35% Less by 2025 | UM Climate Response

35% LESS ENERGY BY 2025:

UMCRC'S CONTRIBUTION TO ENERGY CONSERVATION AT UM

Watch this two-minute video to learn more about the UMCRC's effort to advocate for 35% less energy by 2025 at UM:

In 2019, the UM Climate Response Club collaborated with campus facilities and sustainability faculty to evaluate spending alternatives for a $63 million funding opportunity earmarked for improvements to campus physical structures.

In particular, we advocated for spending to support campus-wide energy conservation improvements and investment in a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system that would dramatically reduce UM's electricity purchasing, improve UM's resilience, and reduce UM's greenhouse gas emissions by about a third.

We advocated for energy conservation and CHP spending through conversations with administrators and faculty, submitting a resolution that was unanimously passed by the Associated Students of the University of Montana (visible here), speaking out on Missoula community platforms to explain the situation, and the collection of hundreds of signatures on an online position that was submitted to the UM administration. We hoped to engage in additional activism, but the events of the Spring of 2020 resulted in a significant reshuffling of priorities both for student leaders and the UM administration. Still, dozens of our members came together to submit clips for the video above that we released for Earth Day.

The Associated Students of the University of Montana recognized the work done by the CRC on the 35% less energy by 2025 campaign by awarding us Student Group of the Year for the 2019-2020 academic year.

In the end, UM opted to invest in CHP and energy conservation measures across campus. While energy conservation efforts were not emphasized at the level the CRC advocated for, we are still grateful to see UM prioritize sustainability at some level. Moving forward, we will continue to advocate for policies and procedures that limit UM's environmental footprint to the extent feasible.

Read on below to learn more about UMCRC's justification for 35% less energy by 2025 at UM from informational materials we distributed in 2019.

THE CONTEXT

In the fall of 2019, UM got $63 MILLION DOLLARS to spend EXCLUSIVELY on phsysical infrastructure. This is a HUGE opportunity for UM to modernize its infrastructure to save money, reduce emissions, and make its campus more comfortable.

There are two major ways UM could use this money to achieve these goals:

(1) Sweeping building maintenance and upgrades to conserve energy

(2) Installing a turbine that will generate electricity from UM's existing natural gas use (CHP)

Both options would reduce UM's emissions by about a third (!!!).

However, right now the CHP plan - which would expand UM's dependence on natural gas - is the only one being favored by the administration. Though both would save money, the CHP plan would save more money. Still, we argue that now is the time to additionally invest in energy conservation measures to reduce UM's demand on natural gas that pollutes our air and threatens the health of those communities near its extraction.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP): Pros and Cons

The Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plan will reduce UM's total scope 1 (direct) emissions by a third. Still, there's more to the story.

Right now, UM burns natural gas to heat most of its buildings, accounting for about a third of UM's energy supply. The heat from the gas is used to boil water and produce steam that is in turn distributed around campus in underground pipes. The CHP plan would harness the currently-wasted energy of steam pressure on campus through a turbine that would generate electricity. So, instead of only supplying heat, natural gas would supply both heat and power.

Pros:

The electricity the CHP plan would generate could account for almost all of UM's energy demand. That would save UM millions on utility expenses every year.
The CHP plan would let UM purchase less electricity produced by burning coal in ontana, which endangers people and poisons the land.
The CHP plan would allow UM to eventually transition from natural gas to a carbon-neutral biofuel. Though a biofuel is not economically viable right now, it may be soon under legislation that favors climate action.

Cons:

The CHP plan will increase UM's natural gas demand by almost half.
Natural gas, while less carbon emissive than other fossil fuels, still releases climate change-driving CO2 when burned. Not to mention the "fugitive emissions" of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas, that may occur during transmission and extraction.
There is no guarantee that a carbon-neutral biofuel will be available in the near future.

Energy Conservation: The Compromise with CHP

Without a doubt, the CHP plan is imperfect. However, it does have its benefits. And, more importantly, it is almost certain to proceed.

Recognizing this, it is more important than ever that UM invest in energy conservation improvements to reduce its natural gas demand, reduce emissions, save money, and make the campus more comfortable. With some investment, UM can reduce its electricity demand by as much as 35% - within the next five years.

So far, UM has taken the right steps; last spring, it hired McKinstry, an energy adutigin firm based out of Seattle, to evaluate UM's energy use and proposals to improve its energy performance. The results of that study were released this summer.