Perspective 1 Certified ‘Green’ Schools: Savings & Benefits Fail To Materialize In North Carolina

8/20/2019 Perspective 1 Certified ‘Green’ Schools: Savings & Benefits Fail To Materialize In North Carolina

1/15

P e r s

p e c t i v

e

Todd Myers

nvironmental Director

ashington Policy Center

Certified ‘Green’ Schools:Savings & Benefits Fail To

Materialize In North Carolina


2/15

2

J O H N L O C K E F O U N D A T I O N | J O H N L O C K E . O R G | WASHINGTON POLICY ENTER | WASHINGTONPOLICY.ORG

Certified ‘Green’ Schools

North Carolina taxpayers are the winners when public schools operate efciently and when every

public dollar is put to its best use and evaluated carefully. Ofcials and administrators who pursue

these goals should be applauded for their commitment. But good intentions do not ensure benecial

outcomes.

Such is the story with “green” school buildings in North Carolina. This report analyzes “green” facilities

in four school districts: Wake, Durham, and Buncombe counties, along with the Iredell-Statesville public

schools. Research focused on schools receiving certication from the U.S. Green Building Council’s

Leadership in Energy and Environment Design, or LEED, system.

This report’s author concludes “green” school buildings in North Carolina fall far short of their promises

to protect the environment through lower energy costs and increased efciency.

• None of the “green” schools are best-performing in energy use when compared to similar schools in

the same district

• In every school district, at least one of the “green” schools performs below average compared to

similar schools in the same district

• In many cases “green” schools require changes that end up increasing cost and reducing energy

efciency

• Buncombe County: Instead of using 30 percent less energy, the county’s two green schools used 7

percent more energy than nongreen schools

• Iredell-Statesville: Third Creek Elementary is billed as the rst LEED “Gold”- certied school building

in the nation but spends about $7,775 more per year on energy than the district’s average elementary

school

• Durham County: Among 28 comparable schools, the two green schools rank No. 10 and No. 15 in

energy efciency, with both schools performing signicantly worse than a much older district school

that spends about 34 percent to 37 percent less on energy

• Wake County: The district’s one “green” elementary school uses more natural gas per square foot than

comparable elementary schools in the district

• Policymakers seeking efciencies in school construction should analyze the lackluster results of their

sister districts and invest public dollars only in methods and technology that produce savings and

benets

Summary and Highlights

The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reect those of

the staff or board of the John Locke Foundation.

For more information, call 919-828-3876 or visit www.JohnLocke.org


3/15

3Certified ‘Green’ Schools

PERSP ECT IV

Introduction

Charles T. Koontz and Joe. P. Eblen Intermediate

Schools in the Buncombe County School District were

designed as models of energy efciency.

Built in 2011 and 2012, these schools received

certication from the U.S. Green Building Council’s(USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environment

Design (LEED) system. Both are LEED Silver certied

and were designed to use “30-35 percent less energy

than a typical school.”1

Now that they are a few years old, do they meet that

standard? The answer is “no.”

Utility data from the 2014-15 school year show that,

when compared to other middle schools in Buncombe

County, the two schools rank below average for energy

efciency, using more energy per square foot than most

of the other schools. Both schools spent 77 cents per

square foot for energy through May of 2015, compared

to the average of 72 cents per square foot for the other

eight middle schools in the district. Instead of using

30 percent less energy, these green schools used seven

percent more energy than non-green schools.

These schools are not unique. Across North Carolina

and the United States, so-called “green” buildings often

use more energy than their non-green counterparts in

the same school districts. For example:

• In Spokane, Wash., none of the new green elementary

schools are as energy efficient as the traditionally

bu ilt Browne Elementary School . One of the

allegedly green schools uses 30 percent more energy

than Browne.

• In Santa Fe, NM, the facilities director reports the

district will not build another green-certied building

anytime soon after the rst such building, Amy Biehl

Community School, consistently incurred some of

the highest energy costs in the district.2

• USA Today found in 2012 that green schools perform

poorly in Houston as well. The newspaper reported,

“Thompson Elementary ranked 205th out of 239

Houston schools in a report last year for the district that

showed each school’s energy cost per student. [Green

school] Walnut Bend Elementary ranked 155th.”3

The situation is similar in North Carolina, where a

number of schools intended to save energy actually use

more energy per square foot than other schools.4

Of course not every green school performs poorly

Some green schools are more efficient than their

counterparts in the same district. Even when that isthe case, however, green schools are usually more

expensive to build and operate than traditionally buil

schools, raising the question of whether they save

money for the local school district.

In many cases green schools require changes that end

up increasing cost and reducing energy efciency. One

facility director in North Carolina indicated that meeting

LEED standards for one school would have required

including a larger air conditioning unit to increase air

circulation in the school. That larger unit would not onlyhave cost more; it would have used more energy. Such

counterintuitive requirements are one reason LEED

green schools do not live up to their promises.

In this report we examine green schools in four North

Carolina school districts – Buncombe County, Iredell-

Statesville, Durham, and Wake County – to compare

the energy performance of those schools to others in

the same district. Schools provide a good opportunity

to assess green building standards in general because

schools are about the same size; have the same building

elements; are located in the same climate; and there are

a number of similar buildings nearby for comparison.5

Do Green Schools Live up to Their Promises?

Advocates claim that green schools produce many

environmental benets. The USGBC denes a green

school as “a school building or facility that creates

a healthy environment that is conducive to learning

while saving energy, resources and money.”6 Many

of these points involve subjective judgments that are

difcult to measure. Efforts to link the supposed health

benets from green buildings and the learning progress

Counterintuitive requirements are

one reason LEED green schools do

not live up to their promises.


4/15

4



of students are vague and subject to many other

inuences.7

Energy use and energy costs, however, are useful

and objective metrics that can be easily measured

and compared. Since a reduction in energy use is

at the center of what it means for a building to begreen, it is the most useful way to compare the actual

environmental results of these schools to traditionally

built schools. Additionally, we try to compare schools

built recently. The question is not whether new green

schools are superior to old, traditionally built schools.

The important question is whether spending more for

a new, green school will yield cost and energy savings

compared to a new, traditionally built school. Stated

another way: Does the energy use of green buildings

justify their significantly higher construction and

operating cost?

Using this metric, the green schools in North Carolina

that we studied fare poorly. Every school district that

we studied in the state has at least one green school that

uses more energy per square foot than a traditionally

built school located in the same district.

At a time when resources for education and for

protecting the environment are scarce, state legislators

and policymakers should look closely at green schools

and question whether policies that promote or require

those costly standards actually yield the promised benets.

What are Green Buildings?

Before examining the performance of green schools in

North Carolina, it is important to know what the term

means. Although denitions vary, the most common

standard for green schools is the Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design (LEED) system created and

promoted by the USGBC.

To meet the LEED standard, building designers must

achieve points in a number of categories. The LEED

checklist for schools includes categories for:8

• Sustainable Sites

• Water Efciency

• Energy and Atmosphere

• Materials and Resources

• Indoor Environmental Quality

• Innovation and Design Process

• Regional Priority Credits

Points are awarded in each category and if a school

design receives 40 out of a possible 110 points, it is

certified as green. At 50 points a building achieves

LEED Silver status; at 60, LEED Gold; and at 80 orabove, Platinum, the highest rating. Our study covers

a variety of certication levels, including some at the

lowest end of the scale, like Silver-rated W.G. Pearson

Elementary School in Durham, as well as some meeting

the LEED Gold standard, like Third Creek Elementary

in the Iredell-Statesville School District.

Some rating categories are specically designed to save

energy, such as points for energy savings in a computer

simulation of the building. Others are unrelated to

energy, like the four points awarded for “PublicTransportation Access.”

Advocates of LEED argue this system of flexibility

allows schools to meet the standard at a relatively low

cost. As districts move up the ladder of certication

toward Platinum, the exibility is reduced and the cost

can increase signicantly.

As we shall see, even at the low end of the green

building spectrum, the additional design, construction


5/15


PERSP ECT IV

and operating costs more than outweigh the energy

savings achieved by the buildings.

Data Transparency

One thing is worth noting. We have examined energy

efficiency for schools in several states and we have

never had as much difculty receiving public data as we

did in North Carolina. At one end of the transparency

spectrum were ofcials at Buncombe County Schools,

who provided the data within one week of our request

– one of the best responses we have seen.

At the other end of the spectrum, however, were

officials at Wake County and Iredell-Statesville.

Requests were made at the end of the 2014-15 school

year, both so we could get a complete school year, and

so other school-related demands would be reduced.

Despite that courtesy, Wake County ofcials provided

the data three months later and the electricity data

appeared incomplete. Meanwhile, Iredell-Statesville

officials provided printed copies of the electricity,

natural gas and sewer bills in a large cardboard box.

Having worked at a state agency that had to respond to

many public disclosure requests, we certainly understand

the time and effort it takes to compile requested

information. We also understand that school districts

are not staffed to respond to such requests on a regular

basis. The wide gap in response time between districtswithin the state, however, indicates the problem with

compliance had less to do with staffing or time than

with the simple failure of school ofcials to prioritize

transparency.

It was the most difcult time we have had in receiving

data that should be readily available from public

institutions.

Buncombe County School District

Buncombe County school district has two green

schools.9 Both are Intermediate schools that serve

children in grades 5 and 6. In total the district has

10 middle and intermediate schools. To ensure our

comparisons are accurate, we compared the green

intermediate schools to the performance of other

Does the energy use of green buildings justify their signicantly

higher construction and operating cost?


6/15

6



schools of similar size and type in the same district.

Here are our ndings.

Joe P. Eblen Intermediate School

During the 2014-15 school year, green-designed Eblen

Intermediate School used 6.2 kilowatt hours (kWh) per

square foot and 13.7 cubic feet of natural gas per square

foot. The school uses little natural gas, ranking second

in the district for natural gas use per square foot, but is

second-to-last in electricity use, ranking ninth out of ten

middle/intermediate schools.

On a cost basis, Eblen spends 77 cents per square foot for

energy, ranking it 6th out of the ten schools in the district.

As noted above, Eblen spends seven percent more than

the non-green middle schools in the district and 20

percent more than the most efcient middle school in the

district, Valley Springs Middle School, built in 1989.

One reason older schools use less energy is that

they have fewer power draws and can have poor

air conditioning systems, making the buildings less

comfortable. Clyde A. Erwin Middle School – built

seven years earlier than Eblen in 2004 – uses nine

percent less energy per square foot.

Far from using 30 percent less energy – as the designers

claimed – Eblen uses more energy than most other

equivalent schools. If Eblen were simply as efcient asthe average of the other schools, energy costs would be

$5,746 lower per year.

Looking at the best scenario, the difference between

Eblen and the worst-performing school, North Windy

Ridge, is also very small. Eblen only uses about ve

percent less energy than North Windy Ridge. Bringing

North Windy Ridge up to the standards of Eblen would

have saved the district only about $3,800 a year, or

$76,000 over the typical 20-year lifespan of a school

building. For a building that cost about $14 millionthat represents a savings of one-half of one percent

Typically green schools cost at least two percent more

to build, meaning the undiscounted loss would be

$204,000 in the best circumstances.10

Energy Cost Per Square Foot

Buncombe County Middle and Intermediate Schools

$0.80

$0.70

$0.60

$0.50

$0.40

$0.30

$0.20

$0.10

$ -

A C R e y n o l d s

M i d d l e

C A E r w i n

M i d d l e

C D O w e n

M i d d l e

C a n e C r e e k

M i d d l e

E b l e n

I n t e r m e d i a t e

E n k a

M i d d l e

K o o n t z


N o r t h B u n c o m b e

M i d d l e

N o r t h W i n d y

R i d g e

V a l l e y S p r i n g s

M i d d l e

Electricity/Sq Ft Natural Gas/Sq Ft


7/15


PERSP ECT IV

However, since Eblen actually performs worse than the

average building, the additional cost to meet the LEED

standards will likely never be recovered.

Charles T. Koontz Intermediate School

Built at the same time, using the same green approach,the energy-use numbers for Koontz are almost identical

to those of Eblen Intermediate School.

During the 2014-15 school year, Koontz Intermediate

School used 5.8 kilowatt hours (kWh) per square foot

and 14.8 cubic feet of natural gas per square foot. The

school uses little natural gas, ranking third in the district

for natural gas use per square foot, but ranks seventh

out of ten middle and intermediate schools in electricity

use. On a cost basis, Koontz performs slightly worse

than Eblen, spending about 77 cents per square foot

for energy use, making it the seventh-best school in the

district for energy efciency.

As in the case of Eblen, the additional cost to meet

the LEED green building standards did not yield

the promised energy savings. Ultimately the district

spent more money to construct buildings that are less

efcient.

Green school advocates offer a number of explanations

for why buildings fail to deliver promised energy

savings. We will discuss these reasons in detail below but one is worth mentioning here. New buildings –

green and traditional – often have more amenities,

including air conditioning and more electrical outlets to

accommodate computers and other equipment. Green

school advocates, then, claim that new schools are more

comfortable and more accommodating than traditional

schools. For this reason, they might argue, comparing

a school built many years ago to one built today is

invalid.

There are a couple of problems with these justications.

First, ve of the other eight schools use less energy, so

any justication may account for some, but not all, of

the discrepancy.


Buncombe County Middle and Intermediate Schools

$0.90

$0.80

$0.70

$0.60

$0.50

$0.40

$0.30

$0.20

$0.10

$ -

A C R e y n o l d s

M i d d l e

C A E r w i n

M i d d l e

C D O w e n

M i d d l e

C a n e C r e e k

M i d d l e

E b l e n


E n k a

M i d d l e

K o o n t z


N o r t h B u n c o m b e

M i d d l e

N o r t h W i n d y

R i d g e

V a l l e y S p r i n g s

M i d d l e


8/15

8



Second, labeling the schools as “green” implies they are

more energy efcient and have a smaller environmental

impact than other schools. Arguments that attempt to

explain away additional impact on the environment by

citing added amenities demonstrate that the adjective

“green” is less important than other design goals, like

building comfort. It is hard to continue to call these“green” buildings when the designer has sacrificed

reducing environmental impact in favor of other,

energy-using priorities.

Compared to the promised savings, neither of the

green intermediate schools in the district perform as

promised. Given these poor results, it is likely that

spending additional school funds to meet the green

standards would not be a benecial public expense.

Iredell-Statesville School District

There is only one LEED-certied elementary school in

the Iredell-Statesville school district, but it holds the

distinction of being “the rst elementary school in the

nation to be certied as a LEED Gold building.”11 Built

in 2002, it is older than many green schools around the

country and provides a good opportunity to see whether

green certication stands the test of time, especially

since this school was built to such a high standard.

We compared Third Creek to other elementary schools

in the district for the period of July 2014 to April 2015

because some schools did not provide data for May

2015. Additionally, we eliminated schools for which

data were unavailable or incomplete. Ultimately, we

compared 14 of the 17 schools and the data show a

wide range of energy performance. The chart shows theelectricity and natural gas use per square foot for each

of the 17 schools we examined.

The schools range in size from 51,698 square feet to

108,960 square feet. Third Creek Elementary School is

toward the upper end at 94,000 square feet. There does

not, however, appear to be a relationship between the

size of the school and per-foot energy use.

Third Creek Elementary

Of the 14 elementary schools, Third Creek Elementaryranks 11th in total energy cost per square foot, spending

80 cents per square foot over the course of the year

It spends about 12 percent more for energy than the

average elementary school in the district, and about 60

percent more per year than the best-performing school

Shepherd Elementary.

Overall, Third Creek Elementary spends about $7,775

more per year on energy than it would if it were as

Energy Cost Per Square FootIredell-Statesville Elementary Schools

Electricity Per Sq Ft Terms per Sq Ft

$1.20

$1.00

$0.80

$0.60

$0.40

$0.20$ -

C e l e s t e H e n k e l

C e n t r a l

C l o v e r l e a f

C o o l S p r i n g

E a s t I r e d e l l

H a r m o n y

L a k e N o r m a n

S c o t t s

S h a r o n

S h e p h e r d

T i r d C r e e k

r o u t m a n

U n i o n G r o v e

W o o d l a n d H e i g h t s


9/15


PERSP ECT IV


Durham Elementary Schools

$2.50

$2.00

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$-

B e t h e s d a

B u r t o n

C l u b B l v d .

C r e e k s i d e

E a s l e y

E a s t w a y

E n o V a l l e y

F a y e t t e v i l l e S t .

F o r e s t V i e w

G l e n n

H a r r i s

H i l l a n d d a l e

H o l t

H o p e V a l l e y

L a k e w o o d

M e r r i c k - M o o r e

M o r e h e a d

O a k G r o v e

P a r k w o o d

P e a r s o n

P e a r s o n t o w n

P o w e

S a n d y R i d g e

S m i t h

S o u t h w e s t

S p a u l d i n g

S p r i n g V a l l e y

W a t t s

kWh/Sq Ft Terms per Sq Ft

efcient as the average elementary school in the district.

Over the 20-year lifespan of the school, that would

mean an additional $155,500 in energy costs.

Additionally, the school cost $8,749,600 to build

in 2002.12 Applying the conservative two percent

additional cost for green buildings – especially since

it met a high standard – added about $171,560 to the

total cost. If the school saved energy early in its life,

it certainly is not doing so now, meaning the district

probably did not recover the additional cost to meet the

LEED Gold standard. Between additional construction

costs and energy costs, Third Creek Elementary will

cost the district an estimated $327,000 more in energy

use.

The district does not have another LEED-certified

building, so administrators may have recognized that the

promised “green” benets do not match the additionalcosts when building and remodeling schools in recent

years. Given its age, the high level of certication it

received and its performance, Third Creek Elementary is

a warning to other school districts about the gap between

the promise and reality of building “green” schools.

Durham School District

There are several LEED-certified schools in the

Durham school district, including two buildings that

meet the LEED Gold certification level. Two of the

green schools are elementary schools, and with 30

elementary schools overall, they provide an excellent

opportunity to compare the energy-saving performance

of the LEED certified schools to traditionally built

schools.

The two green schools are W.G. Pearson Elementary

School, which received the lowest level of LEED

certification, Silver, and Sandy Ridge Elementary

School, which is certied at the LEED Gold level – the

second highest level available.

Although there are 30 schools in the district, we have

chosen 28 for comparison, all of which purchaseelectricity from Duke Energy and natural gas from

PSNC Energy. The other two schools – Little River

and Mangum – purchase their electricity from other

sources. As a result, their rates and other price variables

may be different. If there were more diversity of


10/15

10



utility suppliers among the schools, we would include

them, but since these two schools are outliers, the best

approach to obtaining an accurate apples-to-apples

comparison is to choose the 95 percent of elementary

schools that use the same utility supplier.

Additionally, most of the schools have similar ratios ofelectricity and natural gas use. Only one school, Glenn

Elementary, uses only electricity. Finally, the schools

are, for the most part, similar in size.

Sandy Ridge Elementary School

The data from the most recent school year, 2014-

15, shows Sandy Ridge Elementary, which is LEED

Gold certied, actually ranks 15th out of 28 schools,

or slightly below average. It uses about 37 percent

more energy than the best-performing school, Holt

Elementary, which was last remodeled in 1992.

Comparing it to more recently-built schools, Sandy

Ridge uses about 3.5 percent more than Creekside

School, built in 2004 and remodeled in 2010.

The construction cost for Sandy Ridge School, includingfor the landscaping and parking lot, is reported at

$15,357,880.13 Using the two percent cost increase

average, meeting LEED standards would add about

$301,133. This is probably low, because two percent is

the average for LEED certied buildings and estimates

show that meeting LEED Gold is much more expensive

to achieve.

Additionally, if Sandy Ridge were as energy efcient

as Creekside, it would save the district an additional

$4,282 per year. Over the 20-year lifespan of the building, it will spend an estimated $85,650 more than

if it were as efcient as Creekside.

Ultimately Durham Public Schools will spend nearly

$400,000 more for a building that is supposed to be

more energy efcient, but actually performs worse than

the average school.

W.G. Pearson Elementary School

Pearson Elementary School performs better than Sandy

Ridge School in energy use, despite actually achieving

a lower level of LEED certification. Out of the 28

elementary schools we examine here, Pearson ranks

tenth overall, just behind Creekside School, which rankninth.

Both schools perform significantly worse than Hol

Elementary which was last remodeled in 1992 and

spends about 34 percent less on energy than Pearson

and 37 percent less than Sandy Ridge. Southwest

School is next-best, and was constructed in 1991. The

fact that the two most efcient schools were built within

a year of each other indicates the builders at the time

were focused on efciency.

It is also likely they use less energy because they were

designed with fewer electricity draws than newer

schools. This is likely in the case of Pearson Elementary

Pearson ranks fth among the 28 elementary school

we looked at for natural gas use, but sixteenth in use

of electricity per square foot. It seems likely that the

increased electricity use is due to the inclusion of more

electrical equipment or more outlets for such equipment

Interestingly, results for Sandy Ridge show the opposite

It ranks 11th overall in electricity use per square foot

but 21st in natural gas use. There is no obvious reason – other than the fact that the LEED Gold certication

simply is not delivering on its promises – that the

school would perform so poorly.

Ultimately Durham Public Schools’ green elementary

schools do not live up to their alleged distinction

Compared to other elementary schools in the district

their level of energy efciency is about average. Indeed

they perform slightly worse than Creekside Elementary

which was built and remodeled in recent years but did

not seek or receive LEED “green” certication.

In such circumstances it is our experience that some

school districts justify the additional cost of building

“green” by pointing to other amenities. That may or may

not be true, but at the center of “green” claims about

LEED buildings is that they are more environmentally

friendly by saving energy, that the higher cost is worth

it because they are helping to save the planet. Tha

Ultimately Durham Public Schools’ green

elementary schools do not live up to their

alleged distinction.


11/15


PERSP ECT IV

2006 Community Involvement Program

New Wake County Elementary Schools Natural Gas Per Square Foot

$0.25

$0.20

$0.15

$0.10

$0.05

$-

AlstonRidge

WalnutCreek

SycamoreCreek

RiverBend

MillsPark

LaurelPark

LakeMyra

HerbertAkinsRoad

is not the case with Durham’s two green elementary

schools.

Wake County School District

The largest school district we examined, the Wake

County Public School System, has one LEED-certied

“green” school, Alston Ridge Elementary School,

out of nearly 100 elementary schools in the district.

Alston Ridge was certied LEED in 2013. It received

the lowest level of certication, Silver, and it received

very few of its points in the Energy and Atmosphere

category.14 For this reason we would not expect to see

the building perform signicantly better in energy use

than other schools, since certification was achieved

by scoring points in other categories like “Indoor

Environmental Quality” and “Water Efciency.”

Although there are many other elementary schools inthe district, comparing the performance of Alston Ridge

to other schools is difcult due to inconsistent data. For

example, half of the schools provided no data related

to electricity costs. Additionally, while virtually all

schools reported natural gas data, the cost per square

foot varies signicantly, with some schools paying six

times as much as others. One reason for these anomalies

could be that meters are shared by schools or different

buildings and are, therefore, allocated to other schools

To address this, we focused only on natural gas data

The data fall within a general range and with the large

number of schools, they help minimize the impactof outliers. About 90 percent of the schools have

natural gas bills that fall between ve and 15 cents per

square foot. This provides a fairly consistent basis for

comparison.

Additionally, we also focused on the other new

elementary schools built as part of the district’s 2006

Community Involvement Program to build and refurbish

district schools. There are eight new elementary schools

built during this project for which we have data.

Alston Ridge Elementary School

The only LEED-certied school in the district, Alston

Ridge opened in 2010 and was certified in 2013.15

At nearly 105,000 square feet, it is about 15 percent

larger than average, but within the typical range for

elementary schools.


12/15

12



For the most recent school year, Alston Ridge spent 11

cents per square foot for natural gas, exactly the average

amount for all the elementary schools in the district.

Additionally, compared to new elementary schools built

as part of the district’s 2006 Communty Involvement

Program (CIP 2006) building program, it uses slightlymore natural gas per square foot.16 Herbert Akins Road

Elementary is an outlier at 22 cents per square foot,

but all other elementary schools built as part of the

CIP 2006 program have costs ranging from 11 cents

per square foot down to nine cents per square foot, for

Walnut Creek Elementary School. Alston Ridge spends

about $1,300 more per year than the average of the

other new elementary schools built under the CIP 2006

program.

As we mentioned, electricity data are inconsistent for

these schools. For example, although Alston Ridge

reported more than $59,000 spent on electricity and

lighting in 2014-15, none of the other schools reported

more than $15,000 in those areas. Focusing only on

natural gas provides a level playing eld for comparison

of all these new schools.

Additionally the building cost $24,469,718 for

construction, putting the LEED certification cost

estimate at about $479,800.17 The district achieved

the lowest level of LEED certication and appears to

have chosen low-cost methods to meet the standard. Asa result, the additional cost may be closer to the two

percent of budget or even lower. Whatever the level, the

school is using more natural gas per square foot than

comparable elementary schools in the district.

As we noted above, it is not surprising that we do

not see signicant – or indeed any – energy savings

from Alston Ridge, because of the focus on earning

LEED points outside the energy efciency area. That

conclusion is borne out by the data.

North Carolina Green Schools – The Results

Of the four North Carolina school districts examined by

this study, none have green schools that help “protect

the environment” as their promoters had promised.

Further, none of the schools will come close to energy

savings that recover their higher initial construction

costs, and most schools are less efcient than their non-

green counterparts located in the same districts.

Results are fairly consistent across the districts. None

of the green schools are best-performing in energy use,

and in every school district at least one of the green

schools performs below average, compared to similar

schools in the same district. Ironically the two LEED

Gold schools, LEED’s second-highest ranking, in thisstudy perform worse than the average school in their

districts. Given the difficulty of meeting that green

standard, we would expect to see above average levels

of energy efciency, since they cost so much more to

build.

The consistent failure of green buildings to produce

promised energy savings is not unusual, as we noted

above. The performance of North Carolina’s green

schools, however, is a further indication that legislators

and school ofcials should think twice before requiring

schools to spend additional taxpayer and school dollars

to earn LEED certication. The experience of schools

across the country demonstrates that district facilities

directors are often adept at nding cost-effective ways to

reduce energy use, based on the particular buildings they

manage. Requiring them to meet a formulaic, one-size-

ts-all approach, however, often leads them in the wrong

direction, increasing costs without returning savings.

Our discussions with facilities directors in North

Carolina, and the fact that some districts have not

sought LEED certication for new schools, indicatesthey have been unsatisfied with the results of green

schools.

The failure of green buildings to produce energy

savings as promised is also an environmental failure.

Many advocates who promote LEED or similar rating

systems point to the supposed carbon dioxide emission

reductions achieved by green schools. The failure to

save energy, or even slow the increase in energy use,

wastes resources on efforts that do nothing for climate

change or the environment. Instead misguided green building rules divert scarce funding from efforts that

could have a positive environmental impact, or which

could be used to fulll other public needs.

Ultimately – for taxpayers, students and theenvironment – the real-world data shows that NorthCarolina’s green schools fall well short of their energy-saving promises.


13/15


PERSP ECT IV

Endnotes

1. Architectural Design Studio, “Koontz and Eblen IntermediateSchools,” ads-architects.com/portfolio/schools/koontz-eblen.html (Accessed June 29, 2015)

2. Santa Fe School District, “Santa Fe Pubic Schools EnergyBenchmarking Report,” October 8, 2012, sfps.info/

DocumentCenter/View/7049 (Accessed August 8, 2013)3. Frank, Tomas, “Green schools: long on promise, short on

delivery,” USA oday, December 11, 2012 usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/10/green-schools-construction-leed/1753823/ (Accessed August 8, 2013)

4. According to the NC Department of Public Instruction’sSchool Planning Division, “In 1993, the North CarolinaGeneral Assembly passed a bill requiring all Local EducationAuthorities to establish an energy budget as a minimumefficiency requirement or maximum energy usage for allschools built in their jurisdiction. In addition, the “2009 NorthCarolina State Building Code has set forth ASHRAE 90.1 as thestandard for building energy usage. It is the recommendation

of School Planning that each school facility be designed tooperate with at least 30% less energy than the base buildingdescribed in the 90.1-2004 standard.” See North CarolinaDepartment of Public Instruction, “Energy Guidelines ForK-12 Public Schools,” March 2009, schoolclearinghouse.org/,p. 2 (Accessed November 19, 2015)

5. Te North Carolina Department of Public Instruction’s SchoolPlanning Division provides multiple publications outliningcommon-sense strategies for building energy efficient publicschools without the need to undertake LEED certificationprocess. Nevertheless, school districts are not required tofollow NC DPI guidelines for the construction or renovationof school buildings. For example, see North CarolinaDepartment of Public Instruction, “Energy Guidelines ForK-12 Public Schools,” March 2009, schoolclearinghouse.org/(Accessed November 19, 2015)

6. See, for example: Colorado Chapter USGBC, “Colorado –USGBC,” usgbccolorado.org/green-buildings/GreenSchoolsColorado.html (Accessed August 8, 2013)

7. For example, test scores vary widely from school to school andmeasuring the impact of the school building as opposed tosocioeconomic or other factors is virtually impossible.

8. U.S. Green Building Council, “Schools v2009 Checklist,”usgbc.org/resources/schools-v2009-checklist-xls (AccessedAugust 31, 2013)

9. Buncombe County Schools, http://www.buncombe.k12.nc.us10. Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee, “High PerformancePublic Buildings: Impact on Energy Use is Mixed,” May 18,2011, leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAndStudyReports/2011/Documents/HighPerfPublicBuildingsPreliminary.pdf(Accessed 8/25/2013)

11. North Carolina Green Building, “Tird Creek ElementarySchool,” http://www.ncgreenbuilding.org/site/ncg/public/show_project.cfm?project_id=67 (Accessed October 13, 2015)

12. US Department of Energy – Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy, “Tird Creek Elementary,” May 6, 2003, http://eerebuildinggreen.com/finance.cfm?ProjectID=119 (AccessedOctober 13, 2015)

13. Bordeaux Construction Company, “Sandy Ridge ElementarySchool,” bordeauxconstruction.com/portfolio-items/sandyridge-elementary-school/ (Accessed July 15, 2015)

14. U.S. Green Building Council, “Alston Ridge ElementarySchool,” May 2013, usgbc.org/projects/alston-ridge-elementary-school (Accessed October 13, 2015)

15. Wake County Public School System, “Sustainability,” wcpssnet/Page/254 (Accessed October 13, 2015)

16. Wake County Public School System, “Wake County PublicSchool System Seven-year Plan,” wakegov.com/budget/cip/fy04/Documents/CIP%20ab%203_Education%20FY08%20Adopted.pdf (Accessed October 13, 2015)

17. Wake County Public School System, “2013 Building ProgramMap of Projects – Alston Ridge Elementary,” September 312015, wcpss.net/Page/260 (Accessed October 13, 2015)


14/15

14



Todd Myers

Washington Policy Center

With more than a decade in environmental politics and public

relations, Todd Myers’ experience includes work on a range

of environmental issues, including spotted owl habitat, old-

growth forests and salmon population. Currently, he serves as

a member of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council and

was a member of the executive team at the Washington State

Department of Natural Resources.

Todd is the Environmental Director at the Washington Policy

Center, a market-oriented think tank in Seattle.

Myers is a Wall Street Journal Expert Panelist for Energy and the Environment. Several Washington state

newspapers, the BBC, USA Today, Fox News, CNN and the Wall Street Journal have all featured his work.

The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reect those of

the staff or board of the John Locke Foundation.

For more information, call 919-828-3876 or visit www.JohnLocke.org

About the Author


15/15
