The Sustainable Endowments Institute's new green rankings are out, and there is some good news: With all the focus on sustainability in higher education over the past few years, grades are going up. Just over half of the schools surveyed earned an overall grade of B-, compared to only 38 percent in last year’s report. The average overall grade this year is a C+, but 26 schools received the top grade (A-), including Amherst, Harvard, Pomona, University of Washington and University of New Hampshire.

Like last year, the report comes on the heels of a variety of rating systems. Sierra and Greenopia have their own (less rigorous) versions ranking the Top 20 and the 100 largest, respectively, and AASHE has just launched its STARS tracking system for schools to join. Last year, we released the Campus Report Card, which showed improvement on the operations and facilities side of greening, but a lag in curriculum development.

SEI’s report, now in its fourth year, only covers 300 schools in its ratings, leaving out the other 3700 colleges and universities in the U.S, although 32 new schools petitioned to be added this year and are ranked accordingly. It's worth noting that these 300 schools are chosen not on the basis of extraordinary projects or the extent of their efforts—though many are pack leaders—but on the size of their endowments.

The Institute notes, “The profiled schools have combined holdings of more than $325 billion—approximately 95 percent of all higher education endowment assets. Widespread investment declines have impacted almost all schools, with the Report Card finding average endowment value dropping by 23 percent in the past year.”

Its focus on the endowment is the most useful feature of SEI’s research. That enormous pool of money allows the wealthiest schools to support new research and endeavors that might not otherwise get the funding they need. Harvard, for example, reports that it invests in renewable energy companies, and “allocates a portion of the endowment to private equity and natural resource investments that seed companies and/or ventures that may take environmental and sustainability factors into consideration.”

But highlighting only the wealthiest or the largest schools is fraught with its own issues. As the Chronicle and others have pointed out over the years, sustainability is an extremely difficult thing to track, and an even more difficult thing to grade, particularly when looking at an entire campus. For example, if the college is planning to erect a half dozen new buildings that will certainly increase the energy needs of the campus, even if they are built according to LEED standards, should the school's grade go up or down? 

And what about the small schools, lacking in deep pockets but with commitment to spare?

Mitchell Thomashow of Unity College notes the importance of university investment, writing that colleges serve as dynamic economic multipliers, becoming places “where businesses and faculty work with students and community members to develop innovative entrepreneurial approaches.” However, Unity, which received a B on SEI’s report, wasn’t graded on its endowment because it didn’t meet the minimum threshold of $16 million in assets. It also received a D in the transportation category because its 24-car fleet doesn’t include any hybrids, and because “most people walk to their destinations on campus due to Unity’s small size.” Does this mean that Unity's students and staff aren't invested in their community, or that they are emitting more carbon dioxide during their commutes? Quite the opposite. But SEI's system isn't designed to take these small-school factors into account.

The hope is that as sustainability enters the mainstream, expanded systems like STARS will more comprehensively rate these colleges in a way that takes into consideration factors beyond finance, as well as providing a more common standard for measurement. Without those two factors, measuring sustainability won't be possible.  

We talk a lot about climate and the environment here at Campus Ecology, but the truth is that long-term sustainability requires more than ecological considerations. If a school is carbon-neutral, but not financially viable, it has failed its mission. Therefore, energy efficiency and other “green” initiatives often have to save the institution money, or at least break even, to be considered at all.

The most common way to gain support for these energy projects is to prove a significant return on investment, and are therefore worthy of being included in the college's master plan. So, articles on campus greening initiatives usually include a summary like this one: an initial investment of $X is expected to pay for itself in Y years, and generate an extra $Z. The numbers often speak for themselves, as in the case of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, which saves 2.26 tons of CO2 emissions per vending machine per year using small devices that turn off the machines when idle. The Vending Misers, which cost $175, pay for themselves in one year by saving about $200 on electricity bills.

It seems like a no-brainer. One of our latest articles, Master Planning for Sustainability, quotes Terry Calhoun of the Society of College and University Planners, who says, "If you did good integrated planning, you would end up with sustainability. Why would you build a building that uses six times as much energy as it has to?"

Unfortunately, this picture is incomplete. The reality of a university’s bureaucracy can often mean that even projects with large and easy paybacks may be ignored, because complex budgeting structures are not designed to reward electricity savings in the facilities department. This may be true even if a comprehensive master plan puts environmental sustainability as an organizational priority. Leith Sharp, writing for Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, notes that, “Even if operating managers do manage to fund efficiency improvements to produce operational savings, they are rarely allowed to capture and reinvest these savings for further improvements. Instead, they will often see next year’s operating funds reduced to reflect this operating cost reduction, hardly a reward for a job well done.”

Sharp, former director of Harvard’s Green Campus Initiative, adds:

"Our institutions freely use the mantra of the “business case” to challenge and scrutinize the viability of anything new without addressing the fact that in many cases the business case is being sabotaged by poorly designed finance and accounting structures. Colleges and universities are incurring enormous additional costs by failing to reform these practices to enable good business practice to flourish … It is not clear how this has evolved, but it occurs in almost all large organizations. This division results in capital budget managers resisting the expenditure of any extra money, even when the operation savings are extraordinary. At the same time, the operating budget managers commonly do not have enough access to funds for ongoing efficiency improvements."

For a problem this complex, master planning is only part of the solution. Sharp goes on to describe the "complex, irrational, and unconscious life of the institution," which sabotages the work of campus sustainability officers and their efforts to bring the campus towards climate neutrality. As examples, she points out energy-purchasing contracts based on volume consumptions (where the unit price of energy goes up when consumption goes down) or steam return-metering. Both systems encourage individual waste, which saves money to a particular building or department, but results in overall system inefficiency.

Harvard was able to make significant progress using a revolving loan model, which funded projects with paybacks of less than five years, and reinvested that money in ongoing upgrades, efficiency projects, metering and behavioral change programs.

But Sharp is aware that this wouldn’t be possible everywhere: Harvard is blessed with more resources than most schools, and a sustainability staff of dozens of people. “The deeper lesson,” she says, “is that we should stop creating the ongoing need for revolving loan funds—by structurally connecting capital and operating budgets and institutionalizing life-cycle costing, a well-established methodology for calculating upfront and future operating costs relating to different decision-making options. I also believe that our organizations should capture and reinvest savings that result from successful resource conservation and waste-reduction efforts as routine practice to fund dedicated annual innovation budgets for financing pilot projects and ongoing efficiency upgrades.”

It’s not exactly a small request. Such redesigning of the university’s essential infrastructure might take years, and it’s a lot harder than installing add-ons to a couple vending machines, or even retrofitting an HVAC system. This doesn’t discourage Sharp. She says, “Over many years, I have observed that the common belief that people are innately adverse to change is not generally true. People are not resistant to change, they are opposed to instability, and they simply assume that change equals instability.”

To achieve this stability, Sharp argues that the sustainability staff need to act as the rudder-on-the-rudder, going beyond simple equations of return-on-investment and discussing the real risks and barriers in play. Only then, she says, can universities bring their carbon footprints “down to an equitable share of what the planet’s life-support systems can support.”

Last week, President Obama announced the creation of the American Graduation Initiative, which is expected to funnel $12 billion to community colleges to educate underemployed or unemployed workers in preparation for the day when the economy swings upwards again.

"..[T]he hard truth is that some of the jobs that have been lost in the auto industry and elsewhere won’t be coming back," said Obama. "They are casualties of a changing economy. And that only underscores the importance of generating new businesses and industries to replace the ones we’ve lost, and of preparing our workers to fill the jobs they create." 

The plan calls for an additional 5 million community college graduates by 2020--about 6 million are currently attending--and provides those students with a pathway to completing a four-year degree, if they so choose. About $9 billion will go towards two grant programs intended to better track promising strategies for teaching and learning and increase completion rates. Some money will also go towards renovating facilities, providing more guidance to students exiting high school, and expanding online educational opportunities.

So, is this good news for green jobs education and training, which we've talked about here, here, and here? Maybe.

While clean energy is a platform of the Obama administration, the $12 billion, which would be disbursed over the next ten years, hasn't been specifically dedicated to green jobs training. Until the budget committee makes its allocations, the focus on renewable energy training won't be clear, but so far it looks as if the program is making immediate employment, not clean energy, its primary concern.

However, the shift towards training workers for careers in sustainability may not need federal support, simply because it's already inevitable. A recent UN report predicted the creation of more than 20 million jobs worldwide in clean energy and other green fields by 2030, and many of those jobs are what's termed "middle-skilled," requiring a level of education that is greater than high school but less than a Bachelor's degree. (Job opportunities in health care are also expected to rise.)

Community colleges are expected to take on the bulk of this training because they are typically more agile and diverse than liberal arts schools, and have access to different populations of students. These schools also tend to be very connected to local employers, and have good data on the jobs available to their graduates, which means that in many regions, they are expanding their clean energy programs in response to demand. So, the AGI funds that go to those schools may help to support green jobs by default, though it's not yet the explicit support that advocates, including National Wildlife Federation, hope for.

We'll watch as the allocations are made in the next few months, and see where this goes.

Ball State university, long a leader in climate action (and frequent sustainability conference host), has just approved drilling almost four thousand closed-loop wells to heat and cool the campus. Ground-source heat pumps use constant ground temperature, which is cooler than the surface in summer and warmer in the winter, to save energy and cut carbon emissions. The university hopes to drill the first well after commencement this May.

What's most interesting is how the project will be funded:  The university already had $40 million from the state legislature to replace aging and inefficient boilers, but received no bids for the project, even as the cost of the upgrade rose to $60 million. Now, BSU will ask the state budget committee to re-apportion the money to the ground-source heating project.

The project could eliminate the 85,000 tons of carbon dioxide emitted by the current boilers. It also has the potential to decrease university operating costs, reduce dependence on coal and natural gas market fluctuations, eliminate other air pollutants, and allow the university to sell carbon credits. BSU also hopes it will create about 870 jobs, though not all will be permanent.

We talk a lot about geothermal, because the paybacks for a properly installed ground-source heating system are bigger than most conservation measures and even some renewable energy sources. The majority of energy consumption on campus buildings goes towards heating and cooling. Richard Stockton college, using a closed-loop system similar to the one that Ball State proposes, cut its electricity consumption by 25% and its natural gas uage by 70%, saving approxiamtely $330,000 in energy costs per year after an initial investment of only $5 million. BSU's plan is much more ambitious, and could lead to the biggest ground-source heating installation yet in the United States.

In the spring, we alerted you to the Florida legislature's approval of FGCU's solar array, which is expected to cover 19 acres and produce 2MW of electricity for the university.

However, to no one's surprise, the project has been delayed by more provincial concerns. Namely, permitting. 

While officials expect that the missing environmental resource and water use permits will be granted quickly, the clash between even the best-laid plans and bureaucracy is not a new one for universities.

"FGCU initially put December as a target date to see the first panels hit campus, hoping to take advantage of federal tax credits that were set to expire when the clock struck midnight on Dec. 31. Congress extended those credits as part of the financial bailout bill, though, making the back-and-forth permitting process not as stressful. Now, the university is just waiting for a green light."

Here at HQ, we are doing some retrofits -- including test drills for ground-source heating -- to make our building carbon-neutral, and what we've found is that the bidding process is absolutely crucial. Learning to ask the right questions saves a lot of time and headaches. In our specific case, we had much better results by specifying in RFPs that the bidder be familiar with permitting processes and provide us with solid examples. By including the permitting in the scope of the work, we headed some of this off at the pass, and ended up going with a project management firm instead of a contractor.

Of course, this won't solve every problem, but perhaps is useful as universities move forward with significant sustainability projects. What has your school's experience been? Where have you found unexpected "hurry-up-and-wait" moments? What lessons have you learned from the process?

Our latest issue is live. Here are today's headlines:

Youth Activists Making Their Voices Heard at Climate Talks
Joann Klimkiewicz
At climate talks in Poznan, young delegates from across the world added their voices to the debate, demanding that the global dialogue be refocused on the survival of civilizations and ecosystems.

Hydrogen: Just a Lot of Hot Gas?
Paul Tolme
Humboldt State’s new hydrogen-powered car and fueling station are part of a university-led effort to wean America off gasoline. But is hydrogen the fuel of tomorrow or yesterday’s hype? ClimateEdu goes for a ride to find out.

Service Learning Takes a Climate Approach
Courtney Cochran
A Warren Wilson College project addresses a climate challenge that lies beyond campus, taking advantage of the school's work program and service learning components to help local residents energy-proof their homes.

PERSPECTIVE: Recession is the Mother of Invention
Rachel Barge
As legislators make hard cuts to their budgets, education administrators hunker down on campus spending, particularly when it comes to so-called “luxury” sustainability programs. To compensate, student organizers and campus sustainability professionals are turning to new funding sources to implement vital campus sustainability initiatives.

ClimateEdu, published by National Wildlife Federation's Campus Ecology program, offers news, best practice analysis, events, resources, and opportunities for climate leadership on campus. To subscribe to our twice-monthly e-newsletter or read our archives, visit the homepage: ClimateEdu: News for the Green Campus.

It's not often that a state's motto so appropriately fits the actions of its Congress: the Sunshine State of Florida recently passed a bill which allocates $8.5 million to Florida Gulf Coast University for the construction of 16 acres of solar panels. Several other Florida schools were also awarded funding, but the FGCU installation will dwarf them, producing 2 megawatts per day if the school is able to secure additional private donations. If all goes as planned, the university expects to power the entire campus with solar energy, saving $22 million in utility bills over the next 30 years.

To date, the largest university solar installations are at Fresno State (1.1 megawatts) and University of California--Irvine (1.2 megawatts), both of which will be surpassed by FGCU's. As a signatory of the AUCPCC, the university has an established Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education which provides lectures and other environmental education opportunities.

While the bill still requires the Governor's signature, he is expected to sign very soon, and school officials are already looking to begin bid requests this summer, with an eye towards bringing the system online summer 2009. We're very eager to see how the installation develops, especially given the success of solar energy in other parts of the state.

Image from FreeFoto.com

Christopher Hill, a biochemistry professor at the University of Utah, recently published a great op-ed in the Daily Utah Chronicle about the potential of wind power at his campus. Currently about 9% of the university's grid power comes from wind turbines, but with a very small percentage of additional per-student costs, this amount could be increased dramatically:

"One hundred percent of the U's share of grid electricity would come from new wind sources if the ASUU [Associated Students of the University of Utah] donation were increased by $10 per student per semester, each faculty and staff member donated $30 per year, or the administration contributed less than 0.04 percent of total U revenue."

We are especially impressed that individual departments can campaign for wind power (see the breakdown here) to cover their share of electricity needs. Many are already at 100% or more! It's a very tangible way for campus offices to get involved on a voluntary basis, and see the results of their involvement.

Photo credit www.nrel.gov

It's hard to forget about the renewable power of wind when you're in the presence of the 365 foot, 1.65 megawatt wind turbine perched near the summit of St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN. A few miles from St. Olaf I get my first glimpse of the tower, which fades in and out of sight as I drive through the contours of farmland. Three huge blades spin across an otherwise unblemished skyline, efficiently harvesting "a crop of kilowatts" from the air while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

A few minutes later, I meet Pete Sandberg, Assistant Vice President of Facilities, who has agreed to give me a tour of the many green facets of campus. At each stop –- the composting building, the wetlands, the prairie, and the organic farm –- I look for the turbine to orient myself. It stands as a perpetual witness of St. Olaf’s environmental commitment, described on St. Olaf’s sustainability website as "a Statue of Liberty and a declaration of independence, freeing people from their unthinking dependence on fossil fuels." Pete informs me that the project cost a total of $2.5 million to build; $1.5 million came from the utility Xcel Energy, which Minnesota’s legislature has required to fund renewable energy projects. Annually, the turbine provides up to 1/3 of St. Olaf’s electricity, or 5.7 million kWh, and a savings of about $295,000 per year.

While the bottom line is an important consideration for St. Olaf, Pete reveals that the college is equally or more concerned about doing what is right – right for the education of its students, right for its relationship with the land, and right from a perspective of moral values and its Lutheran faith. What does this mean in practice? A diverse and dedicated group of environmental stewards on campus have worked on projects like reforesting previously mowed areas with groves of trees (which store carbon and save on fuel, equipment, and labor), developing sustainable design guidelines, which declare that the college will reuse and recycle all demolition waste (90% on a recent project, which slashed tipping fees and the energy used to manufacture new materials), and restoring agricultural and other surrounding lands to their natural condition before European settlers arrived. By incorporating a range of educational, environmental, social, and financial considerations into its decision-making processes, St. Olaf has seamlessly integrated an environmental ethic throughout the work of the college.

We head back toward the core of campus and contemplate the turbine from up close, its steady motion audible in the crisp, May breeze. I close my eyes and hear the ocean advancing and retreating along an ever-shifting shoreline. Pete tells me that initially there were comments from students in the nearest residence hall that they could hear the turbine and were concerned it might be an issue. But after a while, the concern subsided as the gentle sound receded further into the background and the structure simply became another feature of their environment.  A feature, I imagine, that is a source of pride, a symbol of our potential to safeguard the livelihoods of our children and co-exist peacefully with other species. Most of all, it is proof that colleges have the power -- whether wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass – to rekindle hope in human ingenuity and reverse our toll on the Earth’s climate.