
has
already
taken
extraordinary
steps
to
reduce
waste
and
hence
GHG
emissions,
beginning
with
a
conscious
choice
to
follow
a
retail
busi‐
51
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
ness
model
for
residential
dining
facilities.
Milk,
eggs,
bread
and
bakery,
coffee,
potato
products,
soups
and
the
majority
of
Food
Services'
freshly
packaged
sandwiches,
salads,
sushi
and
other
fresh
packaged
meals
are
produced
locally.
Food
Services
currently
provides
meatless
alternatives
to
customers
and
will
in‐
crease
these
options
based
on
student
demand.
Food
Services
has
front‐of‐the‐house
and
back‐of‐the‐house
composting
pro‐
grams
to
collect
and
transport
all
food
waste,
coffee
grounds
and
other
com‐
postable
waste
to
Cedar
Grove
Composting,
a
local
facility
at
which
these
wastes
are
converted
to
compost
and
other
products.
All
used
cooking
oils
are
picked
up
by
a
local
company
to
be
converted
to
clean‐burning
biodiesel,
which
is
then
sold
to
customers
in
the
Puget
Sound
region.
An
operational
logistics
plan
and
associated
agreements
with
vendors
reduce
the
frequency
of
deliveries
and
other
food
service‐related
vehicle
traffic
on
campus.
Proposed
Actions:
Continue
to
source
more
local
and
sustainable
foods.
In‐
crease
availability
of
compostable
service
ware
for
department‐organized
events.
Increase
coordination
among
Recycling,
Solid
Waste
and
Housing
and
Food
Services
offices
to
ensure
appropriate
receptacles
and
post‐event
pick
up
for
functions
catered
by
Housing
and
Food
Services.
Capture
pre‐consumer
waste
streams
from
large
food
preparation
facilities
at
the
UW
Medical
Center
and
Harborview
Medical
Center.
5.3
reduce, reuse, recycle
Reduce,
Reuse,
Recycle
Housing
&
Food
Services
(HFS)
spends
27
percent
of
its
total
budget
on
local
and
organic
foods,
including
cage‐free
eggs
and
hormone‐
and
antibiotic‐free
beef
and
milk.
Confinement‐free
beef
and
sustainably
harvested
seafood
are
also
purchased.
Fair
trade
coffee,
chocolate
and
beverages
are
available.
HFS
man‐
ages
the
composting
program
within
its
residence
halls
and
dining
facilities
and
includes
compostable
dishware.
The
U.S.
EPA
has
demonstrated
that
significant
GHG
benefits
accrue
from
in‐
creasing
recycling
rates;
recycling
simultaneously
avoids
landfill
methane
and
avoids
additional
GHG
emissions
associated
with
extraction
and
processing
of
new
raw
materials.
UW
Recycling
&
Solid
Waste
manages
the
campus‐wide
or‐
ganics
recycling
program,
which
includes
composting
of
landscape
waste,
wood
debris,
and
food
waste.
Recycling
efforts
on
the
Seattle
campus
also
include
an
52
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
extensive
fiber
recycling
program
(paper,
cardboard);
mixed
containers
recycling
program
(cans
&
bottles,
tubs/jars/jugs,
single‐stream);
construction
and
demoli‐
tion
recycling
(construction
debris,
concrete,
and
asphalt);
and
special
waste
re‐
cycling
(electronics,
florescent
lighting,
electronic
media).
The
Seattle
campus
diverted
more
than
54
percent
of
its
waste
steam
from
landfill
from
July
1,
2008,
to
June
30,
2009,
with
a
goal
to
divert
60%
by
2012.
Ideally,
recycling
waste
items
would
be
easier
and
more
expedient
than
discard‐
ing
them
as
garbage;
as
a
minimum
standard,
recycling
should
be
no
more
diffi‐
cult
than
disposing
of
items
as
garbage.
Perhaps
the
most
significant
factor
in
achieving
this
standard
is
the
immediate
availability
of
recycling
receptacles
and
relative
scarcity
of
garbage
receptacles.
It
is
the
UW’s
position
that
no
garbage
receptacle
should
be
placed
without
a
visually
adjacent
receptacle
for
recycla‐
bles.
UW
is
also
attempting
to
increase
awareness
of
the
waste
that
is
thrown
away,
often
without
a
second
thought,
in
small
desk‐side
containers.
Reassigning
the
collection
of
the
desk‐side
bins
from
custodial
staff
to
the
“owner”
of
each
bin
would
provide
a
direct
incentive
to
minimize
desk‐side
waste
disposal
and
favor
recycling
or
waste
reduction.
The
UW
also
engages
the
reuse
approach.
The
UW’s
surplus
property
program
has
been
very
successful
in
diverting
large
amounts
of
electronics,
furniture,
ve‐
hicles,
equipment
and
other
items
from
the
University
waste
stream.
In
fiscal
year
2007,
more
than
400
tons
of
goods
were
diverted
through
surplus
sales,
with
revenues
fully
funding
the
surplus
program
and
returning
dollars
to
Univer‐
sity
departments
when
high‐value
items
were
sold.
Items
resold
for
use
on‐
campus
have
the
added
benefit
of
reducing
the
UW’s
climate
impact
on
both
the
disposal
and
purchasing
fronts.
Continued
growth
in
throughput
for
the
UW’s
surplus
store
and
auctions
has
the
potential
to
further
expand
diversion
through
reuse
both
on
and
off‐campus.
Proposed
Actions:
Migrate
desk‐side
waste
collection
to
self‐service
disposal.
Expand
break
room/office/kitchen
recycling
programs.
Replace
stand‐alone
waste
bins
with
recycling
bin‐sets
in
common
areas,
classrooms
and
conference
rooms
as
appropriate
to
the
space.
Increase
visibility
and
density
of
recycling
bins
at
athletic
events.
Expand
reuse
services
for
low‐value
high
volume
items
like
office
supplies,
including
virtual
storefront
and
delivery
services
to
parallel
e‐
53
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
procurement.
Expand
reuse
marketing
to
the
non‐profit
sector
and
small
busi‐
nesses.
6
6.1
Strategies
for
Financing
the
Climate
Action
Plan
Funding
Mechanisms
Funding
is
a
core
challenge
of
realizing
the
Climate
Action
Plan
goals,
especially
in
today's
financial
climate.
Fortunately,
many
GHG
reduction
strategies
will
pay
back
the
investment
costs
over
time.
New
funding
and
tracking
mechanisms
are
needed
to
verify
cost
savings
and
recycle
a
portion
of
those
savings
into
further
initiatives
and
projects.
The
institutional
culture
to
evaluate,
fund
and
verify
the
costs
and
GHG
reduc‐
tions
of
strategies
recommended
in
the
Climate
Action
Plan
is
only
partially
in
place.
Achieving
the
Climate
Action
Plan
goals
will
require
operational
and
ac‐
counting
changes
that
ripple
through
all
departments.
New
organizational
rela‐
tionships
are
necessary
that
allow
for
more
effective
collaboration
and
integra‐
tion
across
traditional
organizational
boundaries.
Extensive
and
robust
proc‐
esses
that
measure
total
life
cycle
costs
and
GHG
impacts
are
needed
to
guide
decision
makers.
Possible
Climate
Action
Plan
funding
strategies
are
discussed
below.
Not
every
funding
strategy
is
appropriate
for
every
academic
or
emissions
reduction
strat‐
egy.
In
practice,
the
academic
and
reduction
strategies
need
to
be
carefully
cou‐
pled
with
each
other
in
a
way
that
is
aligned
with
institutional
goals
and
values.
6.1.1 Strategy:
Create
a
Revolving
Climate
Action
Plan
Loan
Fund
$$$$$
$$$$$
SAVINGS
EMISSION REDUCTION
PROJECT
revolving loan fund
A
revolving
loan
fund
is
an
effective
way
to
initiate
and
sustain
key
components
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan.
A
successful
revolving
loan
fund
will
require
initial
capitalization,
strategic
loans,
effective
cost
tracking
and
verification
to
confirm
projected
cost
saving
and
GHG
reduction
benefits
are
realized.
The
Loan
Fund
would
provide
capital
for
high
performance,
energy
efficient
campus
design,
op‐
erations,
maintenance,
and
occupant
behavior
projects.
Basic
project
eligibility
guidelines
would
require
reduction
of
the
University's
environmental
impact
and
have
a
payback
period
of
one
to
fifteen
years.
54
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
The
model
is
simple:
The
Loan
Fund
provides
the
up‐front
capital.
Applicant
units
agree
to
repay
the
fund
via
savings
achieved
with
project‐related
reduc‐
tions
in
utility
consumption,
waste
generation
or
operating
costs.
This
formula
allows
units
to
upgrade
the
efficiency,
comfort
and
functionality
of
their
facilities
without
incurring
any
capital
costs.
By
virtue
of
structuring
the
support
in
the
form
of
loans,
the
fund
will
be
replenished
and
thus
exist
in
perpetuity.
Proposed
Actions:
Establish
revolving
loan
fund
and
determine
terms
and
ex‐
pected
payback
criteria.
REVENUE
BONDS
$$$
FUND BALANCE
ACCOUNTS
6.1.2 Strategy:
Alternative
Options
for
Capitalizing
Climate
Actions
$$$
ESCO
$$$
EMISSION REDUCTION
PROJECT
capitalizing climate
ac!on plan goals
Climate
Action
Plan
initiatives
that
demonstrate
an
appropriate
rate
of
return
based
on
lower
utility
costs
over
time
could
be
capitalized
with
general
revenue
bonds
or
University
fund
balance
accounts.
Capital
for
energy
reduction
projects
can
also
be
provided
through
energy
services
companies
(ESCO).
The
University
has
already
accomplished
many
ESCO
projects
and
has
capitalized
an
energy
re‐
duction
project
at
the
4545
Building
(a
leased
property
adjacent
to
the
Seattle
campus)
by
issuing
general
revenue
bonds.
Proposed
Actions:
Review
current
ESCO
and
related
programs
to
determine
how
to
best
expand
and
support
these
efforts.
Establish
more
rigorous
verification
standards
to
support
a
higher
level
of
investment.
6.1.3 Strategy:
Improve
the
UW's
Utility
Rebate
Process
The
University
has
a
long
and
successful
history
of
working
with
local
utilities
on
projects
with
quick
payback
periods
and
relatively
simple
engineering
needs.
However,
accessing
future
rebates
will
require
more
sophisticated
engineering
analysis
and
a
higher
level
of
system
integration.
Restructuring
internal
roles
and
responsibilities
of
staff
and
improving
the
knowledge
base
is
needed
to
maximize
rebate
opportunities.
Proposed
Actions:
Meet
with
utilities
to
explore
expanded
rebate
programs.
55
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
PR GRA
OP N
OS T
AL
6.1.4 Strategy:
Pursue
Grants
that
Reduce
GHG
Emissions
in
Building
Projects
$$$$$
$$$$$
GRANT FUNDS
EMISSION REDUCTION
PROJECT
pursue grants
At
the
UW,
individuals
pursue
grant
funding
for
their
specific
research
with
dem‐
onstrated
success,
but
as
an
institution
the
UW
has
shown
much
less
proclivity
to
pursue
federal,
state
or
other
grants
that
fund
sustainability
or
energy
effi‐
ciency
goals.
An
area
of
specific
interest
is
grants
for
implementing
Climate
Ac‐
tion
Plan
goals
associated
with
building
projects.
Pursuing
grants
that
support
building
projects
requires
unique
expertise
and
close
coordination
with
between
the
Capital
Projects
office,
Office
of
Research
and
OPB.
Increasing
our
success
with
obtaining
grants
requires
charging
an
office
with
coordinating
responsibil‐
ity.
Proposed
Actions:
Pursue
grants
that
can
contribute
funds
for
reducing
GHG
emissions
in
building
projects.
STUDENT
FUNDED
student green fee
6.1.5 Strategy:
Establish
a
Student
Green
Fee
Many
institutions
have
successfully
implemented
a
student‐funded
green
fee.
These
initiatives
have
generally
come
from
students
and
initial
conversations
suggest
significant
student
support.
The
Evergreen
State
College
currently
charges
a
$1.00/credit
clean
energy
fee
and
Western
Washington
University
as‐
sesses
$0.70/credit‐hour,
to
a
maximum
of
$7.00.
As
an
example,
a
$5.00/quarter
fee
assessed
to
each
undergraduate
and
graduate
student
would
generate
about
$700,000
annually
to
support
Climate
Action
Plan
initiatives.
Student
fees
also
create
an
effective
mechanism
to
integrate
students
into
the
decision
making
process,
raising
the
visibility
and
educational
dimensions
of
the
overall
program.
Students
will
need
to
organize
this
effort
and
gain
approval
through
a
student
body
election.
TY &
CUL ST
6.1.6 Strategy:
Establish
a
Faculty
and
Staff
Green
Fund
FUNDED
When
faculty
and
staff
contribute
directly
to
the
goals
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan,
not
only
do
they
feel
invested
in
helping
the
University
achieve
ambitious
climate
action
goals,
but
they
also
gain
a
sense
of
parity
and
shared
commit‐
ment,
side‐by‐side
with
students.
The
success
of
this
funding
option
will
relate
directly
to
how
this
group
believes
the
funding
is
being
utilized.
A
powerful
way
AFF
FA
Proposed
Action:
Create
process
to
establish
a
Student
Green
Fee
faculty and staff
green fund
56
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
to
connect
faculty
and
staff
to
the
wider
Climate
Action
Plan
efforts
is
through
Green
Committees
patterned
after
the
University
Health
and
Safety
Committee
or
Diversity
Council
structure
that
would
help
identify
options
and
drive
behavior
change
in
schools,
colleges
and
administrative
units.
Proposed
Actions:
Create
an
internal
donations
strategy
and
process
to
collect
and
distribute
funds
for
UW
projects;
create
a
UW
Green
Advisory
Committee.
$$$$$
$$$$$
DONATIONS
EMISSION REDUCTION
PROJECT
dona!ons fund
6.1.7 Strategy:
Develop
an
Integrated
Donations
Strategy
Moving
to
a
low‐GHG
economy
is
swiftly
emerging
as
the
defining
issue
of
our
time.
Donors
will
want
to
support
the
UW's
efforts
especially
if
they
see
the
in‐
stitution
taking
a
leadership
role.
Many
donors
will
want
to
see
how
their
con‐
tributions
are
helping
educate
students,
faculty
and
staff
in
new
ways
of
thinking
and
problem
solving
around
the
issue
of
climate
change.
We
need
to
assess
and
address
the
opportunities
and
challenges
associated
with
approaching
donors
for
the
Climate
Action
Plan
initiatives
when
they
may
also
want
to
direct
their
philanthropic
dollars
to
other
important
University
priorities.
Involving
Univer‐
sity
Advancement
throughout
this
process
is
essential
to
ensure
clear
messaging
and
a
comprehensive,
integrated
approach.
Donations
could
be
directed
and
distributed
in
numerous
ways
that
should
be
explored
(e.g.,
through
a
501(c)
or‐
ganization,
an
energy
business
or
by
donating
to
a
line
item
associated
with
GHG
reduction).
Proposed
Action:
Create
plan
to
integrate
academic,
research
and
operational
fundraising
goals
(including
roles
and
decision
making)
and
distribution
of
funds.
GRE
UW EN
green branding
6.1.8 Strategy:
Improve
Green
Branding
and
Marketing
A
good
marketing
plan
will
be
the
foundation
of
many
of
the
fund
raising
ef‐
forts.
Being
a
leader
in
climate
action
planning
and
implementation
has
signifi‐
cant
marketing
and
branding
value
that
should
not
be
overlooked.
Money
flows
not
just
to
good
projects,
but
also
to
good
projects
that
are
visible
and
easily
un‐
derstood
by
the
larger
public.
The
UW
already
ranks
at
the
top
in
comparison
to
our
peer
institutions
on
sustainability
issues.
Protecting
the
environment
is
a
core
value
of
the
institution
and
continuing
to
build
this
reputation,
supported
by
a
good
marketing
program,
is
key
to
gaining
the
financial
support
for
this
ef‐
fort.
57
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Proposed
Actions:
Improve
UW
green
marketing
and
branding
efforts.
6.1.9 Strategy:
Pursue
Short
and
Long‐Term
Legislative
Opportunities
$$$$$
$$$$$
STATE FUNDS
EMISSION REDUCTION
PROJECT
legisla!ve
opportuni!es
Since
GHG
mitigation
is
a
growing
national
and
state
priority,
government
fund‐
ing
of
energy
efficiency,
alternative
energy
and
other
GHG‐reducing
programs
is
expected
to
grow.
Improved
internal
coordination
and
presentation
of
UW
as
an
exemplary
leader
among
state
agencies
could
result
in
increased
University
suc‐
cess
in
securing
funding
from
the
state.
A
long‐term
legislative
plan
will
allow
the
University
to
take
a
more
proactive
role
in
the
relationship
we
have
with
the
federal
and
state
government
on
this
issue.
A
key
legislative
goal
of
the
UW
is
gaining
more
flexibility
from
the
state
to
shift
funds
from
building
operations
budgets
to
capital
budgets;
the
ability
to
increase
project
capital
budg‐
ets
through
energy
savings
in
operations
is
an
important
tool
in
achieving
Cli‐
mate
Action
Plan
goals.
Proposed
Actions:
Discuss
and
identify
state
and
federal
legislative
opportuni‐
ties.
6.2
$
o
C
o
carbon markets
Participation
in
GHG
Markets
6.2.1 Strategy:
A
Cap‐and‐Trade
Plan
for
UW
The
cap‐and‐trade
mechanism
developed
for
international,
national
and
regional
GHG
reduction
regimes
could
be
deployed
at
a
small
scale
within
the
University.
A
cap‐and‐trade
system
for
an
academic
institution
like
the
UW:
•
Is
innovative
and
cutting‐edge;
•
Allows
the
UW
community
to
find
the
lowest‐cost
mitigation
pathway
in
an
organic
way
over
time;
•
Ensures
direct
involvement
by
all
students,
staff
and
faculty;
•
Is
itself
an
academically
interesting
project,
with
especially
relevant
angles
for
the
Evans
School
and
the
Foster
School
of
Business
and
the
Economics
department;
•
Responds
automatically
to
future
GHG
legislation
at
the
federal
and
state
levels
through
reduced
allowance
pricing;
and
58
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
•
Answers
the
Plan’s
financing
needs
with
a
single
mechanism.
The
University
would
need
to
set
year‐by‐year
allowance
quantities
based
on
the
GHG
targets
described
in
Chapter
3,
set
rules
for
allowance
banking
and
trading
and
determine
a
fair
method
for
distributing
those
allowances
each
year.
If
all
or
some
of
the
allowances
are
distributed
through
an
auction,
then
the
auction
revenues
can
be
deposited
in
a
Climate
Fund
providing
capital,
research
funds
or
other
major
expenses
associated
with
implementing
the
Climate
Action
Plan;
paying
for
the
administration
of
the
cap‐and‐trade
system
itself;
or
subsidizing
the
cost
of
allowances
where
justified.
Deciding
exactly
how
UW
units
participate
in
the
allowance
market
and
from
which
budgets
they
are
to
pay
for
allowances
will
be
a
non‐trivial
exercise.
This
is
especially
true
for
allowances
that
cover
emissions
from
building
energy
de‐
mand.
A
cap‐and‐trade
system
would
also
require
increased
precision
in
the
UW
Inventory
so
that
each
party’s
allowance
needs
are
clear
and
accurate.
Commut‐
ing
would
need
to
be
closely
monitored
with
an
expanded,
annual
U‐PASS
sur‐
vey;
professional
travel
distances
would
need
to
be
explicitly
recorded
for
every
trip;
and
campus
energy
demand
would
need
to
be
sub‐metered
building‐by‐
building.
Though
the
initial
negotiation
of
a
cap‐and‐trade
system
is
daunting,
the
ulti‐
mate
cost
to
the
participating
parties
is
surprisingly
low.
Take
for
example
a
par‐
ticularly
GHG‐intensive
UW
commuter
driving
alone
in
a
20
mpg
car,
20
miles
round
trip,
and
250
days
per
year.
At
a
typical
allowance
price
of
$20/metric
ton,
the
price
of
emissions
is
only
a
little
over
$4
per
month,
or
$50
per
year.
Proposed
Actions:
Research,
plan
and
articulate
the
cap
and
trade
plan.
6.2.2 Strategy:
UW
Internal
Offset
Generation
and
Sales
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
o
o
UW
o
sequester carbon
in UW forests
Land
managed
by
the
UW’s
School
of
Forest
Resources
can
sequester
carbon
by
maintaining
forests
in
uncut
habitat
reserves
or
through
the
continuous
produc‐
tion
of
wood
products.
The
4,300
acres
Pack
Forest
and
other
forested
lands
owned
by
the
University
provide
an
opportunity
for
the
University
of
Washing‐
ton
to
measure
and
verify
GHG
offsets.
The
offsets
can
be
retained
by
the
Uni‐
versity
to
offset
its
own
inventory,
or
they
can
be
sold
to
other
parties
to
fund
the
Climate
Action
Plan.
59
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
The
measurement
of
carbon
sequestration
and
monetization
of
the
associated
GHG
reduction
are
active
research
areas
of
the
Center
for
Sustainable
Forestry
at
Pack
Forest.
Preliminary
research
indicates
that
up
to
142,000
metric
tons
of
carbon
could
be
sequestered
in
UW
forests
over
the
next
45
years
if
left
un‐
harvested.
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
estimate
is
based
on
a
number
of
as‐
sumptions
regarding
growth
rates,
pickling
rates,
risk
of
forest
fires
and
the
car‐
bon
sequestration
due
to
harvested
wood
displacing
steel
and/or
concrete
build‐
ing
materials.
Many
of
these
assumptions
are
topics
of
debate,
so
widely
ac‐
cepted
forestry
carbon
accounting
methodologies
are
still
in
development.
Current
programs
in
the
School
of
Forest
Resources
are
funded
through
reve‐
nues
generated
by
the
sustainable
management
of
these
forests
and
will
need
to
be
considered
carefully.
Additional
funds
for
the
UW
are
generated
from
the
management
of
87,000
acres
of
trust
lands
in
Washington
state,
most
of
them
forested.
Though
these
are
under
formal
control
of
Washington’s
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
they
can
in
principle
be
managed
for
carbon
offset
genera‐
tion
as
well.
Proposed
Action:
Formulate
a
policy
for
internal
offsets
and
allowances.
6.2.3 Strategy:
Purchase
of
External
Offsets
or
Allowances
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
o
o
o
carbon offsets
GHG
offsets
can
be
purchased
to
induce
GHG
reductions
outside
the
University
if
the
behavior
and
technological
approaches
described
in
the
Plan
are
insufficient
to
make
the
UW
GHG‐neutral.
It
is
imperative
that
only
verified
offsets
submit‐
ted
to
a
reputable
GHG
registry
be
used
to
meet
the
UW’s
mitigation
goals.
In
lieu
of
offsets,
the
UW
may
wish
to
purchase
and
retire
allowances
issued
by
a
regulated
GHG
regime
such
as
the
Regional
Greenhouse
Gas
Initiative
or
the
European
Union
Emission
Trading
Scheme.
Retired
allowances
are
a
less
contro‐
versial
form
of
external
emission
reductions.
Proposed
Action:
Formulate
a
policy
for
purchase
of
external
offsets
or
allow‐
ances.
7
Climate
Policy
Development
and
Implementation
This
Climate
Action
Plan
is
a
survey
of
ideas,
most
of
which
still
need
to
be
thor‐
oughly
researched
for
feasibility,
and
then
realized
as
a
prioritized
series
of
ac‐
60
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
tions.
During
the
coming
year
we
will
nurture
support
from
the
academic,
ad‐
ministrative
and
student
communities
and
identify
the
most
promising
funding
mechanisms
(6).
Priorities
will
need
to
be
set,
and
reset,
as
new
technologies
emerge
and
the
economy
recovers.
In
this
chapter
we
describe
a
flexible
framework
of
guidelines
for
creating
the
priorities,
policies
and
plans
that
will
allow
the
Plan
to
unfold
in
a
changing
technological
and
economic
environment.
7.1
Setting
the
Leadership
and
Decision
Making
Framework
Many
of
our
strategies
cannot
be
implemented
without
fostering
collaboration
among
faculty,
staff
and
students,
and
among
offices,
departments
and
units
on
all
the
three
campuses.
The
President,
Provost
and
Senior
Vice
President
will
need
to
proactively
bring
together
the
decision
makers
and
participants
needed
to
implement
the
Plan.
Staff
and
faculty
of
the
UW
will
need
to
be
open
to
building
the
new
relationships
that
result.
Collaboration
on
research
projects
has
tremendous
potential
and
coordination
and
communication
will
be
keys
to
success.
The
Environmental
Stewardship
Advisory
Committee
(ESAC)
has
been
the
key‐
stone
of
the
UW’s
environmental
stewardship
efforts
and
is
needed
to
move
the
Climate
Action
Plan
forward.
However,
it
is
time
to
consider
a
new
governance
approach.
One
possible
structure
would
have
ESAC
recommending
policies
and
priorities
and
overseeing
progress
while
a
new
Environmental
Stewardship
Lead‐
role for ESAC in
ership
and
Policy
Committee,
comprised
of
senior
administrative
and
academic
implemen!ng the plan
leaders
(including
the
ESAC
chair),
would
meet
together
to
adopt
policies,
estab‐
lish
priorities
and
identify
funding
sources.
Based
on
these
decisions,
Climate
Action
Teams
that
include
faculty,
staff
and
students
would
perform
detailed
planning
and
implementation.
The
UWESS
office
would
have
operational
re‐
sponsibilities
including
coordinating
and
communicating
activities
internally
and
externally;
identifying
where
policies
are
needed
and
taking
them
forward
to
ESAC
and
the
Leadership
Team
for
consideration;
monitoring,
measuring
and
re‐
porting
operational
and
strategic
progress;
and
managing
the
action
teams.
UWESS
would
also
provide
staff
support
to
ESAC
and
the
Leadership
Team.
Proposed
Action:
Create
and
adopt
a
revised
governance
structure
for
ESAC,
CAP
implementation
and
UWESS
office
61
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
7.2
Moving
from
Strategies
to
Actions
Each
strategy
in
this
Climate
Action
Plan
is
an
abstract
idea
that
can
only
be
real‐
ized
once
a
set
of
prioritized
actions
make
it
concrete.
In
each
strategy
section
the
concluding
Proposed
Actions
offer
an
intuitive
glimpse
into
what
those
ac‐
tions
might
be,
but
the
formal
processes
of
identification
followed
by
prioritiza‐
tion
will
occupy
the
coming
year.
7.2.1 Identifying
and
Prioritizing
the
Actions
For
each
category
of
strategies,
a
small
team
of
experienced
staff
and
faculty
with
relevant
experience
will
brainstorm
possible
actions
relevant
to
each
strat‐
egy
in
the
category.
The
team
will
begin
with
actions
already
compiled
in
the
process
of
creating
the
Climate
Action
Plan.
Each
action
list
will
be
sorted
into
“clear”
and
“obstructed”
groups.
All
actions
in
the
“clear”
group
will
be
subject
to
life‐cycle
cost
analysis
(LCCA)
and
also
to
an
assessment
of
life‐cycle
GHG
re‐
duction.
In
this
way,
each
action
can
be
characterized
by
a
single
number
repre‐
senting
cost‐effectiveness
in,
say,
metric
tons
reduced
per
dollar
spent,
allowing
prioritization.
Finally,
the
list
prioritized
by
this
quantitative
metric
will
be
ad‐
justed
by
an
appropriate
team
that
unites
the
category
experts
with
UW
admin‐
istrators
who
can
place
each
action
in
the
appropriate
context
of
all
University
operations.
In
the
“obstructed”
group,
the
same
category
experts
plus
a
team
of
administra‐
tors
will
flag
a
subset
of
actions
for
feasibility
studies
and
set
a
schedule
for
those
studies.
Proposed
Action:
Prioritize
actions
based
on
level
of
difficulty,
cost,
GHG
impact
and
other
criteria
to
be
determined
7.2.2 Reporting
the
Results
The
final
sets
of
prioritized
actions
will
be
reported
in
a
new
Climate
Action
Plan
Implementation
Document
by
September
2010.
The
Implementation
Document
will
set
out
cost‐effectiveness
thresholds
describing
which
actions
in
the
“clear”
group
are
to
be
pursued
and
will
lay
out
a
firm
timeline
for
completing
each
ac‐
tion.
Actions
in
the
“obstructed”
group
flagged
for
further
study
will
also
be
re‐
ported
with
a
firm
timeline
for
study
and
a
draft
timeline
for
implementation.
62
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Proposed
Actions:
Develop
CAP
implementation
plan
and
reporting
document.
7.3
Climate
Action
Plan
Administration
To
coordinate
CAP
implementation;
coordinate
activities
and
participants
from
UW
Seattle,
Bothell
and
Tacoma;
and
support
the
governance
structure,
a
well‐
established
UWESS
office
will
be
needed.
Regular
communications,
developing
metrics
and
reporting
tools
and
responding
to
the
myriad
of
inquiries
and
re‐
quests
is
time
intensive.
Temporary
financial
support
will
be
needed
until
the
funding
strategies
are
in
place
and
decisions
are
made
about
ongoing
funding
for
this
effort.
Proposed
Action:
Create
temporary
and
permanent
funding
model
to
support
CAP
implementation
and
UWESS
office.
7.4
Making
Climate
Action
the
Everyday
In
conjunction
with
the
focused
outreach
efforts
described
in
Section
2.3,
cli‐
mate
action
should
be
incorporated
into
the
University’s
commonplace
adminis‐
trative
procedures
and
daily
habits,
embedding
it
in
the
University
culture.
7.4.1 Nurture
Involvement
Engaging
faculty,
students
and
administration
to
work
collaboratively
creates
partnerships
where
learning,
research
and
administrative
schedules
overlap
in
new
ways
and
allow
each
group’s
work
to
encourage
the
other
to
think
about
climate
action
when
they
might
not
otherwise.
UW
staff
may
need
substantial
support
for
implementing
climate
actions
so
the
Plan
provides
a
rich
motivation
for
creating
undergraduate
internships
and
work‐study
opportunities
that
bridge
the
academic
and
administrative.
UW
faculty
and
staff
in
the
position
of
mentoring
those
students
will
take
ownership
and
pride
in
their
work
on
envi‐
ronmental
stewardship.
The UW as a laboratory
for climate ac!on
Recognizing
the
UW
as
a
laboratory
for
climate
actions
that
can
be
applied
else‐
where
(1.1)
makes
every
UW
employee
a
powerful
climate
action
information
conduit
to
their
personal
household,
neighborhood,
church,
and
so
forth.
On‐
campus
collaboration
will
inspire
off‐collaboration.
63
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Proposed
Action:
Create
a
faculty/staff/student
collaboration
plan
to
improve
the
UW's
climate
impact.
7.4.2 General
Office
Guidelines
and
Policy
office
P O LIC Y
The
UW
is
committed
to
environmental
stewardship
in
our
offices,
as
well
as
in
our
business
practices.
The
UW
will
guide
office
staff
through
a
“pledge”
and
proactive
communications
in
conscious
and
responsible
use
of
heating
and
air
conditioning,
waste
disposal
and
recycling,
lighting,
information
technology,
pur‐
chase
of
goods
and
services,
printing
and
copying.
Training
and
continued
out‐
reach
to
staff,
faculty
and
student
workers
will
be
essential
to
increasing
aware‐
ness,
developing
routine
practices
and
eventually
reducing
the
individual
worker
GHG
footprint.
For
staff
and
faculty,
training
and
education
in
the
wise
use
of
resources
can
be
delivered
at
the
office
and
facility
level
using
UWESS
staff,
Green
Committees
and
Building
Coordinators
as
a
focal
point
for
providing
ongoing
education
in
en‐
ergy
and
water
conservation
and
other
sustainable
practices.
Creating
UW‐wide
workshops
and
celebrations
of
special
events
like
Earth
Day
will
build
awareness
and
a
broader
sense
of
ownership.
Proposed
Action:
Create
guidelines
and
education/outreach
program
for
fac‐
ulty/staff/students.
g
cha
pur sin
P O LIC Y
7.4.3 Purchasing
Policy
Procurement
Services
is
committed
to
purchasing
practices
that
promote
the
purchase
and
use
of
environmentally
and
socially
responsible
products,
support
reduced
packaging,
allow
low‐impact
disposal
and
reduce
or
consolidate
the
de‐
livery
of
goods
to
the
UW.
We
particularly
encourage
the
purchase
of
products
that
are
made
with
post‐consumer
recycled
content
and/or
bio‐based
products,
are
recyclable
and
are
energy
efficient.
In
our
commitment
to
support
the
purchase
and
use
of
such
products,
sustain‐
ability
requirements
will
be
included
in
all
University‐wide
contract
solicitations.
We
will
also
develop
a
proactive
communication
plan
to
educate
individuals
and
departments
in
environmentally
preferable
purchasing
practices
when
quality,
performance
and
price
are
comparable
to
alternatives.
64
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
By
including
sustainability
criteria
in
purchasing
decisions
we
will
not
only
put
climate
awareness
into
this
everyday
activity,
but
we
will
also
be
affecting
GHGs
in
the
manufacturing
and
waste
disposal
chains,
making
good
on
our
claim
to
look
beyond
the
inventory.
Proposed
Action:
Finalize
purchasing
guidelines
and
communicate
them
to
UW
community.
8
Tracking
Progress
After
the
adoption
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan
and
determination
of
the
leader‐
ship
framework
to
oversee
implementation,
progress
will
need
to
be
tracked
both
for
internal
use
and
for
ACUPCC
every
two
years.
The
following
items
should
be
included:
•
Engage
Students,
faculty
and
staff
engagement
with
these
efforts
(research,
teaching,
internships,
committee/group
memberships);
•
Lists
of
projects
underway
and
their
purpose;
•
Operational
metrics
that
will
broadly
cover
areas
of
energy
conservation
and
savings
(including
building
submetering
of
water,
electricity,
steam
and
gas
consumption
on
all
three
campuses);
•
Additional
GHG
reporting
on
a
source‐by‐source
intensity
basis,
e.g.,
− gross
GHGs/square‐foot
(per
campus)
− gross
GHGs/capita
(per
campus)
− commuting
mode‐miles
(per
campus
and
other
sites)
− professional
travel
mode‐miles
− miles
saved
using
video
conferencing
− carbon
stored
on
all
UW‐owned
land
− passenger
density
on
UW‐serving
bus
routes
(to
improve
accuracy
of
commuting
emissions
tracking)
65
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
•
Qualitative
metrics
that
will
broadly
cover
opinions
about
UW’s
efforts
and
progress
(surveys,
anecdotal
information);
•
Metrics
that
show
the
progress
in
engaging
our
students
and
faculty
in
new
and
ongoing
Climate
Action
Plan‐related
programs;
•
Metrics
that
illustrate
progress
in
interdisciplinary
and
shared
administrative‐
academic
projects;
•
Metrics
showing
outreach
to
local
businesses
and
technical
organizations,
especially
those
that
offer
opportunities
and
internships
for
our
students;
•
Metrics
that
track
annual
institutional
investments
in
new
research
opportu‐
nities
for
undergraduates
and
graduates
on
all
three
campuses;
•
Awards
and
recognition
gained
by
UW
for
its
effort;
and
•
Financial
tracking
(funding
identified,
use
of
resources,
impact).
We
will
create
dashboard‐format
metrics
to
track
and
report
CAP
progress
inter‐
nally
and
externally.
The
impacts
of
the
Climate
Action
Plan
on
the
UW
will
extend
far
beyond
quanti‐
tative
metrics.
As
the
new
College
of
the
Environment
integrates
approaches
to
climate
change
across
disciplines,
and
as
ESAC
and
UWESS
bring
together
the
administrative
and
academic
arms
of
the
UW
community,
our
united
action
around
climate
change
will
work
to
strengthen
the
UW
not
just
as
a
center
of
excellence
on
climate
research
and
mitigation,
but
as
a
university.
A+
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6
5
4
3
2
1
=
ligh!ng
hea!ng
cooling
66
University
of
Washington
Climate
Action
Plan
Acknowledgements
In
January
2009,
under
the
auspices
of
the
UW
Environmental
Stewardship
Advi‐
sory
Committee
(ESAC),
a
Climate
Action
Planning
Oversight
Team
was
formed
to
coordinate
the
drafting
of
a
UW
Climate
Action
Plan.
This
document
is
the
first
step
toward
achieving
greenhouse
gas
emissions
reduction
targets
by
the
University
of
Washington
and
its
community,
as
required
by
the
American
Col‐
lege
&
University
Presidents’
Climate
Commitment.
UW
President
Mark
Emmert
is
a
charter
signatory
and
leadership
circle
member.
The
UW
Climate
Action
Plan
sets
out
broad
strategies
to
be
explored
by
the
UW
that
will
guide
us
toward
the
ambitious
goal
of
becoming
climate
neutral
and
identifies
the
actions
that
can
fulfill
each
of
those
strategies.
This
plan
lays
the
groundwork
for
a
concrete
Implementation
Plan
to
follow
in
2010.
This
Plan
was
created
through
the
efforts
of
over
100
faculty,
students
and
staff
on
all
three
UW
campuses.
An
oversight
team
(Sandra
Archibald,
Evans
School
of
Public
Affairs;
John
Chapman,
Facilities
Services;
Bruce
Balick,
Astronomy
and
Faculty
Senate
Chair;
John
Schaufelberger,
College
of
Built
Environments;
Denis
Martynowych,
Planning
and
Budgeting;
JR
Fulton,
Housing
and
Food
Services;
Stephanie
Harrington,
College
of
the
Environment;
Josh
Kavanagh,
Transporta‐
tion
Services;
Elise
Davis,
Strategy
Management;
Ruth
Johnston,
Finance
&
Facili‐
ties;
and
Roel
Hammerschlag,
Stockholm
Environment
Institute
U.S.)
coordinated
activities,
discussed
strategies
and
communicated
across
the
teams.
Several
sub‐
teams
were
created
to
develop
the
Plan.
The
academic
sub‐teams
were
led
by
Bruce
Balick,
research;
John
Schaufelberger,
curriculum;
and
Stephanie
Harring‐
ton,
outreach.
The
administrative
sub‐teams
were
led
by
John
Chapman,
cam‐
pus
energy
supply;
JR
Fulton,
campus
energy
demand;
Steve
Ashurst
(UW
Tech‐
nology),
information
technology;
Celeste
Gilman
(Transportation
Services),
commuting;
and
Tad
Anderson
(Atmospheric
Sciences),
professional
travel.
Denis
Martynowych
(Planning
and
Budgeting)
led
the
financing
team
and
Ruth
Johnston
(Finance
&
Facilities)
led
the
Climate
Policy
Development
and
Imple‐
mentation
sub‐team.
Roel
Hammerschlag
served
as
the
technical
writer,
Elise
Davis
served
as
project
manager,
Marilyn
Ostergren
(Ph.D.
candidate,
Informa‐
tion
School)
developed
the
accompanying
graphics
and
undergraduate
student
support
was
provided
by
Jerid
Paige
and
Aubrey
Batchelor.
67