USF Sustainability: Green Returns or Red Ink?

Team Green Cents

Marisa Billetz Jamie Galvan

Professor Tobienne

Teneseia Lewis Brian Stringfellow

November 26th, 2011

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2. Narrowing of focus 3. What is sustainable & green building 4. How are sustainable and green projects determined at USF 5. Financial decisions for USF sustainable and green projects 6. Measuring up: Do sustainable & green building projects deliver? 7. Lessons Learned 8. Conclusions 9. Executive Summary 10.Works Cited 11.Annotated Bibliography

1. Introduction
The University of South Florida has a rich tradition of sustainable programs to benefit the university and community at large. In fact, the university has had recycling and water conservation programs dating back to the 1980s and has had targeted sustainable goals and practices in place as far back as the 1995 USF Tampa Master Plan.1 More recent actions include the 2006 hiring of an Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Strategic initiatives with a focus of identifying campus and community sustainability and the signing of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment by President Judy Genshaft.1 These events culminated by the July 2009 establishment of The Office of Sustainability with the mission of being the controlling entity for all sustainability related activities for all USF campuses and programs. The strategic goals of The Office of Sustainability are:1 Strengthening and supporting integrated and synergistic interdisciplinary research across disciplinary, departmental, college and campus boundaries. Building a sustainable campus environment at USF. Constructing an up-to-date clearinghouse of information about all the sustainability engagement activities currently occurring at USF and encouraging and rewarding faculty, staff, and student engagement in sustainability initiatives. Creating a sustainable environment that supports an expanded and improved teaching and research mission, a more engaged residential community, and a university-based global village.

To achieve its mission, the Office of Sustainability is led by a Director with the assistance of an Assistant Director, Administrative Specialists, graduate assistants, and several undergrad assistants. The office reports to the Director of the Patel School of Global Sustainability and oversees the Sustainability Initiative Steering Committee as well as the Student Green Energy Fund. The steering committee and energy fund develop programs, events, and initiatives that help influence and shape university policy and curriculum. (See Fig. 1) One of the programs the Office of Sustainability sponsors is the Sustainability Champions Program. This program highlights outstanding faculty and staff who demonstrate a strong commitment to making the USF campus and community a cleaner, greener place to live and work.2 The office also sponsor the Sustainability Mentors program which recognizes faculty and staff who seek to encourage others as mentors to students and those faculty and staff who provide exemplary mentorship.

Figure 1

There are many initiatives under way at this time. The student initiatives include projects by official formal university groups like the Student Government Association, which in 2010 created the position of Chief Sustainability Officer, to the Housing and Residential Education organization which recently started recycling programs for the residence halls. There are also a multitude of recognized clubs all with the aim of improving sustainability on campus and in the community. There are also initiatives under way for specific areas of campus responsibilities including designed environment, academics, transportation, water, energy, recycling and waste management, and green building. As previously mentioned, the Student Energy Green Fund is overseen by the Office of Sustainability. This fund was established to meet the requirements of the Climate Committee and to provide funding for student projects intended to lower energy usage only on the USF Tampa campus. Approved project funding occurs during the fall and spring semester; students and staff of the Tampa Campus can apply. Projects can also be submitted in the interim for less than fifty thousand dollars and will be funded if excess program funds are available and they will return a sufficient return on investment.3

The guidelines for submitted Student Green Energy Fund projects are:3 Proposals must address energy savings and/or renewable energy technologies that demonstrably lower energy consumption on the USF Tampa campus. Proposals must include an educational component that informs the USF community about the results of the project. All relevant university paperwork (e.g., Space Impact Request, Event Request, etc.) must be completed and approved. All proposed projects must have immediate application (i.e., should not be "pure" research). Budgets cannot include salaries or stipends for USF employees but can include stipends for undergraduate students and salaries (but not tuition) for graduate assistants. Proposals must demonstrate that funding alternatives (such as fees, grants, etc.) are not available/applicable, and all proposals and benefitting units must comply with the reporting requirements of the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment and the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System. Proposals should specify or estimate the return on investment (eg, KWH reductions, GHG emissions reductions, and/or cost savings realized by the institution). Project management teams should include a combination of faculty/staff and students. Projects should seek internal/external funding matches or cost sharing with other units. Proposals should show how the projects align with the USF Strategic Plan and/or Master Plan. Proposals should demonstrate the sustainability of the project after the budget period has ended (e.g., a statement from the benefitting unit committing to maintain the project after the budget period has ended). Projects should enhance student success and contribute to institutional sustainability.

The initiatives previously mentioned are for the Tampa Campus exclusively. The Saint Petersburg Campus is focused on sustainability and green programs as well, but based on its size and funding its programs pale in comparison. Instead of an entire staff under a full fledge college department the Campuss sustainability efforts fall to Ashok K. Dhingra, DPA and his Administrative and Finance Staff. Campus coordination of student efforts is led by a single person, David ONeill, director of the Student Government Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability office. Resources are so limited that the Campus is unable to fund a sustainability website. Schools in similar size and considered peers to the Saint Petersburg Campus such as The University of Albany and The University of South Alabama both show little information in regards to sustainability and green efforts. On the other hand, Colorado State University shows a considerable effort. CSU has a complete website dedicated to their green initiatives. They have been pioneers in becoming a green university. Their scientists created the world's first engineered solar heated and cooled building. CSU was the first university in the world to obtain a LEED CI (Commercial Interior) Certification. Colorado State was one of the first universities in the country to offer green power as an option to the students living on campus. CSU established the nation's first emissions-control program. They use electric and hybid electric vehicles on campus where ever possible. CSU is also home to a number of student organizations that provide opportunities for students to gain awareness, involvement, and career preparation related to environmental issues.

In comparison and on a size similar to the Tampa Campus, the University of Florida believes that students are the heart of the sustainability movement. They strongly encourage students to become involved in one of their green organizations or to volunteer in the university's efforts to create a sustainable campus. UF's green efforts date back to 1994 when they joined 310 universities world-wide in signing the Talloires Declaration, pledging support to reduce environmental degradation and natural resource depletion. Their Office of Sustainability was established in 2000 and in 2001 UF adopted LEED criteria for design and construction for all major new construction and renovation projects. Since 1994 UF has worked hard to plan for more comprehensive recycling and cradle-to-cradle efforts and to launch a new energy efficiency campaign.

Because of the concern about sustainability and the responsibilities of the Climate Committee, the University is annually audited by the independent Sustainable Endowments Institute. The results of the audit are published in the College Sustainability Report Card. This report monitors the progress made by campus and endowment associated activities and programs at its subscribing institutions, and provides the opportunity to measure the rating and progress of sustainability programs versus other universities and colleges. According to the Sustainable Endowments Institute, the report card focuses on policies and practices in the following areas:4 Administration Climate Change & Energy Food & Recycling Green Building Student Involvement Transportation Endowment Transparency Investment Priorities Shareholder Engagement

For each practice area, the report card has a detailed list of sub areas that are examined and are called indicators. Each indicator has a score that can be achieved based on achievement of the indicator requirements. Each indicator (there are 48) is equally weighted in the total score, which is added up to compute a schools sustainability GPA.4 An unusual twist is that schools were given the ability to achieve extra credit just as in the classroom setting; this extra credit was given to schools that demonstrated innovative solutions to satisfying indicators. The practice areas are: Administration, Climate Change and Energy, Food & Recycling, Green Building, Student Involvement, Transportation, Endowment Transparency, and Investment Priorities. As an example here is the practice area for transportation and its indicators.

The Institute provides informative and useful tools on its website located at www.greenreportcard.org. It allows one to see how an institutions score has changed over time and to compare its grade versus other schools. For instance USFs grade has went from a D+ in 2008 up to a C- in 2009 and has done progressively better and reached B+ for 2011. Much like in football though, South Florida continues to show outstanding growth the University of Florida Gainesville shows little change. Its score is still close to its initial 2008 score of B-, only achieving the same score as USF in the current year. 4

When looking at Florida State University its overall score has went down between 2010 and 2011 . They went from a grade of Bto a C, which indicates not only a lack of progress but regression. In reviewing their sustainability website, it appears that they do not have the same level of documentation and focus compared to the University of Florida and the University of South Florida Tampa campus. Although the Saint Petersburg campus does not have a report card, we looked to see the results of its peers. Colorado State University has outstanding scores on the report card. There green efforts can are reflected in their dedication to green initiatives. They have been pioneers in becoming a green university, in spite of their relative small size. Their scientists created the world's first engineered solar heated and cooled building. CSU was the first university in the world to obtain a LEED Commercial Interior Certification. The University was also one of the first universities in the country to offer green power as an option to the students living on campus. CSU also established the nation's first emissions-control program. They use electric and hybrid-electric vehicles on campus where ever possible. CSU is also home to a number of student organizations that provide opportunities for students to gain awareness, involvement, and career preparation related to environmental issues. Comparatively the University of South Alabama comes in at the other end of the scale. They have an overall score of a D in every year reported. We were unable to find out any information about the universitys green movement and could not locate any website or documents other than the individual indicator results.

2. Narrowing of focus As has been discovered, the Universitys Office of Sustainability is responsible for the management and operation of a wide ranging number of programs, initiatives, and events. It is also responsible for coordinating the both the Sustainability Initiative Steering Committee and the Student Green Energy Fund. It also plays a key university role as the principle department for the overall coordination of information used by the Sustainable Endowments Institute to complete each years College Sustainability Report Card. Given there is such a breadth and depth to the Universitys sustainability efforts we felt it impossible to examine the program as a whole and to be able to accurately validate and determine the Universitys efforts given the time and scope of the project. We also closely examined the criteria used by the College Sustainability Report Card to determine what similarities existed between the report and the Universitys efforts; we were looking to see if there was a natural alignment between the two.

In completing our review of available information we observed that there was not a significant reference to the overall financial impact of the Universitys sustainability programs, initiatives, and events, nor did we find any financial scoring system that compared net financial gains or losses to potential environmental improvements. The only mention of financial metrics found in our review of the available information was in the Student Green Energy Fund, which requires a measured Return on Investment. The return as utilized by the fund is the number of kilowatt hours saved, which excludes any cost associated with neither acquisition, implementation, and disposal costs. It does include or mention a minimum Return on Investment for submission. It also ignores any consideration for a payback period, net present value calculation using a prescribed hurdle rate. Further, when examining the College Sustainability Report Card we found no instances of financial metrics as a grading factor, nor mentioned as being a measurement tool considered as part of the assessment process.

Why did we look for any potential financial considerations as part of the either the Universitys efforts or the scorecards criteria? Consider the following: The average cost of tuition has increased over one hundred twelve percent since the year 2000 but food prices have only increased approximately ten percent. Healthcare by contrast has increased approximately sixty eight percent.5 As a major concern of the project team the tuition at University of South Florida increased fifteen percent this year. The average 2010 USF graduate toted not only a diploma but also over twenty one thousand dollars in college debt.6 All of this is occurring while the nation struggles with the second greatest depression and college debt has replaced credit card debt as the largest source of consumer indebtedness.

As college students during these trying times we thought it would be prescient to explore the financial impacts of the Universitys sustainability programs and initiatives. We wanted to examine the financial impacts; both up-front costs and net cost savings that the sustainability program is having on the University as well as the effect on tuition both in the near and long term. But once again, given the size of the sustainability efforts it would be impossible to examine the financial impacts for sustainability impacts as a whole so we have narrowed our focus to the financial impacts of the Universitys green building initiatives. To further narrow the scope, we have chosen to examine the financial impacts of the recently completed Student and Technology building and the Student Multipurpose building which is currently under construction. We selected these buildings for several reasons. First, the Student and Technology building is the St. Petersburg Campus first Gold Certified LEED certified building. Second, both buildings are on our campus, and are major landmarks.

3. What is Sustainable and Green Building? To understand green building one must understand what encompasses the entirety of green building; who determines what are considered green buildings, what constitutes a green building, and what is the process to achieve green building certification. In the United States sustainable and green building certification falls under the jurisdiction of the United States Green Building Council, or USGBC. It is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D. C. Its mission is to ensure that the country achieves a sustainable future by changing the design and construction of buildings in an environmentally friendly manner. According to their website, they envision buildings and communities that create an sustainable and regenerative environment; all within a generation.7 One of the key programs of the USGBC is the LEED building program used to measure the sustainability and green aspects of buildings; be it either new construction of significant retrofitting or an existing structure. Another key program is education in the design, construction, and operation of buildings in a green manner.7 It also provides advocacy in achieving a sustainable and green future within a generation.7

The sustainable and green program administered by the USGBC is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification system, or LEED.8 According to the LEED website: LEED provides building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions.8 It also provides a rating system established by volunteers across many facets of the building and construction vocations. This rating system is applicable to all types of buildings and construction projects ranging from single family homes to large commercial office space. It also includes the retrofitting of buildings. As part of the LEED program nine key performance areas are measured:9 Sustainable Site Water Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere Materials & Resources Indoor Environmental Quality Locations & Linkages Awareness & Education Innovation in Design Regional Priority After examining the nine performance areas, the project is issued a LEED grade. The grade levels are on a hundred point basis with certification going from lowest rank of Certified to Silver, Gold, and Platinum.10

Projects are submitted to the USGBC for evaluation. However, not all projects that add to the sustainability of the University or local community will necessarily quality for as a LEED project and the LEED program provides guidelines to access whether a project is a good fit for the program. The certification process is as follows:

There are quite a large number of completed LEED buildings on college campuses today. As of this writing there are already nine hundred fifteen LEED higher education projects either completed or in process at this time.11 A local example of a completed project is the Hillsborough Community College Ybor Campus Student Service Center.

According to the Architects Hunton Brady, The building was designed to meet USGBC LEED Gold Certification and includes a large number of sustainable features, such as light pollution reduction, double paned windows, low-flow plumbing, preferred parking for energy efficient cars, occupancy sensors, regionally manufactured materials with low VOCs, and maximizing daylight.12

Floridas first Platinum level college or university building has also recently been completed by Florida Atlantic University. The Universitys Engineering and Computer Science Center was completed in the summer of 2011.

The University is doing its part in the area of green building as well as it has completed two LEED Gold Certified buildings to date: The Dr. Kiran C. Patel Center for Global Solutions on the Tampa Campus and the Science and Technology Building on the Saint Petersburg campus. Other LEED buildings projects that are underway are the Interdisciplinary Science Building and Wellness and Nutrition Center on the Tampa Campus, the Multipurpose Student Center on the Saint Petersburg Campus and the USF Polytechnic Phase I, on the Lakeland Campus. The reason that building programs are being constructed to the LEED Gold Certified level is to improve the campus and community and on the Tampa Campus to fulfill a requirement of the College Sustainability Report Card, which requires this level of certification to achieve the highest grade. To achieve its sustainable and green building goals the University has taken many steps. They have undertaken major renovations that include replacing roofs with higher insulation values and increased reflectivity, lowering energy needs and costs. It has also designing a system to remotely manage building energy management including the individual metering of electricity and water use. It is also establishing standards for all building materials to be used to ensure that they are green and sustainable.13 These efforts have greatly improved the Universitys College Sustainability Report Card green building grade as the grade has went from the letter F in 2008 to its current year rating of the letter A.

4. How are sustainable and green projects determined at USF Sustainable and green building projects primarily fall under the each universitys Physical Campus Master Plan, which is part of each campuss five year Strategic Plan, which in turn is part of the systemwide Strategic Plan. The Physical Campus Master Plan lays out projected new building projects and renovations needed for the next seven years and is based meeting space and sustainability requirements as well as projected funding levels. As pointed out by the Tampa Campuss Assistant Director Facilities Planning and Construction Barbara Donerly, Sustainability is evaluated within the context of the three legged stool; addressing social, environmental, and economic aspects. New building and renovation projects are financed by university sourced funds, grants, or a combination of the two. Grants can be from private companies, local, state, or federal agencies. An example of a building project that was a combination of university, federal, and private funding is the new Science and Technology building on the Saint Petersburg Campus, which was funded by the university, federal grants, and a grant from Florida Progress Energy. 18

A critical aspect of the Physical Campus Maser Plan is the University not only needs to meet its internal sustainability and green goals, but has to meet state mandated sustainability requirements as well. The State of Florida requires that all new construction projects be completed to LEED certified Silver levels, which has caused some complexities. As with many standards, the LEED building standards continue to change over time as revisions to the requirements are made. These standards change based on changes in current available technologies and practices and what the thinking is about upcoming technologies and practices. Each revision then reflects the most recent views on what is possible in future building construction.18 A complication arises as buildings that may have been in the design and then building stages for a significant period of time and under a different set of LEED standards must be certified to the most recent standards in accordance to the state mandate. This not only leads to a time and complexity issue but a cost issue as well. Funding for a project may have been allocated well over three to four years before the certification process may begin and the university must deal with potential cost overruns if changes to the LEED requirements have been significant.

5. The Role of Financial Measures in Choosing Sustainable and Green Building Projects The key financial measurement tool used to evaluate is payback period.18 Typically the timeframe considered for payback is five years. As previously mentioned, building and remodeling projects have typically been approved many years in advance to actual design and construction so there will always be changes that need to be made. This process is complicated by the fact that building project is not as simple as taking something out and putting something else in. A building project is comprised of many smaller projects that come tougher to produce a unified result; it is just like baking a cake but on a much grander scale. Because of this the facilities staff is looking at the overall impact one change may have on an entire project and how this change may impact the overall balance between cost and sustainability. The department also looks to balance the cost of changes; can it offset a cost increase in one area with a reduction in another without impacting Sustainability or LEED certification level.

The facilities department even looks for ways to save costs on projects if possible. At the Saint Petersburg campus they try to avoid projects that utilize the cutting edge, or according to Assistant Director Facilities Saint Petersburg John Trecastelli, bleeding edge, which may have promise in being more cost effective or sustainable in the future but do not have a proven track record in real world use. The last thing his department wants to see is something that cannot be effectively utilized for an extended period of time in a cost efficient and reliable fashion given the limited resources the university. He mentioned an example that there are many new high technology systems to manage and monitor electricity and other utility usage throughout the entire campus. However, these systems promise savings but these savings exclude the costs associated with conversion and training. According to Trecastelli, a good example of leading edge but not bleeding edge technology would be the replacement of the parking garage lights with LED lights. LED lights are more efficient, but have been historically expensive. As the supply of LED lights starts to increase, prices are coming down and getting potential project prices closer to a reasonable payback period. 18

6. Measuring up: Do Sustainable & Green building projects deliver One of the major claims of going with sustainable and green building programs is that they save energy costs versus traditional construction. To statistically back up this claim, in 2006 the USGBC commissioned the New Buildings Institute to verify that green buildings saved energy versus their standard built counterparts for both site use energy and source use energy. Site use energy is the cost of electricity to either light or control temperature at the building site. The measurement for this is the utility bill that shows a kilowatt usage and costs. The primary energy is the fuel used to eventually generate electricity while source energy is primary energy and any losses due to inefficiencies (no power generation source is one hundred percent efficient and has parasitic losses so you do not get one hundred percent out of what you put in.) as well as transportation costs to the final usage site. This is then converted into secondary energy which is the final product for use and it is either electricity or something used for temperature control. For instance, a university may have a central steam generation plant, but that steam has transportation and efficiency losses as it makes it way to the building to be used. When that steam reaches a building it can be fed through a series of radiators for a source of heat or may be fed to a turbine to generate electricity. A ratio of primary energy to secondary energy is calculated based in primary energy units and is called the source-site ratio. The higher the ratio the more efficient a fuel source is. The most efficient energy source is power off of the local electrical power grid. One interesting fact is that solar is no more efficient than any other power source.14

In 2008, the New Buildings Institute (NBI) completed the study and issued a final report stating that LEED certified commercial buildings used twenty five to thirty percent less power than other commercial buildings on average for both site and source energy. In a review of the study several issues were raised. First, the data relied on self-reporting of the green building site and source use. One would expect that individuals responsible for providing this data would ensure that expected savings had achieved targets or had exceeded them. There was no third party verification of submitted responses. Further, the study used the median energy used for LEED commercial buildings and compared it to the average energy used for all commercial buildings. A median is the data point that is exactly in the center of all samples whereas the mean is a calculated weighted average for all buildings in the sample. Based on the skewness of the data the median may be lower than the mean, so it is imperative to be consistent in data points used for comparison.15 The most critical point raised against the study was how mean energy intensity was calculated. Mean energy intensity is intended to show how much energy is used per a given unit and is a reflection of efficiency. In the study the total energy used by each building was summed together and then divided by the total number of buildings. By using the total number of buildings, the metric ignores the impact of the variation in energy used between large and small buildings. This is intuitive as a larger building (higher square footage) will have higher energy usage, and due to its size would most likely more difficult to make efficient. (Imagine making a single family home efficient versus a campus library.)

When the energy intensity was recalculated using square footage the results were quite different. When measuring source energy, the green commercial building average was not lower than the overall commercial average so primary energy uses were not lower which would indicate greenhouse gases are not being reduced; the reduction of greenhouse gasses is a primary goal of green building programs. When the site energy average was recalculated on a square foot basis, the average savings was half of what the study had calculated; it ended up between twelve and fifteen percent. This would point to a need to reexamine the measuring tools to determine the impact of green buildings and that focus should be primarily on how to improve the efficiencies of larger buildings which based on the data are those over thirty four thousand square feet in size. We then looked at how the University was tracking its cost savings in order to ensure that there were measurable savings for its projects, in light of the study results. In our research we have found little in the way of follow up studies, and based on our interviews and interactions knowledge of the study was very low, but this does not mean that sustainability projects may not be generating higher levels of efficiencies as the certification bar continues to rise. We also could not find any methodology the University uses to compare expected savings versus what was being achieved, nor a system to facilitate a comparison between a projects calculated cost savings and actual savings realized. For example comparing energy usage from an existing building to a new LEED certified building or comparing electricity usage from what was anticipated from the building design and certification to what the actual bills turned out to be.

7. Lessons Learned Along the Way As the sustainable and green building movement has continued to grow, questions have been raised on whether every building project should be completed under the LEED certification program. Benefits of completing a building project under LEED certification are many. The community is improved by reducing the use of depleting resources. It encourages the use of sustainable building materials, reduces the amount of greenhouse gasses released, and enhances employee productivity and heath and increases resale values. It also provides an independent third party to recognize what design, construction, and operational features are contributing to sustainability. This third party review assist in another way as it helps to encourage measurement of sustainable and green building initiatives and help to communicate what the impact of different decisions have on the overall sustainability of a project. As the old saying goes, what gets measured gets managed.16 Criticisms of LEED certified projects start with the up-front costs, which can increase by as much as ten percent. An example of the up-front costs is the LEED building certification expenses which start at two thousand two hundred fifty dollars to more than fifty thousand dollars depending on building size and professional costs to achieve certification. These costs should be examined and added to total costs in computing payback period. As previously mentioned, LEED certification does not necessarily equate to increased efficiency, especially in larger square feet buildings. There is also the concerned that the project may become LEED checkbox focused, where a team adds design features in order to achieve LEED certification or a higher level of LEED certification although a feature does improve efficiency or environmental benefit.16

Some of the benefits of sustainable and green building were already taking place before there became a focus on sustainable building. For instance there was already a movement to recycle the concrete and rebar used in building construction. The increasing cost of concrete and rebar forced the need to look for cheaper sources of materials. Instead of the traditional method of simply tearing old buildings down and depositing the materials in a landfill, the concrete and iron are separated from each other. The concrete can be broken down and reused and the iron rebar can be melted down and used again. Another example is improving the air quality in buildings. For quite some time The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has been requiring that the air ducts of all heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) ducts be covered throughout the building process to be recognized as utilizing best practices. This reduces contaminants that get in the ductwork during construction and that either come out when the system is first operated or remains in the ductwork for the life of the building. LEED certification has picked up this best practice and made it mandatory with the only modification that filters instead of covers be used.18 There is also the benefit that more and more building best practices become the de facto standard. As more and more of the new construction projects must comply with LEED or some other equivalent certification, designers and construction companies begin to utilize these new standards as base requirements even if they do not seek certification.

For the University some of the cost criticisms seem to be founded. If university was to attempt for LEED Platinum levels there is significantly more costs throughout the process. An independent third party has to participate in the building process from design phase on. This third party must approve all aspects of design, construction, and operation. This also increases the number of categories in the certification process as well. Unfortunately, even though you have submitted the project to extensive additional cost and oversight there is no guaranteeing that the project will achieve LEED Platinum certification. We were also able to confirm that the up-front costs are significant and the numbers stated above appear to be reasonable, there are no hard rules of thumb to calculate what the range of up-front cost and differing levels of certification costs they University has experienced. This is due to the relatively small number and diverse use of LEED certified buildings completed.18

8. Conclusions The University of South Florida takes the call to create a sustainable and green environment vary seriously and it reflected by its inclusion in the strategic plan for the university system and for each university campus. This focus touches on all areas of the university system from administrators, to faculty to students, to benefactors. However, because of the different physical, student population, and budget sizes among the different campuses the money to promote, create, support, a mentor green programs are not the same. The Tampa campus has a large staff and funding devoted strictly to sustainable and green movements; there is even a degree programs and building dedicated to sustainability. The Saint Petersburg campus does not have the funding or resources to provide the multitude of programs offered by the Tampa campus but aims to be just a dedicated to sustainable and green efforts which results in the administration wearing multiple hats at one time. It is also apparent that the University system as a whole is focused on building projects that meet payback criteria and generate cost saving returns, in spite of the many changes in certification levels between when a project is conceptualized and actually begins. There is also a focus on trying to allocate potential savings to other building projects when applicable. They are also conservative in adopting new and unproven technologies that may not yield any additional quantifiable savings over current technologies.

8. Conclusions (contd) It appears that the University system could benefit from some co ordination of efforts though. As previously mentioned the Tampa campus has a much larger pool of available resources for its sustainability and green efforts. If these resources were leveraged in creating, monitoring, and mentoring efforts at all of the campuses the system would benefit as a whole. One instance where this could beneficial is establishing a system to track how projected project energy usage compares to actual usage so projected returns could be verified. If the returns did not materialize determine what was the root causes and if action needs to be taken for projects under development. This system would be useful for not only university projects but student projects as well. Web presence could also be advanced by leveraging the Tampa campus resources as well, so that each campus would have a similar if not unified point of information access. In conclusion the University of South Florida system strives to deliver sustainable and green programs that are sound for the environment, community, and its budget.

9. Executive Summary
The University of South Florida has a rich history in sustainable and green efforts starting all the way back in the 1980s. This commitment to sustainability gradually became part of each campuss fiveyear strategic plan, which is reflected in the University Systems Strategic Plan. Although campuses vary in size and available funding for sustainable efforts, each campus tries to maximize the returns generated. These returns are financial, environmental, and social in nature. Given the ever increasing cost of going to college and the constant reduction in available financial aid an scholarships research was focused on the returns generated from sustainable and green programs, specifically sustainable and green building programs. To support these goals each campus is focused on having new buildings and building remodeling projects that are sustainable but are financially responsible by delivering defined paybacks and targeted sustainability targets. Building projects are analyzed throughout the design and building process to find ways to deliver the best bang for the buck, and avoids technologies and methods that have not demonstrated real world returns. They are also built to LEED building standards, which ensure third party evaluation of sustainability efforts. Although the University is focused on projects that will be completed on time, on budget, and deliver a healthier environment for all, there appear to be no methodologies in place to perform post project audits and to ensure that estimated savings used are actually seen after completion. Further there appear to be no post program debrief that reveals lessons learned that can be applied to future projects. There also appear to be no sharing or resources among the different campuses, even though they are all part of the same university system. For instance, USF Tampa has a elaborate sustainability website which could be used as a template to facilitate the creation of a USF Saint Petersburg site. The University has faced several challenges in trying to stay on track to achieve project costs, as the state mandated LEED Silver certification to the most current standards even though a building may have been designed to meet the standards available at the time. This need may cause delays and additional costs as the University must find ways to change building parameters and stay on budget. If new, more efficient, sustainable, and reliable technologies present themselves, the University always tries modify designs and apply the cost savings to other cost savings programs, when applicable. The University also faces significant up-front costs as part of a LEED certification program and there are significant costs between the different levels of certification. Because the University must now build to Silver certification, there could be instances where the University spends more in certification and building costs than it would like and these additional costs may more than outweigh increases in efficiency or societal wellbeing. Given the current economic climate that exists, the University tries to constantly achieve the appropriate balance of financial, environmental, and social outcomes while still delivering on its strategic goals.

10. Works Cited

1. History." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research I University, with 4 Campuses Located in Central Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://usfweb2.usf.edu/Sustainability/about_history.aspx>. 2. "Sustainability Programs." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research I University, with 4 Campuses Located in Central Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://usfweb2.usf.edu/Sustainability/about_programs.aspx>. 3. "USF Office of Sustainability - Student Green Energy Fund: Overview." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research I University, with 4 Campuses Located in Central Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://usfweb2.usf.edu/Sustainability/sgef-overview.aspx>. 4. The College Sustainability Report Card - Overview." The College Sustainability Report Card. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2010/executive-summary>. 5. Short, Doug. "Inside the Consumer Price Index." Advisor Perspectives. Advisor Perspectives, 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/CPI-CategoryOverview.php>. 6. "University of South Florida Tuition, Costs and Financial Aid - CollegeData College Profile." CollegeData: College Search, Financial Aid, College Application, College Scholarship, Student Loan, FAFSA Info, Common Application. Peterson's Undergraduate and Undergraduate Financial Aid Databases. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg03_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1647>. 7. "USGBC: About USGBC." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. United State Green Building Council. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=124>. 8. "USGBC: What LEED Is." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. US Green Building Council. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988>. 9. USGBC: What LEED Measures." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. U.S. Green Building Council. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1989>. 10. LEED 2009: LEED for New Construction. Publication. Washington, D.C.: US Green Building Council, 2011. Print 11. Certified Project Directory." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. US Green Building Council. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/Project/CertifiedProjectList.aspx>. 12. "Hillsborough Community College Ybor City | HuntonBrady." Orlando Architect Firm | Modern Architecture | LEED Architect | Florida Architecture. Hunton Brady Architecs. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.huntonbrady.com/hillsborough-community-college-ybor-city#>.

10. Works Cited (contd)

13. "Green Building Sustainable Initiative." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research I University, with 4 Campuses Located in Central Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://usfweb2.usf.edu/sustainability/initiative_building.aspx>. 14. Understanding Source and Site Energy : ENERGY STAR." Home : ENERGY STAR. United States Enviromental Protection Agency. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_benchmark_comm_bldgs>. 15. Scofield, John H. "Do LEED-certified Buildings save Energy? Not Really." Energy and Buildings 41.12 (2009): 1386-390. Print. 16. Willson, Myron. "McGraw-Hill Construction - Intermountain Construction - Some Pros and Cons of LEED Certification." Mountain States Construction | McGraw-Hill Construction. Mc Graw Hill, Nov. 2008. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://intermountain.construction.com/features/archive/0811_feature2d.asp>. 17. Points of Focus 2009-2013 Strategic Plan. Rep. Points of Focus 2009-2013 Strategic Plan. University of South Florida Saint Petersburg. Web. 9 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usfsp.edu/strategicplanning/09-13plan.htm>. 18. Trecastelli, John. "USFSP Sustainable Building Initiatives." Personal interview. 15 Nov. 2011

11. Annotated Bibliography

Fehr, Kimberly, and Sandra Estenger. "Going Green Means Going Trayless for USF." The Oracle -University of South Florida. The University of South Florida, 7 Oct. 2008. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usforacle.com/going-green-means-going-trayless-for-usf1.775008#.Tq7q63JRHTo>.

Article states removing trays primarily to save money and going green was likely only a secondary reason for this. The exact amount of money could not be calculated, unfortunately. However, the impact is expected to be significant. There will be a lot of water saved and far fewer cleaning products used, due to no having to wash the trays every day. There also will be far less wasted food. One of USFs first projects under the green movement Cash, Jacqui. "USF One of Nation's Top Green Colleges - University of South Florida." University of South Florida News. University of South Florida, 5 May 2010. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://news.usf.edu/article/templates/?a=2295>. Background on how USF ranks in green compared to other colleges good link to look for comparative information. "USGBC: Resources." USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. U.Sl Green Building Council. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=20>. The U.SL Green Building Council is a great source of LEED project information, including case studies, presentations, and completed university projects including project cost and savings from across the country so we can get an idea of what other projects are seeing and that we can compare to how USF is doing.

Clayton, Kelly. "How Do You Feel about Paying Campus Fees to Go Green? | USA TODAY College." Untitled Document. USA Today, 5 Oct. 2011. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/campuslife/would-you-payextra-to-attend-a-green-college>.

The USF Sustainability Initiatives Steering Committee has fourteen subcommittees which are involved in various greenrelated activities. USF itself is financially supporting the green movement. One of the subcommittees mentioned above is Finance which we will try to directly interview.
"USF President Signs Historic Environmental Commitment - University of South Florida." USF 2011. <http://news.usf.edu/article/templates/?a=617>. President Signs Historic Environmental Commitment - University of South Florida. University of South Florida, 12 Apr. 2008. Web. 09 Nov.

USF was one of the first colleges to commit to green programs and these programs covered all colleges at the university. USF also named their first sustainability chair.

11. Annotated Bibliography (contd)

"USF

President Signs Historic Environmental Commitment - University of South Florida." USF President Signs Historic Environmental Commitment University of South Florida. University of South Florida, 12 Apr. 2008. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://news.usf.edu/article/templates/?a=617>. USF was one of the first colleges to commit to green programs and these programs covered all colleges at the university. USF also named their first sustainability chair.

"USF Office of Sustainability - Student Green Energy Fund: Overview." University of South Florida - A Metropolitan Research I University, with 4 Campuses Located in Central Florida. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

<http://usfweb2.usf.edu/Sustainability/sgef-overview.aspx>. Explains what students are charged to cover Green Energy Fund and what the process is to apply for project funding. Interesting part is that there appears to be no metric to measure cost/benefit or payback on projects, just that they have to some type of savings. Scofield, John H. "Do LEED-certified Buildings save Energy? Not Really." Energy and Buildings 41.12 (2009): 1386-390. Print.

Interesting research paper published in a major journal that states that green energy savings may be overstated due to different measurement points. For instance for LEED certified buildings they use the statistical measurement of median and use the mean for non LEED buildings who may vary in size from the sample used for LEED certification. Also, LEED measurements rely on self-reporting which opens up the process to additional errors. Willson, Myron. "McGraw-Hill Construction - Intermountain Construction - Some Pros and Cons of LEED Certification." Mountain States Con-

struction | McGraw-Hill Construction. Mc Graw Hill, Nov. 2008. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://intermountain.construction.com/features/ archive/0811_feature2d.asp>. An interesting list of potential reasons for and against undertaking LEED building projects and the associated pros and cons for associated with each. Good source to see in the interviews what USFs thoughts are and do they have a similar list of pros and cons after completing several projects like the STG building. "University of South Florida - Green Report Card 2010." The College Sustainability Report Card. University of South Florida. Web. 09 Nov. 2011.

<http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2010/schools/university-of-south-florida>. The universitys report card for green programs. Interesting to note the university believes it comes up with a building score of D but yet when it adds the parts it is higher at a C+ which is hard to follow why the total is lower than all of the pieces. It also allows to each metric that then measure. Also the report card shows no LEED buildings but STG is supposed to be LEED certified through what was read somewhere else so we will need to follow up to see if there is a report card for USFSP separately but we have not seen one yet.