Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© CHPS 2007 National CHPS – A Resource for States, Districts and School Building Committees Donald Fudge National Collaborative Spokesperson From the Northeast.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "© CHPS 2007 National CHPS – A Resource for States, Districts and School Building Committees Donald Fudge National Collaborative Spokesperson From the Northeast."— Presentation transcript:

1 © CHPS 2007 National CHPS – A Resource for States, Districts and School Building Committees Donald Fudge National Collaborative Spokesperson From the Northeast High Performance Schools Exchange

2 School Building Construction – the Opportunity Aging buildings or the need for new buildings Failing or failed buildings Health concerns Research on how facilities affect learning The increasing cost of construction – first cost The increasing cost of energy - operations And, the increasing cost of maintaining buildings - operations

3 School Building Construction – the Basics Fundamental – facilities affect learning Best for kids Best for the community – fiscally conservative and financially sound best for the environment Why cant we build them like we used to?…when lowest cost was not the object and schools were the foundation of the community

4 The Impetus for Change – Global warming and climate change Energy costs Societal Benefit Charges - incentives to reduce energy usage – carbon emissions – school- specific programs New technologies

5 Early Responses USGBC releases LEED School districts and cities develop initiatives for schools and public facilities California – aggressive state energy efficiency initiatives The California utilities form a collaborative (CHPS) to focus on schools CHPS is a 501(c)3 Not-For-Profit Organization dedicated to building a new generation of high performance schools. board of directors with representatives from state agencies, design professional firms, school districts, manufacturers and contractors. Membership organization since 2005 with over 100 members

6 The California Collaborative Response LEED as the creative base Energy efficiency incentives as a driver to design above code buildings – reduce first cost Schools not a traditional commercial building so adjustment was made –The population – three to nineteen year olds –The programs – seven hours of learning/concentration –The school schedule and calendar –Joint use by the community –Operations and maintenance needs –Local control and funding – capital and operating –Relocatable classrooms as a fact of life

7 The Best Practices Manuals

8 Response in Other States Maine – legislation to reduce energy usage by 20% from ASHRAE in state-funded buildings –Department of Education chooses New Buildings Institute Benchmark for Maine Schools for prescriptive standards Washington – design state-funded buildings to LEED - Silver –Office Of Public School Instruction (OPSI) buys CA license and adapts to meet WA codes and regulation –Required for schools Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust - Green Schools Initiative buys license from CA and writes CHPS MA –Portions incorporated into Massachusetts School Building Authority regulations

9 Response in Other States New York – Executive Order to reduce energy use –New York Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) buys license from CA, writes CHPS NY and turns over to NY State Education Department Northeast HPS Exchange (utilities and education departments) buys license for CA for CT, ME, NH, RI, VT and writes CHPS NE –RI incorporates CHPS NE into School Construction Regulations

10 State Incentives to Design to CHPS CA – Proposition 1D $100 million for CHPS Verified schools MA – an additional 1.5% reimbursement for 30 points, 2% additional for 34 points; grants from MTC for renewable technology systems ME – design grants and energy efficiency technology grants from Efficiency Maine NY – incentives and rebates from NYSERDA NH – additional 3% reimbursement for meeting CHPS NE RI – 2% additional reimbursement of 40% above code and 4% if 50% above


12 NY-CHPS Version 1.1 High Performance Schools Guidelines An Appendix of the New York State Education Department Manual of Planning Standards Prepared with Support from: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Prepared in Cooperation with: The Collaborative for High Performance Schools, Inc. June 2006

13 The Core Criteria – Basic to all Licensees

14 Sustainable Sites Orientation for Daylighting, winds, shade Stormwater Treatment & Reduction Site Selection - SmartGrowth Transportation Reduced Footprint Joint Use of Facilities / Parks Cool Roofs The Core Criteria

15 Energy Efficiency Exceeding state building energy code or ASHRAE /2004 by 10-30% up to 50% Renewable Energy – technologies or purchase Energy Management Systems Natural Ventilation Commissioning CHPS Project: Conley Caraballo HS, ATI Architects & Engineers. The Core Criteria

16 Indoor Environmental Quality Standard 55 - HVAC Ventilation & Filter Requirements Thermal Displacement Ventilation Low – Emitting Materials Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Construction IAQ Requirements Acoustics – Standard 53 Daylighting Electric Lighting – high efficacy – ICLS View Windows CHPS Project: Kenilworth Source: Quattrocchi Kwok Architects The Core Criteria

17 Water Efficiency Water Use Baseline Reduce water use - internal Reducing Potable Water Use for Landscaping & Indoors Reduce Sewage Conveyance from Toilets and Urinals CHPS Project: Maywood Academy Source: WLC Architects The Core Criteria

18 Material Selection Storage and Collection of Recyclables Construction Waste Management Material Selection Recycled Content Rapidly Renewable Organically Grown Certified Wood EPP Salvaged Reused CHPS Project: Maywood Academy, WLC Architects The Core Criteria

19 Policy and Operations CHPS District Resolution Using the schools high performance features as teaching tools. Periodic Assessment of Env. Conditions – EPA Healthy SEAT, IAQ Tools for Schools Environmental Education Equipment Performance Low Emission Buses Maintenance Plan Green Power The Core Criteria

20 The Key is Integrated Design

21 Adaptations based on state realities, codes and regulations – more stringent than core only CHPS NY – IAQ, O&M, CHPS NE – IAQ, Vapor Barriers CHPS WA – linked to LEED VT – bio-mass heating CHPS MA - IAQ

22 Project Type 1: New School Project Type 2: New Building on an Existing Campus Project Type 3: Major Modernization CHPS Project: Alder Creek, Lionakis Beaumont Design Group Inc. Projects eligible to participate

23 A National Collaborative is formed Two day visioning Conference in February –Collaborate? –Formalize? Decision: formalize Named committees: –Technical –Governance –Image and Branding Met with CHPS – September 28 Moving forward together Leverage resources

24 A National Collaborative to support states and districts National web site Materials – Best Practices plus state educational materials Technical advice – legislation, incentives, roll out Case studies – with a template to provide consistent information

25 A National Collaborative to support design professionals Best Practice Manuals – state updates, CA updates Technical Questions Outline of state regulations from state to state Case studies – cost, efficiency measures, innovations, solutions

26 A National Collaborative to Leverage Resources to Develop Tools CPS Verified – third party verification as an option for states or districts

27 Leveraging Resources to Develop Tools Post-occupancy Performance Tool –Energy efficiency –Health –student and teacher –Student performance –Maintenance and operations What worked and what did not

28 Leveraging Resources to Develop Tools Facility Manager and maintenance personnel certification process –Critical to maintaining high performance –Combination of course work, projects, exams To maintain the building as designed

29 Leveraging Resources to Develop Tools Criteria for Retrofitting Buildings –Capital improvement plans with integrated components –Asset protection planning –Multi-year plan leading to CHPS Verified status (and state incentives)

30 Next Steps of the National Collaborative Finalize organization Complete business plan Demonstrate value to potential members –State education department deliverables –Advanced information on technologies and Criteria –Materials for sales force –Presentations to sales force

31 What is a High Performance School? Healthy Thermally, visually and acoustically comfortable Efficient use of energy, materials and water Easy to maintain and operate Commissioned Environmentally responsive A teaching tool Safe and secure A community resource Stimulating architecture

32 What are the benefits of high performance building? Heightened student performance Reduced operating costs Better student & teacher health Increased Average Daily Attendance Improved teacher satisfaction & retention Reduced liability exposure Reduced indoor & outdoor environmental impact Eligible for financial incentives CHPS Project: Chartwell Picture Courtesy of EHDD Architecture

33 CHPS is an established and nationally respected high performance school rating program with a 7 year track record. CHPS is designed for use in California and has school targeted tools and resources. CHPS Serves School Environments: Addresses Acoustics, Indoor Air Quality, Daylighting, Electric Lighting and using Schools as Teaching Tools. CHPS Project: Maywood Academy, LAUSD, WLC Architects, Inc. CHPS offers educational trainings, workshops and technology charettes for schools districts and their design teams. CHPS offers a comprehensive high performance Best Practices Manual. Why States and School Districts Choose CHPS

34 Estimated first cost is from 0-5% of construction cost and incentives can reduce by 1-3%. Over time the operating cost reduction is predicted to be 8-10 times the incremental cost Cost varies greatly with: High performance features chosen (CHPS Points Claimed) Local climates Local markets Experience How much does high performance cost and what will the incentives cover? Hard vs. Soft Costs Hard costs (i.e.. high performance HVAC and lighting systems) should be minimal or close to nothing and usually have a short return on investment. Soft costs (i.e.. commissioning, energy analysis, adapting to new techniques and technology) have some cost premium, however may mean the difference between superior and inadequate performance.


36 For state information contact CHPS CA: Charles Eley Kristin Heinen CHPS WA: Patricia Jatczak CHPS MA: Sam Nutter CHIPS NY: Carl Thurnau CHIPS NE: Carolyn Sarno Don Fudge Maine: Scott Brown New Hampshire: Ed Murdough Rhode Island: Joseph Da Silva Vermont: Cathy Hilgendorf

37 Links to Resources

Download ppt "© CHPS 2007 National CHPS – A Resource for States, Districts and School Building Committees Donald Fudge National Collaborative Spokesperson From the Northeast."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google