| Overall Rating | Silver - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 63.40 |
| Liaison | Olivia Herron |
| Submission Date | March 2, 2016 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Miami University
IN-1: Innovation 1
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Yvette
Kline Director of Sustainability and Energy Conservation PFD |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
None
Title or keywords related to the innovative policy, practice, program, or outcome:
Use of the Social Cost of Carbon in Utility Master Plan Optimization
None
A brief description of the innovative policy, practice, program, or outcome :
In 2015, Miami University worked with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to conduct a 25 year life cycle cost analysis of planned utility system changes. NREL's ReOPT program used load and performance models to select systems that optimized cost, but Miami was also interested in determining how far they could afford to reduce carbon emissions. NREL and Miami worked to establish emission factors inclusive of "upstream" emissions, and to select a central value discount rate for the Social Cost of Carbon. The ReOPT program was thereby able to select a system that not only optimized cost, but also minimized carbon emissions. By subsequently "subtracting out" the SCC, the carbon optimized outcomes could be fairly compared to the outcomes that only reduced cost, without consideration of carbon.
Per the forethought of the Sustainability Committee, the Life Cycle Cost Analysis will be made available upon request as teachable examples of socially responsible decision-making in a carbon economy.
None
A brief description of any positive measurable outcomes associated with the innovation (if not reported above):
Preliminary results identified a mix of technologies that cuts approximately 500,000 MTeCO2 (compared to Miami's original plan) over a 25 year period at an incremental cost of carbon of $1.81/MTeCO2.
None
A letter of affirmation from an individual with relevant expertise:
None
Which of the following STARS subcategories does the innovation most closely relate to? (Select all that apply up to a maximum of 5):
| Yes or No | |
| Curriculum | Yes |
| Research | No |
| Campus Engagement | No |
| Public Engagement | No |
| Air & Climate | Yes |
| Buildings | Yes |
| Dining Services | No |
| Energy | Yes |
| Grounds | No |
| Purchasing | No |
| Transportation | No |
| Waste | No |
| Water | No |
| Coordination, Planning & Governance | Yes |
| Diversity & Affordability | No |
| Health, Wellbeing & Work | No |
| Investment | No |
None
Other topic(s) that the innovation relates to that are not listed above:
---
None
The website URL where information about the innovation is available :
---
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
This project was a true collaboration between the REopt (renewable energy optimization) group at NREL and the Physical Facilities Department of Miami University.
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.