Benchmarking Study

Benchmarking Study

Energy

March 2009

Committee Participants:

Mark Alesczyk, LeadBuilding Maintenance, SouthHigh School

Thomas Crow, Property Services Manager

Steve Falkowski, HVAC Specialist

Eric Grove, Maintenance Mechanic

Francis McMenamin, Building Maintenance, Holland Middle

Ed MacAdams, LeadBuilding Maintenance, NorthHigh School

Michael McGarvey, Aramark Education

Nathanael Paist, Aramark Education

Tomas Prendergast, Electrical Specialist

Thomas Romeo, Building Maintenance, Newtown Middle

Thomas Schneider, Supervisor of Operations (Chair)

Gary Sochalski, HVAC Specialist

Background

At the end of the calendar year of 2005, CouncilRockSchool District contracted with Aramark Education to develop an Energy Management Plan that would reduce energy consumption and save the District a minimum of $500,000 a year over a period of five (5) years. This decision was made after Council Rock participated in two PASBO (Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials) Facilities Benchmarking Studies. This study concluded that Council Rock’s energy costs were one of the highest, if not the highest of all school Districts who participated in the study. The results of the PASBO study was tallied six (6) years after the Council Rock completed an energy performance contract with GreenTech in 1999. GreenTech was contracted in 1998 to perform energy conservation upgrades to all of the Districts buildings. The upgrades included the replacement of lighting fixtures with high efficiency units and the installation of a more sophisticated HVAC control system in each of the buildings. The work performed by GreenTech was provided to Council Rock through a $2.56 million dollar, ten (10) year lease which expired in December 2009.

In December of 2005 Aramark commenced with developing a customized energy management plan that successfully achieved the $500,000 savings in a period of six (6) months. This energy management plan utilized the EPA’s Energy Star model for benchmarking and a best practice approach to energy management.

In the subsequent three year period from the inception of the energy management plan the District has been successful in reducing energy by 42% District wide and cost avoiding $5.3 million dollars. This reduction was not the result of capital investment but by operational changes. The total capital investment over the three year period was $150,000, not including the cost to contract with Aramark Education. Aramark Education’s total fee for the five year period is approximately $1.2 million dollars including in their fee is a $100,000 bonus for achieving their conservation goal. In addition to the capital investment and professional fees, the District spent approximately $100,000 in maintenance items and dedicated an HVAC specialist to the energy management program.

During the first three years of the program we continually benchmarked the District’s and individual buildings progress utilizing the tools and information provided by Energy Star. During the three years CRSD was successful in achieving numerous recognition awards including: 20% and 30% reduction recognition awards from Energy Star, 2008 Energy Partner of the Year and 2009 Energy Partner of the year from Energy Star, 2007 PASBO’s Award of Achievement, and the 2008 ASBO’s Pinnacle of Achievement Award.

When faced with a significant revenue shortfall for the budget year of 2009/2010, the committee was challenged with an additional reduction of the energy budget of $500,000 for the upcoming budget year. This study outlines the process, data, potential additional energy savings and budget reductions possible for budget year 2009/2010.

The table following table outlines the budgeted energy verses the actual energy expenditures for the previous years since the inception of the energy management program. Keep in mind that energy costs have increased approximately 25% up until July of 2008 when overall fossil fuel costs reduced dramatically.

Budget Year / Total Energy Budget / Total Energy Expenditures
2005/2006 / $3,701,233 / $3,724,271
2006/2007 / $3,174,832 / $3,174,832
2007/2008 / $3,065,000 / $3,072,353
2008/2009 / $3,284,231 / $2,875,679 / Est. Expenditure
2009/2010 / $2,784,231 / Challenge ($500,000)

Findings and Results of the Study

The findings and results that are described in the following study are outlined below to give an immediate insight to the potential financial savings for the 2009/2010 energy budget. The information indicated is not the maximum potential but is the most probable outline of savings. The information provided is based on comparison study of high performing districts throughout the nation and on current energy pricing.

Results of the Energy Management Study
Comparison to High Performance Districts – Expected Savings (Mostly Electricity) / ($200,000)
Natural Gas Savings / ($255,717)
Fuel Oil Savings / ($48,968)
Difference in Propane Costs / $6,075
Total Expected Savings / ($498,610)
Difference from $500,000 Reduction Challenge / $1,390

When developing the 2009/2010 budget each line item was calculated utilizing the amount of energy consumption from July 2008 to February 2009 and utilizing the consumption quantities, from the 2007/2008 school year, for the remainder of this school year. The 2009/2010 budgets include:

2009/2010 Budget
Electricity / $2,099,290
Natural Gas / $560,139
Fuel Oil / $65,232
Propane / $20,475
Total Energy Budget / $2,745,136
2008/2009 Budget / $3,284,231
Difference / ($539,095)

Steps of Benchmarking

When performing Benchmarking the typical steps include:

1. Identify comparative source and collect data.
2. Determine performance gap.
3. Communicate findings and gain acceptance.
4. Establish functional goals.
5. Develop action plan.
6. Implement plans and monitor progress.

The EPA’s Energy Star program offers similar steps which include:

1. Make a commitment.
2. Assess performance and set goals.
3. Create an action plan.
4. Implement the action plan.
5. Evaluate progress.
6. Recognize achievements
7. Re-Assess Progress and performance and follow through the process starting at #2.

Since the inception of the energy management plan these steps have continually been followed with noted success. The following pages will outline the most recent progress of the benchmarking study that will outline potential additional budget reductions. For the purpose of this study, we will be utilizing the information outlined in the first six (6) step benchmarking steps. For the purpose of this study the comparing of sources and determining the performance gap will be the main focus.

Identify Comparative Source and Collect Data

Determine Performance Gap

As mentioned in the Background section of this report numerous sources of data were utilized in comparing CRSD’s performance to other comparative sources. The sources include:

PASBO’s Benchmarking Study

Energy Star’s Portfolio Manager

PASBO Benchmarking Study

Previous PASBO Facilities Benchmarking Studies indicated that CRSD needed to conserve energy and the most recent indicates that CRSD is slightly below median. The data indicated on the following table shows that in previous years CRSD had an average of $0.40/sqft above median which corresponds to between a needed $650,000 and $790,000 reduction to achieve median. The most recent study indicates that CRSD is slightly below median with another $0.47/sqft reduction needed to achieve the best performing District. To achieve the lowest cost District this performance gap indicates that CRSD needs to shed another $846,000 from our energy budget. Since the time of this study CRSD’s average cost per square foot has dropped to $1.60/square foot which would indicate a performance gap of $684,000. If we compared a more realistic performance gap the lowest mid level of $1.54/square foot that would indicate a gap an existing gap of $0.13 or $234,000.

Energy Star Benchmarking

Commencing in the Spring of 2006 all of the District’s energy data was submitted into EPA’s Energy Star’s portfolio manager. The portfolio manager compiles many data points to equalize similar K-12 schools throughout the nation. Items of data utilized include the amount of energy consumed, percentage of air conditioning, number of computers, if mechanical ventilation is used, is a kitchen in the building and the hours of operation.

The portfolio manager complies all of the data and provides an individual building and overall District rating. The rating is a percentile rating that ranges from 1 to 100 with the best performers closer to 100 and the least performers closer to 1 with an average performer being 50. After data submission, CRSD’s rating through Energy Star was a 16. This indicated a performance gap of 34% to median.

In the first three years of the energy management program CRSD achieved an overall District rating of 56 which indicated that the performance gained was equal to an average performer. Upon commencement of this benchmarking study, the committee found that our energy intensity data compare closely with other Districts that had a higher rating than CRSD. In January of 2009, Energy Star announced that updated data was being used to calculate Energy Star ratings. In addition, CRSD found out that we could exclude, from our energy consumption, the energy required to light our parking lots. After the two items were completed, CRSD’s overall Energy Star Rating increased to an 82, closer to the results that are seen in other Districts.

Since our rating has increase to a level of high performance our performance gap is readjusted to compare to the best performance school districts in the nation. The best performance districts have ratings in excess of 90.

As a result of this minimal performance gap the committee researched high performance case studies from the Energy Star website. After reviewing these case studies the committee requested specific energy related information from eight (8) high performing school districts from around the nation. Out of the eight districts surveyed, two responded. From this comparison of data more insight came forth outlining the differences and how schools differ in operation. Another important piece of information that emerged from the case study review and the comparison of data is that most of the high performance school districts have had major energy related renovations performed in the highest performing schools. This differs from CRSD who has not expended capital funds to achieve a high performing status.

Following is a table outlining CRSD’s Energy Star ratings from the beginning of the program.

Building to Building Comparisons

As indicated above, the committee requested high performing districts to provide information through a survey. This survey asked overall district information including the size of the district, number of students, number of buildings, cost to educate each student (this was to establish the overall wealth of the district), and the overall energy information regarding cost and district Energy Star rating. In addition, the committee compiled a list of specific building questions so that this data could be compared to like CRSD buildings. Information such as building size, % of air conditioning, number of students, starting and current Energy Star rating, energy intensity and other items. The first survey is a comparison of buildings in excess of 100,000 square feet and all in the secondary level of K-12 education.

The most important comparison of information in this survey is the comparison of the individual energy intensity with the building’s Energy Star Rating. Following are the comparisons:

Holland Middle / Newtown Middle / CRHS North / CRHS South / Seaford Delaware
Energy Intensity kBTU/sqft / 62.8 / 44.5 / 60.2 / 57.7 / 37.4
ES Rating / 85 / 95 / 82 / 89 / 98
Energy Intensity Gap / 25.4 / 7.1 / 22.8 / 20.3
ES Rating Gap / 13 / 3 / 16 / 9
$ Gap / year / $101,185 / $26,619 / $223,400 / $95,760
Realistic $ Gap 2009/2010 (20%) / $20,000 / $5,200 / $44,000 / $19,000

The $ gap/year can only be viewed as an indicator on performance and not an actual potential savings. It must be considered that a building such as HollandMiddle School has an original HVAC system that is very inefficient and North has a swimming pool when the comparison SeafordHigh School does not.

The next survey shows are elementary schools that are over 60,000 square feet.

The most important comparison of information in this survey is the comparison of the individual energy intensity with the building’s Energy Star Rating. Following are the comparisons:

Goodnoe Elementary / NewtownElementary / Sol Feinstone Elementary / MM Welch Elementary / Seaford Delaware
Energy Intensity kBTU/sqft / 53.1 / 48.1 / 47.6 / 51.6 / 39.9
ES Rating / 78 / 89 / 92 / 92 / 98
Energy Intensity Gap / 13.2 / 8.2 / 7.7 / 11.7
ES Rating Gap / 20 / 8 / 6 / 6
$ Gap / year / $26,100 / $19,056 / $16,490 / $31,711
Realistic $ Gap 2009/2010 (20%) / $5,200 / $3,800 / $3,200 / $6,200

The $ gap/year can only be viewed as an indicator on performance and not an actual potential savings. One of the important items that are different between CRSD and SeafordSchool District is that they do not have outside and community use of their facilities. This accounts for the differences between Welch and Seaford. WelchElementary School’s energy intensity is comparatively higher when compared to Seaford and Newtown Elementary. The large extended use is affecting the overall energy intensity and performance rating of Welch.

The next survey shows are elementary schools that are over 50,000 and less than 60,000 square feet.

The most important comparison of information in this survey is the comparison of the individual energy intensity with the building’s Energy Star Rating. Following are the comparisons:

Churchville Elementary / HillcrestElementary / Richboro Elementary / Seaford Delaware
Energy Intensity kBTU/sqft / 57.5 / 61.1 / 64.4 / 39.9
ES Rating / 72 / 64 / 51 / 98
Energy Intensity Gap / 17.6 / 21.2 / 24.5
ES Rating Gap / 26 / 34 / 47
$ Gap / year / $31,336 / $36,896 / $42,640
Realistic $ Gap 2009/2010 (20%) / $6,200.00 / $18,000 / $20,000

The $ gap/year can only be viewed as an indicator on performance and not an actual potential savings. This grouping of schools indicates where there is potential savings. Both Hillcrest and Richboro Elementary have the greatest potential for future savings even considering the number of modular classrooms located at each location. These schools are identical to Newtown elementary but they do not have air conditioning. Newtown Elementary has an energy intensity of 48 kBTU/sqft with 100% of the school air conditioned. Comparing this to Hillcrest and Richboro and considering the modular classrooms, these two schools have a combined savings potential in excess of $20,000 per year.

The last group of schools surveyed includes elementary schools that are less than 50,000 square feet.

The most important comparison of information in this survey is the comparison of the individual energy intensity with the building’s Energy Star Rating. Following are the comparisons:

Holland Elementary / Rolling HillsElementary / Seaford Delaware / Seaford Delaware / Seaford Average
Energy Intensity kBTU/sqft / 79.5 / 50.8 / 43.8 / 46.6 / 45.2
ES Rating / 50 / 87 / 88 / 93 / 91
Energy Intensity Gap / 31.3 / 5.6
ES Rating Gap / 41 / 4
$ Gap / year / $46,932 / $7,985
Realistic $ Gap 2009/2010 / $9,200 / $1,400.00

The $ gap/year can only be viewed as an indicator on performance and not an actual potential savings. The one CRSDSchool that has shown remarkable conservation efforts is Rolling Hills Elementary. Even with 10 modular classrooms and some of the most difficult equipment to control, the school is registering as a high performer and has produced 81% reduction in energy in 3 years.

Total Potential Savings Comparison

Compiling the data above comparing CRSD to PASBO and Energy Star benchmarking high performers, CRSD could reduce an additional $100,000 in energy budget for 2009/2010, as indicated below:

Confirmation of the Expected Budget Reduction

Since the performance gaps for most buildings were minimal, when considering that CRSD’s buildings have not received extensive energy related renovations and upgrades similar to the high performing districts studied, the committee did some brainstorming on what could be done to existing operations to reduce energy consumption, hence reduce budget. These brainstorming sessions outlined numerous “One Pagers” of potential operational changes and physical changes to the buildings in an effort to reduce energy. Following is a list one pagers and the corresponding potential savings.

Subject/Explanation / Cost to Implement / Potential Savings / Expected ROI / Comments
Parking Lot Lighting Control (9 buildings to date) / Under $5,000 with labor included / $18,000/yr Currently / < 4 months / The savings will increase as more buildings come on line.
Installation of motion detectors in utility rooms, Faculty rooms, & Toilets / $80 per room with expected 100 rooms / $8,000/year / 1 year / Implementation cost includes labor. Electrical savings will be seen immediately.
Reduction of lighting in North’s stair towers / $0.00 / $500/year / Immediate savings.
Lighting reduction in classrooms, to accepted levels. / $0.00 / $30,000 potential / All light levels will be metered and compared to recommended standards. Newtown Ele performed this last summer with a potential savings of $6,000 /year.
Power Factor correction at North / $5,500 / $8,000 / <1 year / This will not reduce energy but will reduce cost.
Potential Savings / $64,500
Items Not Considered
Gym Lighting Replacement / $20,000/gym / $6,490/year / 3 years / This would be considered after all <1 year ROI projects are completed.

Considering there is a potential savings of $64,500 already implemented, the expected reduction of $234,000 is very achievable for the budget year of 2009/2010. This is considering that the “One Pagers” only considered electricity reductions and no fossil fuel reductions. In addition, the savings does not consider the potential of a strong curtailment during the summer months. The summer curtailment could achieve the full $100,000 when considering the success of the 2008/2009 thanksgiving and winter curtailments.

Additional Budget Reductions – Lower Fuel Costs

The only true benefit of the most recent economic crisis is the reduction in cost of fossil fuel; fuel oil, natural gas, and propane. Following is a table outlining the reduction in fuel prices from July 2008 to the close of the market on March 16, 2009. Please keep in mind that the costs shown are market prices not what delivered prices.

July 2008 / March 16, 2009 / % change
Natural Gas / $12.00 / $3.85 / -68%
Fuel Oil / $4.19 / $1.21 / -71%
Propane / $1.96 / $.64 / -65%
Light Crude / $146.86 / $47.35 / -67%

When CRSD purchases fuel, it is purchased in a few different ways. Natural gas is purchased on the open market, fuel oil is purchased through the BucksCountyIU consortium and propane is purchased through local suppliers.