Darin W. Nutter, Ph.D., P.E. Mechanical Engineering Department University of Arkansas

1. Overview of a K-12 Utility Benchmark Study and SurveySupported 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. 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. Pilot Utility Tracking Program • Water • Natural gas • Electricity • Trial online utility tracking efforts • Eight (8) participating districts • Completed Fall 2005

4. 2005 Summer UA Mechanical Engineering Internships

5. UA Project Objectives • 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

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

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. Normalization • Normalized • Usage, power, other • per student • per ft2 of building area • Computed • mean, • 25th percentile • 75th percentile • school types

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

10. Normalization – Expenditures ($) • Total Utility Costs • $0.81/ft2-yr • $113/student-yr Percentage of total utility costs

11. Normalization – 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

12. Normalization – 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

13. Part 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

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

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. Questions?