+
“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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
+ California school facilities funding
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
4
Source: Office of Public School Construction SAB Program Review Subcommittee Overview
+ California school facilities funding
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
+ California school facilities funding
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
6
High Performance Incentive Grants Program
+ California school facilities funding
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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.
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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.
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
10 Total funding from all sources.
+ California school facilities funding
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
13
+ Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
14
Examples of some of the 2013 updates which will impact schools
+ Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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”
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
Source: CA Energy Commission
+ Zero Net Energy goals
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
19
Source: CA Energy Commission
+ Zero Net Energy goals
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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.
+ Zero Net Energy goals
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
21
Blackford Elementary ZNE Multi-purpose building Campbell ESD Aedis Architects
+ Sustainable Communities
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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!
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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.
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
30
There are over 100 LEED projects submitted by California public schools.
+ LEED v4
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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.
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
33
+ Prop. 39 Energy Efficiency funding
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
34
Funding elements Prop. 39 Project Guidelines
Making every school a green school starts with our existing buildings.
+ Prop. 39 Energy Efficiency funding
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…
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
36
+ Local K-12 General Obligation bond funding strategies Reference/incorporate high performance
requirements in the local bond measure
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
38
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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.
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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…
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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.
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
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”
11/5/14 Green Schools Summit
53