1. 1 Overview of a K-12 Utility Benchmark Study and Survey Supported by the Arkansas Dept. of Education and the ADED – Energy Office Darin W. Nutter, Ph.D., P.E. Mechanical Engineering Department University of Arkansas dnutter@uark.edu

2. 2 Background Arkansas public schools 463,000 Students 82 million square feet of building space Annual utility expenditures exceed $50 million Concerns regarding recent high utility prices and fixed M&O budgets Taxpayers pay 10 times the cost of construction on M&O * AEO pilot utility tracking program Percentage distribution of M&O budget. American School and University, April, 2004 * California Energy Commission Report 400-03-019C, Sept, 2003

3. 3 Pilot Utility Tracking Program Water Water Natural gas Natural gas Electricity Electricity Trial online utility tracking efforts Trial online utility tracking efforts Eight (8) participating districts Eight (8) participating districts Completed Fall 2005 Completed Fall 2005

4. 4 2005 Summer UA Mechanical Engineering Internships

5. 5 Help schools with data entry and utilization of online service Perform first level evaluation of K-12 facility usage characteristics Publish benchmark values for several parameters related to building performance which can be used as a point of reference Evaluate the potential for significant utility cost reductions in Arkansas schools Determine the utility-related practices and concerns at the district level UA Project Objectives

6. 6 Part 1 – Benchmark Study Six Steps: 1. 1.Identify key variables –$, electricity, NG, water 2. 2.Select good comparable sources – EPA Energy Star, DOE, AS&U. … 3. 3.Collect and measure performance data 4. 4.Normalize and adjust to meaningful data 5. 5.Compare / analyze data 6. 6.Prioritize, change, and improve performance Yam, R., et al., Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, v 6 n 4, 2000, p224-240 BENCHMARKING: measuring and comparing one’s performance against the performance of similar organizations

7. 7 Data Collection 84 school campuses in 8 Arkansas school districts 56 Elementary (EL) 8 Middle School (MS) 10 Junior High (JH) 10 High School (HS) 452 total utility meters Bills entered into online database Assistance from interns Used data from May 2004 – April 2005 Most consistent 12 months Monthly data compiled into annual values

8. 8 Normalization Normalized Usage, power, other per student per ft 2 of building area Computed mean, 25 th percentile 75 th percentile school types

9. 9 Computed Benchmark Values Also tabulated cost and per student benchmarks

10. 10 Normalization – Expenditures ($) Total Utility Costs $0.81/ft 2 -yr $113/student-yr Percentage of total utility costs

11. 11 Normalization – Electricity Energy $0.47/ft 2 -yr $65/student-yr 24.3 kBtu/ft 2 -yr CBECS 33.1 kBtu/ft 2 -yr 7.11 kwh/ft 2 -yr 993 kwh/student-yr Demand (power) Study Median – 3.9 W/ft 2 CBECS Median – 4.3 W/ft 2

12. 12 Normalization – Natural Gas & Water Natural Gas $0.24/ft 2 -yr $34/student-yr 22.5 kBtu/ft 2 -yr CBECS 12.7 kBtu/ft 2 -yr 32.3 CCF/student-yr Water $0.11 /ft 2 -yr $15/student-yr 15 gal/ft 2 -yr 2.12 kgal/student-yr Little data for comparison in literature Significant variation between schools

13. 13 Part 1 – Overall Findings Over 1/3 rd of schools in the study were below the 25 th percentile in either electricity, natural gas, or water consumption per square foot of building area Ample benchmarks to evaluate Arkansas schools (i.e., peer group comparison) Currently looking at: equipment type and age weather influence

14. 14 Part 2 – School District Survey 16 statements requiring Likert scale responses 1 open-ended question Over 30% of districts responded Statistically analyzed all data for: All districts combined Smaller districts (enrollment < 2000, 79%) Larger districts (enrollment ≥ 2000, 21%) 2005/2006 AR K-12 District Enrollment

15. 15 Survey Findings – All Districts 86% use buildings for community activities 62% agree that it is difficult to track costs between academic and non- academic facilities 93% feel tracking utilities would be beneficial

16. 16 Survey Findings – All Districts 51% agree their district has significant potential to reduce utility costs 51% disagree that their local utilities have helped conserve energy and reduce utility costs

17. 17 Survey Findings – CONTRAST District utilizes automated building controls in most of its buildings – Larger (65% agree), Smaller (67% disagree) “It is important to bring the technologies and practices together … specifically with the use of controls” as related to flexible building use and operations. By: Jean Lupinacci, U.S. EPA, ASHRAE panel on Sustainability & the Building Environment, April 16, 2006

18. 18 Survey Findings – CONTRAST 90% of large districts and 63% of small districts carefully track utilities Could the district use help tracking utilities? – Larger (70% disagree), Smaller (73% agree)

19. 19 Survey Findings – CONTRAST District could use additional or specialized evaluation assistance to help conserve utilities and reduce costs – Larger (40% agree), Smaller (77% agree) Maintenance and facilities operation personnel could use more training related to optimal building operation – Larger (45% agree), Smaller (81% agree)

20. 20 Survey Findings – CONTRAST In planning for new buildings, capital costs are more important than future costs – Larger (60% disagree), Smaller (56% agree)

21. 21 Future Recommendations Make available and further refine benchmark parameters as a guide for other school districts across the state. Better understand the unique needs of smaller school districts and applicable technologies. Education Assistance Technology Continue to utilize engineering students to assist the state with energy/environmental issues.

22. 22 Questions?