308 Maple

Participation Points: 0

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +5%

Total Score: 0

371 Main

371 Main

Participation Points: 28

Energy Use

Percentage Change: -4.8%

Total Score: 78

396 Main

Participation Points: 32

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +6%

Total Score: 32

Adirondack

Participation Points: 0

Energy Use

Percentage Change: -1.2%

Total Score: 10

Bader

Participation Points:

126

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +1%

Total Score: 126

Bankus

Participation Points:

20

Energy Use

Percentage Change:

+3%

Total Score: 20

Boardman

Participation Points:

16

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +20%

Total Score: 16

Butler

Butler

Participation Points: 45

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +4%

Total Score: 45

Carriage House

Participation Points:

22

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +1%

Total Score: 22

Cushing

Participation Points:

5

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +1%

Total Score: 5

Hill Hall

Participation Points:

47

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +2%

Total Score: 47

Jensen

Participation Points:

15

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +3%

Total Score: 15

Juniper

Juniper

Participation Points:

25

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +8%

Total Score: 25

Lakeview

Participation Points:

5

Energy Use

Percentage Change: 0%

Total Score: 5

Lyman

Participation Points:

10

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +2%

Total Score: 10

McDonald

Participation Points:

10

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +8%

Total Score: 10

North

Participation Points:

70

Energy Use

Percentage Change: -18.4%

Total Score: 250

Pearl

Participation Points:

16

Energy Use

Percentage Change: 7%

Total Score: 16

Rowell

Participation Points:

10

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +8%

Total Score: 10

Sanders

Participation Points:

39

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +10%

Total Score: 39

Schillhammer

Participation Points:

10

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +2%

Total Score: 10

South House

Participation Points:

25

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +2%

Total Score: 25

Summit

Participation Points:

55

Energy Use

Percentage Change: +14%

Total Score: 55

Valcour

Valcour

Participation Points:

20

Energy Use

Percentage Change: -4.5%

Total Score: 70

Whiting

Whiting

Participation Points:

45

Energy Use

*Apologies to Whiting. We had technical difficulties with the electrical meter for Whiting could not gather data this year*

Total Score: 45


Final Rank as of March 6, 2015 Res Hall
1 NORTH (44 S. Willard)
2 BADER (232 S. Willard)
3 371 MAIN
4 VALCOUR (332 Maple)
5 WHITING (203 S. Willard)
6 SUMMIT (56 Summit)
7 HILL HALL (227 S. Willard)
8 BUTLER (316 Maple)
9 SANDERS (368 College)
10 396 MAIN
11 JUNIPER
12 SOUTH (363 S. Willard)
13 CARRIAGE HOUSE
14 BANKUS (285 S. Willard)
15 Boardman (381 Main St.)
16 PEARL (258 S. Willard)
17 JENSEN (301 S. Willard)
18 ADIRONDACK (304 Maple)
19 LYMAN (237 S. Willard)
20 MCDONALD (225 S. Willard)
21 ROWELL (275 S. Willard)
22 SCHILLHAMMER (109 Summit)
23 CUSHING (246 S. Willard)
24 LAKEVIEW (306 Maple)
25 308 MAPLE

The winner of the 2015 Kill-A-Watt Challenge is: North House!

North House racked up their scores by a combination of energy savings (over 19% reduction!) and event participation. So now, North House residents, it is up to you to plan how you want to spend your winnings!

Three cheers to our top energy savers*:

1. North House (18.4%)
2. 371 Main (4.8%)
3. Valcour (4.5%)

*figures were based comparing KwH usage per day, per person per gross square foot (size of the building) between each day in February 2015 and the first week of school in the spring semester (January 12-18, 2015).

Three cheers to our top participation point earners:
1.
Bader Hall (126 points)
2. North House (70 points)
3. Whiting (68 points)

All told, this year we actually saw an increase in electrical usage (an average of a 3% increase across main campus buildings). Four buildings saw savings between 1-18%, one building stayed exactly level, and nineteen buildings actually increased usage from last fall (anywhere between 1-20%). This is significantly different from our results last year (see them here) and may be explained by the fact that we utilized a new system this year (Campus Conservation Nationals dashboard) with a different baseline (a week of electrical usage in January in 2015, compared a month of electrical usage in October, as we had in past years). We will do some deeper analysis and see if we should use a different or longer baseline in the future, or stay the course and see if we just need to encourage more energy conservation behaviors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s