Penn weighs cost of sustainability

When Penn purchased of a T3 three-wheeled electric vehicle for the Division of Public Safety this September, many students were skeptical of its $12,000 price tag.

They questioned whether this new sustainable project was worth the investment. Running on only $0.10 per day, the T3 may prove that it is.

Penn’s annual investment in sustainability is substantial, but it is not one made without careful consideration, according to Facilities and Real Estate Services Vice President Anne Papageorge.

All FRES initiatives undergo strict analysis on their returns on investment. These evaluations consider both their first-time costs and their life-time costs — the value they bring over the course of their adoption, Papageorge explained.

Most projects are expected to return investments within five years and successful ones can serve as pilots for future initiatives, she added.

All sustainability efforts are guided by the University’s Climate Action Plan, which seeks to reduce Penn’s energy consumption by 17 percent by 2014. Penn currently spends $60 to $70 million per year on utilities. If current investments on sustainability pay off, this could mean potential savings of $10.2 to $11.9 million per year.

“These days, we think of these initiatives less as pure sustainability projects and more as comprehensive projects,” said Business Services Vice President Marie Witt. “Sustainability is something that we evaluate along with a myriad of other things.”

Many projects have already demonstrated returns.

In 2008, the Division of Public Safety purchased a Vectrix electric motorcycle at half the price of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. It runs on electricity and costs 60 percent less to operate with zero gas emission than a regular motorcycle.

However, not all projects lead to such apparent returns.

Last semester, the Green Fund — Penn’s energy-reduction fund — approved approximately $46,000 for Penn Energy Showdown, an initiative that challenged Harrison, Harnwell and Rodin college houses to reduce energy consumption in a friendly competition.

Despite campaigns and prize incentives, the competition did not make a significant impact, according to project leader Mateo Rando, a second-year graduate student in the School of Arts and Sciences. In fact, this semester, Rodin College House increased its consumption by 1 percent.

However, Papageorge noted that Green Fund projects are not necessarily evaluated on “what the initial investment is [but] what the educational benefit is.” These benefits, she said, are “intangible and hard to put a price to.”

“It is not just about saving money or saving energy. Being an educational institution, we are here to educate the future leaders who are going to be dealing with this issue [of sustainability] globally,” she said. “So it’s not always going to be the best return on investment on the capital side.”

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.