III.   Electricity

III.1 Greenhouse Gas Emitting Activities

Carbon equivalent emissions are associated with the current generation of purchased and campus-generated electricity consumed by Middlebury College.  The College purchases electricity from off campus utilities (currently from Central Vermont Public Service/CVPS), in addition to co-generating electricity on campus from residual heating steam forced through electrical generators. 

Over the ten year period from fiscal year 1990 through 2000, purchased electricity on average accounted for 39.85% of total College expenditures on energy.  In 2002, 17,070,400 kWh of electricity purchased from CVPS for $1,491,111 emitted 1,416 MTCDE into the atmosphere (Table III.1).

It is important to note here that the College considers co-generated electricity a fortunate byproduct of the College’s space heating and cooling system.  Co-generated electricity accounted for only 13.88% of the College’s 2002 total electricity portfolio, but generated $235,868 in savings that would have been spent to purchase required electricity from CVPS.  It is not necessary to calculate the MTCDE associated with Middlebury’s co-generation, because the heating oil is burned anyways, and excess steam is “blown by” the generator turbines.  The emissions generated by the #6 oil are accounted for in the Space Heating and Cooling Sector.

III.2  Primary Stakeholders

Every single member of the Middlebury College community is responsible for their level of electricity consumption, and should be – by default – responsible for decisions about where their electricity comes from and how it is generated.  Especially concerned are:  Campus Sustainability Coordinator, Heating Plant, and Facilities Management/Planning, Treasurer, Budget Office.

III.3 Summary of Objectives

  1  Reduce electricity consumed by Middlebury College.

If we reduce the amount of electricity consumed by Middlebury College, we (1) increase the proportion of total electricity generated on-campus, (2) very significantly decrease purchased electricity costs, (3) decrease statewide demand for electricity, and (4) discourage the development of new off-campus power plants and need for larger transmission lines intended to meet increasing demand.

  2  Reduce the carbon emissions associated with purchased (off campus) and generated (on campus) sources of electricity.

In addition to reducing total electricity consumption which will inherently reduce carbon emissions associated with College electrical needs, demanding cleaner, carbon-neutral sources of electricity will further reduce the carbon footprint of Middlebury College’s electricity consumption.  We advocate the development and use of renewable and environmentally/socially-sustainable electrical sources whenever and wherever possible to accomplish the goal of carbon neutrality. 

  3  Offset existing carbon emissions associated with College electricity generation and consumption.

We recognize that achieving true carbon-neutral electricity generation and consumption means switching to totally carbon-neutral sources (like solar or wind power) and fundamentally changing the consumption behavior of students, faculty and staff, in addition to designing more electricity-efficient facilities.  This will take time.  Until then, we must offset carbon emissions associated with the on- and off-campus generation of electricity we consume.

III.3.1  Reduce electricity consumed by Middlebury College

  Summary of Strategies

          a.  Residential Electricity Conservation Education

          b.  Compact Fluorescent Bulbs in all student dorm rooms

          c.  Efficient Computer Use

          d.  Vending Misers on campus vending machine

  III.3.1.a – Residential Electricity Conservation Education 

ROOM/COMMONS LEVEL SOLUTION, Short- and Long-Term.  An overall 10% reduction in total electricity consumed on campus from FY-2002 to FY-2005, could be accomplished by an incentive-based, residentially-focused electricity conservation education effort that reduces electricity consumed in each Commons by 15% of the previous year’s consumption level.

This will be a huge challenge, since only about 25% of total campus electricity is consumed by residential buildings.  To get a 10% campus-wide reduction in electricity consumption, accomplished through a 15% reduction-per-year in only residential consumption, would mean students must reduce electricity consumption in their rooms by 40% over a three-year period.  The thinking here is that residentially-based conservation efforts will mobilize a change in student attitudes and behavior with respect to electricity elsewhere on campus, and initiate a call for change all over campus – in classrooms, sports facilities, support buildings, and especially dining halls (which, at our best educated guess based on available data, represent approximately 40% of campus electricity consumption). 

PROCESS:  The administration “challenges” each Commons to reduce its overall electricity consumption by 15% each year, for 3 years.  $3500 is made available by the administration to purchase 20 Kill-a-Watt© Watt-Hour meters for each of the five Commons offices (100 total).  These meters are low-cost, portable watt-hour meters that plug directly into a wall outlet, and measure the watt-hours consumed by appliances plugged into the watt-meter.  20 watt-meters per commons is based on the need for 3-4 watt meters (one per each outlet) to measure the total electricity consumption of a typical student room, and 5-6 students within a Commons wanting to learn their room’s consumption simultaneously.   Each Commons elects/appoints a student Carbon Neutrality Representative (CNR), who sits on the committee successor to the CRI, and manages Commons-level projects such as this Electricity Conservation Education.  The CNR distributes watt-hour meters to interested students within their Commons so that students can track their room’s electricity consumption and identify “guzzlers” and “power drips.”  The CNR organizes inter-dorm/intra-commons conservation competitions, and helps lead energy conserving projects like appliance upgrades and retrofits. 

INCENTIVE:  If the Commons has reduced its overall electricity consumption by 15% or more by the end of each school year, it is awarded 50% of its calculated electricity savings, to reinvest in carbon neutral projects or to spend as the Commons sees fit. The College will invest the remaining 50% of savings in campus-wide carbon-neutral projects (like solar paneling, purchasing offsets, or upgrading boilers). Accompanying this strategy section is a portfolio or toolkit of references for CNR’s to use as they cooperatively design effective conservation education projects and programs for their Commons.  CNR’s would meet as a group (in addition to CRI meetings) to discuss conservation projects, trade lessons learned, etc.  The consumption benchmark from which each Commons would have to drop 15% to qualify for the incentives, would be based on the previous year’s consumption.

    Timeline

Some student representatives to the CRI from each Commons already exist.  More could be added.  Commons lacking a CNR need to appoint or elect one, and existing CNR’s should be given an opportunity to choose whether or not they are prepared to accept the additional, above-stated responsibilities that would be added to that leadership description.  Watt meters should be purchased and deployed immediately.  We intend for this conservation initiative to last for 3 years, but this timeline will depend on the efficacy of conservation efforts.  If the first year or two is extremely successful in reducing electricity consumption, the marginal costs of further reductions may be very high. 

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

If residential electrical consumption were reduced by 15% each year for the next 3 years, we would avoid over that 3 year period the emission of 239 MTCDE associated with our electricity consumption, and lower total campus electrical consumption by 10% from current levels.  This reduction calculation does not include the impact attitude and behavioral change may have on mobilizing other efficiency initiatives across campus (i.e. it would seem logical that once students have realized that they can reduce their electricity consumption relatively easily and have a significant impact on campus emissions, they may focus their efficiency efforts on the staggering 40% of campus electricity that the dining halls consume).

    Benefits and Costs

Fixed Cost

Purchasing 20 Kill-a-Watt© Watt-Hour meters per each of 5 Commons.

            100 meters @ $35 ea = $3500.00 

(http://www.efi.org/products/power/p3watt.html for price quote)              

            equivalent to -$14.65/MTCDE avoided

Variable Cost or Benefit

There are no operating costs associated with consuming less through conservation-minded behavior like unplugging unused “power drip” appliances or buying Energy Star certified appliances.  There could be operating and startup costs associated with individual Commons-based conservation projects, but these would be dwarfed by net financial gains from purchased electricity savings. 

Other Costs and Benefits

              Environmental.  If we reduce our overall electricity consumption on campus through conservation education and behavioral change, we increase the proportion of co-generated vs. purchased electricity.  Co-generated power is a “gimme”, a fortunate byproduct of the College’s steam-based space heating and cooling system; that heating oil will be burned and CO₂ emitted anyways.  Purchased electricity also has other harmful emissions associated with it (e.g. SO₂, NO₂ and particulate matter), so if we reduce the amount of electricity purchased, we reduce all emissions associated with our electricity consumed.

              Social.  Decreased reliance on purchased electricity prepares us to be more self-sufficient with respect to electricity generation, paving the cultural way for the installation of our vision of a large solar or wind field to generate all campus electricity.  In addition, asking students, faculty and staff to make choices about where, how and why they consume electricity (with the first step of understanding what uses electricity and how much, i.e. watt-hour meters) will encourage the development of a Middlebury College “conservation culture” which will also encourage progressive growth long into the future.  Affecting real, lasting behavioral change with respect to consumption is the goal, and the necessity here.

              Public Relations.  If the College reduces its overall campus electricity consumption by 10-20% through a coordinated, student-led Commons-based conservation program, it would bode well for the efficacy of the Commons system, student leadership and the entire community’s commitment to “walking the walk” of peak environmental performance that has been “talked” about so much. 

Possible Financing Mechanisms

The only real cost is the proposed $3500 for purchasing 100 watt-hour meters.  It would take only a 0.2% reduction in the first year’s electricity consumption and purchased electricity annual savings to pay back this $3500.

Stakeholders

On campus 

·        Carbon Neutral Representatives.  1-2 students per Commons.  Would represent Commons on the CRI/successor organization, and be responsible for managing carbon neutral projects such as Electricity Conservation Education.

·        Campus Sustainability Coordinator. 

·        Administration.  To fund purchase of watt-meters and receive benefits of purchased electricity savings.

·        Students.  To change consumption behavior.

Off campus 

·        CVPS loses some $ if we reduce demand for purchased electricity.

     Examples from elsewhere

Other Colleges and Universities

  SUNY-Buffalo.  “Energy efficiency became a priority at SUNY-Buffalo which has provided the campus with attractive returns on investment while fulfilling a moral obligation to use energy judiciously. Furthermore, in the process of retrofitting the campus, the University at Buffalo (UB) has educated its student body, faculty, and staff of the importance and potentials for efficiency.  It has financed efficiency upgrades in a number of ways, leveraging change through a variety of capital sources including the University's own operating and capital budgets, loans from the state, and most recently by engaging the services of an energy service company that drew incentives from the local utility and helped secure financing for the remaining investment through a tax-exempt lease.  When Walter Simpson became the University's first Energy Officer in 1982 the formal "Conserve UB" program was born and evolved into a program that resulted in over 300 retrofit activities. Then in the 1990s, UB entered a partnership with CES/Way International. Supported by over $4 million in incentives from Niagara Mohawk, the University engaged in a comprehensive $17+ million retrofit that has addressed heat recovery, upgrading lighting systems, the installation of high efficiency motors and drives, as well as controls and energy management systems to cut energy use while maintaining if not enhancing the quality of its buildings and facilities. While many universities have performed energy efficiency retrofits, UB stands out as a model of an integrated approach. It has at once focused on saving energy and dollars in the short term through technical measures that have created annual savings of over $9 million and $65 million in cumulative cost savings, while fostering an ethic and awareness on campus related to long-term judicious resource use. The Conserve UB approach has been a dual-pronged effort, drawing upon top-level support while shoring up the foundation with grassroots awareness of efficiency's promise and potentials.” ¹

Tulane University.  Tulane created an “Ecolympics” competition between residence halls.  The winner of Tulane's first Ecolympics was the Willow Residence Hall. During October 2002, Willow reduced electricity use by 7.6 percent and kept 12,969 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. On November 14, Ben & Jerry's co-founder Jerry Greenfield traveled all the way from Vermont to visit Willow and to thank the winners for acting against global warming.  Imagine what Jerry would do in-state!²

     Getting Started

Order 100 Kill-o-Watt watt-hour meters from http://www.efi.org/products/power/p3watt.html  for $35 ea.  Distribute to Commons for temporary distribution to students.

Get CNR’s established and cooperating.  Develop their portfolio/toolkit of education options. 

Administration “challenges” Commons to reduce electricity consumption by minimum of 15%, offers a 50% incentive return on purchased electricity savings they generate.

Monitor electricity consumption, savings, and incentive payouts to commons.

III.3.1.b – Put CFL bulbs in all student dorm rooms

Almost every college student brings a desk lamp with them to school, along with an incandescent light bulb to put in it.  This strategy proposes that the college provide a Compact Fluorescent Light bulb (CFL) to each student to place in his or her lamp.  The CFL bulb uses ¼ of the energy of an incandescent bulb to produce the same amount of light. The bulb can be waiting in the student’s dorm room and can be included in the check-in sheet.  The college can then get the bulb back at the end of the year and can re-use the bulb during language school and the following school year to utilize the bulbs lifetime and to ensure proper disposal of the bulb. 

    Timeline

This strategy can be implemented immediately and can last as long as the college is willing to replace the bulbs that die.      

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

The reduction of carbon dioxide throughout the year will depend on how often the bulb is used, however, if each CFL bulb lasts its lifetime of 6,000 hours, then every single bulb will save 270 kWh of electricity.  In other words, each bulb will save the college $24.30 over its lifetime, in addition to preventing 0.02 MTCDE from being released into the atmosphere.  Thus, altogether this strategy will use 810,000 kWh less, save the college $72,900 and prevent 58 MTCDE from being released into the atmosphere. 

   Benefits and Costs

Fixed Cost

Http://www.bulbs.com gives the following price for the purchase of 48 or more 15-watt CFL bulbs (this gives the equivalent light of a 60-watt incandescent bulb):  $5.79.  Therefore, if the college were to purchase 3000 light bulbs, roughly one for each student, then the total start up cost will be $17,377.90, which includes shipping and handling.  This does not include rebates or incentives.  If Efficiency Vermont were to rebate $3.00 per bulb (see below), then the start up costs will only be $8,370.00. 

Variable Cost or Benefit

The operating cost would essentially be zero, until the CFL bulb dies, which is dependent on how often the bulb is used each year.  Table III.3 provides different scenarios depending on bulb usage per day that the college is running (308 days of the year, which includes language school).  No matter how often the bulb is used each year, this strategy will have a benefit of $565.27/MTCDE reduced over the lifetime of the bulb, before any rebates. 

Other Costs and Benefits

              Environmental.  The lifetime of a 15-watt CFL bulb is 6,000 hours compared to a lifetime of 2,500 hours for a 60-watt incandescent bulb.  Therefore for each CFL bulb used, eight less incandescent bulbs end up in landfills.  An environmental cost is that these bulbs use a small amount of mercury and therefore have to be disposed of properly and cannot be thrown away in the regular trash. 

In order to ensure that the bulbs are returned so the College can utilize them for their maximum lifetime, the bulbs should be included in the check-in sheet that students receive at the beginning of the year.  Therefore if they take the bulb with them, they will be charged for it.  There should not be

Table III.3.  Scenarios for CFL use and payback.

Calculations based on a spreadsheet designed by the Larch Company:  ^ahttp://www.homepower.com/files/kerrcflbulbs.xls  ^bMTCDE calculated based on year 2000 data (7.11e-05 = MTCDE/kWh purchased)

a grumbling factor because the bulb will be treated like any other piece of College property – for example, a student would not think of taking the phone home with them. 

              Public Relations.  The College can tell first-year and other students that they do not need to bring a light bulb with them because they are already provided. 

Possible Financing Mechanisms

Efficiency VT (http://www.efficiencyvermont.com ) rebates approximately $3 off of each bulb or ½ the purchasing price.  The purchase must be pre-approved by the company, but it can be easily done over the phone (1-888-921-5990).   With such a rebate the costs to the College would decrease dramatically and the payback time would be much sooner (see the details in Table I.x).

    Stakeholders

On campus 

Stakeholders include the students, faculty and staff (if they receive light bulbs as well), the Recycling Center (they will have to ensure the spent bulbs are managed properly –there is a company that comes to campus to pick them up).  

Off campus 

Stakeholders include Efficiency VT and the company we purchase the bulbs from.        

     Examples from elsewhere

Other Colleges and Universities

In 1990, Tufts University was the first university to sign the EPA’s Green Lights Pledge, which is a promise to upgrade lighting in 90% of their floor space.  Additionally, Tufts Climate Initiative (TCI) replaces people’s incandescent bulbs for free. 

Tulane has made an energy showcase dorm room that includes Energy Star CFL bulbs.  Tulane has received a lot of publicity about the Energy Star Dorm Room and estimates that the savings if each dorm room were outfitted with Energy Star appliances and electronics will be $200,000/room.  This would be great publicity for Middlebury because tours can run through the room and it would most likely get a lot of positive press from people in the community.  It could also be a great example/ inspiration for students who are trying to decrease their energy consumption and need ideas. 

Other Institutions

There are many examples of companies throughout the country offering rebates for people who use CFL bulbs.  For example, Ace Hardware stores in the Midwest offered a six pack of Energy Star certified CFL bulbs for $0.99 during the month of October in a “Change a Light, Change the World” campaign.  There is an organization in Puget Sound that offers rebates for CFL bulbs that are brought to them to be disposed of properly.  A company associated with Howard University offers a buy two get one free deal.  The Sacramento Municipal Utility District offered a halogen lamp trade-in for Energy Star appliances, which was met with great success. These are only a few of many examples. 

     Getting Started

Each commons at Middlebury has already purchased these bulbs for the first year students, they just haven’t distributed them yet because they just arrived and the proper way to give them out has not been decided yet (it is too late to include it in the check-in sheet).  A program to collect these bulbs at the end of the year can and should be implemented right away.  Additionally, possible places that Middlebury can purchase the bulbs, which would meet the approval of Efficiency Vermont, can be investigated (try www.bulbs.com).  The College can start saving money through this strategy right away, so it can be started as early as this year. 

Middlebury may also want to consider signing the EPA’s Green Lights Pledge.  This entails signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the EPA, in which Middlebury agrees to survey facilities and within five years of signing upgrade 90% of its square footage where it is profitable and where lighting quality is maintained or improved.  In return, EPA provides many programs and services, in addition to invaluable public recognition³. 

  III.3.1.c – Educate students about efficient computer use

Most students own a computer on campus and keep it on for most of the day, whether they are using it or not. A booklet or information session on efficient computer use should be given to the first-year students upon arrival at Middlebury.  Additionally, booklets on efficient computer use should be distributed to the current student body, faculty and staff.  This could also be available online and might be considered only for online use to decrease costs and save paper.  The guide can include information about power save modes (screen savers do not save energy!), turning off monitors when not in use, and facts about energy efficient computer use in general (turning the computer off and on does not hurt it or shorten its life). 

For example, this excerpt was taken from the University of Buffalo’s Green Computing Guide⁴:

“The EPA has estimated that providing computers with “sleep mode” reduces their energy use by 60 to 70 percent – and ultimately could save enough electricity each year to power Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, cut electric bills $2 billion, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of 5 million cars.”

    Timeline

This strategy could be implemented immediately.          

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

The magnitude is too hard to calculate because it is completely dependent on whether the students, faculty and staff follow the recommendations.  A standard PC system can use electricity at a rate of 110-300 watts.  Most students at this college turn on their computers in the morning, and do not turn them off until they go to sleep at night, even if they are going to be out of their room for the day.  If a student kept his computer on 15 hours a day, every day for the whole school year (approximately 245 days).  His computer would use approximately 735 kWh and emit 0.05 MTCDE into the atmosphere. 

Now say that one student reduced his computer use to only 5 hours a day, every day for the entire school year.  Now his computer only uses 245 kWh and emits only 0.02 MTCDE into the atmosphere.  The savings for ONE STUDENT is therefore 0.035 MTCDE.  Multiply this by the almost 2,500 student computers on campus, and you prevent 87 MTCDE from being emitted.

    Benefits and Costs

Fixed Cost

Start up costs would only include the amount it costs to produce the booklets for the students, faculty, and staff.   If this were only provided online then there would be no start-up costs.

Variable Cost or Benefit

If a student kept his computer on 15 hours a day for 245 days, his computer would use cost the college about $66 in electricity fees.  If his computer use is reduce to 5 hours a day, the cost for the college would drop to costs $22.  Accordingly, the savings for ONE STUDENT is $44.  Multiply this by the almost 2,500 student computers on campus, and you get an annual savings of $110,250.  Although this is a best case scenario, it illustrates that getting students to decrease their computer use is an easy, no-cost way to reduce emissions and save money.

Table I.x shows the savings and MTCDE reduced if only 1/3 of the students reduced their computer usage from 15 to 5 hours each day.  This comes to an annual savings of $36,750 and reduces emissions by 29 MTCDE each year.

Other Costs and Benefits

              Environmental.  It may raise awareness of electricity consumption and reduce consumption in general.  Less computer use will increase the computer’s lifetime, thus decreasing the number of computers thrown away. 

              Social.  Students may also become aware of computers in public labs, thus being active in making sure monitors are off and computers are in power-save mode.

              Public Relations.  Other colleges can refer to it to raise awareness of their student body.  UB has a GREAT little pamphlet available online that emphasis’s the wastefulness of computers.  Also, it just generally makes us look good to prospective students, donors, foundations, etc. 

Possible Financing Mechanisms

Depending on the cost of printing the booklet, there may be funding through the Environmental Council.  Another option is to apply for an Environmental Grant next year.    

    Stakeholders

On campus 

Students, faculty and staff will benefit from this education. 

Off campus 

Other colleges and universities can benefit from this education. (More detail?)   

     Examples from elsewhere

Other Colleges and Universities

University of Buffalo’s Green Computing Guide:http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/ documents/programs/energyconservation/guide_computing.doc

Tufts has footprints with facts about computer energy use throughout their dorms. 

Colleges such as University of Michigan, Colby College, Missouri University, Bowdoin College, Old Dominion University, University of Texas, University of Oregon, St. Michaels College, St. Lawrence University, MIT, and many others have Green Computing Guides or Tips on their websites.  

     Getting Started

To begin with, talk to the Environmental Council and start a search for a person willing to put together a guide that can be readily available online whenever it is finished.  Sarah Goodwin (x6736) is also a person to contact about putting something together.  Connie Bisson, Ben Wessler, and LIS are putting together an educational campaign on Green Computing so they would be a very good place to start.

Another very important step is to make sure all public lab computers are on power save mode and that they don’t use screen savers instead. There are currently 205 public computers on campus, most of which are on all day, so power save mode can save a lot of energy. 

III.3.1.d – Installing “Vending Misers” on all campus vending machines

There are currently 38 soda/juice machines, 15 snack machines, and 2 hot drink machines on campus.  This strategy focuses solely on the 38 soda/juice machines.  The vending machines on campus operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.  On average, a vending machine will consume about 427 watts, most of which is used for lighting and cooling the drinks. A Vending Miser is a small device that turns off the machine’s lights and efficiently controls its temperature when the machine is not in use.  As soon as a person walks in front of a motion sensor, the Vending Miser turns the machine completely on.  Thus, depending on the frequency with which the machine is used, the Vending Miser drastically reduces electricity consumption, especially during vacations.  Additionally, soda companies have found that Vending Misers do not impact the number of drink sales. 

    Timeline

Professor Helen Young is conducting a study on Vending Misers this year as part of an Campus Environmental Grant awarded by the Environmental Council.  If the study shows positive results (which it already has on a preliminary basis), then Vending Misers should be installed on drink machines, especially those that are used infrequently, as soon as possible. 

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

According to results from the first month of Professor Young’s study, the Vending Miser showed at least a 30.7% reduction in energy consumption each week.  The greatest reduction was during Christmas vacation, which showed a 52% reduction in energy consumption.  Thus, if each of the 38 machines had a Vending Miser, and each saved at least 30% of its energy each week, then the College would be consuming a total of 42,642 FEWER kWh each year.  This corresponds to a savings of at least $101/year for each machine, or a total savings of at least $3,838/year.  This would also reduce the college’s CDE emissions by at least 3 MTCDE each year. 

    Benefits and Costs

Fixed Cost

An Easy-Install Vending Miser costs $162 before shipping and handling and any rebates.  There are also Vending Misers that can monitor up to three machines that are banked next to each other – these cost $171.  However, for simplicity, suppose each of the 38 soda/juice machines were outfitted with a Vending Miser.  It would cost the college approximately $6,156 before shipping and handling and any rebates.  Efficiency Vermont (see Possible Financing Mechanisms, below) provides a rebate of $45 for each Vending Miser.

Variable Cost or Benefit

There should be no operating costs associated with this strategy, assuming there are no problems installing the Vending Misers.  The lifetime of these devices is five years or more.  One study done by Foster-Miller, a third-party independent engineering and analysis firm serving the vending industry found that the Vending Miser has an annual savings of $45-$86 per machine in maintenance and operation costs because of decreased frequency and direct expense of component failures. 

Other Costs and Benefits

              Social.  Signs can be posted describing the study and to raise awareness of how much electricity this college is consuming at any given time.

              Public Relations.  This is a great and very easy way to save a lot of energy especially during breaks.  Bayview Tech., the people who make the Vending Misers, can use Middlebury College as an example for other institutions and colleges.  

Possible Financing Mechanisms

Professor Young contacted Efficiency Vermont, and they provided a rebate of $45 for each Vending Miser, thus dramatically reducing the start up cost.   

    Stakeholders

On campus 

The key on-campus stakeholders for this strategy are students, faculty, staff, and anyone visiting the college who may want a cold drink.  Facilities Maintenance would most likely install and monitor the Vending Misers.

Off campus 

The key off-campus stakeholders for this strategy are Efficiency Vermont, Bayview Tech., CVPS, as well as Farrell Distributors and any other vending companies that stock these machines.

     Examples from elsewhere

Other Colleges and Universities

Tufts University did a trial run with a Vending Miser and found that the vending machine’s energy consumption was cut in half.  They predicted a payback time of less than a year, and are now installing 75 Vending Misers throughout their campus. 

Bowdoin College also installed Vending Misers in first-year dorms last April.  They expect decreases in energy consumption of around 50%. 

Other Institutions

            Several governments including the states Washington and Utah are pushing employees to buy Vending Misers for their cold drink machines. 

            The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has installed 12 Vending Misers.  On a pilot study done with two Misers, they found a reduction of 35%.

     Getting Started

Contact Helen Young about her study on the Vending Misers and Kelly Giard (Dining Services) about the frequency that each vending machine is used on campus (we may want to consider getting rid of vending machines that are not used very often for added savings).  Additionally, vending machines that are located close enough to ‘bank’ together on one Vending Miser should be identified. 

III.3.2  Reduce carbon emissions associated with sources of College electricity

  Summary of Strategies

          a.  College’s Role in Vermont Electricity Policy

          b.  Solar Paneling

  III.3.2.a – College’s Role in Vermont Electricity Policy

As a progressive academic institution with national recognition, and as a formidable economic force in the state of Vermont, Middlebury College has an opportunity and an obligation to advocate sustainable and renewable energy options as Vermont re-evaluates its electricity generation portfolio with the planned 2012 decommissioning of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.  The 13^th largest employer in the state, direct and indirect annual economic activity from Middlebury College supports 2,200 jobs and $59.9 million in earnings for Addison county workers, in addition to generating local direct and indirect business revenues of approximately $12 million annually.  The significance of Middlebury’s economic, social and public relations contributions to the state of Vermont grant us considerable leverage in affecting positive change in the state.⁵⁷

Vermont Yankee nuclear power currently supplies 41% of the college’s purchased electricity needs, and 51% (1999) of the state’s electricity needs.  Several possible electricity generating replacement plants have been proposed for when Vermont Yankee is decommissioned in 2012.  This includes a 1000MW coal power plant, which would certainly be an environmental loss for a purportedly “green” state.  

We propose that President McCardell and the Middlebury College community promote a replacement electricity solution that is cleaner – if not carbon neutral.  Wind or solar power would clearly be best.  Natural gas would be cleaner than oil or coal, but its combustion still emits CDE.  More hydroelectric power, while carbon neutral, is not the preferred solution, as most of our hydro is outsourced to HydroQuebec who is currently seeking opportunities to expand, and who has come under fire historically for the environmental impact of its facilities and the displacement of indigenous peoples.

A consortium of New England Governors and Canadian provincial ministers recently challenged regional universities and colleges to aggressively address and mitigate their global warming footprint – let’s go back to them and say, “We know what we – us as a school and us as a state – have to do.  How can we help you and how can you help us get there?”

    Timeline

Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is schedule to be decommissioned in 2012, with an option to extend its license another 5-10 years.     

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

The magnitude is difficult to quantify until we know for sure how Vermont is planning to replace the 40% share of its electricity supplied by Vermont Yankee.

Based on the College’s consumption of 0.323% of Vermont’s total electricity consumption, and DOE observed reduction rates … If Middlebury College advocates a total VT generation portfolio comprised of 5%, 15%, or 25% renewably-generated electricity rates (RPS), projected MTCDE reductions matched to the College’s 0.323% of total state electricity are shown in Table III.9.

See Section III.3.2.a, Switching Vermont Electricity.

    Benefits and Costs

Fixed Cost

None.

Variable Cost or Benefit

None.

Benefits

            A summary of operating benefits is provided in Table III.10 below.

     Table III.10.  Cost Analysis.

Other Costs and Benefits

              Environmental.  Avoidance of large single-source increase in CO₂ emitted to provide statewide electricity.

              Social.  Will reinforce that we – Middlebury College – have a culture that supports environmental health and human need.

              Public Relations.  Establishes College’s public commitment to supporting “green” energy initiatives and decisions on campus and in our state.

Possible Financing Mechanisms

N/A.

    Stakeholders

On campus 

·        President McCardell.

·        External Affairs/Public Relations.

·        Entire Middlebury College community.

Off campus 

·        State legislators

·        Governor

·        Utilities

·        Energy consultants

·        Voters/citizens

·        Whole state of Vermont.    

  Getting Started

Take a closer look at what options are feasible for the state.  Establish relationships with state officials and agencies, offer resources (research, professors, links with other universities).  Begin a dialogue by starting a Middlebury College Consortium on Vermont State Energy Policy, which would incorporate the voices and knowledge of incredible academic resources the College has access to on and off-campus.

III.3.2.b – Solar Paneling

Renewable energy is the only way by which Middlebury can obtain permanent carbon neutrality. Because of the still developing nature of these technologies, combined with Vermont’s climate, we suggest a three-phased approach. First, install a small set of solar panels at a highly visible location on campus to serve as a symbol of the college’s commitment to carbon reduction and as an educational tool. Next, as funds from other energy saving measures accumulate, gradually add PV panels to other south facing buildings including:  Stewart, Voter, Munroe, Forester, Carr, Warner, Allen, and Sunderland. Finally, as soon as technology permits, the college must invest in deriving a significant percentage of its electricity from campus controlled solar technologies, perhaps something along the lines of a solar field near the CFA. As the first of these strategies is already being examined under an Environmental grant given to Skye Bourden and Baker Lloyd and the final step is a long time away, this report will focus on gradually installing solar panels on specific campus buildings.

    Timeline

While it is important for the college to support solar technology as it develops, the ratio of carbon reduction to cost is low for on campus solar options as compared to other carbon reducing strategies. Wide scale solar paneling should not be implemented until strategies with a higher magnitude of reduction have been pursued and enough savings from these strategies have accumulated to partially finance the project. This is therefore a long-term project whose impact will only increase as technology becomes better and less expensive.

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

A single 120-watt PV panel would produce around 150 kilo Watt-hours of energy,58 which, by replacing purchased electricity, would reduce carbon emissions by approximately 0.01 MTCDE. It is hard to guess the number of panels that a roof could hold without a professional opinion, however a rough estimate of the potential yearly kWh production for each building product is given in Table III.11.  If Middlebury were to install solar paneling on the eight suggested buildings it would lead to a 1.3 MTCDE reduction each year. Over a lifetime of perhaps 75 years this would lead to a total 97.5 MTCDE reduction.

    Benefits and Costs

Fixed Cost

The initial startup cost for solar paneling would be significant. Middlebury could purchase a solar paneling system, which includes other necessary equipment, consultation, installation, and an additional warranty from Vermont Solar Engineering for around $900 a panel59. This would mean that the average cost for each building project would be $14,000 and the total strategy cost would be $112,500. There is however a range of prices, similar solar panels can be purchased from BP for $50060. This with an estimated installation cost of $1000 and $2000 set aside for other equipment would be closer to a total cost of $88,000 for all 8 proposed buildings.

Variable Cost or Benefit

Operating costs would be minimal, as solar panels require little care and most repairs would be covered by the warranty. In addition the panels once all installed would save the college $1,700 in electricity cost a year.

Other Costs and Benefits

              Environmental.  Electricity derived from solar energy releases no pollutants whatsoever, it does not deplete any non-renewable resource, and it has a relatively minor ecological footprint. It is the most basic, stable, and ‘green’ energy. The only environmental cost associated would be the energy, materials, and waste connected with the upstream production of the actual technology.  

              Social.  Solar energy has several non-environmental benefits. It would decrease dependence on fossil fuels, easing the connected political and economic issues that are currently so prevalent. It would make the campus more self-sufficient leading to more control over electricity choices and creating a more stable electrical supply. Finally, over the long, long term it is less expensive than continuously purchasing energy. The social cost of disturbance during installation would be minimal if timed right as installing solar panels usually takes less than 2 days61.

              Public Relations.  Solar panels are one of the most recognized indications of ‘greenness’. By installing solar panels the college would create a strong image of its commitment to being an environmental leader. This would be particularly valuable as panels would be recognizable to almost everyone, even those not directly familiar with college environmental issues.

Possible Financing Mechanisms

All funding for this project should come from the savings of other carbon reducing electricity strategies. In addition the college can look for outside financial help. Efficiency Vermont might be willing to partially fund the project while the Vermont government offers incentives in the form of a sales tax exemption. Some schools have been able to receive grants from the DOE Million Solar roof initiative and other similar government programs.

    Stakeholders

On campus 

Facilities Management, specifically whoever was put in charge of monitoring the panels. The Board of Trustee who would approve the financing of the project. Admissions and other publication groups who would want to write about the project. Students, faculty, and staff who would be in the buildings or who would be using electricity generated by the panels.

Off campus 

Whoever we buy the solar panels from (Vermont Solar Engineering, Solar Works Inc., BP) and whoever we hire to install and maintain them, if different from the supplier.

     Examples from elsewhere

Other Colleges and Universities

The University of Vermont with the help of Burlington’s Electrical Department recently installed 48 120-Watt PV panels on top of their on campus heating plant which produce 6,935 kilowatt hours of energy a year.  They are also maintaining a website about the project at http://www.uvm.edu/~solar/?Page=default.html which precisely details energy outputs from the panels.

Tufts University, a leader in college-based climate change initiatives, currently has solar panels on two residential houses and is working on integrating solar energy into the colleges building maintenance policy.

Similarly Connecticut College has installed PV cells on a new dorm.

The University of Central Florida has a Solar Energy center that is one of the largest, most active renewable energy research, training, testing, and certification institutions in the US as well as a great resource (http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/about/index.htm).

Other Institutions

All across the U.S. and Vermont businesses are finding it economically and environmentally logical to switch to partial solar energy.

Getting Started

The college should contact Solar Works, Inc. or some other outside consulting group to more thoroughly analyze the best place on campus to install solar paneling and how many panels can actually be installed in each location. They should also become involved in the company’s Solar on Schools program.

III.3.3.  Offset existing carbon emissions by supporting renewable electricity generation

  Summary of Strategy

Energy offsets, also known as Green Tags, fund renewable energy projects that reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned to meet the demands of electricity grids across the country. They offer a unique solution to regulation and accessibility problems by making the environmental benefits of renewable energy universally available and also often have significant social benefits. By purchasing energy offsets Middlebury College would not only receive credit for the carbon difference between solar, wind, and biomass relative to fossil fuels but would also be encouraging the renewable industry through a form of subsidies.  We emphasize here that there is an important conceptual difference between “new” generation capacity vs. tags on existing capacity: the carbon reduction associated with a new source is much easier to verify.

Some potential sources of offsets that Middlebury should examine further are:

            Native Energy: Native Energy is a Vermont based company devoted to reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide by establishing 150 wind turbines over the next five years. The company’s current projects include working with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe to build the first large scale Native American owned wind farm and the establishment of a biogas anaerobic manure digester at Knoxland Farm in Bradford, Vermont. As they have dealt with large businesses in the past they could probably meet all off Middlebury’s offset demands. For more information go to www.NativeEngergy.com.

ReGen: ReGen is one of six companies certified by Green-e to give Green Tags. It is unique in that it focuses entirely on the New England region, working with Sun Power Electrics to generate renewable energy in the Northeast. Currently most of the energy purchased by ReGen (99%) is from landfill biomass and is integrated into the Massachusetts power grid.

For more information go to www.sunpower.org.

Addison County Schools: Addison County Schools are in the process of examining ways to improve their energy efficiency and are looking into the possibility of renewable energy. Middlebury College could become involved in this process, offering to partially fund the project in exchange for the temporary rights to the resulting CO₂ emissions reduction. In addition to serving as an efficient offset, the creation of such a relationship would strengthen the college’s ties with the surrounding community.

Additional offset options to consider include: Community Energy at http://www.newwindenergy.com/, Sterling Planet at http://www.sterlingplanet.com/sp/index.jsp, Bonneville Environmental Foundation at https://www.greentagsusa.org/GreenTags/index.cfm, Renewable Energy at http://www.renewablechoice.com/, Auilia at http://www.theenergyteam.com/, 3 Phases Energy Service http://www.3phases.com/.

    Timeline

The college can start buying offsets immediately. One option would be to achieve Carbon Neutrality as soon as next year by offsetting total carbon emissions. This would buy the college time to implement many other of the strategies suggested in this report. Another option would be to purchase energy offsets when sufficient funds from other energy saving measures have accumulated, creating a nice closed loop. This could probably start to happen within the next 5 years. The best solution is probably found somewhere in between these two extremes.  We suggest immediately buying a small number of offsets to establish a relationship with the company and figure out the actual process. Then, when Middlebury is ready to achieve carbon neutrality through a combination of strategies, offsetting the remaining emissions will be easily implemented.

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

There are few limits on the number of offsets Middlebury can purchase. While individual companies have a set number of offsets they can sell at any one time, this number is above Middlebury’s current reduction need, especially if it chooses to diversify. The magnitude of reduction will therefore be determined by Middlebury’s level of carbon emissions and the decision as to what percentage of offsets should be focused on renewable energies.

    Benefits and Costs

Fixed Cost

Start up costs would be essentially buying the offsets.  From Native Energy we can purchase one tonne of CDE for $10, with discounts if we purchase more than 100 tonnes. ReGen sells 2,000 kWh for $72, which roughly translates into $47 per ton. The cost of working with Addison County will take significant calculations and will probably be at the higher end of the offset range, $20 - $50 per ton.

Variable Cost or Benefit

Once an offset is purchased the offset company manages any issues related to it, including monitoring and insuring the full magnitude of the offset, whose CDE reduction may not be realized for many years.  However, the college must establish a way to manage its offset portfolio. This would entail changing the job description of someone on campus, perhaps Connie Bisson, to take responsibility for this.  There is also the possibility of outside consulting such as that offered by Native Energy.  In the case of arrangements with Addison County, a greater share of the monitoring and insurance responsibility would fall on the college.

Other Costs and Benefits

              Environmental.  Because the college is enabling a renewable energy source to be established, other environmental benefits associated with such an action occur, including reduced hydrocarbon pollution, less resource depletion, and reduced habitat change.  Also, because these projects are usually in areas ideal to the particular technology, offsets maximize the efficiency of the product, creating the most CDE-free energy for the lowest cost. One caution with respect to buying electrical offsets is that if the money is just going to the purchase of already generated electricity or the maintenance of the source, it is arguable that that clean electricity would have been created even without your contribution. The college should therefore emphasize those companies that focus exclusively on adding new renewable energy projects, such as Native Energy.

              Social.  Many social benefits accompany offsets.  Offsets with Native Energy provide independent and sustainable energy sources to groups like tribes or small farmers who would otherwise not be able to afford them, as well as supporting Native Energy itself, a Vermont-based company. Similarly, support for Addison County schools will enable local schools to implement the desired technology without having to make major budget sacrifices in other areas.

              Public Relations.  Offsets will allow Middlebury College to declare itself  “Carbon Neutral”, something no other college has yet done. Also purchasing offsets at the local scale such as is possible through Native Energy and the Addison County School project will present the college as investing in the surrounding region.

Possible Financing Mechanisms

In the future most of the money for offsets will come from other savings-generating CDE reduction strategies.  Immediately, while we wait for these projects to be started, the college would have to purchase offsets out of another budget. The cost of offsets would be low. One alternative if the college does not want to divert funds is to take a campus wide vote seeing if students, faculty, and staff are willing to pay for carbon neutrality themselves and if successful charge everyone ten or so dollars. The other alternative is to ask Alumni to help in making Middlebury Carbon neutral.

    Stakeholders

On campus 

Mostly the administration would have to deal with the offsets, by establishing a budget line and appointing someone to interact with the companies and manage the college’s offset portfolio. However, the college could encourage students, faculty, and staff to become involved by also purchasing offsets for their personal CDE-emitting activities. If the college focuses on Addison Country Schools, for example, more energy and time would be required in order to specify the specific nature of the relationship and work through many of the calculations.

Another possibility is to work with Native Energy to promote the purchase of renwable offsets.  According to Tom Stoddard, Vice President and General Counsel, Native Energy has proposed to other colleges (and received considerable interest) that the colleges sell individual ‘WindBuildersSM’ offsets, and use the Native Energy commissions to help fund the school's acquisition of offsets.  Interested students could offer WindBuildersSM to parents and friends, or the college could implement a coordinated outreach to alumni.  Accorindg to Tom, “It's a great opportunity to spread the word about what Middlebury College is doing, and to teach a broader group about global warming and renewable energy.  Our standard commission is 15% of revenues, or we could donate ~2 tons of CO2 offsets to the college for each 10 tons sold through the outreach effort.  The result is that by funding its acquisition, e.g., of 10,000 tons of offsets this way, Middlebury College would actually be helping reduce CO2 emissions by a total of 50,000 tons.”

Off campus 

The company /organization providing the offsets, as discussed above.

     Examples from elsewhere

Other Colleges and Universities

Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon is one of the few colleges to realize the potential of offsets and to act on them. As of September 2002 they became the first U.S. college to meet Kyoto targets through a student-based initiative that purchases $1,700 in offsets.

Other Institutions

Native Energy: Ben & Jerry’s (One Sweet Whirled campaign), Coop America, Timberland, Vermont Business for Social Responsibility, UTNE reader, EBX, Indigo Girls, Gravel and Shea Attorneys at Law, Natural Resource Defense Council, and  Northshire Bookstore.

ReGen: Shaws Supermarket, Appalachian Mountain Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists.

     Getting Started

The first step will be to let the offset companies/institutions know that Middlebury is interested in purchasing offsets from them as most companies offer pre-purchasing advice and analysis. Native Energy can be contacted by calling 800-924-8616 or by emailing them at business@nativeenergy.com.  ReGen can be contacted by calling 1-800-689-7957.  For Addison County Schools Maggie Ryan, wife of Pete Ryan from the Geology department and a member of the Weybridge School Board, should be contacted.

  III.4  Future Considerations

  III.4.1 – Vermont Electricity Restructuring

Electricity deregulation (or more correctly known as restructuring) allows electricity consumers to choose their electricity supplier, while the transmission and distribution of power remains the electric company’s responsibility.¹⁸   The purpose of deregulation is to foster competition among electricity suppliers with the medium and long-term goal of combating the high prices maintained by government-sanctioned regional monopolies.¹⁹ 

Of the 22 states (including the District of Columbia) that are currently retail restructured, on average they have experienced a 13.67% reduction in residential rates, a 13% reduction in commercial rates and a 4.8% reduction in industrial rates from 1996-2001.²⁰  In 1999 alone, such a rate reduction would have saved Vermont residents $33.2 million, Vermont business $26.3 million and Vermont industries $5.6 million.  Despite such figures, the Vermont electricity industry remains regulated.  Middlebury College could help form a consortium of Vermont colleges, universities and businesses (in addition to grassroots involvement), which advocates the quick, but prudent restructuring of Vermont’s electricity industry.

The Vermont Legislator has already taken steps—albeit few—to begin the electricity restructuring process.  The restructuring timeline for Vermont (which can also be viewed at the following URL: http://www.deregulation.com/electric.html - Vermont) is as follows:

·        (12/96) The Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) released a plan to restructure the electric power industry in Vermont — it called for retail competition by 1998, functional unbundling, and permitted recovery of stranded costs. The Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) plan requires legislative action to implement it. The complete Report and Order entered on 12/30/96 can be viewed.

·        (4/97) The Vermont Senate passed a bill that was based on a DPS plan that would have permitted retail choice by 1998 — the bill stalled in the Vermont House.

·        (8/97) The House formed a committee to study restructuring issues.

·        (10/97) The House Electric Utility Regulation Reform Committee voted not to propose any retail wheeling legislation in 1998 but to draft a version of its restructuring bill for 1999.

·        (1998) Several restructuring bills were considered but no action was taken on any of them.

·        (8/98) A task force was created to report on restructuring with a report due in 12/98.

·        (12/98) The Vermont Governor's Working Group on Vermont's Electricity Future created a report which contained a restructuring plan suggesting three major Vermont utilities merge and that contract costs with Hydro Quebec be paid down with Vermont-backed loans.

·        (3/99) Central Vermont Public Service Corp. and Green Mountain Power Corp. filed a joint restructuring plan with the PSB of Vermont — the plan proposed consolidating the two companies into one distribution company and both companies would sell their generating assets.

·        (7/2002) Senate Bill 138 (Act 145) took effect, which allows farms to produce electricity using renewable energy sources, and sell the surplus energy to electric companies.

    Timeline

Between 2003-2012.  

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

In 1999, 7.2 % (or 43,349,000,000 kWh) of the electricity distributed in Vermont, was generated by fossil fuels.21  This electricity generation produced approximately 38,094,984 MTCDE.  If Vermont could reduce its use of fossil fuels to generate electricity by 5%, it would decrease its emissions by 1,904,748 MTCDE per year; if Vermont reduced its use of fossil fuels by 15%, it would decrease its emissions by 5,714,246 MTCDE per year; and if Vermont reduced its use of fossil fuels by 25%, it could would reduce its emissions by 9,523,744 MTCDE per year.

These fossil fuel reduction goals are not outrageous.  In fact, many other deregulated states are making or have already made similar reductions in fossil fuel electricity generation.  Notably, California plans to produce 20% of its electricity using renewables by 2017; Connecticut is aiming for 13% by 2009; New Jersey’s objective is 6.5% by 2012; and Maine has already begun producing 30% of its electricity using renewables starting in the year 2000.22 

Furthermore, since 1999 (when the Pennsylvanian electricity industry was deregulated), renewable energy products have gained 12% of the electricity market (note: in 1998, 0% of the electricity generated in PA came from renewable sources).23  If extrapolated, this increase in electricity generated by renewables estimates that in approximately 50 years, 100% of Pennsylvania’s electricity generation will come from renewable energies.  In applying this figure to the Vermont electricity industry (which in 1999, generated approximately 63% of its electricity from non-renewable sources)24, one could estimate that had Vermont deregulated in 1999, it would have taken approximately 32 years for Vermont to begin producing 100% of its electricity from renewable energy sources. Consequently, reducing Vermont’s fossil fuel use by 5% or even 10% through deregulation is a plausible target.  See Table III.7 below for more details. 

Benefits and Costs

Startup Costs

There will be no start up costs for Middlebury College.  It will however, require time.  The College consequently, may delegate some of the workload to student organizations—e.g. Environmental Quality and Middlebury Initiative for Sustainable Development (among others).  The College may also want to delegate part of the workload to college councils—e.g. the Environmental Council and Student Government.

Operating Costs

There will be no operating costs for Middlebury College. 

Benefits

 Restructuring will not only protect the environment, but it will also save residents, businesses and industries money—money which may be used to purchase offsets, furthering the state’s commitment to the environment.  In 1999, Vermont residents spent $243 million, Vermont businesses spent $202 million and Vermont industries spent $117 million on electricity.  The average cost per kilowatt-hour was 12.17 cents for Vermont residents; 10.67 cents for Vermont businesses; and 7.35 cents for Vermont industries.  If Vermont had restructured the electricity industry in 1999, however, Vermont residents would have only paid 10.5 cents per kilowatt-hour and would have spent only $209.8 million—constituting a savings of approximately $33.2 million.  Similarly, Vermont businesses would have only paid 9.28 cents per kilowatt-hour and would have only spent $175.7 million—constituting a savings of roughly $26.3 million.  Vermont industries would have only paid 7 cents per kilowatt-hour and would have only spent $111.4 million–constituting a savings of nearly $5.62 million.  All in all, the restructuring of Vermont’s electricity industry in 1999 could have saved Vermonters $65.12 million in electricity bills (see Table III.8).

Other Costs and Benefits

Social.  Electricity restructuring may discourage energy conservation because it will lower electricity prices, which will most likely result in increased consumption.28  Despite this drawback, electricity restructuring has many social benefits.  Notably, it may create a competitive market between producers, which in turn, lowers cost to consumers by stimulating innovation and creating incentives to reduce overhead (usually by becoming increasingly efficient). Diversifying the electricity mix with renewable energy also helps stabilize electricity prices because it decreases dependency on the volatile fossil fuel market. 

Environmental.  Electricity restructuring will also help improve air quality, encourage efficiency and because the reduction of company overhead is most often easily achieved by reducing fossil fuel dependency and increasing investment in renewable technologies (note: on average, the national electricity industry produces: 70% of the U.S.’s sulfur dioxide emissions, 30 % of the U.S.’s carbon dioxide emissions, 30% of the U.S.’s nitrogen dioxide emissions and 18 % of the U.S.’s mercury emissions, not including particulate matter).29 

Public Relations.  Advocating electricity restructuring will not only reduce CDE emissions and improve air quality, but also save Vermont residents money as well as create higher paying jobs in the state.

Possible Financing Mechanisms

None needed.

    Stakeholders

On campus 

Middlebury College

Off campus 

1.      Vermont Residents                               4.  Vermont Utilities

2.      Vermont Businesses                              5.  Vermont Legislators

3.      Vermont Industries

     Examples from elsewhere

Other Colleges and Universities

University at Buffalo—in their Environmental Stewardship and Green Campus report—does not support the restructuring of the electricity industry.  Some of the information in their report however, is false (e.g. that California’s energy crisis was the result of deregulation), and the report itself did not discuss any of the other 22 currently retailed restructured states (click to read the report).

Tufts University however, does support electricity restructuring, as stated in the Tufts Climate Initiative—which is a member of Mass Energy's Clean Electricity Aggregation Project. The project seeks to establish a green power product, which would give Massachusetts’s customers the option to buy electricity from renewable power. The project is headed by Massachusetts Energy and funded by a grant from MTC.30

Other Institutions:

             (21 states and the District of Columbia are currently retail restructured)31

1.      Arizona                                    12. Nevada

2.      Arkansas                                  13. New Hampshire

3.      California                                  14. New Jersey

4.      Connecticut                              15. New Mexico

5.      Delaware                                  16. Ohio

6.      District of Columbia                  17. Oklahoma

7.      Illinois                                       18. Oregon

8.      Maine                                       19. Pennsylvania

9.      Maryland                                  20. Rhode Island

10.  Massachusetts                          21. Texas

11.  Montana                                   22. Virginia.

Much of the U.S. public has been lead to believe that deregulation caused the California Energy Crisis.  In reality, the crisis occurred because of corporate price gouging and inefficacious legislation (among other factors).32  Only recently have these corporations been held accountable.  Notably on November 12, 2002, the Williams Companies—which is one of the nation's biggest suppliers of electricity and natural gas—agreed to pay more than $400 million to settle accusations that it helped drive up prices and overcharged customers during the state's electric power crisis.33 Additionally, on December 13, 2002, the judge of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Bruce L. Birchman), ruled that energy companies overcharged California about $1.8 billion during the crisis due to price gouging.34

Despite this one outlier, states that have undergone electricity restructuring have been largely prosperous—e.g. Pennsylvania.  Since 1999 (when it was restructured), Pennsylvania has seen residential rates fall 20%, commercial rates fall 16% and industrial rates fall 17%.35  Additionally between 1999 and 2000, 80,000 PA customers have switched to renewable energy and cleaner energy products, and $75 million have been raised (through RPSs) to support clean energy initiatives.36  Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (or RPS) require that over time an increasing amount of the state’s electricity be generated by renewables.  Money for RPSs is often raised by imposing small charges for transmission or distribution (e.g. in PA the charge is $0.0001/kWh).37  The Department of Energy Interlaboratory Working Group (IWG)—consisting of the five national energy research labs—found that, when combined with energy efficiency programs, an RPS of 7.5% by 2010 would save consumers over $65 billion per year by 2020.38

Getting Started

1. Build solidarity and a working relationship with other colleges, businesses and NGOs

-         Colleges: UVM Environmental Council (Gloria Thompson)
email: Environmental.Council@uvm.edu

-         Businesses: Native Energy: http://www.nativeenergy.com/

-         NGOs: Clean Air Cool Planet: http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/

2.  Contact your local Vermont legislator representative, who may be found at the following URL: http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/guide/senbycounty.html

4.       

-         Advocate restructuring of the Vermont’s electricity industry

3.  Educate and encourage students to do the same.

  III.4.2 – Switch Electricity Providers under Deregulation

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant is an electricity utility, located in Vernon, VT, which provides approximately 51% (in 1999) of Vermont’s electricity, and is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2012.5  The Vermont Public Service Department (PSD) determined that Vermont Yankee’s operating costs would increase by $22 million for each additional year that it operates after its contracted life (note: the PSD also concluded that it would cost the VT taxpayers more to decommission the plant earlier than the contracted date).6  On July 31, 2002, Entergy—an out-of-state energy corporation that now owns ten nuclear power plants across the nation—bought Vermont Yankee, making its decommissioning and replacement power uncertain.7   

This uncertainty brings into question whether, in a deregulated Vermont, Middlebury College should continue to be serviced by Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), which is Middlebury College’s existing electricity provider.  CVPS currently buys 41.1% of its electricity from Vermont Yankee.  If a coal-fired, oil-fired, or natural gas-fired electricity generating plant replaced Vermont Yankee, not only would Middlebury College’s carbon dioxide footprint increase dramatically, but the amount of capital it spends on purchased electricity would increase substantially as well.

Under current state law, as discussed in the previous sub-section, Vermont has created distinct service territories, which gives CVPS monopoly status for energy and power in central Vermont.  After deregulation, Middlebury College should consider 3 courses of action: 1) it should reevaluate its CDE footprint from CVPS purchased electricity in 6 to 8 months; 2) it should, subsequently, consider switching electricity providers from CVPS to Green Mountain Power (note: Middlebury College should further investigate the regulatory implications/possibility of switching providers); and 3) it should advocate Vermont Yankee’s succession by a plant which generates electricity using renewable fuels—in which case Middlebury College should remain with CVPS.

Green Mountain Power (GMP), more specifically, is an electricity supplier that relies on Vermont Yankee for 30.8% of its electricity (as opposed to CVPS’s 41.1%).8  GMP is also the electric utility noted for being:

·        1^st in the nation for low sulfur dioxide emissions

·        2^nd in the nation for low nitrogen oxide emissions

·        9^th in the nation for the percentage of renewable energy in the total energy mix

A comparison of the GMP and CVPS fuel mixes can be found in Table III.4.

Timeline

Long term—i.e. between 2003-2012.

    Magnitude of Potential GHG Reduction

If Middlebury College is able to switch to GMP within the next year (assuming choosing an electricity provider is permitted by law), Middlebury will decrease its CDE footprint by 61 MTCDE per year.  When the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant is decommissioned in 2012, however, this reduction in Middlebury College’s CDE footprint becomes uncertain, as Vermont Yankee could be replaced by four possible types of electricity-generating plants: 1. coal-fired; 2. # 6 oil-fired; 3. natural gas-fired; and 4. renewable fuels.  If a coal-fired plant replaces Vermont Yankee and Middlebury College switches to GMP, Middlebury will emit 2,070 MTCDE less than if it remains with CVPS.  If an oil-fired plant replaces Vermont Yankee and Middlebury College switches to GMP, Middlebury will emit 1,770 MTCDE less than if it remains with CVPS.    If a natural gas-fired plant replaces Vermont Yankee and Middlebury College switches to GMP, Middlebury will emit 1,300 MTCDE less than if it remains with CVPS.  If an electric utility that uses renewable energies replaces Vermont Yankee, however, Middlebury College should remain with CVPS, as it would emit 160 MTCDE less per year than if it switched to GMP (See Table III.5).

In terms of where CVPS and GMP plan on getting their electricity if and when Vermont Yankee is decommissioned in 2012 (and when Vermont’s contract with Hydro Quebec expires in 2015):

• GMP plans to invest more capital in wind energy in the next few years, and expects to begin to investigate alternative electricity generators within the year (2003).¹²
• CVPS on the other hand, is currently working with the Vermont Department of Public Service to develop alternatives to Vermont Yankee (2012) and Hydro Quebec (2015).  They are primarily investigating two scenarios: 1) Kyoto compliance, in which case CVPS will emphasize renewables in their new fuel mix; and 2) Kyoto non-compliance, in which case CVPS will emphasize cost effectiveness in their new fuel mix.  CVPS additionally, is taking other factors into consideration—i.e. cost minimization, externalities (e.g. emissions), energy efficiency and distributed resources (i.e. buying electricity from a diverse number of electricity utilities).  CVPS will most likely have results from this investigation in April or May.¹³

Benefits and Costs

Startup Costs

In order to switch to Green Mountain Power once permissible by law, an initial $1,875 must be paid in start up costs.  Additionally, Green Mountain Power may require a security deposit—based on the previous year’s electricity consumption (i.e. number of kilowatt hours).  This deposit however, may be waived if the consumer has acceptable credit and good financial standing (e.g. if the consumer has never written any checks that have bounced).  Assuming there are no extenuating circumstances, Middlebury College should have this deposit waived.

Operating Costs

            There will be no operating costs associated with switching providers.  In fact, Middlebury College would pay 1.38 cents less per kWh if it switches to GMP, which would have saved Middlebury College $266,889 in 2000 alone.  This figure (also denoted in Table III.6) was calculated in the following manner:

• In 2000, CVPS charged Middlebury College 9 cents per kWh, whereas GMP would have charged Middlebury College approximately 7.7 cents per kWh.
• Middlebury College used 19,915,255 kWh in 2000.
• 19,915,255 kWh multiplied by $0.09 = ~ $ 1.8 million
• 19,915,255 kWh multiplied by $0.077 = ~ $1.5 million
• If Middlebury College had been with GMP in 2000, it would have saved approximately $270,00.

   Table III.6. Cost savings with GMP.

Other Costs and Benefits

Environmental.  An added environmental benefit of switching to GMP is that it would reduce Middlebury College’s emissions of other noxious gases (e.g. NO_x, SO₂, VOCs and particulate matter).  Other environmental benefits associated with Vermont Yankee going offline in 2012 are the reduction in hazardous waste production, transportation, and storage costs—an unavoidable byproduct of Vermont Yankee’s electricity production. 

Social: The social benefits associated with closing Vermont Yankee are threefold: 1) it would reduce concerns associated with nuclear power plant security—i.e. will nuclear power plants be a target of terrorist attacks; 2) it would reduce concerns about waste disposal—i.e. “not in my backyard”; and 3) it would reduce concerns about waste security—i.e. will weapons grade hazardous waste be stolen and used to produce nuclear weapons?

There would be additional social benefits if Vermont Yankee was replaced with an electric utility that used renewable technologies.  More jobs would be created for Vermonters if the replacement plant utilized renewable energies (rather than fossil fuels) because for every million dollars spent on oil and gas exploration, only 1.5 jobs are created; for coal mining, 4.4 jobs.  Conversely, for every million dollars spent on making and installing solar water heaters, 14 jobs are created; for manufacturing solar panels, 17 jobs; for electricity from biomass and waste, 23 jobs.¹⁴

Public Relations.  The public relations benefits would be many because of the various additional environmental and social benefits—i.e. if Middlebury advocated the replacement of Vermont Yankee by a renewable energy power plant, it could market itself as not only an educational institution that is concerned for the environment, but also an institution that is concerned for, and gives back to, the greater community.

Possible Financing Mechanisms

None needed as the start up costs are small (i.e. $1,875).

    Stakeholders

On campus 

Middlebury College                                         

Off campus 

1.Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

2.Central Vermont Public Service

3.Green Mountain Power         

     Examples from elsewhere

Other Colleges and Universities

            The following Colleges and Universities have supported the development of renewable technologies by purchasing portions of their electricity from newly developed wind power projects in southwestern Pennsylvania:

1. Allegheny College                                 3. Juniata College
2. Bucknell University                               4. Swarthmore College

Dickinson College                           9. Carnegie Mellon University

Franklin & Marshall College                       10. Penn State University

Gannon University                          11. University of Pennsylvania

Gettysburg College

Furthermore, Carnegie Mellon University and Penn State University announced in 2001 that they planned to expand their commitment to wind power by purchasing the output of an additional wind turbine. Consequently, in 2001 the University of Pennsylvania and Carnegie Mellon University (as well as Penn State University) made the three largest retail wind energy purchases in the US—each for 5% of their electric usage.¹⁵

To read more about what each college has done and is doing, please go to: http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower/0402_communergy_pr.html.

Other Institutions

1.  Seattle, Washington.¹⁶  In July 2001, the Seattle City Council voted on resolutions supporting the goals of the Kyoto Protocol and committing Seattle City Light—the city's public electric utility—to a policy of zero net greenhouse gas emissions. Resolution Number 30359 formalized Seattle City Light's commitment to become the first major utility in the country to achieve zero net greenhouse-gas emissions. As a result between 1990 and 2000, Seattle’s CDE emissions were down 48 %, and projections put the city at 84 % below 1990 by the year 2010.

2.Sustainable Asset Management Company.17  Sustainable Asset Management (SAM) is an international, independent asset management company. It achieved carbon neutrality through Future Forests' green technology offset program.  To reduce SAM’s CDE emissions, it: 1) switched to renewably-generated electricity; 2) it began offering public transportation at reduced rates to all employees; 3) it began promoting train travel for all business trips under 400 kilometers; and 4) it began encouraging teleworking and utilization of telephone conferencing.

     Getting Started

1.  Investigate the laws governing electricity distribution:

            http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/mystate.cfm?state=vt.

2.  Contact Green Mountain Power: www.greenmountainpower.com.

·                    customer service 1-888-TEL-GMPC (1-888-835-4672)

·                    e-mail: callcenter@gmpvt.com

3.  Contact your local Vermont legislator representative, who may be found at the following URL: http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/guide/senbycounty.html.

1.                   

a.                   Advocate the decommissioning of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.

b.                  Advocate its replacement with an electricity provider that uses renewable energies.  

4.  Educate and encourage students to do the same.

  III.5  References and Notes

1.  Parts taken from http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/content/programs/energyconservation/ reportenergyconsv.html.

2.  (http://www.tulane.edu/%7Eeaffairs/ecolympics.html; http://www.tulane.edu/%7Eeaffairs/rules.PDF)

3.  http://www.energystar.gov/

4.  http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/documents/programs/energyconservation/ guide_computing.doc

5.  http://www.clf.org/advocacy/Vermont_Yankee_page.htm; and   http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/vermont.pdf

6.  http://www.state.vt.us/psd/vy99.htm

7.  http://www.clf.org/advocacy/Vermont_Yankee_page.htm

8.  www.greenmountainpower.com

9.  http://www.greenmountainpower.com/atyourservice/greenmountainclean.shtml

10.  “A Summary of Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Middlebury College,”, M. D. Dagan, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT, December 2002.

11.  Ms. Dotty Schnure, Green Mountain Power (phone #: 888 - 655 - 8418)

12.  Mr. Stephen Terry, Executive Vice President of Green Mountain Power (phone #: 888 - 835-4672)

13.  Mr. Bruce Bentley, Central Vermont Public Service (phone #: 800 - 747 – 5520)

14.  Gelbspan, R. The Heat Is on: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-Up, the Prescription. Updated ed.  Reading, Mass.: Perseus Books. Pp 278. 1998.

15.  http://www.eren.doe.gov/greenpower/0402_communergy_pr.html

16.  http://www.newrules.org/electricity/climateseattle.html

17.  http://www.futureforests.com/forbusinesses/corporate.asp

18.  http://www.goodenergy.com/electricity_deregulation/deregulation.asp

19.  http://www.goodenergy.com/electricity_deregulation/deregulation.asp

20.  http://www.pennfuture.org/items/index.cfm?action=List&pagename=Summary&area= news&category=reports

21.  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/vermont.pdf

22.  http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=47

23.  http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/policy_casestudies_pennsylvania.cfm

24.  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/vermont.pdf

25.  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/vermont.pdf

26.  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/vermont.pdf

27.  http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/policy_casestudies_pennsylvania.cfm

28.  http://wings.buffalo.edu/ubgreen/content/resources/envstewardship.html#sec10

29.  http://www.state.vt.us/psb/document/5854/final.htm

30.  http://www.tufts.edu/tie/tci/CO2reductions.html#CE

31.  http://www.deregulation.com/electric.html

32.  www.rff.org

33.  David Barboza. A Big Victory by California in Energy Case. Business/Financial Desk. November 12, 2002. Late

    Edition - Final , Section C , Page 1 , Column 5.

34.  Richard A. Oppel Jr. with John M. Broder. Judge Rejects California Electricity Refund. National Desk. 

   December 13, 2002.  Late Edition - Final, Section A , Page 30 , Column 4.

35.  http://www.pennfuture.org/news/8_universalservice_11601.htm

36.  http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/policy_casestudies_pennsylvania.cfm

37.  http://www.pennfuture.org/items/index.cfm?action=List&pagename=Summary&area= news&category=reports

38.  http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=45

39.  How global climate change will affect Vermont (EPA website): http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsStateImpactsVT.html

40. More information on electricity restructuring please see:

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/deregulation/ - 114

http://pnnl-utilityrestructuring.pnl.gov/publications/Primer/primer.pdf

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/restructure.html

41. Deregulation Estimations of Cost: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/vermont/vt.html - t6

42. Read about Pennsylvania vs. California electricity restructuring

http://www.enn.com/enn-features-archive/1999/10/100399/deregulation_4605.asp

43. Read about the economic impacts of Pennsylvania’s electricity restructuring

http://www.revenue.state.pa.us/revenue/lib/revenue/2001_electricrpt.pdf

44. Great database on renewable energy technologies:

http://www.nrel.gov/search.html

45. Database on energy use:

http://www.energy.gov/sources/index.html

46. Environmental Assessment of Green Mountain Power

http://www.greenmountainpower.com/enviro/ceres01.pdf

47.  Green Mountain Power Annual Shareholder Reports (2000 &2001)

http://www.greenmountainpower.com/whoweare/annualreports.shtml

48.  More information on RPS

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=47

49.  Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review (Table 7.5):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/elect.html

50.  Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review (Table 8.13):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/elect.html

51.  Energy Information Administration, State Electricity Profiles: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/pennsylvania.pdf

52.  Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly (Tables 44-55): http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

53.  Energy Information Administration, U.S. Average Monthly Bills by Sector, Census Division, and State (Table 1): http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_tabsh.html

54.  Energy Information Administration, Electricity Revenue, Sales and Price for Power Marketers (Tables C1-C4): http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_tabsh.html

55.  Energy Information Administration, Electricity Revenue, Sales, and Price by State and Utility: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_tabsh.html

56.  Energy in Vermont: contacts, statistics, websites, etc.

http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/mystate.cfm?state=vt

57.   1996 Economic Impact Study commissioned by the College

58.  Based on data from UVM solar project at http://www.uvm.edu/~solar/.

59.  http://www.vtsolar.com/

60.  http://www.bpsolar.com/ContentDetails.cfm?page=38

61.  http://www.pecansolar.com.au/solarpower/faq.php