Zero Energy University

Campuses: A 2018 Progress

Update on Reaching Campus
Energy Goals
Preprint
Otto Van Geet, Ben Polly, Shanti Pless,
and Jenny Heeter
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Rachel Shepherd
U.S. Department of Energy
Presented at the 2018 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings
Pacific Grove, California
August 12–17, 2018

Suggested Citation
Van Geet, Otto, Ben Polly, Shanti Pless, Jenny Heeter, and Rachel
Shepherd. 2018. “Zero Energy University Campuses: A 2018 Progress
Update on Reaching Campus Energy Goals: Preprint.” Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/CP-7A40-71822.
[Link]

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.

Conference Paper
NREL/CP-7A40-71822
September 2018

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

 NOTICE

This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for
Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308.
Funding provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Federal
Energy Management Program. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the
DOE or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for
publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government
purposes.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991

and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available
free via [Link].

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (left to right) NREL 26173, NREL 18302, NREL 19758, NREL 29642, NREL 19795.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

 Zero Energy University Campuses: A 2018 Progress Update on Reaching
Campus Energy Goals
Otto Van Geet, Ben Polly, Shanti Pless, and Jenny Heeter,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Rachel Shepherd, DOE

ABSTRACT

Many universities have aggressive energy-reduction and climate action plans. To reach
these goals, leading universities have developed a suite of common energy-efficiency and
renewable generation strategies. In this paper, we present a common set of approaches across the
following areas: zero energy campus definitions and planning, best practices for including
energy targets in new construction procurement contracts and design guidelines, implementing
pilot new construction zero energy projects, aggressively implementing best-in-class laboratory
energy-efficiency strategies, planning for and optimizing on-site and off-site renewable energy
projects, and high-performance district energy systems. Best practices are compiled from various
experiences, including programs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy program. The summary of these best practices is to reduce campus
energy use and then meet the remaining campus energy needs with renewable energy. The five-
step process to developing and implementing campus energy-reduction plans is described: 1)
determine baseline energy consumption, 2) analyze technology options, 3) develop a plan and set
priorities, 4) implement the plan, and 5) evaluate progress. The process follows a logical
hierarchy of actions to evaluate options by energy sector and set specific targets. It encompasses
all energy systems on campus, recognizing that campus-wide measures have increased potential
for reducing energy use. Common strategies are explained along with examples and results.

Background
University Campus Goals

The higher education sector spends more than $6 billion on annual energy costs and totals
an area of about 5 billion square feet of floor space (Better Buildings 2018). Universities are
among the leaders in the United States in setting goals such as zero energy or carbon neutrality.
The primary origin of significant U.S. university leadership on campus emissions reductions was
the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). The
ACUPCC was launched in 2007, and 336 institutions had joined the initiative by September 15,
2007 (Second Nature 2017). As of early 2018, more than 650 institutions have signed up, with
representation from all 50 states.
Several university systems have pledged climate goals for their entire university system.
For example, the University of California (UC) has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2025
(buildings and vehicle fleet), becoming the first major university system to commit to this goal
(University of California 2013). Further, several university campus energy and sustainability
ratings have emerged, such as the Sierra Club’s Cool Schools (Sierra Club 2017). One of the
most rigorous sustainability ratings is the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Higher Education Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS). STARS is a
self-reporting system that provides a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum sustainability rating. By

1
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 June 2018, more than 900 institutions had registered to use STARS, but only four campuses have
achieved the STARS platinum rating: University of California, Irvine (UCI); Stanford
University; Colorado State University; and the University of New Hampshire (AASHE 2018).
As the largest energy users at universities are buildings and infrastructure, with labs and food
service as the highest energy using sectors, this paper focuses on the energy use of buildings and
infrastructure (Better Buildings 2018).

Zero Energy Buildings and Campuses

Zero energy buildings (ZEBs) represent the state of the art for energy performance at the
individual building level. Many new buildings can be designed to be ZEB, or at least zero energy
ready, by minimizing energy use and making them solar ready by “designing and constructing
the building in a way that facilitates and optimizes the installation of a rooftop solar photovoltaic
(PV) system at some point after the building has been constructed” (NREL 2017). In addition,
universities have led the ZEB movement through their showcase zero energy projects. Early ZEB
projects include the Oberlin College Adam Joseph Lewis Center (Pless, Torcellini, and Petersen
2006) and the first Living Building Challenge certified project, the Living Learning Center at
Tyson Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis (Tyson Research Center 2010). In
2018, across all of US Higher Education, there are currently over 60 individual zero energy
buildings that have been verified or are actively seeking zero energy verification (NBI 2018).
The concept of zero energy can go beyond individual buildings to an entire campus or
community. In 2009, Carlisle, VanGeet, and Pless (2009) adapted the ZEB building definitions
to develop definitions for zero energy communities. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
(Peterson, Torcellini, and Grant 2015) has since formalized source energy-based definitions for
zero energy campuses, portfolios, and communities. The DOE campus definition, for example,
“allows for the building sites on a campus to be aggregated so that the combined on-site
renewable energy could offset the combined building energy from the buildings on the campus.”
Recently, the State of California adopted the DOE ZEB common definition approach for state-
owned buildings, with further guidance provided for extending the ZEB campus definition to a
state portfolio (Burgoyne 2017).
Approaching zero energy at larger scales also offers several potential advantages. For
more information, see “From Zero Energy Buildings to Zero Energy Districts” (Polly et al.
2016).

Process to Develop and Implement Campus Energy-Reduction Plans

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed a five-step process to
develop and implement campus energy-reduction plans. The process follows a logical hierarchy
of actions to evaluate options by energy sector and set specific targets. It encompasses every
energy system on campus, recognizing that campus-wide measures have increased potential for
reducing energy use. The steps are: 1) determine baseline energy consumption, 2) analyze
technology options, 3) develop a plan and set priorities, 4) implement the plan, and 5) evaluate
progress (NREL 2018).

2
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 1. Determine Baseline Energy Consumption

To evaluate strategies and track progress, it is important to establish a baseline energy

consumption and other baseline metrics for the university campus, including annual energy use
intensity benchmarking of individual buildings. To determine baseline energy consumption, a
baseline year must be chosen. The baseline could represent the current year or could be tied to a
previous year if necessary to align with the time frame of goals or other factors driving
improvement. Once a baseline year is chosen, all energy use for that year must be estimated.
Energy use and other associated metrics can be categorized by:

• Scope 1: Direct combustion of fuels on campus. Common fuels include natural gas,
diesel fuel, fuel oil, propane, and biomass such as wood chips.
• Scope 2: Indirect impact from purchased electricity. The source energy associated with
electricity consumption can be obtained by multiplying total campus electricity imported
from the grid by the average site-to-source multiplier for electricity included in Table 1 of
the DOE Common Definition for Zero Energy Buildings document (Peterson et al. 2015).
Note this is also required if using DOE zero energy campus definition. For more precise
estimates, universities could contact their local utility to obtain emissions factors or use
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s eGRID database for regional emissions
factors (eGRID 2018).
• Scope 3: Other indirect off-site impacts, such as transportation. The DOE definition for a
zero energy campus does not include transportation. Some other definitions of zero
energy or zero carbon campuses do include transportation impacts from commuters and
business travel.

2. Analyze Technology Options

An effective campus energy-reduction plan follows a portfolio approach and addresses

each energy sector on campus. This requires a combination of targeted improvements to
buildings and infrastructure as well as improvements in operation and education for building
operators and occupants. Strategies that impact human behavior and energy policies can save
money, energy, and carbon emissions on campuses with minimal cost investment. Some
examples include energy conservation programs, flexible work schedules, and space planning
and management.
Efficiency improvements in buildings, especially those made in conjunction with other
planned upgrades and remodels, can be some of the most cost-effective strategies for meeting
energy and emissions goals on university campuses. A variety of resources exist for assessing
potential energy-efficiency savings in existing buildings and for designing new high-
performance buildings on campus, such as the 50% Savings and Zero Energy Advanced Energy
Design Guides (Bonnema et al. 2012). Building energy simulation can also be used by university
engineering staff and researchers or hired consultants to assess specific opportunities within
existing campus buildings based on buildings’ detailed energy system characteristics, such as:
enclosure insulation levels and airtightness; heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC)
equipment types, efficiency levels, and distribution systems; lighting systems and controls;
service and domestic hot water systems and efficiencies; and electric equipment and
miscellaneous electric loads.

3
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 There are additional efficiency opportunities for buildings connected to district or campus
energy systems, and there are advantages to approaching efficiency upgrades and building load
control and flexibility at a campus scale. To support this scale of analysis, NREL is developing
the URBANopt advanced analytics platform for high-performance buildings and energy systems
within one geographically cohesive area, such as a district or university campus (Polly et al.
2016). The URBANopt platform is being developed to investigate detailed energy trade-offs
between building locations and geometry, building energy-efficiency features, building and
district energy storage strategies and technologies, aggregated grid services such as dynamic and
responsive loads, district energy system locations, and district energy system performance
characteristics to identify best approaches for reaching campus energy goals.
Many energy generation options are available in addition to grid-provided electricity and
imported fuels. Renewable energy options such as solar, wind, and biomass can provide
additional cost-effective energy sources and help progress toward campus energy and emissions-
reduction goals. For a campus to claim emissions reductions from renewable energy generation,
they must own the Renewable Energy Certificates (NREL 2015). The competitiveness of on-site
renewable energy compared to standard electricity purchasing from a utility depends on many
factors, such as installed cost, incentives, renewable resources at the site, available area, utility
rate structures and interconnection rules, and the time the energy is needed versus the time the
renewable energy is available. NREL has developed a techno-economic decision-support model
called REopt™ that is used to optimize energy systems for buildings, campuses, communities,
and microgrids (REopt 2018). REopt recommends optimal mixes of renewable energy,
conventional generation, and energy storage technologies to meet cost-savings and energy
performance goals. NREL has developed the free REopt Lite Web tool to evaluate the economic
viability and system size of grid-connected PV and battery storage at a site, identify battery
dispatch strategies to minimize energy costs, and estimate how long a system can sustain critical
loads during a grid outage.
Solar PV has achieved dramatic cost reductions during the last decade: the installed cost
of commercial PV (200+ kW) reduced 65% between 2010 and 2017, and the installed cost of
utility-scale PV reduced 77% during the same period. Solar PV works on surfaces that receive
sufficient solar exposure, and it is the most common on-campus renewable energy source
installed at universities to date (Solar Resource Guide 2017). Butte College, California, was the
nation’s first college campus to become zero annual energy in 2011 by installing 4.5 MW of PV.
Butte College has added several new buildings since 2011, but the PV system still supplies 75%
of the energy needs of the growing campus (Butte College 2010). Hampshire College in Amherst
MA has also recently reached 100% renewable with an on-site PV system and a certified zero
energy new building (Hampshire College 2017). An important lesson for other campuses is that
if energy use increases, renewable energy generation must also increase if zero energy is to be
maintained. By 2017, about 400 universities and colleges have adopted solar, with about 650
MW of installed capacity (Elgqvist and Vangeet 2017).
As a starting point to analyze solar PV, universities and others can use NREL’s PVWatts
tool ([Link]) to estimate the electricity production of a grid-connected roof- or
ground-mounted PV system based on several simple inputs. More detailed solar analysis can be
conducted using NREL’s System Advisor Model ([Link]), which can be used to make
performance predictions and cost-of-energy estimates for grid-connected renewable energy
projects based on specified system design parameters. Energy production should be monitored
post installation for the life of the PV system and compared to estimates, and repairs should be

4
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 made as needed. Finally, NREL offers a variety of resources to universities seeking to go solar,
with the aim to increase the deployment of mid-scale solar PV systems, engage stakeholders to
develop deployment solutions, and empower decision makers (NREL 2018b).
Combined heat and power (CHP) systems can reduce source energy use because they
recover heat that is typically wasted in the generation of electric power and deliver that energy in
a useful form. CHP can have positive economics if the waste heat is used. CHP can also provide
resiliency in the form of electricity (and heat) in the event of a grid outage if the CHP and
electric infrastructure are designed to island from the grid. Many universities have CHP systems
that use natural gas as a fuel. If a university has a zero carbon goal and CHP, the fuel must be
zero carbon, such as biomethane, biodiesel, or hydrogen generated from zero carbon energy
sources. Middlebury College, Vermont, installed a biomass gasification CHP system in 2009 that
provides all heating, cooling, and 3,000–5,000 MWh of electricity per year (15%–20% of annual
electricity consumption). The college has also installed 1.1 MW of PV. The CHP and PV
systems are a key element for Middlebury College in reaching carbon neutrality (Middlebury
2016). As the electric grid becomes cleaner, the emissions savings from CHP and on-site
renewable energy are reduced compared to grid electricity, depending on the CHP fuel source.
In addition, to transition from off-site carbon neutral strategies to zero energy campus strategies,
the College is investigating additional on-site and local renewable projects.

A Focus on Laboratory Building Energy Use

Many university campuses are focusing on their laboratory spaces when developing an
energy plan. A typical laboratory is three to four times more energy intensive than an average
commercial building, and laboratories can account for up to 70% of a campus’s energy footprint
(Better Buildings 2018). When the University of California Irvine (UCI) set a goal of becoming
carbon neutral by 2025, they discovered that lab buildings were approximately 20% of the
campus building area but consumed 65% of the energy on the UCI campus. UCI began the Smart
Labs Initiative with the following key elements:
• Fundamental platform of dynamic, digital control systems
• Variable-air volume and demand-based ventilation
• Low power density, demand-based lighting
• Exhaust fan discharge velocity optimization based in dispersion study
• Pressure drop optimization to minimize fan energy
• Fume hood flow optimization
• Commissioning with automated cross-platform fault detection (UCI 2018).
UCI was able to reduce the energy use of 10 lab buildings by an average of 60% by
implementing Smart Labs strategies. The UCI Smart Labs savings were for lab buildings that
already exceeded California’s energy code by an average of 20%. The investment costs were
substantial but resulted in a payback period of 6–8 years and addressed deferred maintenance in
the buildings. Similarly, the newest laboratories at the University of Colorado have integrated
high efficiency heat recovery coils with indirect evaporative cooling for summer outside air
precooling and winter exhaust air preheating – allowing for significant downsizing of their
boilers and chillers and energy savings (CU 2016).
The DOE Better Buildings Alliance higher education group consists of 30 colleges and
universities representing more than 300 million square feet of space that are sharing best
practices and engaging with technical experts to advance their energy-savings goals (Better
Buildings 2018). DOE has initiated the Better Buildings Smart Lab Accelerator (BBSLA 2018)

5
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 based largely on the UCI Smart Labs. DOE Better Buildings Accelerators are designed to
demonstrate specific innovative policies and approaches that will accelerate investment in energy
efficiency upon successful demonstration. Each accelerator is a targeted, short-term, partner-
focused activity designed to address persistent barriers that stand in the way of increased
efficiency. There are currently 13 different accelerators.
The BBSLA works with partners that commit to reducing energy use in labs by at least
20% during the next 10 years. Accelerator partners work together to develop standardized
approaches to overcoming common barriers to energy efficiency in laboratories. DOE helps
partners document model strategies that include operational changes, technological upgrades,
and strategic energy management approaches. Eight universities and AASHE are currently
BBSLA partners, as are several federal agencies. It is estimated that if all laboratory buildings in
the country improved their energy efficiency by 20%, annual energy and cost savings could
reach approximately 40 trillion BTUs and $1 billion (Shehabi et al. 2017).
While university labs are historically large energy users, there are a few leading
university laboratory projects that are proving that with best in class lab energy efficiency
strategies integrated with on-site rooftop and parking canopy PV systems, zero energy labs are
possible. The Venter Institute on UC San Diego’s campus was an early example of a biology
laboratory reaching zero energy (Venter 2018). Massachusetts’s Bristol Community College’s
newest academic teaching laboratory is also targeting zero energy, utilizing ground source heat
pumps, advanced demand-based lab air control, and rooftop and parking canopy PV systems to
reach zero energy on site (BCC 2017).

3. Develop a Plan and Set Priorities

University campuses should carefully consider where to set energy-reduction targets

because they are long-term goals against which progress will be measured for many years.
Campus-wide targets are usually expressed in terms of percentage reduction in energy
consumption by a certain year. In preparing energy-reduction plans, there is usually a desire for
specific goals and a need to stay within financial constraints. Because of this, a hybrid approach
that combines goals and financial constraints is typical.
By evaluating energy-reduction measures as a group, universities can combine measures
that yield a higher return (i.e., a high cost-benefit ratio) with measures yielding a lower return.
This portfolio approach allows large-impact measures that might have marginal financial
performance to be worked in with smaller measures that have very high financial return. This
approach also allows the bundling of measures for approval or financing, which could in turn
lead to reduced transaction costs. In other words, one can obtain an acceptable cost-benefit ratio
for the entire group of energy projects, some of which would not be included if the same cost
criteria were individually applied to each project.
NREL previously identified and presented initial design principles, economic drivers, and
master planning principles for zero energy districts (Polly et al. 2016). The design principles are
generally applicable to university campuses; therefore, we present them again in Table 1 with
some adaptations and new supporting discussion to emphasize challenges and opportunities for
university campuses. We see these principles as strategies and concepts that should be
considered for all campuses; however, we recognize that not all campuses may be able to
successfully implement these principles because of project-specific constraints and challenges.
Design Principles. Table 1 outlines four core design principles for new ZEBs and
updating campuses to reach their energy goals: maximize building efficiency, maximize solar

6
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 potential, maximize renewable thermal energy, and maximize load control. Detailed descriptions
of the design principles can be found in Polly et al. (2016). Ultimately, these principles are
interrelated and must be maximized together using analysis approaches and tools that account for
trade-offs among principles. For example, increasing building enclosure efficiency can affect the
feasibility of certain district thermal systems. To arrive at a final solution, an iterative design
process can be used to consider all systems and their interactions as well as associated costs and
value streams.

Table 1. Zero energy campus design principles (adapted from Polly et al. 2016)
Design
Principle Design Sub-Principle presented in general order
Orientation: Maximize natural daylighting, passive solar design.

Enclosure: Employ efficiencies currently being implemented in the ZEB industry

(e.g., DOE Zero Energy Ready Program; Zero Energy Advanced Energy Design
Maximize Guides).
Building
Miscellaneous Electric Loads: Carefully select best-in-class products, develop
Efficiency in
robust control strategies, and verify with ongoing monitoring to minimize
New
miscellaneous electric loads (Lobato et al. 2011).
Construction
and Major Lighting: Use 100% light-emitting diode, with controls for occupancy and
Renovation daylighting variability.

HVAC: Employ district-connected systems that maximize thermal energy recovery

opportunities from low-grade heat sources across the district (e.g., ambient
temperature district loops with building-scale heat pumps).

Arrange buildings in districts to prevent building-to-building shading (e.g., shorter

buildings oriented south, ideally).
Maximize Orient buildings and roof slopes for maximum solar access.
Solar
Potential Minimize other buildings systems that require roof space (e.g., target 75% plus
solar thermal/PV coverage of total roof area).
Reserve all parking lots and garages to be shaded parking with PV.
Improve potential for off-grid resiliency and maximize rooftop solar access.
Maximize
Evaluate potential for renewable thermal energy systems and waste heat recovery
Renewable
(e.g., ground-source district heat pump systems, industrial waste heat recovery, and
Thermal
wastewater heat recovery).
Energy

Establish controls for building and district system energy demands to accommodate
Maximize
the variable renewable energy supplies (e.g., PV and wind) and support the
Load Control
district’s interaction with the electric grid.

7
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 Include Energy and Sustainability Strategies in Planning and Design Guidelines
As the key priorities and strategies for reaching a campus’s energy goals become clear,
these strategies should become integrated with a campus’s design and construction guidelines
and master planning efforts. For example, requiring an energy recovery effectiveness for lab
outside air systems higher than 80%, or including demand-based control of laboratory air supply
and exhaust in the Facility Design guidelines can ensure these leading energy efficiency
practices are implemented in all new projects. A specific example is at Colorado College, in
Colorado Springs, which has integrated their sustainability, energy management, and integrated
design strategies throughout their Facility Design Guidelines, Purchasing Guidelines, and
Maintenance Guidelines. Based on their building baseline and energy use intensity (EUI)
benchmarking efforts, combined with strategies to integrate EUI goals within individual new
project requirements (Scheib et al. 2014), Colorado College developed “Facility Life Cycle
Design Guidelines for Sustainability” that include aggressive zero energy ready project
requirements. As Colorado College has previously achieved zero energy buildings and strives to
maintain that level for all new building designs, all new or major renovations are to follow their
design guidelines, as summarized in Table 2 (Colorado College 2018).

Table 2. Colorado College Design Guidelines Minimum Construction Performance Targets

Performance Goal Goal Quantification

Total Energy Use 20 kBtu/ft2/yr or less
Water Use – Building 2.4 Gal/Building ft2/yr or less
Water Use – Irrigation 14 Gal/Turf ft2/yr or less
Total Building Power Factor Not less than 0.95 lagging at the utility meter
Indoor Air Quality 700 PPM CO2 or less during occupied hours
Artificial Lighting 0.30 W/ft2 or less
Lighting Levels 35 Foot-candles in classrooms

Another recent example of universities including their building benchmarking energy use
data within their design guidelines and capital construction procurement process is at the
University of Chicago. For a recently completed 390,000 ft2, 800 bed campus residence hall
project, the University of Chicago capital construction team integrated an energy performance-
based procurement approach that included setting up a competitive procurement process and
amending their RFP language to include a maximum energy performance requirement of 55
kBtu/ft2/year. For a follow-on 100,000 ft2 speaking forum facility using this same model at the
University of Chicago, the RFP included a more aggressive energy use target. This project
established a three-tiered energy requirement, with a maximum EUI requirement of 45
kBtu/ft2/year, a “highly-desirable” requirement of 35 kBtu/ft2/year, and a “if-possible” goal of
zero energy. In this framework, the teams could self-select their own energy efficiency level
based on what that they felt would fit within the project budget as part of a competitive design-
build team selection process (McMillan et al. 2016).

4. Implement the Plan and Evaluate Progress

Successful implementation of an energy plan involves flexibility and long-term support

from university leadership and stakeholders. Plans typically involve measuring and reporting
progress toward a specific target and interim targets. Several universities have made progress

8
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 toward their campus-wide energy and emissions-reduction goals, with leading examples
described as follows:
• A combination of energy-efficiency programs, renewable energy procurement, energy-
efficient building standards, and other measures have set the University of California
(UC) system on a trajectory toward their zero carbon goal by 2025. UC’s 2017 emissions
are 3% less than its emissions in 2000, even with the addition of more than 36 million
square feet of new space and campus enrollment growth of more than 66,000 students
(University of California 2017). UC established a Wholesale Power Program (WPP) to
improve the campus’s abilities to manage their energy supplies and reduce the cost of
carbon-free electricity. UC became a registered electric service provider (ESP), which
allows it to procure electricity and provide it to campuses that have direct access rights
authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission. Direct access service allows
retail electric service customers to purchase electricity from an ESP instead of from a
regulated electric utility. Their electricity is delivered through the utility’s distribution
system. Three UC medical centers and seven UC campuses and have direct access rights.
Approximately 25%–30% of UC-purchased electricity is now served by the WPP.
Participating campuses have decreased their carbon emissions while paying less than they
did under past programs because UC contracted for renewable energy under the WPP
from two solar projects in Fresno County totaling 80 MW. These agreements combined
are the largest solar purchase by any university in the country. The solar projects are now
supplying about 14% of UC total annual purchased electricity (University of California
2017).
• As part of the UC system’s efforts to reduce its system-wide carbon footprint, each UC
campus has installed on-site PV generation. System-wide, the campuses are home to
more than 36 MW of solar power systems that produce more than 52 million kWh of
renewable electricity annually. UC Davis’s West Village Student Housing zero energy
project is a leading example of attempting to reach 100% renewables with on-site PV,
heat pumps, and energy efficiency in new construction (UC Davis 2015).
• Arizona State University has developed significant amount of on-site and off-site solar,
with 24.1 MW on-site and 28.8 MW off-site as of June 30, 2017 (ASU 2017). They also
recently completed their Student Pavilion, their first new zero energy building on
campus, with additional zero energy projects planned (ASU 2018).
• The University of Hawaii Maui College is expected to complete the installation of 2.8
MW of PV and 13.2 MWh of battery distributed energy storage in 2019. When the PV
plus storage is complete, it will provide 100% of the campus energy needs (UH 2018).
• Cornell’s newest campus on New York City’s Roosevelt Island, Cornell Tech, was
designed with best in class energy efficiency, a shared geothermal district system, and
on-site PV canopies that provide shading for multiple buildings. The primary 160,000 ft2
classroom building, The Bloomberg Center, is targeting zero energy, and their on-site
housing apartment building will be the U.S.’s largest Passive House project (Cornell
Tech 2017).
• Multiple universities are adopting zero energy building concepts for their new
construction projects on their campuses. These individual building examples are key
elements of a campus wide zero energy effort, as they represent notable early efforts to
adopt leading energy efficiency and on-site PV strategies which can set the standard for

9
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 future new construction and renovations on their campuses. A few notable examples not
previously discussed include:
o North Shore Community College Health and Student Services Building. This
58,000 ft2 office and classroom building, completed in 2011, was Massachusetts
first owned zero energy building (NSCC 2011).
o UMass-Amherst Crotty Hall. This 16,800 ft2 economics zero energy office
building was completed in 2017. “James Boyce, an economics professor at
UMass, said that he hopes Crotty Hall will pave the way for new net-zero
buildings on campus in the future” (UMass 2017).
o Georgia Tech Kendeda Building for Innovative Sustainable Design. A 37,000 ft2
classroom and environmental education building at Georgia Tech is seeking to
become the first zero energy Living Building Challenge in the Southeast
(Kendeda 2017).
o The University of Colorado-Boulder Indoor Practice Facility: In 2016, CU
completed a 106,000 ft2 indoor practice facility with 850 kW rooftop PV system,
resulting in CU’s first on-site zero energy facility (CU 2017).
• Multiple US Higher Education campuses are leading the US in implementing next
generation district thermal energy systems. Next generation district thermal energy
systems move from district thermal energy systems of 4-pipe hot water or steam and
chilled water thermal districts to 2-pipe heat recovery loops that operate between ambient
air and average ground temperatures. Variations of this concept include central heat
pump loops that recovery waste heating/cooling and distribute with 4-pipe hot
water/chilled water systems (UNEP 2018). Examples of notable next generation
university campus district thermal energy systems include:
o Stanford Energy Systems Innovation. In 2015, Stanford removed their existing
CHP central plant and added a district electric heat pump heat recovery central
plant with thermal energy storage, 5 MW of on-site PV, and 68 MW of off-site
PV. This system has been a key to reaching over 50% campus wide renewable
electricity. (Stagner 2016).
o Ball State Campus Geothermal. To replace existing coal fired boilers, Ball State
drilled approximately 3,600 ground source heat pump wells to provide heat
pumps in 47 buildings with district shared, ground exchange loops. This would
result in the largest district geothermal system in the US, saving $2,000,000 in
annual energy savings across 5.5 million ft2 of campus facilities (Ball St 2012).
o Colorado Mesa University District Geothermal. Colorado Mesa University has
connected many of their new buildings on campus to a shared ground source heat
pump loop across seven shared well fields, maximizing thermal energy recovery
across all their connected buildings. Nine separate buildings across 696,000 ft2 of
campus facilities are connected to the shared heat pump loop, providing 89% of
the energy needed to heat and cool connected buildings while saving the
University as much as $459,497/year (Colorado Mesa 2018).
o Missouri Science and Technology Campus Geothermal System. A campus wide
ground source heat pump system was installed in 2014 to provide a shared heating
and cooling system for about 2/3’s of the general and educational spaces on the
campus over 17 buildings containing 1.2 million square feet of space. In 2017,
Missouri S&T saw a reduction of 57% in energy use from their campus scale

10
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 ground source heat pumps system, which consists of 789 wells that are 400-440
feet deep. Those wells supply three regional plants, each with 500-ton capacity,
plus a dedicated geothermal system for a remote building (Missouri S&T 2014).

Conclusions

Many universities have achieved or have plans to achieve significant energy reductions.
A few have even reached on-site zero energy. To reach these goals, leading universities have
developed a suite of common energy-efficiency and renewable generation strategies. In this
paper, we presented a common set of approaches including best practices for including energy
targets in new construction procurement contracts and design guidelines, aggressively
implementing best-in-class laboratory energy-efficiency strategies that are proving to save over
60% in the largest energy user in higher education, planning for and optimizing on-site and off-
site renewable projects, striving for zero energy for all new construction, especially to set a
standard for future new construction on their campuses, and high-performance district energy
systems. The summary of these best practices becomes a process to reduce campus energy use
and then meet the remaining campus energy needs with renewable energy. We presented the
five-step process to developing and implementing campus energy-reduction plans: 1) determine
baseline energy consumption, 2) analyze technology options, 3) develop a plan and set priorities,
4) implement the plan, and 5) evaluate progress. We presented some examples of energy-
reduction results from leading universities.

Acknowledgments
This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated
by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by U.S. Department of Energy Office of
Energy Efficiency and Building Technology Office. The views expressed in this paper do not
necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government
retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the U.S.
Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or
reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government
purposes.

References
AASHE. 2018. “The Association for Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System”
[Link]

ASU. 2017. “ASU Solar.” [Link]

ASU. 2018. “ASU’s First Net Zero Building.” [Link]

Ball St. 2012. “Geothermal Energy System: Nation’s Largest Project of Its Kind Goes Live.”
[Link]

11
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 BCC. 2017. “Bristol Community College John J. Sbrega Health and Science Building.”
[Link]

Bonnema, Eric, Matt Leach, and Shanti Pless (NREL), Bing Liu, Weimin Wang, and Brian
Thornton (PNNL), and Jeremiah Williams (U.S. Department of Energy). 2012.
“50% Advanced Energy Design Guides”. Presented at ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, California, August 12-17, 2012.
[Link]

Better Buildings. 2018. “Better Buildings Alliance - Higher Education”

[Link]

BBSLA. 2018. “Better Buildings Smart Lab Accelerator.”

[Link]

Burgoyne, Daniel. 2017. “Zero Net Energy for New and Existing State Buildings.” California
State Administrative Manual Memo.
[Link]/osp/sam/mmemos/MM17_04.pdf.
[Link]

Butte College. 2010. “Butte College Set to Become First Grid Positive College in the U.S.”
[Link]
college-in-the-us.

Carlisle, Nancy, Otto VanGeet, and Shanti Pless. 2009. “Definition of a Zero Net Energy
Community.” NREL/TP-7A2-46065. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
[Link]

Colorado College. 2018. “Colorado College Facility Life-Cycle Design Guidelines for
Sustainability.” [Link]
management/[Link].

Colorado Mesa University. 2018. “Geo-exchange Systems.”

[Link]

Cornell Tech. 2017. “Cornell Tech On Path to Reach Net Zero at The Bloomberg Center.”
[Link]
center/.

CU. 2016. “SEEC Becomes Newest Piece of CU’s Growing East Campus Research Center.”
[Link]
campus-research-center.

CU. 2017. “3 Athletics facilities score LEED Platinum for green building excellence.”
[Link]
building-excellence.

12
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 Elgqvist, Emma, and Otto VanGeet. 2017. “Campus Energy Approach, REopt Overview, and
Solar for Universities.” NREL/PR-7A40-70252. Presented at the 2017 I2SL Annual
Conference, Boston, MA, October 17. [Link]

eGrid. 2018. “Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database.”

[Link]

Hampshire College. 2017. “Hampshire Conducts Final Test for 100% Solar Campus”.
[Link]
campus.

Kendeda. 2017. “The Kendeda Building for Innovative Sustainable Design's Quest to Become
the First Living Building in the Southeast.”
[Link]
sustainable-designs-quest-to-become-the-first-living-building-in-the-southeast_o.

Lobato, C.; Pless, S.; Sheppy, M.; Torcellini, P. 2011. “Reducing Plug and Process Loads for a
Large Scale, Low Energy Office Building: NREL's Research Support Facility.” Presented at
ASHRAE Winter Conference, 2011. Preprint. 13 pp.; NREL Report No. CP-5500-49002.
[Link]

McMillen, Adam, Jennifer Scheib, Shanti Pless, Paul Torcellini. 2016. “Codes Don't Always Get
Enforced, But Contracts Do: Changing the Procurement Paradigm to Drive Building Energy
Performance.” Proceedings of the 2016 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings: From Components to Systems, From Buildings to Communities, 21-26 August
2016, Pacific Grove, California.
[Link]

Middlebury. 2016. “How Middlebury College Achieved Carbon Neutrality in 2016.”

[Link]
do-it-.

Missouri S&T. 2014. “Geothermal Energy System.” [Link]

NBI. 2018. “Getting to Zero Status Update and List of Zero Energy Projects” New Buildings
Institute. [Link]
content/uploads/2018/01/GTZ_StatusUpdate_ZE_BuildingList_2018.pdf

NREL. 2015. “Renewable Electricity: How do you know you are using it?” National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. [Link]

NREL. 2107. “Solar-Ready Building Design: A Summary of Technical Considerations”.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. [Link]
assistance/blog/posts/solar-ready-building-design-a-summary-of-technical-
[Link].

NREL. 2018. “Climate Neutral Research Campuses”. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
[Link]

13
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 NREL. 2018b. “Solar Resources for Universities” [Link]
assistance/[Link].

NSCC. 2011. “Sustainability at NSCC: Zero Net Energy Building.”

[Link]

Peterson, K., P. Torcellini, and R. Grant. 2015. “A Common Definition for Zero Energy
Buildings.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
[Link]
20Zero%20Energy%[Link].

Pless, S.D., P.A. Torcellini, and J.E. Petersen. 2006. “Energy Performance of a Low-Energy
Academic Building.” NREL/CP-550-38516. Paper presented at the 2006 American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Chicago, Illinois.
[Link]

Polly, B., C. Kutscher, D. Macumber, M. Schott, S. Pless, B. Livingood, and O. Van Geet. 2016.
“From Zero Energy Buildings to Zero Energy Districts.” Proceedings of the 2016 ACEEE
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings: From Components to Systems, From
Buildings to Communities. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy. [Link]

REopt. 2018. “Renewable Energy Integration and Optimization Tool”. [Link]

Scheib, J., S. Pless, and P. Torcellini. 2014. “An Energy Performance-Based Design-Build
Process: Strategies for Procuring High-Performance Buildings on Typical Construction
Budgets.” In Proceedings of the ACEEE 2014 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings 4: 306–221. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy. [Link]

Second Nature. 2017. “Second Nature Climate Leadership Network”.

[Link]

Shehabi, Arman, Mohan Ganeshalingam, Laurèn DeMates, Paul Mathew, Dale Sartor. 2017.
“Characterizing the Laboratory Market.” Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory. [Link]
[Link]/sites/default/files/[Link].

Sierra Club. 2017. “Sierra Club Cool Schools”. [Link]

2017/top-20.

Solar Resource Guide. 2017. “The Top 10 Solar Powered Colleges and Universities” [Link]
[Link]/the-top-10-solar-powered-colleges-and-universities/.

Stagner, Joseph C. “Stanford University’s fourth generation district energy system: Combined
heat and cooling provides a path to sustainability.” District Energy. 4th Quarter, 2016.
[Link]
[Link].

14
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.
 Torcellini, P., S. Pless, M. Deru, and D. Crawley. 2006. “Zero Energy Buildings (ZEB): A
Critical Look at the Definition.” In Proceedings of the ACEEE 2006 Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3: 275–286.
[Link]

Tyson Research Center. 2010. “WUSTL’s Living Learning Center Shares the World’s First Full
Living Building Certification.” [Link]
learning-center-shares-the-worlds-first-full-living-building-certification.

UC Davis. 2015. “UC Davis West Village Tracks Its Progress Toward Zero Net Energy.”
[Link]
energy/.

UCI. 2018. “UC Irvine Smart Labs Initiative.” [Link]

UMass. 2017. “UMass Dedicates On-Site Net-Zero Building, Even As Remote 4-MW Solar
Roof Goes Live.” [Link]
building-even-remote-4-mw-solar-roof-goes-live-0168552/.

UNEP. 2018. “District Energy in Cities: Unlocking the Potential of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.”
[Link]
[Link].

University of California. 2013. “University of California Carbon Neutrality Initiative”.

[Link]

University of California. 2017. “Carbon Neutrality at the University of California.”

[Link]

UH. 2018. “UH Maui College aims to be first net-zero UH campus.” University of Hawaii-
Maui. [Link]
renewable-energy/.

Venter. 2018. “Pursuing Net-Zero Energy Consumption and the World’s Most Sustainable
Biology Laboratory.” [Link]

15
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at [Link]/publications.