University of Texas – Rio Grande Valley Sustainability Qualification
January 21, 2020
University of Southern
University of Southern Maine
University of St. Thomas
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Texas - Austin
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas Health
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
University of Toledo
University of Vermont
University of Washington
University of West Florida
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Commonwealth University
Wake Forest University
Washburn University
Washington State University
Washington State University - Tri-Cities Campus
Washington State University - Vancouver
Washington University in St. Louis
Wayne State University
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
West Chester University
West Virginia Health Science Center
West Virginia University
Western Oregon University
Westfield State University
Widener University
Williams College
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester State University
Xavier University
Agenda:
• Review all data collected for FY20
• Confirm all outstanding questions throughout Scopes 1, 2, and 3.
• Review how the information is inputted in SiMAP, and ensure everyone has the ability to download data accordingly from the website.
• Discuss Final Presentation Dates and Objectives
• Review peer group for comparison
Scope 1
Scope 1 Utility Base Data
Scope 1 Fuel Consumption
Carbon Intensity of Commonly Used Fuels
Other Scope 1 –University Fleet Fuel
Other Scope 1 – Refrigerants and Chemicals
Base Data:
Refrigerant and Chemicals
“Note: fiscal year 2018 had a spike due to a chiller repair that involved recovery and replacement of HFC134a”
Other Scope 1 – Fertilizer
Base Data:
Scope 2
Scope 2 Base Data
Scope 2 Summary
Electric consumption is all purchased; no solar being picked up
Scope 2 Consumption
120,000,000
100,000,000
kWh entered directly into SiMAP
Scope 3
Air & Ground Travel
Scope 3
Assumes MGal is “milligal” 1Mgal= 1000 gallons Gallons entered directly into SiMAP Base Data:
Assumes waste water is equal to ½ domestic water
Scope 3
Scope 3 – Trash
Base Data 2019 :
Calculation:
Base Data 2020 :
• For each row, multiple # times service/year by size (cubic yards) (i.e. 156*4 in the first row)
• Take the sum of your calculations to get 40,964 total cubic yards
• Multiple 40,964 cubic yards by 90 to get 3,686,760 pounds (1 cubic yard = 90 pounds)
• Divide 3,686,760 pounds by 2000 to get 1,843.4 tons (1 ton = 2000 pounds)
Calculation:
• UTRGV calculation uses conversion “1 cubic yard= 300 pounds” for waste removal
Updated 1/22: FY20 conversion factor now 90
Scope 3
Scope 3
Recycling total: 179,962 pounds (90.0 tons); Updated 1/22
1,051 tons
A Closer Look at Paper
Picking up more recycled paper in FY20 than purchased paper.
Scope 3 – Commuting, Old Methodology
Base Data:
Base Data:
ASSUMPTIONS:
Total # of commuters = Students + Employees =21,500
8 trips per week
15 weeks per semester
All commuting considered drive alone
Used to calculate average trip distance
Scope 3 – Commuting, New Methodology
Commuting survey was released in October 2020 to get a better understanding of commuting habits on campus
Scope 3 – Commuting, New Methodology
UPDATE TO ASSUMPTIONS:
Total # of commuters = Students + Employees =19,588 (updated)
8 trips per week (this will be updated based on results of commuting survey)
15 weeks per semester/30 weeks total (we will use 22 weeks for the year based on no commuting mid-March 2020 through end of fiscal year)
All commuting considered drive alone (this will be updated based on results of commuting survey)
We will be using pre-Covid survey results because this better reflects the majority of the fiscal year.
Edinburg Commuting Results
Brownsville Commuting Results
Commuting Between Edinburg and Brownsville
Of the respondents that commute between Edinburg and Brownsville, most drive alone
Understanding the impact of additional miles on campus profile:
1. Assumption from survey – 10% of total respondents noted they commute to and from Edinburg/Brownsville.
2. Applying this percentage to total permits issue to reflect true commuting patterns.
3. Are we comfortable with this methodology?
Peer Institutions Used for Benchmarking
Sustainability Solutions Measurement and Analysis Members
• Sightlines has approximately 50 Sustainability Solutions Members
• Approximately two-thirds are private
• Approximately two-thirds have signed the ACUPCC
• Approximately forty percent are Charter Signatories
