BROWN IS GREEN

Program Summary: Year One
Brown University 's Brown is Green (BIG) program was established in August 1990 to investigate opportunities for reducing the adverse environmental impact of University operations. The program was created in response to rising energy costs, concerns over low participation rates in the campus recycling program and a perception that wasteful behavior was often the norm around campus.

An immediate opportunity for long-term improvement in energy efficiency was identified in the fall of 1m. With the help of a student class project, calculations were made for retrofitting all lighting fixtures with more efficient models in four dormitories that were due for renovation the following summer. The University qualified for more than $100,000 in rebates from the Narragansett Electric Company, which covered the incremental cost of switching to energy-efficient lighting for both projects. The new lighting fixtures are expected to save Brown a total of $22,000 in annual operating costs!

Another student project on low-flow showerheads identified acceptable brands (after testing samples in several dormitories), and calculated that a retrofit of all of the University's shower fixtures would result in an annual savings of $28,500, which, for a total project cost of $20,000, would pay for itself in just under a year.

The "Brown is Green" Committee
After several other resource-saving ideas had been identified by student projects in the fall of 1m, it became clear that there needed to be a more formal and unified process for effecting change in the University. In January 1991, Brown's President, Vartan Gregorian, appointed the Brown is Green committee to look into such opportunities.

The committee, chaired by Provost Frank Rothman, developed a number of policies aimed at increasing the efficiency of resource use at the University. The fIrst policy recommended that the University invest in any cost-saving project that has a return on investment (ROI) greater than the current borrowing rate for money. A further proposal was made for the University to establish a revolving fund that could be drawn from to finance any cost-saving project. The fund would be replenished by savings from BIG projects, and could thus be used for future projects whose ROI could be proven to exceed the current borrowing rate.

The fIrst two projects to be approved by the BIG committee were the showerhead replacement and a complete retrofit of 1800 exit signs on campus using energy-saving fixtures. The exit signs have been calculated to offer approximately $100,000 in annual savings/cost avoidance from reduced operating costs related to both energy conservation and redirected labor expenditures (from not having to change the shorter-life incandescents as often). These two projects were funded by the Department of Plant Operations and were completed in January 1992.

Another cost -saving opportunity has been identified in the retrofitting of lighting fixtures around campus. In accordance with this, Brown has become the third school in the country to formally recognize both the environmental and economic benefits of lighting retrofits by signing onto the EP A's "Green Lights" pledge.

The University has agreed to survey all of its facilities within a five year time period, and undertake no less than 90% of any profitable changes that are identified after inventorying all buildings on campus. A project has recently been initiated by Plant Operations to conduct lighting surveys and identify related conservation measures in ten of Brown's largest buildings.

Brown's Recycling Program

In Fiscal Year 1991, Brown University recycled 500 tons of bottles, cans, newspapers, office paper, cardboard, food scraps, food grease, and leaf and yard waste (approximately one-sixth of the University's total waste stream). This was an increase of 21% over the previous year, due largely to expanded educational efforts and the addition of two new materials, "mixed office paper" and corrugated cardboard, to the program. A goal has been established to increase recycling weights by an additional 20% for the coming fiscal year. Perhaps the most significant change in the program to date occurred this summer during the renegotiation of the University's waste removal contract. For the first time, recycling was included as part of the contract. The University's waste hauler is now required to record detailed weights for all of Brown's waste and recyclables each month, giving the University accurate measurements of how much waste it actually generates, and what percentage of that waste is actually recycled. And perhaps most importantly, recyclables were bid on as a separate commodity. As a result, Brown will actually save money by recycling -- $45 for every ton the hauler diverts from the landfill for an estimated $10,000 annual savings.

To "close the loop" on recycling - to help to create a market for recycled materials - Brown began testing recycled copy paper in the summer of 1m at various locations around campus. Out of the four brands that passed initial technical and aesthetic tests, only one paper finally met everyone's requirements. Only after more than 20 of its largest academic and administrative departments had tested the paper, and had signed an agreement to use the paper once purchased, did the University place a large order with the company.

Yet after several weeks of using it campus-wide, numerous copy machines were found to be producing spotted copies. The problem was traced by the paper mill back to a contaminated load of post-consumer waste that had entered the paper manufacturing process -- yet at the same time the University discovered that the paper it finally purchased actually had different characteristics from the paper the University had originally tested (the mill had changed it without notification). The company agreed to take back all its paper for a full reimbursement, and the University has since switched back to its original non-recycled stock while it begins a second round of tests on alternative brands of recycled papers.

Many of the University's other office supplies which do not require such well-defmed technical characteristics are now made from recycled paper (telephone note pads, post-it notes, file folders). The University Bookstore has also started to carry recycled paper notebooks, computer paper, index cards, date books, in addition to energy-saving bulbs and desk lamps.

Feedback, Education, and Incentives

Throughout the first year of the program, it has been apparent that there is a lack of understanding of exactly how many resources are consumed in day-to-day activities around the campus. No one ever sees any bills for the electricity they use, the trash they discard, or the water they consume. As such, there is a tendency for individuals to treat energy and water as if they were free.

An experiment that began six years ago has proven that wasteful behavior can indeed be curtailed. A group of 14 students living in a Brown-owned house took a class to study the effects of their behavior on energy consumed in the house. By simply turning lights off, setting thermostats back at night, and taking shorter showers, a 40% reduction in utility costs was achieved. During the past year, an attempt was made to take the lessons learned in this model house and apply them to the rest of the campus.

Six Brown-owned off-campus student houses were selected for a pilot program in September of 1990 (locations where utility bills are paid by the University). Students were informed that they had been selected to participate in an energy conservation program to be administered by Plant Operations with the help of students in an Environmental Studies class. Every other month, they were mailed tips on how to conserve energy and a report card charting their progress. As a financial incentive, Plant Operations promised to donate 50% of any energy savings to a low-income weatherization assistance fund in the City of Providence. The result was a net 10% savings in all six houses, totaling a $2,000 reduction in utility costs. Based on this preliminary success, the program has now been expanded to 14 houses.

Similar education and incentive programs were part of the recommendations resulting from a summer internship researching opportunities to reduce energy consumption in some of Brown's larger science labs: In the Geology-Chemistry building alone, a 10% reduction in electricity use could translate into a $30,000 annual savings. A visible LED energy meter in a prominent location would serve the same purpose as the report cards for students, indicating to the occupants their daily and monthly consumption, and any corresponding decrease or increase in usage.

Lessons Learned

It has been more than a year now since the Brown is Green program began identifying options for energy and water conservation, recycling, source reduction and general environmental education. Given the experiences in moving these proposals from ideas to implementation, it seems timely to reflect on some of the lessons learned.

First is the importance of a pilot test. Mistakes on a small scale are lessons well learned. Large mistakes leave everyone with a bad feeling for conservation programs (recycled paper that produces spotted copies, faucets that offer no more than a drip). Pilot tests can also provide valuable data on actual costs of installation and types of savings that can be expected from a given measure (testing showerheads in dorms). Priorities also need to be established, and attention should go first to decisions that are already being made (the construction or renovation of buildings, the purchasing of products or services etc.) before entirely new programs are initiated.

Second, it is critically important to have good utility data regarding institutional consumption of electricity, gas, oil and water. The current data that is available is often inadequate, and without good baseline data it is difficult to evaluate the success of any project. These figures need to be brought to the University community, through newspaper articles, visible energy meters or pertinent graphs and charts. This audience needs to develop a stake in the numbers and to share in the satisfaction and benefits of any decreases in resource consumption that result from ongoing efforts.

Finally, Brown is Green has discovered the potential resources available through the involvement of students. Many of the ideas that have turned into BIG proposals have been generated from student classprojects. Not only can students complete tasks that would otherwise come at great expense (a group of 20 students recently counted and identified the brand name for every showerhead on campus), they can also bring a crucial perspective to many proposals that would otherwise never have been incorporated (students surveying other students to determine opinions about dorm room lighting, students asking students about how they like their low-flow showerhead etc.). In addition, it is apparent that students find it tremendously rewarding to work on a project that will be listened to by the administration and that holds a good chance of actually being implemented.

And as an institution whose mission it is to educate, Brown University must not overlook the tremendous impact it can have by graduating 1400 individuals each year who are versed in resource conservation and environmental responsibility. To that end, efforts are being made to include Brown is Green in first-year student orientation programs, to conduct outreaches and information sessions for all students living on campus and even to include information in University mailings and campus tours aimed at prospective students.

February 1992