But whereas Caltech's approach is to reduce the utility budget over time, Weber State's baseline budget actually increases over time.

"If utility rates hike 5% and you reduced your energy consumption 5%, it looks like you netted zero," Cain says. "The utility bill is based on a rate [per kilowatt hour] and square footage. If the rate goes up or square footage goes up, the main utility account for the university has to increase so there is money to pay for these projects."

Another difference between the programs at the two universities is that whereas Caltech has focused on low-hanging fruit, Weber State already has incorporated complex projects with longer payback periods up to 30 years.

"You treat it as an entire program," Cain says. "You do one project of $1 million with a payback of one year, and another project that the administration really likes and the campus relates to and understands but which has a payback of 20 years. You tie the two together, and you have a program with a payback of 8 years."

Behavior Change

Another reason for coupling projects is to enact behavior change, which Cain says has the potential to reduce energy use by another 20% on top of the 30% reduction based on energy efficiencies from technological innovation. But while he points out that it's impossible to actually project savings based on behavior change, he says it's already having a profound impact at Weber State.   

Cain notes that a payback of 20-25 years for solar panels isn't great, but the solar panels got the community and campus very excited about program. "People started turning off lights and shutting down their computers when they were not using them," he says. "All of a sudden, we had deans of colleges coming to us with plans to upgrade buildings, and offering us money to work with them.

"People are doing this because they are aware of the program," he continues, "and they related to [solar] panels."

With an annual utility bill averaging $4 million, Cain projected savings of $650,000 based on the construction projects the university began in 2009. But by the end of fiscal 2010 (ended June 30,) when the university had completed only ten percent of its plans, it had already saved two-thirds of its target--a whopping $430,000. And in fiscal 2011, it saved $530,000.

"We are way, way, way ahead of target," says Cain, who attributes a large part of those savings to behavior change.

"Right now, the endowment is getting almost nothing in the [stock or bond] market," he says. "And by investing in ourselves, the risk and chance of failure is almost nothing."

A former investment banker and veteran financial reporter, Ellie Winninghoff is a writer and consultant whose work about responsible and impact investing can be found at www.DoGoodCapitalist.  She can be contacted at ellie.winninghoff (at) gmail.com

First « 1 2 3 » Next