“every school a green school”: california’s school …...“every school a green school”:...

+

“Every school a green school”: California’s school facilities funding and high performance standards Green California Schools Summit 2014 November 5, 2014 Pasadena, CA William Savidge Assistant Executive Officer, State Allocation Board

+ agenda The green schools challenge in 2014

California school facilities funding in a time of transition Strong state funding commitment to schools Energy Efficiency & High Performance Incentive Grant programs Challenges with state funding—local funding reliance

State’s commitment to green schools intensifies New Title 24 Energy Efficiency + CalGreen Zero Net Energy building goals Sustainable communities requirements of SB 375

Districts, make every school a green school! Embrace new High Performance standards—CHPS and LEED “Beyond the bulb”: Prop. 39 funding Local funding, priorities, engagement strategies to build green

What’s next—a new (green!?) state program?

11/5/14 Green Schools Summit

2

+ The green schools challenge in 2014

In an era of unprecedented need for all of our buildings, but especially schools, to be

moving toward high performance—we’re out of state money to help build &

modernize our schools. State funds have dried up at just the time when new code standards are taking effect—pushing every project to be

green. What’s a district to do? Why are we here? What’s happened? What are the

challenges and the opportunities to make every

school a green school in California?

American Canyon High School Napa Valley USD QKA


+ California school facilities funding


4

Source: Office of Public School Construction SAB Program Review Subcommittee Overview


Energy Efficiency supplemental grants Prop. 47 State Bond (2002) $14.8 million New Construction

$5.8 million Modernization

Prop. 55 State Bond (2004) $20 million for New Construction and

Modernization

Percentage increase to base grant Graduated increase up to 5% was

allowed


Strong state commitment to fund high performance schools.

Average energy efficiency score all buildings in project must exceed nonresidential building energy efficiency standards in Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations by at least: o 10% for Modernization o 15% for New Construction

5


Prop. 1D (2006) $100 million for green schools in last

statewide school facilities bond

State created its own High Performance rating criteria Using CHPS criteria as a guide, but

removing some credits

Incentive grants provided as % increase to base construction grant

$62.7 million allocated to date


6

High Performance Incentive Grants Program


8 years later

$32.7 million remains unallocated in program

As of Jan. 1, 2015 those funds will be “swept”

Made available for New Construction/Modernization

Not for High Performance projects(!)

What happened?

State’s program initially set grant amounts too low

Not worth it for districts to apply

Program changes in 2011 included Base Incentives to fund soft costs, commissioning

State created it’s own standards

Not willing to use CHPS or LEED certifications

High Performance Incentive Grants Program


7

LAUSD received over $21 million of the $63 million allocated in HPI grants.

+ High Performance Incentive Grant Program challenges

Nystrom is a modernization replacement project. It received an HPI grant from the state’s program. The grant was based on a % increase in state modernization eligibility. This meant a very low total dollar increase, which barely covered costs for the high performance features and soft costs such as commissioning and additional technical support.


8

Nystrom Elementary Multi-Purpose WCCUSD Interactive Resources

+ California school facilities funding in transition Limited funds remain in special programs—no new state bond Almost $1 billion in Unfunded projects on Office of Public School

Construction lists


9

HPI funds

+

California school facilities

funding Local General Obligation bond funding has provided the majority of support for school facilities construction and modernization in California for over a decade. With the end of state support in sight, it will be increasingly important.


10 Total funding from all sources.


Significant voter-authorized local school (community college) bond funds

CDIAC Report 2013

$37.5 billion in unissued local bonds K-14 districts

Challenges: Declining assessed valuation in many districts

Led to an inability to issue voter-authorized bonds

Economic recovery helps

Local funding for green schools—more later!

Local school district facilities funding

$2.4 billion in local bonds approved June 2014

$8.9 billion in local bonds on November 2014 ballot


11

+ California’s green building standards and goals Even without state funding, California has a set of high performance and sustainable design standards in place which continue to raise the bar on every school project. Current building codes and standards are as stringent as first generation CHPS or LEED requirements and seem to suggest that every school is going to be a green school. ZNE goals will be the “reach” for districts. And Sustainable Communities planning standards promise new schools associated with development that will help the state meet our aggressive green house gas reduction goals.

11/5/14 Green Schools Summit 12

+ Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards

New 2013 Title 24 Standards

Effective July 1, 2014

Efficiency standards 15%-25% above 2008 Title 24 levels

Continued focus on meeting statewide goals Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Moving toward Zero Net Energy

Schools will see some new features…and must include some new processes


13


Increased insulation requirements

More stringent window standards to reduce solar gain

Demand response ready lighting requirements extended to more areas

Daylighting controls and dimming systems enhanced

Plug load controls, including task lighting required

Increased mechanical systems efficiency standards

New mechanical systems

Updated mechanical controls requirements

Circuit isolation, metering requirements

Mandatory plug load controls for automatic shut off

Solar-ready buildings—electric or water

Mandatory commissioning, including design phase

As-built performance rating required


14

Examples of some of the 2013 updates which will impact schools



15

Source: CA Energy Commission

+ CalGreen

2013 CalGreen Title 24 CCR Part 11 “California Green Building Standards

Code”

Second generation mandatory provisions—updated from 2010 “Public elementary and secondary schools and community

colleges. New building construction and site work on a new or existing site.”

Not applicable for existing building modernizations

With Tier 1 and Tier 2 Voluntary Measures as a “reach”


16

+ CalGreen

Site development standards

Water efficiency & conservation Prescriptive reduced flow

rates for fixtures

Water resistance/moisture management Exterior door protection

requirements

Construction waste diversion still at 50% Now includes demolition

Commissioning still required under CalGreen

Indoor air quality, renewable energy systems, landscape systems

Lighting, HVAC, energy systems commissioning transferred to CA Energy Code

Environmental quality—finish materials standards increased

New VOC limits & testing


17

2013 standards more stringent in some areas than first generation CHPS or LEED standards

+ Zero Net Energy goals

All new commercial construction is ZNE by 2030 Including K-12 educational facilities(!)

Energy efficient buildings Very low Energy Use Index (EUI) is a key requirement

Coupled with on-site renewables Long-term price decreases in solar make this more possible

Evolving definition


18

ZNE = the societal value of energy consumed by the building over the course of a typical year is less than or equal to the societal value of the renewable energy generated on-site




19




20

Source: New Buildings Institute, “Getting to Zero: The 2014 Status Update”

ZNE goals are a real challenge for California’s K-12 schools. Nationally, still a very limited number of projects. The code push and the market impacts lowering costs of efficiency components and renewables will be key.



21

Blackford Elementary ZNE Multi-purpose building Campbell ESD Aedis Architects

+ Sustainable Communities


22

Source: Dr. Jeff Vincent & Deborah McKoy, Center for Cities and Schools UC Berkeley “Sustainable Communities Need Opportunity Rich Schools A Smart Growth Perspective”

What’s the challenge?

+

Sustainable Communities

SB 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 Companion to AB 32 Global

Warming Solutions Act of 2006

Sets regional emissions reductions targets for vehicles

Promotes integrated regional planning to meet targets

Transportation, land-use, housing policy

Doesn’t specifically reference schools, but…it’s an opportunity

To influence growth and development

Affecting school siting


23

+ New schools in sustainable community settings

SB 375 and Sustainable Communities Strategies Developed by Metropolitan Planning Agencies

Development on urban fringes—(sprawl) Has driven new school construction Into high growth, vehicle-only settings

SB 375 can promote Locating schools in transit, pedestrian, bike-friendly

locations In locations close to jobs and urban centers Integrated planning and land-use patterns that include

schools in focused future development—green schools!


24

+ Every school a green school What are the key opportunities for districts to make every school a green school? What are the challenges? What impediments still exist? Where are the funding opportunities to meet the ambitious goals we’ve set for high performance schools? What are the engagement strategies within school districts and communities that can make a difference?

11/5/14 Green Schools Summit 25

+ Updated High Performance Standards

Two sets of green building/high performance standards for California’s schools Collaborative for High Performance Schools CHPS Leadership in Energy Environmental Design LEED

An opportunity for school districts Each provides a roadmap for projects, whole district With district commitment to the standards

Goals range from basic to a “reach” Set framework, provide clear guidance For the schools and the community

Strongly embraced by the architectural/engineering community


26

+ CHPS 2014 Criteria

National core criteria and California criteria Updated this year with technical and stakeholder groups CA-CHPS coordinated with latest CalGreen and Title 24

standards

Establishes indoor environmental quality as a top priority

Embraces design toward zero net energy

Adds an Operations & Metrics category To ensure actual performance of high performance schools

and realization of benefits over time

CA-specific points—example: EV charging stations

Includes new options for smaller Modernization projects


27

There are over 300 CHPS California school projects either completed or registered.

+ CHPS 2014 Criteria Having high performance rating systems recognize the importance of smaller modernization projects for districts and the critical need to make existing schools green, is a key improvement.


28 High Performance Transition Plan

When an existing school is being modernized/ renovated in whole or in part, it is important to consider possible future needs, and how those needs may be met while keeping high performance principles in mind. A High Perfromance Transition Plan may be used, as an abbreviated way to address phased modernizations/renovations and their possible effect on the overall campus. These are projects that incrementatlly renovate schools over time with the final result achieving CHPS recognition.

II 4.1 – High Performance Transition Plan Credit

2 points

Applicability Verification

Renovation/Modernization projects. Design Review

Construction Review

Requirement

2 points II 4.1 For Phased Renovation/Modernization projects that are unable to achieve all the prerequisites and obtain sufficient points for recognition in the first phase of work, but will meet CHPS Criteria in an incremental fashion, develop a High Performance Transition Plan (HPTP).

Intent

Ensure that existing schools that are modernized incrementally and often face special circumstances have the opportunity to achieve high performance over time and be recognized by CHPS.

II 4.1 – High Performance Transition Plan

+ CHPS Opportunities & Challenges


29

Design 39 K-8 Poway USD CHPS District Resolution Baker-Nowicki Architects

CHPS has expanded nationwide and is being used in more projects than ever. However, since 2001 (only!) 37 California school districts have adopted CHPS Resolutions mandating minimum certification for all new construction and major modernization. How do we continue to expand the base of high performance school districts in California?

+ LEED v 4

Some key areas of update

New focus on building materials transparency Lifecycle assessment data requirements Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) Healthy Product Declarations (HPD)

Strengthened focus on existing buildings—including schools

Focused on projects continued performance Through metering/recording requirements Energy and water use


30

There are over 100 LEED projects submitted by California public schools.

+ LEED v4


31

An increasing number of schools in California are using the LEED rating system—sometimes in conjunction with CHPS.

+

High Performance Standards & a new state school facility funding program

Massachusetts School Building Authority projects Are fully funded for the costs of

commissioning

May use either CHPS or LEED to certify their projects And receive 2% increase in grants

California has the opportunity to ensure that every new school in the state is a green school. Any new state school facilities program could include requirements to utilize existing High Performance Standards such as CHPS or LEED. Other states continue down this path.


32

Oakland Education Center OUSD MVE

Sophisticated building systems associated with high performance schools require a new level of funding, installation, and maintenance that seems to suggest a state/local partnership.

+ Prop. 39 Energy Efficiency funding

Funding source with strong promise Also some clear challenges

Prop. 39 is in its second year

K-12 funding 2013-14: $381,000,000

K-12 funding 2014-15: $279,000,000

Continues through 5 years

Largest single state funding source for energy efficiency and green schools


33


The focus of the funds is on existing school buildings Critical to ensuring a path to

make every school a green school

Where other funding has been focused on new schools

Every district, charter receives funding

No interest loans available

Technical assistance available

Benchmarking required Energy audits A mandatory focus on

understanding energy use And tracking changes from

the initial benchmark

SIR calculations focus districts on lifecycle cost justification

Large districts required to use 50% of funds on major projects over $250,000 Deeper retrofits—opportunity

for leveraging local bond funds


34

Funding elements Prop. 39 Project Guidelines

Making every school a green school starts with our existing buildings.


Overall funds are clearly not sufficient to cover every school

Nor to complete deeper retrofits without leveraging other funding sources

The funds available have decreased after year 1

Planning with shifting fund amounts is difficult for districts

Application process is difficult, time consuming in relation to amount of funds received

As of October just over $100 million in Energy Efficiency Plans has been approved by CEC Less than 1/3 of 2013-14 funds

School districts in many cases were not ready for a focused energy efficiency program Contrast this with the

Community Colleges…


35

Not without its share of challenges, start-up and otherwise…

2014 Prop. 39 Guideline revisions include a proposal for incentivizing local bond funds and other leveraged funds in the project SIR calculation.

+ Local K-12 General Obligation bond funding

The real money to make every school a green school! Making a difference, focusing districts on incorporating

high performance elements is the challenge

Clear challenges Often local bonds are inadequate to fund all identified

need in the district And in the absence of state funding this is even more of an issue

There are significant competing priorities Structural upgrades, access compliance, life safety systems Educational adequacy renovations, technology, basic finishes &

systems upgrades


36

+ Local K-12 General Obligation bond funding strategies Reference/incorporate high performance

requirements in the local bond measure


37

+ Local K-12 General Obligation bond funding strategies Incorporate sustainability as a key component in

district master planning for facilities bonds

Requires significant commitment from school board and district administration

Board supporting resolutions—set strong district policy

Buy-in from senior staff is critical Especially facilities and maintenance teams

Sustainable schools as a complimentary element to basic upgrades, educational adequacy upgrades


38


39

Source: NTD Architects “Sacramento City USD Sustainable Facilities Master Plan”

+ Local K-12 General Obligation bond program strategies Replacement campuses as a strategy for district bond programs provide a unique opportunity for sustainability. Ability to reconfigure/reorient buildings for daylighting. Significant ability to build heavily insulated envelopes, incorporate all new high-efficiency systems. Full new site planning and development with sustainable features.


40

MLK jr Replacement Elementary WCCUSD QKA

+ Why my district can’t build a green school…

District perception of costs with any additional scope beyond a basic building or modernization

There is a reality to potential for increased soft costs for high performance design and compliance requirements

CHPS documentation and review streamlining is a part of the new criteria

This is real! Especially with districts on tight budgets.

Growth districts may be at a “reach point” in planning to meet need for seats

Modernization districts issues Meeting needs at all of the

sites Limitations on scope at one

site beyond district standards


41

Costs too much Not our #1 priority

+ Does it really cost more to build green schools?

11/5/14

42

Source: XL Constr.

+ Does it really cost more to build green schools? Look at this question from another perspective

If you have an adequate project budget then it’s a simple matter to build a high performance school Unfortunately, the reality for many districts has been

inadequate budgets—where they are stretching to meet basic needs—in a high-cost environment


43

Source: PIW Data Study

+ Does it really cost more to build green schools?

Focus on lifecycle analysis for projects End the tyranny of first-costs stopping innovation

District and team consideration of long-term savings From more energy-efficient systems With direct utility cost savings

From indoor environmental quality With reductions in health-related absences

With increased student performance from daylighting

Make lifecycle analysis a key component of big picture decision making and project implementation


44

+ The solar school revolution The clearest positive cost-benefit project for schools

over the last decade Life-cycle cost analysis return on investment Available rebates helped offset high early costs Industry support (pressure?)— with financing options Solar projects written into local bonds Loading order notwithstanding…remember energy efficiency

first, then renewables…


45

Between 2002 and 2012 the Division of State Architect processed over 720 solar panel/photovoltaic projects for school districts and community colleges.

Source: The Solar Foundation “Brighter Future: A study on Solar in US schools”

+ The solar school revolution


46

Mills HS San Mateo UHSD

San Mateo UHSD funded it’s aggressive solar projects with local GO bond funds (CSI rebates). The projects penciled-out even with bond interest costs included in the life-cycle cost analysis.

+ The solar school revolution

Affordable renewables are a key component in meeting ZNE project goals Significant decrease in panel prices, increases in

efficiency The market at work—enabling the “reach” of state’s goals

Current solar outlook for schools Rebates gone, IOU tariff changes, net-metering changes

Financing still biggest hurdle for many districts


47

From 2010 to the second quarter of 2014, average installed costs for commercial solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen by over 50 percent, from $6.00 to $2.97 per watt-DC (WDC)3, and it is not uncommon for PV systems to be installed in many markets for less than $2.00/WDC. Source: The Solar Foundation “Brighter Future: A study on Solar in US schools”

Districts all over the state continue to include renewables as a part of local bond projects listed in ballot measures.

+

Modernization the last frontier for green schools Bringing our stock of existing schools up to high performance standards is a major challenge. This project was a major modernization of an existing school. It included seismic upgrades, reopening closed skylights & interior daylighting clerestory windows.


48

Madera Elementary WCCUSD Hamilton + Aitkin Architects

+

What’s next for a state school facilities program? The 2014 school facilities bond bill was held in the State Senate. What happened? What can we see as the outlines of a new school facilities program? Will a new state program support every school a green school? 11/5/14 Green Schools Summit 49

+ What’s next—a new state program?

The administration is in the process of developing a new state school facility program Anticipate a much smaller amount of funds available

May include proposals for changes to local funding constraints Tax rate limitations for local bonds

Updating developer fees

Anticipate roll-out as part of budget process


50

“…consideration of what role, if any, the state should play in future of school facilities funding…”

+ What’s next…a new state program?

Simplified funding model

ADA-based/per-pupil

With priority screens

Prioritized funding

Needs-based—health & safety or existing facility conditions

Needs-based—local wealth

AV per student as a basis for state grants

Financial Hardship loans (?)

Annual competitive grant process—similar to Prop. 39(?)

Very limited program

Single flexible funding—not specified for new or mod.

Modernization may be considered funded under LCFF (!) and Prop. 39

Regulatory agency streamlining

Consolidation of existing agencies

Reduced scope of agency reviews

Local flexibility in facilities design

11/5/14

51

Some possible program elements of an Administration proposal

Green Schools Summit

+ What’s next…a new (green!) state program A new state school facilities program will be considered by the

legislature

Different priorities than the administration

Significant support for “every school a green school” in Senate

Senate amendments to 2014 state school facilities bond bill


52

AB 2235 Amended in Senate August 2014

+ What’s next…(green!) state/local partnership!

2015 promises to be a year of discussion and debate over the state’s commitment to funding K-14 school facilities

We need to recognize our strong state commitment through new statutes, updated codes and standards And our state’s ZNE goals including all new schools

Understand local GO bond funding sources still largest single source for high performance schools

Prop. 39 funds continue as significant funding source for existing schools efficiency

Together the state/local partnership can make “every school a green school”


53

“every school a green school”: california’s school …...“every school a green school”:...

Documents