Decarbonizing US campuses: Opportunities, challenges and how to get started

From international frameworks and national mandates, down to campus-led climate strategies, meaningful, measurable carbon reduction is essential for institutions and corporations across the globe. Our United States (U.S.) energy planning lead, Cal Thompson, explains how campuses — including higher education, airports and corporate headquarters — can move quickly and serve as powerful models for broader climate leadership. 

Campus decarbonization involves transitioning from fossil fuel use in buildings, fleets and supply chains to low- or zero-carbon energy sources — reducing and ultimately eliminating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from campus operations. Functioning like mini cities, campuses of all kinds are well-positioned to advance decarbonization within their communities. When campuses have clearly defined site boundaries and flexible funding streams that allow for greater control over decision-making, they can enact tangible change.   

Benefits to campuses leading decarbonization efforts 

A proactive, integrated approach positions large-scale campuses to realize meaningful outcomes for their institutions and surrounding communities. By aligning sustainability goals with long-term planning, they can reduce emissions and operational disruptions, optimize efficiency and build energy resilience.  

Campuses are driving change and unlocking benefits in several ways: 

• Operational improvements. Decarbonization that’s approached holistically — integrating energy efficiency, management, fuel transition and system modernization — often results in measurable cost savings. Utility and maintenance expenses can be significantly reduced when campuses invest in efficient upgrades and clean energy technologies, and considering the net impact of all projects on electrical infrastructure minimizes the total capital investment required. Using this approach, the San Diego Regional Airport Authority is implementing sustainable retrofits, new on-site solar generation, and electrifying both its fleet and heat generation — cutting emissions and costs while improving operations across the campus.

• Energy transition leadership. Campuses are making visible and measurable progress in response to evolving climate policies, demonstrating that substantial decarbonization is both achievable and practical. In the U.S., mandates like Washington State’s HB1390 and New York’s LL97 are setting clear carbon reduction expectations for public institutions and large campuses. In response to the Washington State mandates, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEATAC) is working to eliminate their use of natural gas and associated Scope 1 emissions. They’re looking to replace their aging steam systems with hot water, enabling the use of electric heat pumps to meet their 2040 emissions targets. By developing a well-defined infrastructure decarbonization plan early, SEATAC is demonstrating how campuses can best respond to compliance targets, maximizing the collective benefits of the mandated transition. 

• Innovation hubs. Campuses are uniquely suited to pilot new technologies, foster collaboration and drive innovation. By integrating renewables and influencing energy demand, they can become sustainability catalysts in their communities, demonstrating how to model and scale climate solutions. Open laboratory models like the University of Colorado at Boulder’s (CU Boulder) Living Materials Laboratory and the National Western Center’s (NWC) CSU Spur promote transparency and engagement, sharing breakthrough projects, research and technological developments with their surrounding communities and other institutions. 

Unique challenges and opportunities for university campuses

The nature of higher education environments introduces a distinct set of challenges that must be thoughtfully navigated. Operating within layered systems of governance, funding, operations and culture, these complex dynamics present obstacles in areas like stakeholder alignment, organizational decision-making, and enduring funding security that necessitate creative avenues for leadership, innovation, long-term sustainability and institutional resilience. 

Organizational complexity and reaching stakeholder consensus 

Universities must balance competing priorities — from operations and research to historic preservation and student experience. Aligning diverse stakeholders such as facilities teams, leadership, students and unions behind a shared decarbonization vision requires intentional engagement, clear communication and trust. Building support and securing funding depends on communicating the broader value of energy investments beyond cost and having the organizational capacity and structure to generate practical progress.  

At CU Boulder, we helped develop a long-term energy master plan, outlining an ambitious yet cost-conscious plan for carbon neutrality. During the planning phase, to prioritize collaboration, decision-making and efficiency, an Energy Action Group (EAG) was established. It was composed of stakeholders from across the campus, including students and faculty, ensuring broad buy-in and sustained momentum.

Building flexibility into a technical framework

Decarbonization is a multi-year effort, and campuses need adaptable roadmaps that can evolve with shifting technologies, funding landscapes and operational demands. Early actions should reduce emissions while preserving future options.  

The University of California, Riverside’s phased strategy prioritizes currently attainable decarbonization efforts, guided by scenario analysis of various technological and financial futures. Implementation-ready measures such as upgrading electrical capacity, improving design guidelines and lowering supply temperatures in multiple buildings delivered short-term emissions reductions while leaving flexibility for evolving medium- and long-term system transitions. With similar approaches, campuses can continuously reassess and adjust strategies as conditions evolve. 

Navigating funding and financing

While many campuses have access to innovative funding pathways, securing and deploying capital effectively remains a persistent challenge. Financial planning must be integrated from the outset, with strategies that can evolve over time.  

At the University of California, Merced, we brought together multiple stakeholders and funding partners to establish a US$1.3 billion public-private partnership (P3) to nearly double the campus size, including new energy infrastructure, in support of achieving the campus’s net zero goals. This flexible, place-based approach aligned diverse financial resources with sustainability goals, balanced risk-sharing, unlocked investment and leveraged energy infrastructure to benefit both the campus and the surrounding community. It demonstrates how innovative and tailored financing models can help make ambitious decarbonization plans more achievable.

For NWC — an events venue and research campus in Denver, Colorado, U.S. — we designed and implemented a low-carbon wastewater heat recovery district energy system under a P3. Decarbonization often requires capital investments that are difficult to achieve with traditional financing approaches. Recognizing this, the City of Denver established a coalition of partners to oversee third-party financing, operations and delivery. This model shows how campuses can adapt to unlock new innovations, accelerate ambitious projects realizing greater benefits.  

Strategic planning: Building the foundation for lasting impact 

Effective campus-wide decarbonization begins with strategic planning grounded in data, context and clear intent. The first step is a comprehensive assessment — a holistic audit of current energy performance, emissions sources, infrastructure condition, existing policies and procedures, and operational realities. From there, institutions define ambitious yet achievable goals and craft flexible, phased roadmaps tailored to their own specific circumstances. 

A structured energy planning process provides a proven framework for guiding this journey. It emphasizes an iterative, systems-level approach that integrates technical feasibility with organizational alignment.  

This approach centers on four key questions:  

1. Where is the campus today? Assess current emissions, energy use, infrastructure and systems to understand the starting point.

2. Where is it headed? Factor in the impact of campus growth, planned policy and regulation and local climate change to chart campus trajectory against GHG goals.  

3. What are the opportunities? Identify and evaluate potential building upgrades or retrofits, infrastructure transitions and options for low-carbon or electric systems, including renewable energy.

4. What are the steps to get there? Consider funding and financing opportunities, constructability requirements, operational disruptions, and alignment with campus initiatives and capital plan. Build a flexible, data-driven roadmap that aligns ambition with feasibility.

Early actions toward long-term resilience

Campus-wide decarbonization is an opportunity to reimagine how institutions operate, collaborate and lead in the energy transition. As campuses increasingly embrace decarbonization, the path forward calls for strategic foresight, organizational alignment, bold leadership and flexibility. Institutions can lead with impact, navigate complex challenges and begin shaping a roadmap rooted in their unique contexts and capabilities. 

Ambitious campuses that act decisively are reducing their carbon footprints today and leaving the door open to embed new technologies in the future — creating a cleaner, more resilient reality for themselves and their communities. 

For more information visit: Portfolio decarbonization and climate resilience.