Fovea:CAPTM - Report
University of Fovea
University of Fovea

A viable path towards achieving Fovea's published GHG emission goals

Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals

  • The forecasted reference case below includes Fovea's historic emissions as submitted to the ACUPCC and an estimate of future emissions informed by Fovea's historic growth profile. Specifically, this forecast emissions assumes --% annual growth rate for campus building area, and --% annual growth rate for campus population.

  • tCO2ecumulative abatement to meet goals for -
  • --offset cost to meet goals through -- at $ /tCO2e
  • NPV forecasted energy spending -
    :
    :
--

Solutions: Starter Kit

There are many reasons to select individual solutions for inclusion in your institution’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) or energy strategy. While understanding tradeoffs between many metrics is critical to decision making, two key metrics bare special attention: the cost efficiency of the solution under consideration and the scale of impact each solution may have.

The vertical abatement diagram below shows an initial set of solutions that have been screened for your institution. This set addresses Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions categories. All solutions shown in green save money per ton of carbon emissions abated, while those in red cost money per ton of abatement. The vertical dimension of each red or green colored block indicates the scale of average annual abatement estimated while the horizontal dimension corresponds to associated savings or costs. Solutions listed in the upper left of the abatement diagram should be considered first for implementation and those in the lower right implemented last.

Costs1
Savings1
Average Annual GHG
Reduction Potential2

1per metric ton of carbon emissions avoided
2in metric tons of carbon emissions

Playground of GHG Reduction Opportunities

Developing a GHG mitigation plan can be complicated. One straight-forward way of considering a complete portfolio of possible solutions is through a wedge chart. The chart below shows a set of solutions which meet University of Fovea's stated GHG reduction goals. Each wedge corresponds to a distinct GHG reduction opportunity.The default setting is to only consider options that cost less than $10/MTCO2e as shown by the Levelized Cost filter in the upper right of the chart.

As a starting point, the solutions reflected here have been deployed only as they become necessary to achieve University of Fovea's GHG goals for each year of the forecast period. In some cases the cost/benefit tradeoff of a solution may warrant consideration for earlier implementation.

The solutions are implemented based on the most cost-effective and largest GHG emissions reduction potential - resource options that save money and reduce GHG emissions are given priority. The entire solution set initially considered can be reviewed in the abatement diagram.

FORECAST:-- MTCO2e
GOAL: -- MTCO2e
CURRENT PLAN: -- MTCO2e
CUM. CAPITAL: -- MTCO2e

Levelized Cost

RESET TURN ALL OFF

Sensitive Subjects

Prices for energy will vary in the future. Knowing possible energy price ranges and working to shrink those ranges are key for effective campus planning and budgeting. The reference case expected energy spending below shows the possible range of energy spending through and the expected value of energy spending. The width of the expected energy spending bar is determined by the ranges of prices for individual energy components (e.g. energy purchases, other stationary fuels). Identifying components with the largest range, and selecting solutions which narrow those ranges, will in turn reduce #(uniShortName)'s overall energy spending and exposure to price uncertainty. GHG mitigation through reduced energy consumption is one of the best hedges against future energy price uncertainty.

  • $-- forecasted energy spending
    through
    (Reference Case)
  • $ --avoided energy spending with
    Climate Action Plan (CAP)
  • --% Lessexposure to Price
    Uncertainty

Forecasted Energy Spending

Avoided Energy Spending

Difference Between
Reference Case and
CAP Scenario
  • Cost of Carbon
  • Purchased Electricity
  • Other Purchased Utilities
  • Campus Fleet
  • Stationary Fuels

A Peek at Your Peers

Since leading from behind is difficult, if not impossible, understanding how your aspirations and achievements compare to your peers is essential. This perspective can be foundational to more detailed benchmarking across a wide array of data and metrics.

In this graphic, Fovea's GHG reduction goals were normalized to your baseline year, extended through , and than compared to a weighted average line and range area produced using ten peers as a sample set. Universities left of the weighted average line have more aggressive GHG goals than the collective peer group.

The Carbon Neutrality Leaderboard illustrates the success to which this peer group and #Fovea has reduced emissions, as compared to the baseline year. Remember, zero is the goal.

Fovea:
WEIGHTED AVERAGE:
RANGE:
left
right
Gray bars = peer institutions

Bring Your Planning Process to Life

  • Evolve with Your Campus
    Keep your planning current with campus growth, facilities changes, and all drivers of your emissions forecast. The only constant is change.
  • Develop Solutions and Scenarios
    Build unique scenarios from your forecasted reference case with specific solutions for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Gain insight on key metrics and tradeoffs via Scenario comparison.
  • Engage Your Stakeholders
    Share current realities and future opportunities with the campus community in a consistent manner. Use your data to demystify the paths to neutrality.
FOVEA: CAP - Basic

--

What does this report show me?

  • Current progress towards climate neutrality
  • Opportunities to reduce--'s GHG emissions
  • Peer Comparisons
  • and much more!

Where is the data from?

  • --'s submitted ACUPCC Climate Action Plan and Progress Reports
  • U.S. Energy Information Administration
  • National Renewable Energy Laboratory
  • Environmental Protection Agency