Tom Vodrey, Opinion Editor–
A report commissioned by the administration of Denison University has proposed a potential path for the university’s goals in sustainability, primarily through green energy and an overhaul of heating systems.
Carried out by Ever-Green Energy, the report was commissioned in the summer of 2022 to determine how the university can meet goals set by University Presidents Dale T. Knobel and Adam Weinberg of achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2045.
The first of these goals, carbon neutrality, entails balancing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. This can be achieved through improvements to eliminate emissions, but relies primarily on the purchase of carbon offsets. These would involve the university paying the owners of forests, renewable energy sources or other greenhouse gas reducing efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere to make up for the university’s emissions.
Because offsets can be purchased relatively easily but don’t alter emissions directly, Jeremy King, the university’s Director of Sustainability and Campus Improvement, points out that carbon neutrality is an immediately feasible but fallible goal.
“We could be carbon neutral in an hour,” said King. “But we wouldn’t have changed anything about the environmental impact of our campus.”
In contrast, achieving net zero emissions requires the elimination of all possible sources of greenhouse gasses on campus. While offsets would be utilized, they would only cover emissions which can’t be entirely eliminated or are out of the university’s control. Otherwise, those which can be eliminated would have to be eliminated through an overhaul of the university’s facilities and operations.
Pursuing these climate goals will require coordination throughout the university’s administration, something which Ever-Green was hired to help address. An energy management and consulting firm, Ever-Green’s other work includes advising Oberlin College and Kenyon College on their climate initiatives. According to King, previous efforts towards sustainability lacked consideration of the bigger picture.
“The need for Ever-Green came from a desire to not do random acts of good,” said King. “Random acts without a bigger plan risks duplicity and wasting resources on efforts which might have to be undone later down the road. We want to be more thoughtful.”
Jake Preston, the university’s Director of Physical Plant and Capital Projects, sees it similarly. According to him, as the university uses resources on the maintenance and renovation of buildings, it needs an idea of how they’ll contribute to overarching climate goals.
“The report set our North Star as we work across campus towards net zero,” said Preston.
For some, the Ever-Green report was as much about reaffirming the university’s commitment to sustainability as it was about infrastructure. Among them is Dr. Joe Reczek, a biochemistry professor who served on the Campus Sustainability Committee and Ever-Green’s visioning committee during the time that the report was being produced.
“2030 will be here before we know it,” said Reczek. “Denison, as an institution which values sustainability, should be doing all it can to hit its goals for 2030 and 2045.”
For Reczek, the report provided an opportunity to show the university’s administration what would be needed to reach net zero and what was possible before the deadlines.
Ever-Green’s report found that 43% of the university’s emissions came from direct sources controlled by the university such as fuel for heating and fuel for campus vehicles and equipment. It found that a further 38% of emissions came from the generation of electricity used to run campus. The remaining 19% came from sources not directly controlled by the university such as commuting, student travel and the supply chain. To eliminate these emissions, Ever-Green has recommended a strategy made up of two primary components.
The first of these is generating all of the university’s electricity through green sources. Currently, the university operates 10 acres of solar panels which generate 16% of the electricity used on campus, with all other electricity coming from the grid. Ever-Green recommends installing another 20 acres, as well as batteries to manage fluctuations in power generation. The report also recommends the university enter into a power purchasing agreement with an outside green energy utility for all other electricity needed to power campus.
The second component is addressing inefficiencies in how buildings are heated. At the moment, the majority of buildings on campus are heated by steam created using natural gas. Ever-Green’s recommendations call for a conversion to hot water, heated either by electricity or geothermal exchange. Converting to hot water would entail replacing the piping throughout campus and replacing radiators to be compatible with hot water, which is 50 degrees cooler than steam.
Because of the deterioration of the university’s steam system, a large-scale replacement will be likely in the next 5 to 10 years, regardless of climate considerations. How that heat will be created is likely to be a point of debate, with Ever-Green recommending a shift away from fossil fuels.
According to Ever-Green’s recommendations, buildings on the outer campus would be heated using electric boilers which could be powered by green energy. Buildings in the core of campus would be heated using 926 geothermal wells, going 600 feet below the ground underneath the athletic practice fields. These wells use the natural temperature of the Earth’s interior to heat water, which would then be used in radiators to heat buildings.
Ever-Green’s recommendations also include smaller efforts to reduce the university’s carbon impact, including the electrification of university-owned vehicles.
Although Ever-Green’s report has been referred to as a master plan, it only presents options for potential planning and implementation. All three of the options presented in Ever-Green’s report meet the university’s climate goals, and entail similar steps to achieve those goals. The primary difference to be resolved is how quickly those goals will be met. Under the most aggressive plan, the university could achieve net zero emissions by 2032. Under the most relaxed plan, the university would achieve net zero emissions at the deadline of 2045.
The final decision on pace or even pursuing Ever-Green’s recommendations will be made by the university’s Board of Trustees, potentially at their upcoming meeting in April.
Cost has become a point of contention for the trustees, as achieving net zero emissions under any of Ever-Green’s plans would be the single most expensive project ever undertaken by the university. Cost has already influenced the findings of the report, with some investigated alternatives being rejected before being presented due to their prohibitive expense.
Reczek sees costs as an issue of perspective. The board is a risk-averse body, and investing in achieving net zero is a leap of faith.
“The Board of Trustees feels loss far more than gain,” said Reczek. “When they make money they’re great, when they lose it they feel they’ve failed.”
Option 1 calls for $91.5 million in upfront capital costs, and $41.5 million in lifecycle costs over the next 40 years. This is the quickest and cheapest of the options, as it relies heavily on funding provided through the federal Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Construction would need to be started before 2035 in order to be eligible for up to 30% funding of capital costs by the federal government. As a result, Option 1 would convert the campus to hot water by 2028 and construct geo-exchange wells and solar panels by 2035.
Hesitancy exists among the administration and Board of Trustees on using IRA funding due to potential risks. Federal funding is project-specific and not guaranteed. Political risks also complicate the potential of utilizing the IRA. Some fear that the university’s long-term plans would be too reliant on funding which could be revoked by a future Congress, particularly with the possibility that Republicans opposed to the IRA take control of Washington in November.
The other two options rely far less on IRA funding. Both would be more expensive for the university and take longer to complete. Option 2 calls for $127.1 million in upfront capital costs, and $153 million in lifecycle costs over the next 40 years, while Option 3 calls for $136.5 million in upfront capital costs, and $183.6 million in lifecycle costs over the next 40 years. Both of these options would defer capital costs closer to 2045, with the main difference being that Option 2 utilizes geo-exchange wells for heating while Option 3 relies on renewable natural gas.
King has made it clear that net zero and keeping the university’s promises on climate is more than an issue of cost.
“Denison is not just looking from the financial perspective,” said King. “The university set their goals, and will have to put resources into our infrastructure to get there.”
Reczek notes that the upfront costs of net zero could be outweighed by the benefits. For example, adopting green energy and electrifying campus would free the university from potentially volatile price fluctuations in fossil fuels like the oil in cars and the natural gas used to heat buildings.
If approved, buildings already slated for maintenance would be some of the first to be transitioned. This would include Doane Administration Building, as part of its transformation into an academic building, as well as Barney-Davis, Beaver, Sawyer, and Slayter Halls. The work required to move these buildings towards net zero would likely be disruptive, requiring work to be scheduled and phased to allow the bulk of renovation to be done during the summer.
Until a decision is made by the Board of Trustees, it remains uncertain what the trajectory of the university’s sustainability efforts will be. The university has successfully reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 47% since 2010, when the original pledges were made. Some, like King and Preston, are confident that this progress will continue, and that the university will meet or beat its 2030 and 2045 deadlines.
Others, like Reczek, are hesitant to say the same, fearing that the same reluctance to address climate change seen elsewhere in the world is just as present at Denison. For an institution with an over $1 billion endowment, Reczek sees net zero as an opportunity for Denison to lead. Although educational institutions aren’t responsible for climate change in the same way as other sectors of the economy, they can set an example for their graduates.
“We’re not making steel or concrete. We’re making the future,” said Reczek. “As an institution we should blaze a trail to show graduates what’s possible and how to reduce what we have to lose from climate change.”