1

!

"#$%&'!"(()*)$#*'!+(!",)-.)#&!/0)12)#&-!3.!.4$!5#)6$%-).'!+(!73#-3-8!9--$--:$#.!3#2!;$**+:$#23.)+#-!

!!!!!!!!

963!9<32=!>$--)*3!743#=!/$#?3:)#!@+%&3#=!!A)*B!C*41$)*4$%=!73%$#!C4$$.-!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"#6)%+#:$#.31!C.02)$-!DEF!7$11'!7)#2-*4$%=!G)-3!;30-*4=!/%)3#!H13..!

!!

@3'!IJEJ!

2

Introduction

The University of Kansas campus abounds with large trees, scenic views and a multitude

of walking areas. The University attempts to promote a campus rich in both culture and tradition,

which includes the maintenance and use of buildings that were constructed as much as a century

ago. The University utilizes buildings that operate very inefficiently or are in need of retrofitting

because of age, use, and other factors. With a growing focus on sustainability and energy

efficiency, existing buildings should be evaluated to identify and correct issues that contribute to

excessive energy use. Referencing the KU Climate Action Plan, it is apparent that several

buildings have extremely high energy consumption as compared to buildings of similar size. This

report will discuss factors that contribute to high energy use in certain buildings on campus, as

well as provide recommendations for reducing energy use and increasing efficiency of existing

buildings on campus.

What is a Green Building?

Green Building is a term that generally refers to the creation or retrofitting of structures

from an environmentally responsible approach. It can include the use of environmentally friendly

materials, energy sources, and operation and maintenance procedures. The initiative to build in

an environmentally responsible way has led to the establishment of green building criteria and

certification requirements. The U.S. Green Building Council established the LEED program in

1994, and it has since become the most accepted framework for green building guidelines and

certification. LEED assesses all aspects of the design and building process, as well as the

likelihood of future sustainability of a project. LEED is commonly referred to as the standard for

3

green building and ranks according to site sustainability, water efficiency, energy and

atmosphere, materials and resources that went into initial construction, the indoor environmental

quality (IEQ), innovation in operations, and regional priority (LEED Guidelines 17).

Factors that Contribute to Energy Inefficiency in Buildings

Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Systems

The leading cause of energy inefficiency in buildings in the Unites States is the use of

heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, which consume approximately fifty

percent of the energy in a given building (Ardehali 35). A 0.08 percent increase in productivity

by way of “personal environmental control” is all that is necessary with HVAC systems to offset

an otherwise 15 percent “energy penalty” (Ardehali 35). Also, a study by the EPA showed that

Energy Star labeled buildings are 44 percent more efficient than other commercial buildings,

emphasizing the importance and usefulness of labeling and indicating that in many cases

something as simple as labeling buildings may significantly increase the efficiency (Ardehali 35).

Many buildings have features that innately enhance energy efficiency, and if these

features are accessed and utilized correctly, an existing building, with the help of some addition

technology (e.g. energy management and control systems or EMCSs), could become appreciably

more efficient (Ardehali 35). A white paper from the journal of Environmental Health and

Engineering claims the following about campus universities:

Retro-commissioning of existing buildings will have an immediate impact of 10% or

more on energy use across the campus and does not require an investment in capital

equipment. With modest improvements in infrastructure components identified during

4

the process, gains of 30% and more can be realized with the payback period ranging from

<1 year to 4 years. (“The First”)

Building Use

Building use is a main factor in energy consumption. Carol Bray, the Rooms Coordinator

for KU, gave some insight into how the classrooms are scheduled. According to Carol, rooms

are assigned based on class size, instructor media requirements, and room availability in the

requested time slot. Many buildings on campus must keep the HVAC systems and lighting on at

all times because of departmental and administrative offices, faculty offices and research labs

that operate year round, even if classes are not in session. Many buildings on campus have

outdated HVAC systems which may not always be controlled for individual rooms or even floors.

This means that for many buildings the ventilation is either on or off for the entire building;

therefore, even if only one room is being used in the building, the ventilation is on in the whole

building.

Energy Policy and Maintenance Practices

In addition to HVAC systems and building use, a lack of concise policy and maintenance

practices also contribute to poor efficiency of buildings. Specifically, this refers to the most

recent example of the Utilities Management Annual Report from 2006 from the Facilities

Operations website and the precautions that it outlines for staff and faculty to ensure a more

energy efficient campus. For example, the following phrases were taken directly from the report:

Day lighting should be used when possible. When rooms or buildings are unoccupied,

lights not needed for safety and security purposes should be turned off…Keep outside

doors and windows closed when cooling equipment is in use…Copiers that do not

5

automatically turn off after a period of inactivity should be turned off at night and during

the weekend. (Annual Utilities 18)

These guidelines, although legitimate, are vague and unenforceable; their completion relies on

active participation by faculty, staff, and students of the university, a challenge which is

discussed further in a later section.

Identifying Problem Buildings at the University of Kansas

In assessing the existing buildings at KU, we established a set of criteria to select the

least energy efficient buildings to evaluate. We referenced the 2006 Utility Management Annual

Report from the Facilities Operations website, which included a categorized chart of buildings on

campus and their energy usage per gross square foot. The report defines six different building

categories: Office/Classroom, Facilities Operations, Miscellaneous, Museum/Library, Sports

Facilities, Science/Research. From each section we chose the least energy efficient building

taking into consideration the following requirements: the building should be at least ten years old

and at least 20,000 square feet, should use more energy than a building of similar size (KU CAP),

and should have high energy use per square foot. These criteria were used as a guide in

determining which buildings to evaluate, however we did not completely exclude buildings that

did not meet every requirement.

We selected the following buildings for an evaluation of inefficiency: Blake Hall

(Office/Classroom), FO Construction/Landscape Shop (Facilities Operations), Watkins Student

Health Center (Miscellaneous), Spencer Museum of Art (Museum/Library), Anderson Strength

Center (Sports Facilities), Simons Biosciences Research Labs (Science/Research). For each

building, we investigated the construction, usage, energy consumption (amount and causes), and

6

potential solutions. Depending on the extent of inefficiency and the potential solutions, certain

buildings were expanded upon while others were only briefly acknowledged. We referred to

Figure 1 once we selected these buildings in order to compare them to buildings of similar type

to assess the level of energy inefficiency.

Offices/Classrooms: Blake Hall

Blake Hall was originally completed in 1895 just south of the old Fraser Hall. The

original building contained classrooms, an auditoria, and labs mostly all pertaining to physics. In

1954 the building became vacant due to the physics department moving to Malott Hall. In 1963

it was determined that the old building was too costly to renovate; it was torn down and a new

facility was built. The building was constructed out of cut-rough stone and the usable square

footage was doubled. The six-story Blake Hall then became the 50,010 gross square foot

building that it is today (Campus Building Directory).

Currently Blake Hall houses the departments of linguistics, political science, and public

administration. It also is home to the Policy Research Institute. The building is shaped around the

use of classrooms and seminar rooms. In the summer time the building is commonly used for

various summer school classes. The combination of the size and continual usage of the building

makes Blake Hall one of the highest energy consumers for classroom and office buildings on the

Lawrence campus. As of the 2006 annual energy consumption chart for the university, Blake

Hall uses 840,000 electric KWh. The energy cost that year per gross square foot was $2.08, and

the energy use per GSF was 203,805kBtu/sf (Annual Utilities Report).

The size of Blake Hall and its annual usage suggest that the majority of energy consumed

by the building is for climate control; this relates to the implementation of a more efficient

7

HVAC system as discussed previously. A project has been proposed for Blake Hall that sets out

to address these concerns. In 2007 the Kansas Board of Regents proposed a plan for a

$1,160,000 project, which entails improving the “building chiller and air handling units, fire

alarm system; repairs or replaces electrical systems and elevator and includes required ADA

improvements” (Kansas Board of Regents).

Facilities Operations: FO Construction/Landscape Shop

The buildings under this category were problematic with regards to their being assessed

for energy efficiency for various reasons. First, the structures in this group with the highest

energy use were the chiller building, which falls under HVAC, and the power plant, which is not

within the scope of this project. The main building for Facilities Operations had the least energy

use of the four remaining buildings. The remaining three buildings are grouped together on the

Campus Buildings Directory on the KU website as the shops and warehouses of Facilities

Operations. They were built in 2007, making them too new to meet our minimum requirements

for buildings to consider. Also, the two shops, which were the highest energy users, were 12,000

and 20,540 gross square feet, neither of which is of significant size. However, in order to gather

some data on this section we consulted Rex Burkhardt, a Coordinator with Facilities Operations,

about the building in this category that was most relevant to this project: the FO

Construction/Landscape Shop. He explained that the building is used for storage and

maintenance of machines used around campus for lawn care and landscaping, but he did not

name any machines that were permanently attached to the building that may be increasing the

energy usage. When asked whether the energy use of the equipment stored in the facility was

8

taken into account when calculating the energy use of the building as a whole, he replied no;

therefore, no significant conclusions were made regarding this building and its energy usage.

Miscellaneous: Watkins Student Health Center

Watkins Memorial Heath Center is a dark brick building. It encompasses almost 80,000

square feet which includes thirty-four inpatient beds, a clinic, a laboratory and X-ray facilities, a

pharmacy, allergy and immunization, physical therapy and psychiatric treatment areas,

administrative and business offices, physicians’ examining rooms, a gynecology and men’s

clinic, and an urgent care clinic.

The energy use at Watkins is highest during the summer months. This indicates that the

main source of energy use is most likely from HVAC systems used to cool the building in the

hottest months. The dark brick that the building is constructed from likely increases the amount

of heat that the building absorbs, making it more difficult to cool the building during the summer

months. (Figure 2)

Museum/Library: Spencer Museum of Art

The base square footage for the Spencer Museum of art is 91,805. According to the CAP,

the Spencer Museum Averaged roughly 200 kBtu/SF, while a building of similar type averaged

approximately 150. The Spencer Research Library opened in 1978 and was designed in the neo-

classical structure, built from Indiana limestone, was designed by Kansas City architect Robert

E. Jenks, a 1926 graduate of KU. The Spencer is now a well maintained multi-use building, with

a large lecture hall and five floors with rotating exhibits throughout the year. Its temperature and

humidity-controlled storage tanks use the ancient steam tunnel HVAC system in place at the

9

university. The high-energy costs have proven to be insignificant in comparison to the

preservation of priceless works of art. The aging steam ventilation system threatened the

Spencer and its thousands of pieces of art. The university spent millions of dollars renovating it.

The Spencer is constructed from Midwest limestone, a long lasting and insulating building

material, and yet it still requires large amounts of energy to keep its five floors comfortable

throughout the year. This is a genuine opportunity to take into account the potential that these

tunnels possess for co-generation units that burn bio-mass.

This type of system has been proven very beneficial and efficient, as demonstrated in the

Vauban district of Freiburg Germany. The tunnel systems at KU are immense for the diameter of

tunneling they actually transmit to the desired buildings. They can be walked through and have a

ceiling height of about eight feet. Over 50 percent of electricity costs and almost the entirety of

the heat for the district are provided by this massive co-generation unit which burns wood chips

from the surrounding Black Forrest (Freiburg 16). In the future this would be a very energy

saving renovation for KU to consider, and would significantly reduce on energy use not only in

the Spencer, but dozens of other buildings as well.

Sports Facilities: Anderson Strength Center

According to the Fiscal Year 2006 Utility Report, Anderson Strength Center ranks

second for energy use in the Sports Facilities building category. It is 43,484 gross square feet

(GSF), and only three buildings are smaller than Anderson in the Sports Facilities category.

Additionally, Anderson saw a marked increase in energy use per GSF from 111,363kBtu/sf to

141,788kBtu/sf in 2005 and 2006, respectively (Annual Utilities Report 2006). Out of the ten

buildings in this category, this was the largest year over year increase.

10

The building’s history and current use is an important aspect in determining why its

energy use is disproportionate to buildings of a similar type and size. According to Frank

Masterson, of Facilities Operations at Kansas Athletics, the Anderson Strength Center was

constructed in 2002 and parts of the front entrance and second level were remodeled in 2009.

Anderson serves as the main strength and conditioning center for student athletes, with the

exception of the football team which now has a separate facility by the football stadium. During

the school year, Anderson is used Monday through Friday from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 8:00

p.m. and minimally on the weekends. The bulk of student athletes use the facility during the

afternoon when school is in session, and according to Masterson, they have observed more

“down times” during the week since football moved to its own facility. During the summer,

Anderson is closed for a few weeks after graduation and is then open Monday through Friday

from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the remainder of the summer.

Like many buildings on campus, Anderson operates on a chilled water HVAC system.

Facilities Operations has outlined several conservation measures for HVAC systems across

campus. It states that when the outside temperature is above ninety degrees, chilled water

systems should be manually controlled by resetting chilled water temperatures and chiller loads,

thus increasing the building temperature (FY06 Report). When asked what contributes most to

energy consumption at Anderson, Masterson said he feels that “most energy use comes from the

HVAC system. It is a little tougher to keep the temperature in Anderson steady because of the

amount of windows, size of the space, and because of the amount of people working out.

However, the cardio equipment does contribute a lot to the energy consumption.”

Because Anderson is used primarily for strength training and conditioning, it is important

to keep the building at a comfortable temperature. Additionally, it must be available to athletes at

11

a variety of times, as each student’s schedule will vary. Staff and building occupants at Anderson

do try to implement energy saving measures that are recommended under the University’s

Energy Policy. Masterson said they try to keep the lights off as much as possible, but they could

do “a much better job at turning off lights when the space is not in use.” He also recommended

the installation of motion activated lights the next time the building is remodeled.

Science/Research: Simons Biosciences Research Labs

The Simons Biosciences Research Labs building is the largest energy consumer of the

science and research buildings. It is located on West Campus and its energy usage for fiscal year

2006 was 400,150 kBtu/SF for its 48,650 gross square feet. The building is used primarily as a

research facility, housing laboratories and other research areas, but also contains an auditorium,

conference rooms, and offices. The factor that most likely contributes to the building’s high

energy use is the research-related features and equipment, which require significant amounts of

energy and resources to operate properly and safely.

Nunemaker Hall

Although Nunemaker Hall did not receive recognition under any of the above categories,

it does deserve to be mentioned, as one of the highest energy consumers on campus per gross

square foot. Numemaker falls under offices/classrooms and is located across from Templin Hall

on Daisy Hill. The significance of this building comes from its size and use; it is a mere 10,835

gross square feet and, according to the Campus Buildings Directory website, “houses the

University Honors Program; staff offices; class, conference and meeting rooms;

reference/reading area; student kitchen; meeting room; and lounge”, yet consumed 320,155

12

kBtu/SF of energy per gross square foot in FY2006, placing it at the top of the list in its building

type. These incongruent figures led us to look further into the energy usage of this building to

try to understand its unexpectedly high energy consumption.

In a phone conversation with Nicole Chapman, a Nunemaker employee, our assumptions

were reaffirmed with regards to the building’s usage. Chapman was very surprised to hear of

Nunemaker’s high energy use and could only give the following potential explanations: the

facility is open five days a week from 8:00am to 10:00pm and serves as a study center for honors

students, there is a projector in the building, and the overhead lights are on during the times

when the building is open. She did mention, however, that the staff members normally leave

their offices promptly at 5:00pm and their computers and office lights are turned off before

leaving.

Although this information was somewhat helpful, it still fails to account for such high

energy usage considering that the majority of the space and usage of the building is for

conference rooms, meeting areas, and lounges, and considering that many other buildings on

campus are left with the lights on for long periods of time as well. The building was constructed

in 1971, which does not make it one of the campus’s oldest buildings, but is considerably old

enough that it may need some renovations to update the infrastructure. This is an interesting

case that could be studied further by future groups in order to pinpoint other reasons why this

and similar seemingly innocent buildings may be consuming such large amounts of energy.

Examples of Other Institutions and Universities

In order to gain more insight into potential energy saving strategies, we looked to other

institutions that have made breakthroughs in optimizing energy usage on their campuses. First,

13

we looked at Oakes Hall at the University of Vermont Law School. This building was created in

1998 from two previously existing buildings to form one building of 24,000 square feet, built

into a hill. Some of the features this building includes that augment its energy efficiency are:

occupancy sensors tied to lights and ventilation of each room, “superwindows with a whole-unit

U-factor less than 0.25 (greater than R-4.0)”, modular boilers that can meet varied loads, wide-

ranging frequency drives for fans of the HVAC system, “continuous air barriers”, high efficiency

T8 fluorescent lamps, waste composters in the basement, and glass blocks in the floors that

provide sunlight to lower floors (“Vermont Law”). The combination of these features and

upgraded systems has made the heating energy for this building less than one-fifth of a building

of similar size built a few years before and the electricity use is less than half that of the similar

adjacent building (“Vermont Law”).

The Energy Star website provided a list of universities that deserve honorable mention

for their innovations in making their universities more energy efficient. One of these was New

Hampshire University where students in the residence halls took action in tracking the

university’s energy use in those halls. This university earned the Energy Star for residence halls

and has the most Energy Star labeled buildings on its campus in the country. The website states,

“Through a series of retrofits and educational programs, the university saves approximately $4

million annually in energy as compared to the national average” (“Higher Education”). In

cooperation with the EPA, Energy Star has created energy management strategies that assist

universities in reducing their energy bills by 30 percent (“Higher Education”). This track record

makes Energy Star recommendations a reliable source that the University of Kansas should

consult.

14

Another university that Energy Star praises is Ithaca College which utilizes the EPA’s

Portfolio Manager to track the university’s energy use for all its buildings (“Higher Education”).

This refers to the interactive energy management tool that Energy Star offers. This system

allows building owners and managers to track and assess energy and water consumption to

identify poor-performing buildings and verify efficiency improvements. This tool can be used

for individual buildings as well as the entire university. Many facilities can be compared to

similar buildings nationwide rated on a scale from 1 to 100. For example, a building with a

rating of 75 performs better than 75% of all similar buildings nationwide. Currently there is no

category for university buildings other than residence halls and dormitories (“Portfolio

Manager”). The students at Ithaca College, like those of New Hampshire University, improved

the energy efficiency of their residence halls by switching out 400 incandescent light bulbs with

fluorescent ones (“Higher Education”).

Small-Scale Recommendations

Human Approaches

There are endless habitual changes that the staff and student population should work on

improving. With ongoing education through the KU center for sustainability, developing

sustainable habits in the student population is much easier said than done; yet the KU Center for

Sustainability has made this their mission. Ongoing education to the student population is

something that should be standardized for every building. Finding the leading causes of frivolous

use in each building, constructing signs, and making it apparent to the users of that building is

one possible solution.

15

A possible incentive plan for future groups to investigate that would increase

participation is a campus-wide building competition. This would involve the tracking of energy

use of each building on campus to see which one decreases its energy usage per gross square foot

the highest percentage from the previous year. This building will win and the money saved from

the energy savings will be used to provide a service/benefit of some sort for the users of the

building. This would be an interactive way for otherwise indifferent staff and faculty (and

students who are invested in a particular building due to their majors) to become excited about

conserving energy in campus buildings by way of turning off lights, computers, copiers, and

other machinery that are regularly overlooked. The feasibility of this program depends on the

cooperation of the desired participants and the allocation of the money saved.

Another useful implementation would be placing suggestion boxes in each building in

visible, clearly labeled locations where problems and ideas for increasing energy efficiency

could be shared. These boxes should be mentioned and pointed out at new student orientation

and read on a regular basis by the FO staff in charge of the given building. The importance of

suggestions and complaints are a major element of recommendations from various sources,

including Energy Star, for ways to identify problems with energy efficiency in buildings and

improve upon them.

Large-Scale Recommendations

HVAC Improvements

Options for completely replacing duct systems from the 1950s may be limited, but there

are also unorthodox approaches that can be taken that are not as glamorous or as innovative as

solar panels, but will still help to bring down energy consumption levels throughout the year.

16

First, we recommend spending allocated sustainability funds on technologies that can sense

occupants in a room and automatically shut off ventilation to rooms that are not in use. There are

many technologies that can zone buildings accordingly without having to totally replace the

existing machines. If these new high-tech sensors are not used, implementing a system for

Facilities Operations to maintain awareness of microscale room occupancy is an alternative.

However, improving the HVAC system throughout the university due to its inefficiency

is not a new realization. There are projects that are currently under the final stages of planning

that set out to improve the heating and cooling system. On February 2, 2007, the Kansas Board

of Regents discussed the state of Kansas� deferred maintenance priority list for the various

universities. This was an effort to secure state funding in the amount of $200 million which

would then be divided amongst the seven participating state universities based on their individual

size, age, and complexity (Kansas Regents). From the $200 million, the University of Kansas

would be granted $57,335,048. Using this distributed money from the state down-payment, KU

was asked to compile a list of the highest priority deferred maintenance issues that could fit

under the given cap-room. To determine the list the University considered “the worst component

conditions in buildings serving the greatest number of students, faculty and staff” (Kansas

Regents).

KU’s list comprised mostly of improvements to various buildings� HVAC systems.

Most of these plans actually match up well with issues that we identified through our research. In

fact, among the list of 41 deferred maintenance projects proposed for the plan, the Utility Tunnel

improvements topped the chart as the most essential upgrade. This list also incorporates a large

amount of classroom/office buildings, Robinson Gymnasium, Power Plant improvements,

17

Spencer Art Museum, and Watson Library. Details on these 41 deferred maintenance

improvements can be found in Figure 4.

Building Usage Scheduling

Adjustments to scheduling could be a very viable way to reduce or eliminate the use of

buildings with high consumption during peak months. Referencing a graph of KU energy

consumption by month over the last four years, it is apparent that there is more energy use during

the summer months when regular occupancy is down. It would be ideal to consolidate classes

and offices into more energy efficient buildings and take the inefficient buildings offline during

these months. This might be difficult to do unless faculty is willing to move to more

inconvenient locations. A 2009 EVRN 615 group surveyed 20 faculty members asking if they

would be willing to relocate to a different location or allow other faculty to move into their

department during the summer to save energy and 100% replied no (Davis et. al. 2009).

Currently, a private energy management company is working with facilities management to

make an energy control plan based on building usage by doing a building by building audit

(Carol Bray, personal communication 5/5/10).

Energy Efficient Windows and Glazing techniques

Also known as, “Solar screens that intercept solar radiation, or films that prevent infrared

and ultraviolet transmission while allowing good visibility, are useful retrofits for hot climates”,

because they are essentially transparent to the rest of the community and very helpful for the hot

months. Yet since Kansas is the weather is so volatile throughout the year, more measures of

glazing would be necessary for the months when we are trying to keep heat in. They further

recommend that in, “colder climates, the focus shifts from keeping solar energy out of the space

18

to reducing heat loss to the outdoors and (in some cases) allowing desirable solar radiation to

enter. Windows with two or three glazing layers that utilize low-emissivity coatings will

minimize conductive energy transmission. Filling the spaces between the glazing layers with an

inert low-conductivity gas, such as argon, will further reduce heat flow” (DOE).

David McNally, a KU student and member of the EcoHawks also had similar suggestions

in an interview regarding glazing techniques. Also after his experiences building and erecting

three solar panels from scratch for their engineering project, he suggested implementing solar

data loggers around campus to measure the best areas for rooftop installation, supporting the idea

for more solar initiatives.

Solar and wind Initiatives

These are the talk of the country with the heightened consumption awareness going on

across the nation. Although they may not be economically feasible at the moment on a grand

scale, continuing education on campus with more interactive renewable energies for research

purposes will always be a good energy saving tactic. Of those two, the easiest for KU to adopt

would be the installation of Solar Panels to rooftops. They are easier to install and less visible

than wind turbines, and with the demand up the prices are dropping every year as money from

government incentives becomes more widespread.

In a personal interview with Eileen Smith, an active member of the Lawrence KS community

and the president of the Kansas Solar Electric co-operatives (KS SEC). She has calculated a map

of roof surface areas of existing Kansas University buildings and estimated how much of that

could be viable for the installation of solar panels along with how much it may cost. There K-

SEC was founded in 2005 as a non-partisan non-governmental organization to raise awareness

and build momentum in the deployment of building-integrated photovoltaics [BI-PV].

19

Policy Implementation and Operations Procedures

In addition to amending the KU Energy Policy, the development of a ratings system for

efficiency of current buildings is a potential solution to implementing the most effective

conservation practices. Without knowing the current status of a building’s efficiency, it is

difficult to determine which buildings require the most immediate attention.

A 2009 report by the National Center for Energy Management and Building

Technologies outlined a sample rating system and applied the rating system to six pilot buildings.

The goal of the rating system was to assist Operations and Maintenance teams in assessing

current building performance and to promote energy savings through awareness of problem sites

(Prill 2009).

This particular rating system focused heavily on HVAC efficiency. A detailed assessment

of roof top units was a large part of the rating process. This assessment would require the

services of a trained individual to manual inspect roof top units at all buildings on campus. Due

to time and cost, a modified version of the inspection might be a better option for KU Operations

and Maintenance. For example, existing knowledge of heating and cooling units could be used in

scoring the efficiency of the units.

Another component of the rating system was the building performance based on actual

energy usage of each building. KU publishes an annual energy report, so this data would be

fairly easy to collect. Energy usage is then cross referenced with data from the U.S. EPA Energy

Star Portfolio Manager to determine a performance score. This particular rating system also

provides a simplified worksheet for use by the Operations and Maintenance team (Prill 2009).

The last two components of the rating system are the collection of routine walk- through

observations and building occupant surveys. The occupant survey includes such factors as

20

temperature and air flow comfort, odor, noise and lighting. Responses are ranked one through

five, with five being the most satisfied. An average of all responses is calculated and entered in

the master scoring sheet, along with results from walk-through observation, HVAC efficiency,

and energy use efficiency.

This rating system serves as a good model in developing a ranking system for efficiency

of buildings at KU. Some aspects may need to be altered, modified, or excluded to account for

time and financial constraints. In addition, considerations for building age, location, use, and

composition could be considered.

Funding

Since 2003 KU has been trying to improve their sustainability efforts by contracting out

help with the help of energy auditing firms. Until just very recently, Chevron Energy Solutions

was contracted to save KU $1 million dollars a year with various energy initiatives and

improvements to already existing structures. Chevrons results were about half that after their

completed projects were assessed. By way of an increase in student demand through the

approved new student sustainability fees of $.25 per student per semester, the development of the

KU Center for Sustainability, and the new contract signed with Energy Solutions Professionals

(ESP), steps are being made to ensure that the contractors make significant progress. Essentially,

if the students petition and campaign hard enough to the authority figures, the money is there to

back large changes to our currently existing buildings. The recent Earth Day proclamation

outlines $2 million in estimated savings per year with a promise from ESP. Due in part to

Chevrons shortcomings of about half a million dollars a year, a settlement will heed the

university a steady $400,000 dollars for the next 12 years, on top of what ESP intends on saving.

21

ESP is essentially already at work implementing changes to 56 buildings which they

project to have completed by 2011, and they have used their own system to decide on what

would be the right way to go about this, the US department of energy also has a building

technologies program on the section of their website labeled, ‘Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy.’ They have a system of renovation they approach as a, “Whole Building Design,” tactic.

This tactic takes into account the building, “envelope,” which is the windows, doors, and

skylights. The DOE says that, “basically you want to select products with characteristics that

accommodate your building's climate, which includes insulating, day lighting, heating and

cooling, and natural ventilation needs.”

Critics of rehabbing old energy wasting buildings in place of rebuilding new ones claim

that the cost of improving the efficiency of utilities in a building becomes far too costly

depending on the size of the project. Sure the cost of improving the sustainability of a facility can

be high upfront, but the long term savings is what should be the decision making concern. It has

already been shown that the money saved on utilities in an efficient building can outweigh the

cost of the initial improvements in most cases only a few years down the road. Then why

doesn�t every university and corporation upgrade their structures to a higher efficiency standard?

The idea of accruing that immediate debt seems to be detouring potential candidates. There are

many solutions to this dilemma however, all of which involve grants, tax incentives, or loaned

money for projects pertaining to sustainable improvements.

Tax increment financing is a method of public financing for community projects geared

towards improvements and redevelopment, and it has been around for more than 50 years. It has

become especially popular recently since the federal and state redevelopment sources are

becoming less available. The idea behind TIF is that it uses future gains (profits made and money

22

saved) to finance existing improvement issues (Various 2001). The tax increments gained after

the project is complete are collected to pay back the debt collected to finance the improvements.

So basically the TIF program borrows money against the future tax revenues accrued by the

property.

The tax increment financing is not limited to building improvements though. TIF can be

applied to many aspects of improvements including streets, sidewalks, storm drain management,

landscaping, and other various land/ infrastructure enhancements. California is currently one of

the larger utilizers of the program maintaining more than 400 districts. The state as a whole has

over $28 billion in long-term tax increment debt (California State).

Other areas to look for funding projects to improve sustainability are National programs

such as the federal government, and the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy has a

branch known as the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy or simply EERE, which works to

increase the usage of more sustainable technologies, as well as renewable energy. In support of

their efforts, they offer financial assistance for developing and demonstrating the importance of

building sustainability (DOE: building technologies program). The federal government since the

Energy Policy Act of 2005 has created many tax incentives for meeting a higher efficiency

standard. The commercial side of the program offers tax deductions which can help alleviate

immediate debts involved with renovation projects (DOE: tax incentives).

The closest place to look for funding opportunities is through the state. Kansas offers a

great utility rebate program for commercial upgrades on “water heaters, boilers, heat pumps,

resistance heating systems” (DSIRE). They also provide rebates for installing geothermal heat

pumps. The rebates vary depending on the effectiveness and magnitude of the project. For a view

of the current rebate schedule for each type of utility upgrade offered consult figure 3. More

23

beneficial state programs are constantly updated and available for research at the Database of

State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency website.

24

Bibliography

Annual Utilities Report, University of Kansas, 2006.

Ardehali, M. M. “A Systematic Approach to Analysis and Identification of Controls-related

Energy Inefficiency”. Energy Engineering v. 106 no. 6 (2009) p. 34-44

Breyer, Franziska, comp. Freiburg Energy Policy Approaches to Sustainability. Freiburg:

ICLEA, 2009. Print.

California State Controller�s Annual Report on Redevelopment Agencies, 2007-2008.

<http://www.sco.ca.gov/files-ARD-local/locrep/redevelop_fy0708redev_reports.pdf>.

Campus Buildings Directory, University of Kansas.

Carol Bray, personal communication, May 5, 2010

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. Kansas City Board of Public

Utilities- Commercial Energy Efficiency Rebate Program. Retrieved from

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?IncentiveCode=KS13F&re=1&ee=1.

David McNally, personal communication, March 10, 2010

25

Davis, J., K. Downard, Z. Miller, A. Mohr, J. Sherwood. “Sustainability and Energy: The

University of Kansas”. University of Kansas Center for Sustainability (2009). Web. 28

February 2010.

Higher education: an overview of energy use and energy efficiency opportunities. (n.d.).

Retrieved from

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/challenge/learn_more/HigherEducation.pdf

Masterson, Frank, personal communication, May 7, 2010

Nicole Chapman, personal communication, May 5, 2010

Rex Burkhardt, personal communication, April 22, 2010

Portfolio Manager Overview. Energy Star.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager.

Accessed May, 2010.

Prill, Rich, Rick Kunkle, and Davor Novosel. Development Of An Operation and Maintenace

Rating System for Commercial Buildings. Rep. no. NCEMBT-090417. 2009. Print.

26

"The First (Big) Step to Reducing Your Campus Carbon Footprint." Environmental Health &

Engineering (2008): Pg. 1-9. Web. 10 Mar 2010.

<http://www.eheinc.com/documents/CampusRetroCx.pdf>.

United States. United States Green Building Council. LEED 2009 For Existing Buildings

Operations and Maintenance. 2008. Print.

U.S. Department of Energy. Building Technologies Program. Retrieved from

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/about.html.

U.S. Department of Energy. Consumer Energy Tax Incentives. Available from

http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm.

Various, (2001). Tax Increment Financing and Economic Development, Uses, Structures and

Impact. Edited by Craig L. Johnson and Joyce Y. Man. State University of New York

Press.

Vermont Law School Oakes Hall. (2003, January 31). Retrieved from

http://www.buildinggreen.com/hpb/energy.cfm?ProjectID=93

27

Appendix

Figure 1:

28

Figure 2:

29

30

FIGURE 4:

University of Kansas Lawrence Campus Deferred Maintenance Projects

1. Utility Tunnel Improvements $8,800,000

This project is a continuation of tunnel repair/replacement work first studied in 2000. An

evaluation of approximately forty percent of the total campus utility tunnel system

included all tunnel sections with visual signs of deterioration, water infiltration or other

problems. Specific structural work and costs associated with utilities supported by the

tunnel system have been identified and preliminary cost estimates have been completed.

These tunnel improvements are necessary to maintain the various state-owned utility systems

routed through more than 16,000 feet of tunnel systems. The tunnel system is used to

route steam and condensate piping from the central plant, portions of the campus

electrical distribution system, communication cabling and other vital utility systems to

approximately 50 buildings on the main campus.

Tunnel structures must be repaired in order to slow deterioration and minimize the possibility of

major failures of tunnel segments with existing structural deficiencies, including wall and

ceiling movements, cracks, offsets and spalling, water infiltration and deficient utility

support components. To facilitate on-going maintenance, improvements addressing

access and safety for individuals working on various systems distributed through the

tunnels are also included.

2. Wescoe Hall $3,560,000

This project will replace four air-handling units on the 2nd and 3rd floors which are original

1973 equipment which are deficient and at or beyond the serviceable life. Outside air

intake will be reconfigured and distribution ductwork and volume control devices will be

31

replaced to meet current code. Vertical shafts for ductwork and fire protection systems

will be reworked to meet current code requirements; includes ceiling repair/replacement.

3. Haworth Hall $2,600,000

This project replaces ten air handling units, controls, and chilled water piping in the original

building, the 1971 and 1985 additions including Stewart Wing, and replaces the cooling

tower in the original building. This project will also replace exhaust hoods and controls in

the original building and additions and updates the fire alarm system.

4. Malott Hall Improvements $2,630,000

This project will replace at least four 30-year old air handling units and their controls, as well as

approximately 50 exhaust hoods of similar vintage to better control chemical fume

concentrations in classrooms, laboratories, and office spaces. Where feasible the projects

will incorporate heat recovery equipment to reduce energy use.

5. Art and Design $1,100,000

This project replaces HVAC equipment including chilled water coils, controls, and variable

frequency drives in the five main air handling units. The original foundry furnace will be

replaced with an induction furnace and in the oldest areas of the facility existing steel

framed single glazed windows will be abated and replaced.

6. Murphy Hall $4,460,000

This project replaces HVAC components including the air handling units, building chiller,

cooling tower and chilled water piping; replaces the electrical distribution system to

branch panel boards; includes an emergency generator for life safety systems and repairs

or replaces deficient elevator equipment.7. Smissman Research Lab $538,000

32

This project replaces the building HVAC system including air handling unit, heating hot water

boiler and controls and existing deficient elevator equipment.

8. Lippincott Hall $1,195,000

This project replaces HVAC and electrical systems components, an existing open gate elevator,

the fire alarm and smoke detection system and includes abatement of hazardous materials.

A generator will replace the central battery inverter system for the emergency lighting

system.

9. Lindley Hall $2,080,000

This project replaces HVAC equipment including air handling units, condensing units and

terminal boxes, electrical panel boards and distribution, and includes plumbing

improvements. Noncompliant transite and wood fume hoods will be abated and replaced.

Repairs to the foundation and the below grade area way and replacing single glazed metal

frame windows and exterior doors will also be completed.

10. Bailey Hall Improvements $1,825,000

This project will repair and replace structural, HVAC/mechanical, electrical, and plumbing

components; replace the existing elevator and improve the fire escape which requires

structural modifications to correct code deficiencies.

11. Watson Library $1,635,000

This project will repair or replace electrical and HVAC systems that are beyond their serviceable

life including the building chiller, update the fire building alarm and include life/safety

code required projects.

12. Learned Hall $2,900,000

33

This project replaces HVAC air handling units, fan coils, chiller, chilled water piping, and

controls; also replaces all the electrical panel boards and improves the fire alarm system.

13. Computer Services Facility Improvements $1,360,000

This project will repair or replace computer room air conditioning (CRAC) units on the main

machine room floor and equipment associated with four central air handling units.

Electrical distribution for server racks, failing pedestals and floor panels will be replaced

and fire alarm systems will be improved.

14. Storm Sewer Phase I $550,000

This project replaces sections of deficient or failing storm sewers primarily north of Jayhawk

Boulevard identified in a 1993 comprehensive study.

15. Dyche Hall $1,395,000

This project replaces three HVAC air handling units, chilled water piping, controls and exhausts

fans and includes asbestos abatement. Also includes replacing electrical panel boards and

existing single glazed exterior windows.

16. Spencer Research Library $1,644,000

This project replaces the main HVAC air handling unit and controls and includes improvements

to the electrical, emergency lighting and fire alarm systems, and replaces existing

deficient aluminum framed windows.

17. Spencer Art Museum $970,000

This project replaces of two HVAC chillers and fire alarm system.

18. McCollum Laboratory $295,000

This project abates asbestos, improves electrical, emergency lighting and fire alarm systems and

replaces doors.

34

19. Nichols Hall $1,680,000

This project replaces HVAC components including four air handling units, chiller equipment,

chilled water piping and controls, VAV boxes, fire protection and alarm system.

20. Water Line Improvements $1,000,000

This project will replace deteriorated and undersized high pressure and low pressure water lines

on main campus identified in a1986 study.

21. Twente Hall $1,190,000

T his project replaces building HVAC air handling units, chilled water and steam piping,

deteriorated ceilings and improves building plumbing.

22. Summerfield Hall $1,850,000

This project replaces HVAC air handling and fan coil equipment, electrical switchgear and panel

boards and

aluminum framed single glazed windows.

23. Storm Sewer Improvements Phase II $450,000

This project replaces additional sections of deficient or failing storm sewers identified in a 1993

comprehensive study primarily north of Jayhawk Boulevard.

24. Blake Hall $1,160,000

This project replaces building chiller and air handling units, fire alarm system; repairs or replaces

electrical systems and elevator and includes required ADA improvements.

25. Strong Hall $2,740,000

This project replaces several dozen deficient package HVAC units with central air handling units,

controls and piping, provides a generator for emergency power and replaces elevator

equipment.

35

26. Stauffer-Flint Hall $635,000

This project will repair or replace HVAC components, fire alarm system and equipment required

for ADA compliance.

27. Power Plant Improvements $958,000

This project replaces components of the major sub-systems of the boiler operation, piping

systems, building electrical, lighting and emergency lighting and exterior windows;

building ventilation and egress will be modified to improve safety.

28. Fraser Hall $1,050,000

This project will replace the existing aluminum framed single glazed windows and repair

existing elevators.

29. Robinson Gymnasium $500,000

This project will replace deficient HVAC equipment including air handlers and air distribution in

the facility.

30. Street Improvements $1,700,000

This project will rebuild failing campus streets including subgrade stabilization and repaving of

sections of Memorial Drive.

31. Sidewalks and Stairs $300,000

This project will replace failing sections of campus stairs and sidewalks.

32. Moore Hall $150,000

This project will replace the fire alarm system.

33. Burt Hall $310,000

This project will install an ADA compliant elevator and replace the electrical system main

switchgear.

36

34. Carruth-O’Leary Hall $620,000

This project will replace deficient thru-wall air conditioning units, provide new electrical circuits,

upgrade emergency lighting and replace the roof.

35. Anschutz Science Library $200,000

This project will improve the fire alarm system to be code compliant.

36. Military Science $700,000

This project will include abating lead paint and asbestos pipe insulation, replacing the electrical

distribution system and installation of a ADA compliant three stop elevator and fire alarm

system.

37. Oldfather Studio $50,000

This project will replace the fire alarm system.

38. Watkins Home $250,000

This project will replace the buildings outdated electrical system, window and thru-wall cooling

units and original building steam radiators; patch and repair interior finishes.

39. Smith Hall $200,000

This project will install an ADA compliant three stop elevator.

40. FO Main Building $80,000

This project will replace the fire alarm system and replace obsolete emergency lighting.

41. 1043 Indiana $25,048

This project will install a fire alarm system and replace obsolete emergency lighting.