| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

Drive For Green (The Overview and Details of Alternatives)

Page history last edited by Ryan Thai 6 years, 2 months ago

Overview of the Alternatives:

Alternative #1 – Student Fees To Green Grant

 This alternative asks for a small extra fee each semester from Wayne State Students. The extra fee generated helps fund a Green Grant.

 

Alternative #2 – Revolving Fund

 The WSU Green-Revolving Fund mimics that from the Green-revolving fund implemented by Champlain College. Like the Green-revolving fund, money generated from annual energy savings from projects is paid back to the fund until 120%.

 

Alternative #3 – Hybrid Model

The hybrid model implements both alternatives. More revenue is generated which allows more green sustainable projects to be made.

 

Details of the Alternatives:

Alternative #1 – Student Fees To Green Grant

     University of Texas approved a Green Fee of $5.00 per long semester and $2.50 per summer semester from students. This is a temporary system which lasts from Fall of 2011 to Summer of 2016. The purpose of the Green Fee is to create a grant which the Green Fee Committee will "review and award funds for environmental service related projects on campus" ('Green Fee Committee', 2011). Because this awards funding to projects, no pay back is required. Wayne State University will implement a similar concept.

     The Green Fee Committee (GFC) in University of Texas makes necessary approval decisions and checks on projects. They also have control over the Green Fee revenue ('Bylaws of the UT-Austin Green Fee Committee', 2011). It first begins with a majority vote on a particular project on whether to fund it. Of course, it has to meet the general requirements listed by the Committee (such as having a mechanism so that annual cost savings are reported). If by any chance the funding was spent outside the scope of the project, then the project manager must return the funds to the GFC. Because the Green Fee is a student fee, a public record is maintained annually and reported to the Student Government and the college community.

     University of Texas Green Grant is split in two ways: for project purposes and research purposes.  There is no limit in gaining funding for project purposes.  However, there is a limit to how much can be given in accordance to research purposes.  Up to $2,500 for undergraduates and $5,000 for graduates who have research proposals.  However, in both cases projects and researches are reviewed intensively until the vote the unanimous among the committee. 

     Wayne State will use the same system; however, the student fee may be different. Student fee is depended on how much the majority of the students in our survey are willing to contribute per semester and whether the Board of Governors will approve it.

 

http://www.utexas.edu/sustainability/greenfee.php

http://www.utexas.edu/sustainability/documents/UTAustin_GFC_bylaws.pdf

 

Alternative #2 – Green-Revolving Fund

     The WSU Green-Revolving Fund is a green account balance which helps fund the green initiative projects in Wayne State University. Funding must be paid back through annual cost savings. This system is similar to the Green-Revolving Fund implemented in Champlain College.  Growth in the funding is seen using interest.

     Green-Revolving Fund (GRF) in Champlain College is a funding system by which it "finances energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other sustainability projects on campus" ('Champlain College Green Revolving Fund', 2013). Funding must be paid back within five years through annual savings after it has been approved by the GRF Committee. 120% of the initial fund must be paid back by then. The extra 20% contributes the growth of the GRF.

The committee meets at least once a semester. In each meeting, projects are presented, discussed and voted upon. Once approved, the project is implemented as soon as possible and is monitored (including the progress of the project and how much savings is actually brought in per year).  80% of the annual savings per year replenish the GRF until 120% is paid.  Champlain College use the 20% to help fund their Green Community Fund and Physical Plant operations.  Once the 120% is fully paid, the 80% is then used to help with college operations. 

     Wayne State University will follow a similar plan like Champlain College; however, 100% of the annual savings per year help replenish the GRF.  This helps speed up the process.  Once that is done then the long term annual savings are coordinated by the Director of Sustainability in what he sees fit in liason to the College administration and the campus community.

 

http://www.champlain.edu/Documents/Sustain-Champlain/ChamplainGreenRevolvingFund.pdf 

 

Alternative #3 - Hybrid Model

     Again, the hybrid model brings alternatives 1 and 2 together.  This will constitute in having a fund and a grant system.  These systems are separate from each other.  However, they both can help with the project applicant at the same time.  Harvard University implemented both systems to help fund programs.

     The WSU Green Student Fee, which is determined by student votes and the approval from the Board of Governors, will help see the growth of the Green Grant.  In Harvard University, applicants can apply to up to $5,000.  Unlike the first alternative      

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.