Carolina seeks to save money
by saving energy

The annual energy bill at Carolina is $45 million. Reducing energy consumption and lowering peak demand are two ways the University can save money both during this current fiscal crisis and for decades into the future.

At Carolina, using energy efficiently is a stated goal and ongoing challenge. Some 60 percent of the Academic Affairs space on campus was built before 1970, when saving energy was not a priority. Energy costs for academic, research and administrative space are not billed to individual departments. They are paid for by "the University" with state appropriated funds. Only revenue-supported activities, such as housing and dining services, both see and charge for their energy costs. There is little incentive to reduce consumption of a good that appears to be free.

The state procurement system does not promote, and sometimes denies, purchase of the most-energy-saving products. And the state budget appropriation process does not allocate funds for energy efficiency upgrades. If operating funds are used for efficiency upgrades, the University is not eligible to keep the cost savings beyond the two-year budget cycle.

New construction and renovation projects now pit investment in energy-conserving features against departmental programming needs. An increased emphasis on reducing life-cycle costs -- what something costs over the span of its service -- would reduce the University's bottom line for decades to come.

Within these constraints, the University adopts "best practices" wherever possible. A heat recovery unit will be included in the School of Public Health addition. Energy-efficient windows that allow in more daylight are incorporated in the medical school's Burnett Womack renovation. And new and renovated student housing will have more temperature control zones so students on both sides of the building can be comfortable at the same time. The residence halls will also include more efficient windows and lighting systems. At the operations level, failing motors are replaced with energy-efficient models, and the selection of window air-conditioning units is based on a life cycle cost analysis.

Upgrading campus lighting is an ongoing effort with multiple benefits. Replacing ballasts and installing the next generation of fluorescent tubes and controls is compelling economically. Investments in lighting upgrades are expected to pay for themselves within five years, yielding a 20 percent return. Occupants also report less eyestrain and better light quality. In the past two years, improved lighting has been installed in six campus buildings with money from the State Energy Office and internal budget allocations. New exit signs that use light emitting diodes have an even shorter payback time of only six months.

A more widespread effort to save energy is still needed. In November 2001, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Robert Shelton and Vice Chancellor Nancy Suttenfield sent a memo to all deans, directors and department heads requesting greater vigilance in the implementation and monitoring of energy efficient practices. Recommendations included:

• Turning off lights and computers and closing fume hoods when not in use;
• Setting thermostats at appropriate levels; and
• Keeping doors and windows shut during heating and cooling seasons.

Additional suggestions included:

• Purchasing Energy Star equipment;
• Using energy-saving settings on appliances;
• Relying on electronic communications whenever possible;
• Adopting double-sided printing and copying;
• Keeping air filters clean;
• Minimizing the use of personal electrical equipment such as space heaters and coffee machines;
• Conserving water; and
• Riding the bus for University business.

To expand on these initiatives, Carolina became a member of the EPA Energy Star Partners program in April 2002. Membership entitles the University to tap the best analytical tools and educational resources available and to raise the profile of energy efficiency on campus. Efforts are under way to better understand current energy use patterns, reduce peak demand and consumption and encourage more responsible behavior. A new Energy Management Control System, now in the design phase, will improve the ability to track both energy supply and consumption. Even as the total number of buildings on campus increases, their energy use per square foot is expected to decline.

Looking at the bigger picture, trimming energy use would slow global warming. It would reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the environmental effects associated with their extraction and use. And, in the Triangle, which has the 13th worst air quality in the country, consuming less energy would literally help us to breathe easier. Old coal-fired power plants, sprawling cities and reliance on fuel-guzzling single occupancy vehicles are the primary causes of our polluted air.

For more information, contact Ray DuBose, director of Energy Services at 968-4100 or Ray_DuBose@fac.unc.edu or Ralph Taylor, energy manager, at 962-7283 or ralpht@fac.unc.edu.

Sponsored by Facilities Services
Writer: Cindy Pollock Shea, Sustainability Coordinator