Long-Term Education Planning
Nov 1, 2011 12:00 PM, By Don Horkey, PE, LEED AP, and Julianne Laue, PE, LEED AP
Sustainable master planning can produce long-range benefits for education institutions.
A combination of strategies and tools is needed to design a sustainable master plan for an education institution.
Planning for the future is a sound goal handed down from generation to generation. It spans personal and professional spheres, and campuses that follow this directive can reap significant financial and environmental benefits for many years.
Energy-efficient buildings on K-16 campuses don’t just happen; they result from a thorough, long-range plan carried out by a team of experts. A combination of strategies and tools is needed to design a sustainable master plan that design firms, school districts and universities can use to maximize operational efficiencies and utility cost savings.
A sustainable master plan incorporates a holistic approach to future campus needs via the inclusion of energy use, needs and sustainable practices.
Tools and strategies
•Benchmarking: Analyzing energy consumption of a building and comparing it with peer building types in the region. Evaluating the performance of a building compared with similar buildings helps gauge its efficiency.
•Energy audit: A visual inspection of a building to identify energy-conservation opportunities. Professionals observe existing lighting systems, air handlers, variable-air-volume systems and other items that can be updated to reduce energy consumption.
•Commissioning: Verifying performance to evaluate the design intent of the building. Experts confirm the owner project requirements and carry out tests to determine if the project team delivered the building the owner expected. Commissioning also seeks to confirm whether the building is performing as the energy modeling in the design projected. The process is conducted during the first year of operation or through seasonal cycles.
•Post-commissioning: Commissioning of a building that has been modified for energy efficiency via benchmarking, energy audits and subsequent solutions.
Case study: Red Wing High Public School District
Fifty miles southeast of the Twin Cities, the Red Wing (Minn.) Public School District serves a population of 16,000. The district outlined a sustainable master plan, followed through, and now is experiencing the rewards.
"Red Wing School District wants to be good stewards of its tax dollars," says Kevin Johnson, director of buildings, grounds and technology. "We cut more than $400,000 out of our annual energy budget, and we are paying 6 percent less in gas and electric than we were 10 years ago."
One of Johnson’s first assignments after being hired a decade ago was benchmarking to evaluate energy consumption in district-owned buildings. The building inventory includes five academic school buildings, one early-childhood center and two ice arenas.
"The importance of benchmarking is to understand your energy consumption as an entity," says Johnson. "You can’t reduce until you understand how much energy you consume."
In the initial analysis, several potential savings opportunities were identified and put into place.
"These were simple tweaks that districts typically can accomplish with little to no cost or outside assistance," says Johnson. "For example, we changed every light bulb to a T8 25-watt version. The gymnasium alone attained an eight-month payback, saving $11,000 per year in electricity costs."
By educating staff on the "hows" and "whys" of living and working sustainably, the district achieved these annual cost savings:
•Adjusting temperature control set points to 68ºF for heating and 76ºF for cooling saves $50,000.
•Low-flow plumbing fixtures save $5,000.
•Lighting sensors save $9,500.
•Better use of building automation system for scheduling saves $16,000.
Johnson used his background in facility management to perform an initial energy audit of the HVAC systems, focusing on the heating water systems. He found that many of the boiler systems at the district’s high school were supplying heating water at 180 degrees year round. In response, the district installed a condensing base-load boiler to operate in the summer and off-peak times to maintain supply water temperature of 90 to 125 degrees for dehumidification control.
"It doesn’t make sense to send 180-degree water through the boiler system when significantly cooler heating water will suffice for summer reheat. By taking advantage of the efficiency of a condensing style boiler and adjusting the water temperatures, we immediately cut our utility costs by $48,000," says Johnson.
The district also continues to monitor its boilers and recommends annual preventive maintenance.
"If a boiler is off just 1 percent, the cost of the tune-up outweighs the cost of the inefficiency," says Johnson.
After consulting with an architect to quantify additional savings, the district carried out an ENERGY STAR analysis of its five academic buildings and compared their energy consumption with surrounding districts. ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.
For the analysis, the district compiled building specifications and evaluated gas and electric bills, and measured the performance of district buildings vs. peer buildings. This helped the district:
•Measure energy performance.
•Set goals.
•Track savings.
•Reward improvements.
•Identify maintenance needs.
•Target buildings needing improvement.
This analysis enabled the district to direct its resources to facilities with the biggest opportunities. An architect carried out a detailed energy audit and retro-commissioning study of the high school.
"School districts have limited resources," says Johnson. "The goal of commissioning is to identify where the opportunities are and invest in those opportunities that return the best value."
Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus
