11

Overview of a K-12 Utility Overview of a K-12 Utility Benchmark Study and SurveyBenchmark Study and Survey

Supported by the Arkansas Supported by the Arkansas Dept. of Education and the ADED – Energy OfficeDept. of Education and the ADED – Energy Office

Darin W. Nutter, Ph.D., P.E.Darin W. Nutter, Ph.D., P.E.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentMechanical Engineering Department

University of ArkansasUniversity of Arkansasdnutter@uark.edudnutter@uark.edu

22

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

33

Pilot Utility Tracking Program

WaterWater Natural gasNatural gas ElectricityElectricity Trial online utility tracking effortsTrial online utility tracking efforts Eight (8) participating districtsEight (8) participating districts Completed Fall 2005Completed Fall 2005

44

2005 Summer UA Mechanical 2005 Summer UA Mechanical Engineering InternshipsEngineering Internships

55

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

66

Part 1 – Benchmark StudyPart 1 – Benchmark Study

Six Steps:1. Identify key variables –$, electricity, NG, water2. Select good comparable sources – EPA Energy Star,

DOE, AS&U. …3. Collect and measure performance data4. Normalize and adjust to meaningful data5. Compare / analyze data6. 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

77

Data CollectionData 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

88

NormalizationNormalization

Normalized • Usage, power, other• per student • per ft2 of building

area Computed

• mean, • 25th percentile• 75th percentile• school types

99

Computed Benchmark ValuesComputed Benchmark Values

Also tabulated cost and per student benchmarks

1010

Normalization – Expenditures ($)Normalization – Expenditures ($)

Total Utility Costs• $0.81/ft2-yr • $113/student-yr Percentage of total utility costs

1111

Normalization – ElectricityNormalization – Electricity Energy

• $0.47/ft2-yr • $65/student-yr• 24.3 kBtu/ft2-yr• CBECS 33.1 kBtu/ft2-yr• 7.11 kwh/ft2-yr• 993 kwh/student-yr

Demand (power)• Study Median – 3.9 W/ft2

• CBECS Median – 4.3 W/ft2

1212

Normalization – Natural Gas & WaterNormalization – Natural Gas & Water

Natural Gas• $0.24/ft2-yr • $34/student-yr• 22.5 kBtu/ft2-yr• CBECS 12.7 kBtu/ft2-yr• 32.3 CCF/student-yr

Water • $0.11 /ft2-yr • $15/student-yr• 15 gal/ft2-yr• 2.12 kgal/student-yr• Little data for comparison in literature• Significant variation between schools

1313

Part 1 – Overall FindingsPart 1 – Overall Findings Over 1/3rd of schools in the study were

below the 25th 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

1414

Part 2 – School District SurveyPart 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

1515

Survey Findings – All DistrictsSurvey 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

1616

Survey Findings – All DistrictsSurvey 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

1717

Survey Findings – CONTRASTSurvey Findings – CONTRAST

District utilizes automated building controls in most of its buildings – Larger (65% agree), Smaller (67% disagree)

Figure 3. Response by district size to Statement 2: "Our school district utilizes automated

building controls in most of our buildings."

SA/A N D/SD

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SmallLarge

“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

1818

Survey Findings – CONTRASTSurvey 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)

Figure 4. Response by district size to Statement 9: "Our school district could use assistance

in tracking our utilities."

SA/A N D/SD

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SmallLarge

1919

Survey Findings – CONTRASTSurvey 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)

Figure 5. Response by district size to Statement 10: "Our maintenance and facilities operation personnel could use more training related to optimal building operations"

SA/A N D/SD

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SmallLarge

2020

Survey Findings – CONTRASTSurvey Findings – CONTRAST

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

Figure 6. Response by district size to Statement 15: "In Planning for new buildings, minimizing capital costs weigh

heavier on decision making than minimizing future utility costs."

SA/A N D/SD

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SmallLarge

2121

Future RecommendationsFuture 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.

2222

Questions?Questions?