FINANCING ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT Peter James University of Bradford Higher Education Environmental Performance Improvement ( HEEPI)

WHY DO MORE? Rising utilities costs Tightening regulation - ‘Command and Control’ e.g. Part L/J Building Regs, WEEE - ‘ Carrots and Sticks ’ Government targets - Kyoto Protocol, EU commitments Sustainable planning Market/student/stakeholder demands

NEW REGULATIONS EU Emission Trading Scheme Carbon Reduction Commitment - pay for initial allowances - tradeable allowances - league table linked pot of money Display Energy Certificates

BARRIERS Money - Internal mechanisms - Limited external mechanisms Financial literacy Capacity - internal skills - right consultants

AGENDA What sources of external funding - are available? - could be available? What internal mechanisms can help? How can problems be made easier in future?

THE HEEPI PROJECT University of Bradford – ‘Ecoversity’ Steered by key sectoral organisations Green Gown Awards Events and Networking- 21 June Oxford’s Information Engineering Lab - 13 July Post Occupancy & Commissioning - Westminster - 23 August Biodiversity – Hertfordshire - Sept - Sustainable Laboratories Information Benchmarking – Buildings; Transport

SOUTHAMPTON ADMINISTRATION AND STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING

NATIONAL SCIENCE LEARNING CENTRE – UNIVERSITY OF YORK

PAST Reactive - as (after) regulations hit - as students protest - as planning applications must Basic energy management Isolated actions ‘ Worthy ’ policies

PRESENT – STRUGGLING TO BE PROACTIVE More sophisticated energy (and water) management Embryonic environmental management systems Cross-campus initiatives - curriculum as well as Estates Iconic buildings/campuses

DEVONSHIRE BUILDING, UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE

OXSTALLS CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE

BUILDINGS Many have high operating costs Many new buildings don ’ t achieve design brief and/or regulatory requirements Design briefs often aren ’ t anticipating future prices and requirements Disconnected capex/opex budgets Relatively low utilisation/productivity

HE PERFORMANCE - ENERGY Building Type Best (kWh m2) Average (kWh m2) Upper Quartile (kWh m2) Bio-labs (15) <436 Residences (41) <221

FUTURE ‘Greener construction’ - energy efficient - renewable energy and materials - natural lighting and ventilation - location and orientation - materials ‘Green travel’ More efficient use of space

FUTURE – INTEGRATION INTO THE MAINSTREAM Legitimates more efficient use of space - the most environmental building is the one not built - the greenest students and staff are those who travel least by cars and planes Integral part of brand/reputation/credibility - index of ‘future readiness’ Synergies of key design features - natural lighting, materials and ventilation - capital £1; operating £20; salaries £ Buildings/estates as the curriculum

MANY SOLUTIONS ARE GOOD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE Integrated design teams - integration of functions and services Thorough consideration of building function and operation, and how this might change Good project management with clear specification and responsibilities Effective commissioning, evaluation and feedback Thorough whole life costing

CLEAR BENEFITS WHEN SUCCESSFUL “minimal increases in upfront costs of about 2% to support green design would, on average, result in life cycle savings of 20% of total construction costs - more than ten times the initial investment” - The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings, A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force

BARRIERS Trade-off issues Higher capital costs Disconnected capex/opex budgets Lack of knowledge/skills Poor learning cycles

WE BOTH WANT A LEAN ESTATE Light (ambience, footprint) Efficient (resources, productivity) Agile (reconfigurable, responsive) Normative (brand, excitement, experiential learning)