Washington’s High-Performance
School Buildings
Report to the Governor and Legislature
December 30, 2008
Prepared by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
&
O’Brien & Company
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all participants that supplied data and helped write or review this report:
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction: Patricia Jatczak
O’Brien & Company: Kathleen O’Brien, Yvonne Kraus, Kelly Kirkland
New Buildings Institute: Cathy Turner
All project teams and districts of the WSSP 2006-2008 volunteer projects: Bainbridge Island, Bellevue, Bellingham,
Bethel, Centralia, Edmonds, Everett, Lake Washington, Marysville, Northshore, Olympia, Seattle, Snohomish,
Spokane, Steilacoom, Tacoma, Tumwater, Vancouver, and Willapa Valley.
The OSPI Technical Advisory Committee (High-Performance Subcommittee) for review
Cover photos:
Top row: Forest View Elementary School, Everett School District (photo by Timothy Aguero Photography) and
Oakview Elementary School, Centralia School District.
Bottom row: Willapa Valley Sr. High School, Willapa Valley School District, and Pioneer Middle School, Steilacoom
Historical School District, (Photo DLR Group).
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 2
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................................................3
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................4
2008 Washington’s High-Performance Schools Status ................................................................................................10
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................10
Washington High-Performance School Building Program .......................................................................................12
Volunteer Project Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................17
WSSP Implementation Experience ..........................................................................................................................20
WSSP Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................29
Additional Findings ..................................................................................................................................................32
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................................34
Consultant Recommendations to OSPI ....................................................................................................................36
Resources and References .......................................................................................................................................37
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................................38
Appendix A: Washington State’s High-Performance Schools .................................................................................38
Appendix B: Relationship of high-performance schools with other programs and initiatives ................................40
Appendix C: WSSP Scorecard .................................................................................................................................42
Appendix D: WSSP Costing Sheet ..........................................................................................................................44
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 3
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Executive Summary
High-Performance School Building Program Overview
This report is presented to provide a status report on the implementation of Chapter 39.35D RCW HighPerformance Public Buildings for K-12 schools. The law requires that all state assisted K-12 new construction or
modernization projects over 5,000 square feet are designed and built to high-performance standards. A highperformance school building is one that achieves a high level of energy and resource efficiency, reduces its impact
on the environment, and provides a healthy and comfortable learning space to support education. Schools may
®
choose the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) or the LEED Silver standard.
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is responsible for implementing sections of the law that
apply to public school districts. OSPI staff have worked on integrating the high-performance requirements into the
school construction assistance process and tracking volunteer projects. The WSSP green building standard consists
of a Scorecard with several prerequisites and a menu of optional high-performance strategies that schools can
choose to include in their projects.
The high-performance requirements have been phased in since 2006. As of July 2008, all state funded school
®
construction projects must comply with the high-performance building requirements, using either WSSP or LEED .
Some exemptions apply, most notably the “not practicable” status for projects on previous bonds.
Between 2006-2008, OSPI monitored 18 projects that volunteered to use the WSSP before it became mandatory.
This report presents the results and findings of their experience with implementing the WSSP, as well as the
environmental and performance impacts and benefits resulting from the high-performance strategies they chose
to pursue. Consistent and detailed financial information was not available at the time of the writing of this report.
OSPI is currently developing a cost reporting tool for schools what will help with data consistency.
Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol
The WSSP Scorecard is a point-based standard with a minimum point threshold that districts need to achieve for
their new school projects to be in compliance. The Scorecard’s high-performance strategies are organized in six
categories: Site Planning, Water Efficiency; Materials Use; Energy Efficiency; Indoor Environmental Quality; and
Extra Credit. The WSSP is designed as a pass-fail rating system, with a minimum point requirement which includes
ten prerequisite strategies.
2006-2008 Volunteer Projects and Grants Overview
A total of 21 projects received WSSP grants through OSPI. Eighteen of these projects volunteered to apply the
WSSP to their construction projects before it became mandatory. The 18 volunteers included 13 new school
construction projects and five major modernization/addition projects, for approximately 1.6 million square feet of
school facilities serving over 14,000 students.
Three schools received grants to complete post-occupancy data collection. These were schools that participated in
the 2004 WSSP Pilot and are already completed and occupied. The goal of the data collection projects was to
gather the data required by the law and/or to compare the building performance to what they projected in their
pilot.
About $5.9 million in grants was awarded to the 21 projects. Districts were required to report to OSPI by providing:
A sustainable building strategy summary;
A design phase WSSP Scorecard;
An energy model summary; and
Cost estimates of the incremental increases for implement the WSSP.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 4
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
All 18 construction projects submitted most of the required WSSP implementation data. Only seven submittals
included all reporting requirements listed above. However, every project is unique and in a different phase of
construction and occupancy, making comparisons very difficult. The information requested and the data collected
to attempt to quantify additional costs for designing and building high-performance schools was unusable for
various reasons, as explained in the report. The information collected from the volunteer projects focused on the
implementation of the WSSP in design and construction, and was not intended to track post-occupancy
performance to determine benefits or improvements. Many of these schools just recently opened and some have
not opened yet so there is no operational data yet.
WSSP Goals
Districts reported different goals related to the WSSP for their projects. Energy Efficiency and Indoor
Environmental Quality (IEQ) were reported as important categories for many schools, but specific priorities
differed. Top priorities included indoor air quality and comfort, student and staff health, on-going learning and
outdoor education opportunities for students, sharing lessons learned with other districts, celebrating water and
water use efficiency, and promoting student stewardship. Increases in educational performance, test scores,
volunteerism, and improved staff satisfaction were also listed as project goals from the WSSP, as well as achieving
a durable, functional facility with the most economical materials and methods.
WSSP Scorecard Strategy Selection and Results
The volunteer schools chose a diverse combination of WSSP strategies with good distribution from all six Scorecard
categories. Three Scorecard categories were clearly preferred. In terms of points earned as a percentage of total
available points per category, schools favored strategies in Extra Credit (80%), IEQ (60%), and Site (58%). Highperformance strategies in Water and Energy were almost equally used at 42% and 40% respectively, while
Materials followed at 32%.
Projects must earn a minimum of 40 points (out of 93 possible points) to be in compliance. All but three schools
reported exceeding the minimum point requirements of the WSSP, but not all of these were the final project
scorecards. Since many of the projects have not completed the construction phase, it is impossible to ascertain if
all of the points were, or can be achieved, by the time construction is completed. Many of the points require that
the construction phase be completed successfully. With the information available, an assumption was made that
the average point score for all 18 construction projects is 46. Five schools projected that they could achieve
impressive scores of 50 or more points. The districts did not limit themselves to meeting the minimum WSSP
requirements. Instead, they reviewed all Scorecard strategies and determined how many they could implement
given available resources.
WSSP Benefits
Volunteer schools reported that the WSSP worked well for them, was beneficial in project design, helped build
awareness, and helped set a precedent for future district schools and facilities. Staff satisfaction and sense of pride
from working on, or inside, a high-performance building was identified as a benefit as well.
Reported Site benefits include habitat protection; improved on-site stormwater infiltration; improved access by
bicycle and bus; light pollution reduction, and community partnerships related to joint use of facilities. Site
strategies also offered social benefits, such as community integration via trails, safe bicycle/pedestrian access, and
joint use of facilities. Furthermore, incorporating natural habitat or green space on site and pairing them with
educational signage was reported to have improved opportunity for, and access to, environmental and outdoor
education.
Water conservation measures from high-performance strategies are projected to lead to substantial district
savings. Districts reported reductions in potable and irrigation water use through a combination of strategies
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 5
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
including efficient fixtures, sensors, rainwater collection, and native plant landscapes. Fourteen of the 18 volunteer
schools were able to reduce their irrigation water consumption by 50% or more, and two projects altogether
eliminated potable water use for outdoor irrigation.
On average, the volunteer projects anticipate Energy performance improvements over the same building built to
Washington State Non-Residential Energy Code by 24%. All 18 volunteer districts pursued strategy E 1.1: Superior
Energy Performance, and are projecting energy savings through techniques and systems such as building
orientation, envelope improvements, efficient lighting and lighting design, radiant floor heat fed by a ground
source loop, point of use heaters, high efficiency equipment, and commissioning, among others.
Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) was a priority for most districts but few districts included statements about
anticipated benefits from the IEQ strategies. High-performance IEQ strategies were selected based on staff,
student, and stakeholder interest in healthy indoor environments, and potentially due to risk avoidance and to
meet the proposed update to the school health rule. Overall IEQ benefits are qualitative and therefore more
difficult to measure, and no conclusive data was available in the volunteer reports to report on IEQ benefits at this
time. A number of national studies have concluded that access to daylight and fresh air, and removal of materials
1
that contain volatile organic compound (VOCs) can have multiple performance, satisfaction, and health benefits.
Reported benefits in the Material category were reduced waste, increased resource use efficiency, reduction and
elimination of exposure to toxics, and financial savings from resource efficiencies. The volunteer schools achieved
construction waste recycling rates of up to 90%, and several schools were able to procure 40% of all materials
within 500 miles of their site. Using less- or non-toxic materials for school construction and operation has positive
health benefits. In spite of these benefits, schools chose the least number of strategies from this category. This is
likely due to the reality that the environmental, social, health and financial benefits of green materials can vary and
are difficult to measure in terms of return on investment.
WSSP Challenges
The volunteer grantees were selected to test the WSSP in the field with a wide range of projects, district size and
capacity, and urban/rural, east/west locations. Because they applied for their grants, the participating districts
tended to be those interested in testing high-performance buildings and the WSSP on their projects. Their interest
and familiarity with high performance building techniques may be unique among the 295 districts statewide and
this must be taken into account when reviewing the results provided in this report. The spread in interest and
familiarity was also apparent within participating districts, and made comparison of results difficult. However,
initial feedback did allow for a widespread evaluation of the possible challenges districts face implementing the
high-performance requirements.
All districts incurred additional expenses to implement WSSP, and some significantly above the amount provided
by the grant. Volunteers were not asked specifically to list the challenges they faced, but some mentioned that
they included: cost, available budget, site constraints, objection by maintenance staff, or not enough locally
available expertise to competitively bid, install, construct, or maintain the high-performance systems and products.
Modernizations, additions, and historic renovation projects appear to be more challenged by the WSSP. Existing
building and site conditions can constrain design opportunities and may limit flexibility in WSSP strategy selection.
Several reports that include data on the relationship between IEQ and student performance are cited in the January
2005 Washington High-performance School Buildings report to the Legislature, prepared by the Washington State Board
of Education and OSPI. These reports are included in the references of this report as well, and include: Heschong
Mahone Group 1999 and 2003; Myhrvold, 1997; Nicklas et al, 1997; Schneider 2002; Dougan et al, 2003; and EPA 2003.
1
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 6
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
As such, these projects may experience a higher WSSP cost incremental when compared to new construction
projects.
The state and the districts are experiencing a steep learning curve in relation to implementing the WSSP and
understanding the challenges, benefits, and cost implications. Particularly in terms of financial implications,
available data at time of writing this report was limited to first cost. Few WSSP schools have been in operation for
more than a year, so performance data is not yet available. Therefore, detailed analysis of the costs and benefits
of high-performance school buildings is not yet possible at this time. Performance data will be collected over the
next two years and results will be reported in future reports to the Legislature.
WSSP Cost Implications
An initial WSSP cost analysis was attempted but was inconclusive. Districts used different baselines to calculate
additional costs and reporting methods utilized were too inconsistent and disparate to be able to compute
meaningful cost averages. Cost reporting challenges included the following:
Report timing and project status differences
Variability in project type, size, and WSSP point
scores
Reporting inconsistencies
Baseline uncertainty
Lack of detailed reporting instructions to
districts
Conflicting objectives
A methodology was developed to allow cost and benefit analysis as much as possible, despite these reporting
challenges. However, due to the diverse volunteer project types, cost ranges, and WSSP point scores, a consistent
baseline could not be established to meaningfully calculate WSSP cost implications at this time. However, it is
important to note that all districts reported additional cost related to their first WSSP project and that many of the
volunteer districts opted to go beyond the minimum WSSP point requirement in their projects.
The 18 volunteer districts represented a broad range of projects, further challenging comparison of financial data
and drawing meaningful conclusions. The projects ranged from a rebuild of a small classroom building at an
elementary school to a complex new high school campus including community amenities. Several districts
incurred additional cost from efforts that exceeded the scope of their WSSP volunteer project. For example, two
districts used available grant funds to conduct district-wide WSSP evaluations. One district completed a districtwide Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) evaluation, and one district completed two eco-charrettes as a learning
opportunity for staff, therefore incurring costs beyond the specific construction project.
WSSP Cost Savings: Few districts reported initial cost savings from particular WSSP strategies, as they were not
specifically asked to do so in their reports. However, several districts included immediate and anticipated future
cost savings in their report narratives and life cycle assessments.
An important consideration in evaluating the WSSP at this time is that the reporting districts were all early
adopters that used their grants to cover some of the additional cost to “test” a variety of high performance
techniques in their districts. The grants did not cover all of the additional WSSP costs incurred by the districts. The
fact that most districts went beyond the minimum WSSP point requirement and beyond their grant amounts to
implement WSSP strategies suggests that they considered long-term savings, may have had other goals to balance
with keeping costs down, and are committed to the process. Cost implications may be more significant for smaller
districts and those that that are entirely new to the WSSP high performance strategies, and who don’t have grants
to help pay for some of the upfront cost of WSSP implementation. Continued financial assistance is recommended
to assist school districts with full implementation of the WSSP, providing them with the means to learn about the
Protocol, train their staff, and adjust their project management procedures to reflect the WSSP process.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 7
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Additional Findings
Thus far, Washington State K-12 schools have all chosen to use the WSSP over LEED®. Districts reported that WSSP
is preferred over LEED® because it is self-administered and does not require additional documentation costs and
certification fees. Additionally, the WSSP was produced by stakeholders to reflect and accommodate the
conditions in Washington State.
Conclusion
The data provided by the 2006 volunteer projects does not have sufficient reporting consistency to draw
conclusions about the WSSP’s quantitative environmental and financial impacts, or qualitative student and staff
performance benefits. However, the reported experience of the 18 volunteer projects offers enough basis to draw
conclusions about how schools are approaching the WSSP in this early stage of implementation, how they are
using the Scorecard, whether the Protocol enables districts to meet the minimum requirements without too much
difficulty, whether the Protocol needs to be changed, and about anticipated and projected environmental, social,
and economic benefits statewide.
1) Implementing the WSSP raises general awareness of high performance strategies to schools and
district-wide.
The WSSP Scorecard served as a helpful and educational planning tool for districts. Review of the highperformance strategies helped teams identify and prioritize project goals and allowed them to evaluate
systems and designs they hadn’t considered. Districts used the Scorecard as a framework for assessing the
long-term environmental and financial impacts of each high-performance strategy, and some used the results
to identify strategies that could be adopted district-wide. The Protocol also helps educate district staff and the
community about high-performance buildings and operations, encourages community-wide adoption of waste
reduction, increases the market for locally produced goods and materials, improves energy independence, and
creates enduring buildings that are valued by end users.
2) Implementation of the WSSP can provide multiple environmental, economic, and social benefits in
the State.
Projected benefits from the WSSP strategies pursued at the volunteer projects can be significant.
Environmental benefits include planned reductions in energy and water use, habitat and water quality
protection, and increased use of non- and low toxic materials that are manufactured to higher environmental
standards.
Economic benefits can include financial savings for districts from material reuse and salvage and long-term
operational efficiencies, increased used of locally produced materials supporting the local economy, and
potentially increased efficiencies in project planning and construction through the integrated design process.
Social benefits include potential student and staff health and performance benefits from healthy indoor
environments and more community connections through shared facility use.
By providing a comprehensive set of strategies that offers choice and flexibility, the WSSP is helping to build
“whole” schools that benefit the environment, end users, and the community at large.
3) Achieving WSSP minimum threshold can be achieved.
Despite gaps in data and reporting inconsistencies, the volunteer experience suggests that WSSP minimum
can be achieved. None of the districts reported difficulty applying the Protocol to their project or meeting the
requirement; however, these are the early adapters and those who sought to test the application of the WSSP.
All districts reported increased costs for their volunteer projects. Some districts included the costs of a districtwide evaluation that will have multiple future project benefits in the cost reporting of their volunteer project.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 8
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
4) WSSP implementation is more difficult for modernization/addition/historic renovation projects.
Modernization, addition, and historic renovation projects appear to have more challenges and limitations in
applying WSSP strategies. This is due to existing building and site conditions that can constrain highperformance strategy selection and design opportunities. However, the WSSP point system was designed to
include modernization and most projects could achieve the minimum. Existing conditions can reduce the
flexibility encouraged by the WSSP and may lock these types of projects into using specific strategies. This also
suggests that the current point exemption for historic renovation projects, with even greater restraints, should
be continued.
5) Integrated design can help manage cost and integrate high-performance features.
Eco-charrettes are the first step in integrated design, which includes multi-disciplinary and iterative design
reviews, gathering knowledge through modeling and testing, and verification through commissioning and post
occupancy evaluations. Integrated design can help manage and reduce the total cost of projects and improve
total benefits (see AIA: Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, 2007) by allowing whole system design,
streamlining decisions, reducing change orders, and reducing energy, water, and material waste.
6) School districts would benefit from training in WSSP implementation and cost tracking,
integrated design, and total cost of ownership (TCO) studies.
Districts that chose to invest in a district-wide evaluation of high-performance strategies benefitted from
internal staff education and will likely experience reduced cost of implementing some of the strategies in
future WSSP projects. Training in cost tracking and reporting procedures will prepare districts to better
identify, evaluate, and report on the benefits and costs of the strategies they choose to pursue. Training in
integrated design and TCO studies can help with overall decision making and implementation of WSSP
strategies.
7) Consistent reporting instructions will aid OSPI in communicating requirements to school projects,
and a clear data reporting tool will improve future cost and performance data submitted by the
districts.
There are many inconsistencies in the volunteer cost reports. Reporting differences exist both in the use of the
Scorecard and the format and type of information provided in the narrative reports. Furthermore, the
districts’ various understanding of baselines and what is considered “additional" cost, as well as incomplete
submittals, made analysis and data interpretation difficult. District approaches in implementing the WSSP
differ, and there seems to be confusion between the legal reporting requirements and the requirements that
the volunteer schools had for their grants. Better instructions on reporting needs and how to calculate
additional WSSP costs and cost savings will aid schools in future reporting requirements.
8) The volunteer projects represent a good first test of WSSP implementation and provide a
foundation from which to improve the Protocol and cost reporting in the future.
One of the reasons the grants were offered was to provide districts with the means to familiarize themselves
with the WSSP and test strategies in the field. The grants helped cover some of the additional costs districts
incurred to implement WSSP strategies. Several districts used grant funds to expand the WSSP evaluation to
determine feasibility of high-performance strategies district-wide. OSPI will improve the directions to the
districts on how to report additional costs, however variation is still likely to occur.
9) The WSSP standard needs to keep pace with new developments and updated codes
Since the Final Draft was published in January 2006, some minimum requirements such as those in
stormwater and energy code have changed and updated. The WSSP needs to be on an update schedule so
that it truly reflects “high-performance” schools.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 9
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
2008 Washington’s High-Performance Schools Status
Introduction
Chapter 39.35D RCW High-Performance Public Buildings, requires that all state assisted new construction or
modernization projects at K-12 facilities over 5,000 square feet are designed and built to high-performance
2
standards. A high-performance school is one that achieves a high level of energy and resource efficiency, reduces
its impact on the environment, and provides a healthy and comfortable learning space to support education.
®
Districts may choose the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) or the LEED standard set by the U.S.
Green Building Council (Silver level) to achieve the RCW 39.35D requirement. Some exemptions apply, and districts
are allowed to request a “not practicable” status depending on when the project bond was issued, or if other
challenges make it impossible for a school to meet the requirements. For five years after occupancy, school
districts must complete an annual report to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) on the costs
and benefits of high-performance schools.
OSPI is responsible for implementing sections of the law that apply to public school districts, and must report to
the Washington State Governor and Legislature on the program implementation progress and success in
September of even-numbered years, and in January 2009.
Between of 2006-2008, OSPI monitored 18 school construction projects and three post-occupancy data collection
projects that received grants to use the WSSP before it became mandatory. Information from these volunteer
schools is presented in this report, and will help OSPI further refine reporting standards and requirements and the
high-performance schools program.
The purpose of this report is to inform the Governor and Legislature about the:
High-Performance Schools Program status;
Volunteer project benefits and challenges with implementing WSSP; and,
WSSP strategy cost implications.
This report also includes recommendations for improved future data collection and reporting at schools, and for
improved tracking of the benefits and challenges of specific WSSP strategies.
Of the 18 school construction projects, five were major modernizations or additions, and 13 were new schools.
Three schools that participated in the 2004 WSSP Pilot Study funded by the Legislature received small grants to
gather information on the performance of their buildings, and are referred to as “post-occupancy data collection
schools.” This report does not address post-occupancy benefits of WSSP, or any correlation between the WSSP and
worker productivity, absenteeism rates, or student performance.
These three schools will continue data collection throughout the 2008-2009 school year. OSPI will evaluate the
data in summer 2009 and will prepare a summary of the districts’ progress and findings.
Green building and sustainability consultant O’Brien & Company analyzed all data and narratives submitted by the
volunteer districts. This was the first time districts reported on their WSSP experience and, not surprisingly, they
utilized a variety of reporting formats and techniques. The data received is incomplete and disparate in many
2
The law applies to both state-owned buildings and public schools.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 10
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
areas, and the Consultant’s ability to generalize across the board and compare between schools was constrained
by reporting inconsistencies. Because of the inconsistent information provided by the districts on the additional
costs incurred to implement high-performance strategies, no conclusions on additional cost could be drawn from
this data.
OSPI guidance to districts was to report all additional costs related to achieving WSSP points for the volunteer
projects, however some only reported on partial costs. The directions to capture cost data were confusing to
districts because it requested that they compare base cost to actual cost, and defined base cost as “the cost if it
was built to minimum code requirements or if it was standard (not high-performance)”. Some districts applied
their own building standards, while others used minimum code costs, rendering the data incomparable.
A determination will have to be made as to whether or not attempting to gather the cost differential data for highperformance buildings can yield useful, comparable data.
In order to address the eclectic and incomplete nature of the data submittals, the consultant established data
analysis and comparison criteria. However, even that attempt to work with the submittals did not make the data
any more useful. These criteria are explained in the Data Analysis Methodology section of this report.
To improve the quality and consistency of the data for future analysis, refinements are necessary to the
information requested from high-performance schools, and how they report it. OSPI is in the process of developing
a new data collection tool with consultants O’Brien & Company and the New Buildings Institute. The tool is
intended to help streamline and standardize all future WSSP schools reports and is anticipated to be complete in
2009.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 11
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Washington High-Performance School Building Program
The School Facilities and Organization section of OSPI manages the High-Performance School Building Program.
OSPI staff has been integrating the high-performance requirements into the school construction assistance
process, managing volunteer projects, notifying new projects of the requirements, and maintaining the state’s
green building standards for schools, the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP). The WSSP Scorecard
serves as the tool to help districts choose and implement a variety of high-performance building strategies.
Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol Overview
The WSSP was developed through a stakeholder process to create a set of green building design standards that
defined a sustainable school for the State of Washington. The two existing green building rating systems were
reviewed: the Collaborative for High-Performance Schools (CHPS) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED®). The final product, the WSSP, includes elements adapted from these systems as deemed
appropriate, as well as entirely new criteria. The final draft was published in January 2006.
The WSSP includes a point-based Scorecard of green building standards and identifies a minimum point level that
school projects need to achieve to be in compliance. In addition to ten prerequisites, the Scorecard provides a
menu of high-performance features to choose from, in six categories:
Site Planning
Water Efficiency
Materials
Energy Efficiency
Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)
Extra Credit
The WSSP is designed as a pass-fail rating system. Schools must earn a minimum of 40 points out of 93 available
3
points. The ten prerequisite strategies, which all schools must meet, represent code or minimum requirements
over code. To ease the reporting burden, districts self-certify that they meet the WSSP requirements.
OSPI High-Performance Schools Program Progress
Since program implementation, OSPI has been working on the development of procedures, products, guidance,
and other support documents for schools.
As of summer 2008, OSPI has:
Integrated high-performance requirements into the State’s school construction assistance procedures;
Updated the School Facilities Manual to include guidance on high-performance requirements;
Produced a website specifically for high-performance schools;
Developed High-performance Guidelines for School Districts;
Produced a DVD entitled “Washington’s High-Performance Schools: Raising the Bar”;
Changed a rule to lower the building size threshold for state assistance for building commissioning, to
accommodate the high-performance requirements;
Produced preliminary reporting tools for the volunteer school project reports;
Participated in the development of an organization, The National Collaborative for High-performance Schools,
to help leverage resources and knowledge on high-performance schools;
Coordinated a training conducted by the Department of Ecology for building contractors on documentation
procedures for LEED® and the WSSP;
Worked with State Board of Health’s School Rule Revision Team to explain relationship of the WSSP to the
proposed rule requirements; and
The WSSP Scorecard includes a total of 96 points. Eight of these points are Extra Credit points. However, the Protocol
only allows 5 Extra Credit points to be applied toward meeting the minimum requirement.
3
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 12
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Delivered presentations on high-performance schools to various school associations and green building
groups.
OSPI recognizes its responsibility to ensure the WSSP stays up-to-date with new information, codes and experience
in the field, and to ensure the program continues to promote best practices beyond code and conventional
practice. Early program reviews were completed and minor WSSP corrections and updates were made in late 2008.
Many of the volunteer districts using the WSSP cautioned against making too many changes too fast. Primary
reasons were:
1) It will take time for the WSSP to be fully implemented in the State as it only applies to new construction
and major modernizations (about 50 per year); and,
2) Districts will need to complete at least two years of post-occupancy performance tracking to measure the
effectiveness and ongoing performance of WSSP strategies compared to baseline construction methods.
Including the early WSSP pilot schools, over 3.7 million sq. ft. of schools in Washington State are now in design, in
construction, or built to the state’s high-performance standards. A list of all Washington State’s known highperformance projects (excluding the volunteer projects described in this report) is included in Appendix A. All of
these schools have all reported that they used, or will use, the WSSP as their preferred reference standard to meet
the high-performance requirements.
Program Implementation Phasing
The high-performance requirements have been phased in, beginning in
2006 with volunteer demonstration projects and early adapter using the
WSSP standard. The legislature allowed for grant assistance for the
volunteers to implement WSSP, but on-going assistance has not been
made available
Beginning July 1, 2007, all Class I state assisted new construction or
modernization projects that received project approval from OSPI must
comply. As of July 2008, all Class II state assisted new construction or
modernization projects that received project approval from OSPI also
must comply. Table 1 details the WSSP implementation phase-in.
Table 1: WSSP phasing
District Size
Volunteers (not required)
Class I: more than 2,000
students
Class II: fewer than 2,000
students
Compliance
Date
2006 - 2008
Projects
approved after
July 1, 2007
Projects
approved after
July 1, 2008
Source: OSPI
Exemptions and Not Practicable Status
For both Class I and II projects, districts are allowed to request an exception, or “not practicable” status for
projects that had bonds approved prior to June 2008 for Class I and 2009 for Class II districts.
Exempted from law
Two circumstances can exempt a project from the meeting the high-performance requirements:
Size:
Cost of Renovation:
Projects under 5,000 GSF are not required to comply
Renovation projects with a cost of less than 50% of the Area Cost Allowance
multiplied by the Total Building Square Footage. (Districts must describe why the
project is exempt).
Not Practicable
There will be circumstances where it is not practicable for a district to build to WSSP or LEED ® Silver standards.
Table 2 details the circumstances and requirements that districts must meet to receive a “not practicable” status.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 13
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Table 2: Not practicable circumstances and documentation requirements
Not Practicable Circumstances
Required Documentation
1.
Historic Landmark
2.
Bond Issue
1.
Bond prior to 6/08 for Class I Districts
Bond prior to 6/09 for Class II Districts
2.
Send a letter to OSPI claiming exemption and providing the reasons. Describe what,
if any, high-performance points can be achieved, or send Scorecard.
A letter or final Scorecard to OSPI at the end of project detailing the highperformance points achieved.
Send a letter to OSPI claiming exemption and providing the bond issue date for the
project. Describe what, if any, high-performance points can be achieved, or send
Scorecard.
A letter or final Scorecard to OSPI at the end of project detailing the highperformance points achieved.
Circumstance
These will be determined by OSPI in consultation with the district and documented in a
letter. In most cases, the district will follow the high-performance schools procedures but
will be relieved of program requirements.
a.
Site environmental situation (adjacent
to airport, freeway) or other constraints
Excessive or unplanned costs
a.
Document reasons and request waiver of specific points in letter to OSPI.
b.
Describe the situation and provide a cost/benefit analysis of actual bid costs.
c.
Change in availability of planned
products or services
c.
Provide a statement of unavailability of products or services.
d.
Contractor was unable to comply with
certain high-performance aspects due to
extenuating circumstances
d.
Submit explanatory statement from contractor.
e.
Other situations
e.
Explain.
b.
Source: OSPI
Program Compliance
Thirty-five building projects were submitted to OSPI
that were required to comply between July 1, 2007
and September 2008. Seventeen of these schools
were granted a “not practicable” status due to
bond issue date. A list of the 35 schools is provided
in Appendix A.
Table 3: WSSP participation overview
Participating Schools
#
Schools built or modernized using WSSP in the 2004 pilot phase
5
Volunteer schools receiving state grant to build to WSSP before
mandate
18
Other projects not included above known to be built to WSSP
(These schools used the WSSP standard before they were required to.
They did not receive grants.)
5
Additional projects between July 2007 – July 2008 required to
meet high-performance standards (Class I & II)
Projects declaring “not practicable” status (bond issue date)
35
17
Source: OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 14
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
High-Performance School Building Grant Overview
OSPI monitored 18 new school construction projects and three post occupancy data collection projects that
received grants to use the WSSP before it became mandatory. WSSP construction grants were for new school
construction or modernization/addition projects. Post-occupancy data collection grants were awarded to WSSP
schools that are already occupied and are tracking performance for a minimum of two years. About $5.9 million
was awarded to the 21 volunteer projects. Two of the three post-occupancy data collection districts also had
construction grants, so a total of 19 different school districts were required to submit data to OSPI.
Table 4 lists all volunteer projects, the type of grant they received (construction or post-occupancy data collection),
and type of project (new construction or modernization/addition).
Table 4: High-performance grant awards (2006)
New School Construction & Modernization Projects
School District & School
Grant
Amount
2008 Status*
Bainbridge Island, Bainbridge Island High
New building Addition
$290,000
Complete December 2008
Bellevue, Sherwood Forest Elementary
New construction
New construction. Not a
state funded project
New construction
$250,000
Opened September 2008
$250,000
Opened September 2008
$350,000
In construction
Modernization
New campus
construction
New construction. Not a
state funded project
New construction. Not a
state funded project
New construction
New construction,
Phase III
$178,000
Opened spring 2008
In construction. Opens
September 2009
Opened in September
2007
Seattle, Hamilton Middle School
Modernization
$350,000
Snohomish, Snohomish High School
Modernization
Modernization &
addition
$500,000
Steilacoom Hist., Pioneer Middle School
New construction
$350,000
Opened September 2008
Tacoma, Gray Middle School
New construction
$350,000
In construction. Complete
in December 2008
Tumwater, New Market Skills Center **
New Lab-Tech Building
$188,300
Opened in 2007
Vancouver, Vancouver School for Arts and
Academics
Modernization
$375,900
In construction (occupied)
$256,000
Opened in spring 2008
$50,000
Collecting data
$50,000
Collecting data preliminary report
$50,000
Collecting data
Bellingham, Wade King Elementary
Bethel, Liberty Junior High
Centralia, Oakview Elementary
Edmonds, Lynnwood High School
Everett, Forest View Elementary
Lake Washington, Rachel Louise Carson
Elementary
Marysville, Grove Elementary
Northshore, Bothell HS Phase 3
Spokane, Shadle Park High School
Willapa Valley, Willapa Valley High School
PostOccupancy
Data
Collection
Projects
Project Type
Bethel, Thompson Elementary
Olympia, Washington Middle
Spokane, Lincoln Heights Elementary
Modernization &
Addition
Post-occupancy
Evaluation
Post-occupancy
Evaluation
Post-occupancy
Evaluation
$500,000
$250,000
$250,000
Opened September 2008
$250,000
Opened September 2008
$320,000
Completed in fall 2008
$500,000
In construction. Opens in
2010
Multi-phased project
In construction. Complete
in summer of 2010
Source: OSPI and O’Brien & Company
*
Status is approximate, as of fall 2008.
**
The New Market Skills Center is vocational skill building center. The majority of students are high school juniors and
seniors.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 15
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
The three projects that received grants to complete a post-occupancy data performance evaluation are completed
projects that participated in the 2004 WSSP Pilot. The goal of the projects is to pilot data collection for information
required by the law (reporting is required annually for 5 years after occupation) and/or to compare the building
performance to what they projected in their pilot. The Olympia School District is evaluating building operation
performance compared to design projections for Washington Middle School. The Bethel School District is
evaluating correlation between high-performance strategies and WASL test scores. The Spokane School District is
evaluating Lincoln Heights Elementary (pilot school) and potentially two other elementary schools built to highperformance standards to determine actual performance compared to project projections.
Volunteer School Reporting Requirements
Volunteer districts have a specific set of reporting requirements that must be met in order to qualify for the grant
funds. Districts are reimbursed for documented costs related to high-performance building requirements, up to
the total amount of their grant (the high-performance costs incurred may be greater than the amount awarded in
their grant).
OSPI sent instructions to all volunteer districts in January 2008, informing
them that they are required to provide:
A sustainable building strategy summary;
A design phase WSSP;
An energy model summary; and
Cost estimates of the incremental increases for:
School district administration/overhead & reporting costs
Professional design and consultant fees
Permitting and approval fees
Construction costs including recycling, salvage, reuse, etc.
Pioneer Middle School preserved this stand
of landmark Garry Oak trees as a focal point
on the school site
Districts were also asked to provide:
The total cost of construction;
Incentives or rebates received for the project;
Pictures of the building or site, and any specific features they’d like to highlight;
Anecdotal information or lessons learned that may be beneficial to share about the project; and,
Any other data about their high-performance projects that they would like to share.
OSPI provided a cost worksheet to all volunteer districts to allow them to document all additional costs for each
WSSP high-performance strategy they chose to implement. The cost tracking worksheet is included in Appendix D.
By September, 2008, all 18 new construction projects had submitted WSSP implementation data. However, only
seven submittals included all reporting requirements listed above. This is primarily due to differences in project
status; some school projects are still in design while others have already opened their doors. Available cost data
for the projects differs between anticipated costs (cost projections) and actual cost incurred. The timing of this
report was too early for any of the volunteers to determine financial benefits from the high-performance
strategies. None of the demonstration schools have been in operation long enough to track post-occupancy
performance data to determine benefits or improvements.
OSPI did not send detailed reporting instructions to the post-occupancy data collection schools. These schools are
gathering different types of data and are allowed to submit relevant data in a format of their choosing, no later
than June 2009. One district submitted a report of preliminary findings, but cautioned that these findings should
be considered draft until they submit follow-up reports. Therefore, the three post-occupancy data collection
projects are not included in the analysis completed for this report.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 16
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Volunteer Project Analysis Methodology
OSPI and the Consultant reviewed all submitted volunteer district reports over the months of August and
September, 2008. First, the WSSP scorecards were analyzed for patterns and trends, including a review of most
popular and least used high-performance strategies. Then, project narratives were reviewed to identify reported
WSSP benefits in each program category; anticipated future savings; WSSP implementation experience,
opportunities, and challenges; unique experiences or decisions; use of integrated design; and lessons learned.
Finally, the cost data provided was reviewed for cost increases and/or savings the volunteer districts projected
during selection, or experienced during implementation of the high-performance strategies.
It became apparent that a significant amount of data had not yet been reported by districts, and that existing cost
data could not be meaningfully compared for the various reasons. OSPI and the Consultant endeavored to fill in
the gaps and contacted all districts in August. Significant additional data was gathered, but data gaps remained.
Since the projects were in various stages of construction, many did not have final cost data to report.
Many strategies were then applied to attempt to compare the cost data, but it wasn’t possible to do so.
The objective of the WSSP cost analysis was intended to identify both additional costs incurred and cost benefits
achieved as a result of the WSSP, and to identify the challenges inherent in attempting to collect this information.
However, the early WSSP reporting tool (Appendix D) focused mainly on reporting of additional WSSP costs. There
was also no way to capture savings from costs that were avoided based on WSSP strategies. OSPI and the
consultant will attempt to more clearly define cost reporting standards for the volunteer projects, including
attempts to capture any savings or avoided design and construction costs through WSSP strategies.
The methodology did not include an analysis of student test scores, absenteeism, or staff turnover. Since the
volunteer schools are in various phases of design, construction, and early occupation, no information was available
to determine these indirect benefits of high-performance schools. Furthermore, no scientific methodology has yet
been developed to accurately quantify impacts of high-performance features on improved health, productivity,
4
and test scores, although several studies indicate a positive correlation. When sufficient national or statewide
experience is accumulated for credible statistical analysis, OSPI will identify options to measure or gauge these
benefits in order to accurately report these benefits to the Legislature in the future. Early post-occupancy data is
anticipated to become available in summer 2010, or when the majority of volunteer schools have at least two
years’ of performance tracking information. It is generally assumed that the first year of operational data is not
reflective of the on-going operation of a new building, as it takes some time (some say up to five years) for the
building systems to achieve the planned performance standard, as well as for operators and users to effectively
operate the building.
Several reports that include data on the relationship between IEQ and student performance are cited in the January
2005 Washington High-performance School Buildings report to the Legislature, prepared by the Washington State Board
of Education and OSPI. These reports are included in the references of this report as well, and include: Heschong
Mahone Group 1999 and 2003; Myhrvold, 1997; Nicklas et al, 1997; Schneider 2002; Dougan et al, 2003; and EPA 2003.
4
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 17
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Data Set Description
The 18 volunteer school projects cover about
1.6 million square feet and are designed for
about 14,700 students.
Seven districts submitted complete data (all
reporting requirements were met) and 11
districts submitted incomplete reports. Table
5 summarizes the data reports received and
analyzed for this report.
As identified in Table 5.1, the 18 construction
projects consisted of 13 new construction
projects and five modernization/addition
projects. In total, the projects involved five
high schools, six middle/junior high schools,
six elementary schools, and one vocational
skills center that is primarily attended by high
school students.
Table 5.2 shows the project size and
potential WSSP score for the volunteer
projects.
Table 5: Reports received from volunteer projects
Construction projects
Total construction projects
18
Data reports received
Complete data reported*
18
7
Post-occupancy data collection
projects
Total post-occupancy data
3
collection projects
Data reports received
1
Complete data reported*
0
* “Complete” means that schools met all required reporting data: A highperformance strategy summary, WSSP Scorecard, energy model summary,
and all additional WSSP costs (in-house, design, construction, and other)
Table 5.1: Project types & quantity
New construction projects & type
Total new construction projects
13
High school
Middle /Junior high school
Elementary school
Vocational skills center
3
4
5
1
Modernization / addition
projects & type
Total modernization/addition
projects
High school
Middle/Junior high school
Elementary school
5
2
2
1
Note: Vancouver School for for Arts & Academics serves both middle and high
school students. It’s listed under high schools here
Source: O’Brien & Company
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 18
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Table 5.2: Volunteer project detail
New School Construction Projects
School District and
School
Project Size
Anticipated WSSP
Score
Bainbridge Island
Bainbridge Island High School
70,024
40
Bellevue
Sherwood Forest Elementary
65,773
45
Bellingham
Wade King Elementary
52,000
46
Bethel
Liberty Junior High
98,431
46
Edmonds
Lynnwood High School
217,559
51
61,156
46
56,506
57
45,713
42
85,000
42
100,000
50
116,872
48
19,210
44
56,257
43
14,736
54
127,705
38*
Various bldgs
52
260,030
49
100,000
40
Everett
Forest View
Lake Washington
Rachel Louise Carson Elementary
Marysville
Grove Elementary
Northshore
Bothell HS Phase 3
Steilacoom
Pioneer Middle School
Tacoma
Gray Middle School
Modernization /
Addition Projects
Tumwater
New Market Skills Center
Willapa Valley
Willapa Valley High School
Centralia
Oakview Elementary
Seattle
Hamilton Middle School
Snohomish
Snohomish High School
Spokane
Shadle Park High School
Vancouver
Vancouver School for Arts and Academics
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 19
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
WSSP Implementation Experience
All volunteer project submittals were reviewed for feedback on the volunteer’s experience with WSSP highperformance strategy selection and implementation. The WSSP scorecards and narratives were reviewed for goal
setting, high-performance strategy selection and popularity, and anticipated and experienced WSSP benefits and
challenges.
Project Goals
Districts reported different high-performance goals for their projects.
Energy Efficiency and Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) were listed
as important categories for many districts, but specific areas of
priority differed. Bainbridge Island School District reported the top
priority at Bainbridge High School to be Indoor Environmental Quality
(IEQ) for user health and comfort. Olympia School District’s
Washington Middle School placed indoor air quality and student
health at the top of their goal list. Sherwood Forest Elementary wants
to provide on-going learning opportunities for students and share
Construction of Sherwood Forest’s courtyard and
information with other districts. Gray Middle School’s goals included
amphitheater. The space will provide opportunity
outdoor classrooms, celebrating water and water use efficiency, and
for students to learn about the environment and
promoting student stewardship. The Edmonds School District
sustainability.
included increases in educational performance, increased test scores,
increased volunteerism, and improved staff satisfaction as part of their goals for Lynnwood High School, and
Snohomish High School wanted to achieve a durable, functional facility with at least a 50-year lifespan using the
most economical materials and methods.
Sixteen districts reported to have completed an eco-charrette to identify project goals and select the WSSP
strategies to best achieve them. An eco-charrette is a collaborative design workshop for all parties involved in the
project including design, construction, operations, maintenance and occupants, to determine project goals and
complete a feasibility review for all WSSP strategies. Eco-charrettes are scheduled very early in the design process
5
and are a key element of integrated design.
Initial analysis of the volunteer schools’ goal setting process suggests
that conducting a charrette and other early planning is important to
help implement WSSP strategies in an integrated fashion. The ecocharrettes served as a good learning tool for several districts. For
example, the Everett School District, new to integrated design and
eco-charrettes, decided to conduct a “scaled-down” version of an
eco-charrette for their Forest View Elementary School, in the form of
a collaborative stakeholder workshop. They reported that learning
more about the integrated design process was a good experience for
all involved, and that the workshop has already led to further
conversations regarding district-wide construction and maintenance
Entry to the new Pioneer Middle School
Eco-charrettes are commonly used as part of an integrated design process. Integrated design exceeds the scope of
an eco-charrette by inviting a wider group of stakeholders and end-users in the design process to identify design
opportunities, efficiencies, and synergies that deliver greatest environmental benefit, and includes periodic review of
design decision to ensure project goals are met.
5
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 20
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
standards and practices. The Edmonds and Northshore school districts used eco-charrettes to evaluate WSSP
strategies for both the current project and for those that could be implemented district-wide. Both began
discussions on district-wide policies for future construction.
WSSP Scorecard Use and Point Score
Several districts reported that the WSSP Scorecard serves as an effective
planning tool to identify high-performance strategies, whether for the
volunteer project, up-coming projects, or for evaluation of district-wide use.
Districts did not limit themselves to using the Scorecard to determine how
they could meet the minimum WSSP requirements. Instead, it appears that
they reviewed all Scorecard strategies and determined how many they
could implement given available resources. All but three volunteer schools
chose to attempt to go beyond the minimum requirement. Five of the
projects plan to score 50 or more points. Since not all projects are complete,
those scorecard tallies are planned points. The average anticipated point
score for all 18 volunteer projects is 46.
WSSP was a useful planning tool
– it provided an organized and
comprehensive process for
identifying potential sustainable
design features. It also caused
the school district to consider
sustainable design elements
that we have not considered in
the past.”
Auburn School District
The above-minimum average point score implies that implementation of the
WSSP is achievable for the volunteer districts who typically had the capability and resources to do more.
Scorecard Strategy Selection
The volunteer districts chose a diverse
combination of WSSP strategies, with good
distribution from all six Scorecard categories.
Three categories were clearly preferred. In
terms of points earned as a percentage of
total available points per category, districts
favored strategies in Extra Credit (80%), IEQ
(60%), and Site (58%). Schools earned well
over half of total available points in these
three categories. High-performance strategies
in Water and Energy were almost equally used
at 42% and 40% respectively, while Materials
trailed at 32%. Figure 1 illustrates the
difference between points possible in each
category versus the average number of points
earned.
Figure 1: Average points earned compared to points possible
24
Possible
24
Ave Points Earned
17
17
14.4
9.8
9.6
6
5.5
5
4.0
2.5
Site
Water
Materials
Energy
IEQ
Extra
Credit
Schools maximized their points in the Extra
Note:
Although there are 8 possible points in the Extra Credit category,
Credit category easily. This is partially due to
schools may only claim 5 points towards their 40 point minimum
requirement.
the fact that schools are required to perform
Source:
O’Brien & Company
an Energy Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and conduct
annual post-occupancy reporting for five years
after occupancy. These two mandatory actions are also components of the more comprehensive Extra Credit
strategies “Post Occupancy Evaluation” and “Life Cycle Cost Analysis”. In addition, 16 projects completed an ecocharrette, 12 districts included green building learning opportunities, and eight schools earned points for
innovation, indicating strong preference for these three Extra Credit high-performance strategies as well.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 21
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
The broad use of strategies across all categories speaks to the protocol’s design and flexibility. The WSSP appears
to offer sufficient options for all types of projects to successfully apply the standard, and allows districts to choose
strategies that best meet project conditions and district priorities, without restricting their ability to meet the
requirements.
Table 6 highlights the most popular strategies with 85% of all districts using them. Fifteen percent or less of all
districts chose to attempt the five credits identified in Table 6.1. Districts
were not required to report why they did or did not pursue a strategy, but a
“More buy-in on decisions, more
few districts listed the challenges they experienced with implementing
ideas generated, more clarity
WSSP strategies. These included: cost, available budget, site constraints,
and documentation of decisions,
objection by maintenance staff, or not enough locally available expertise to
and creating a framework for
competitively bid, install, construct, or maintain the high-performance
design building blocks are some
systems and products.
of the benefits of TCO”
Benefits from WSSP Categories
Table 6: Most implemented WSSP strategies
Reference #
Northshore School District
Table 6.1: Least implemented WSSP strategies
WSSP Strategy
Reference #
Site 1.4
Joint Use of On-Site Facilities
Materials 1.4
Salvaged and Refurbished Materials
Site 2.2
Bicycles (Lanes & Security)
Materials 2.2
Rapidly Renewable Materials (biobased)
Site 5.1
Energy 3.1
Renewable Energy (5-10% Bldg Supply)
Energy 3.2
Extra Credit
2.1
Distributed Generation (5-10% Bldg Supply)
Energy 1.1
Light Pollution Reduction
Region/Local Materials (20% mnfd; 20%
extracted)
Superior Energy Performance
Energy 4.1
Additional Commissioning
IEQ 3.1
Low-Emitting Interior Finishes
IEQ 3.4
Ducted HVAC Returns
IEQ 6.1
User Controls (operable windows)
IEQ 6.2
User Controls (temperature & lighting)
Extra Credit 1.1
Eco-Charrette
Extra Credit 2.3
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Materials 2.5
WSSP Strategy
Green Power Contract
Source for tables 6.0 and 6.1: O’Brien & Company
Note: All 18 volunteer schools submitted their scorecard information.
A number of districts submitted narratives that included information on anticipated benefits from the WSSP
strategies they chose to implement. The narratives addressed both anticipated quantitative and qualitative
benefits in general, and by WSSP category.
General Benefits
When looking at the projected reductions in energy and water use and other potential benefits, it is important to
recognize that the volunteer schools do not have any data on the how the building is operating and whether or not
the savings have actually been incurred. These schools have either just been completed or are still in construction.
The “design intent” represents what the building or system was designed to do, and the reductions in utility use or
other savings that are anticipated are based on this intent. At this point, there is no confirmation that the the
features have been adequately installed or if they are operating according to plan. Any savings or reductions
mentioned in this report refer to the design intent, rather than the actual performance data. A format for what
data to collect and how to collect it is being developed. Districts will be submitting that operational data to OSPI
for further analysis and reporting to the Legislature in 2010.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 22
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Volunteer schools reported that, in general, the WSSP worked well for them, provided awareness of highperformance features, and set a precedent for other schools and buildings. Staff satisfaction and sense of pride
from working on, or inside, a high-performance building was identified as a benefit. Knowing that the students are
in a healthy environment that is conducive to learning is important to staff and teachers.
Several districts reported on using the results of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis for identification of longterm performance and financial benefits, and to serve as a baseline for future district project decisions. Northshore
School District’s TCO analysis for Bothell High School projected a $2.4 million in district savings over the life of the
buildings, for a Return on Investment of 1760%. The anticipated benefits are financial savings from both reduced
energy and maintenance needs. The district reported that the TCO process enabled the project team to brainstorm
more ideas and explore options that had not been considered previously, or had been ignored. The district also
expressed interest in applying the lessons learned, such as the importance of insulation over air conditioning,
toward future capital projects.
Districts reported that contractor experience with construction and
installation of high-performance systems and staff understanding of the
new features is crucial to maximizing performance benefits. Washington
Middle School (2004 WSSP Pilot school currently completing postoccupancy data collection) is experiencing early performance challenges
due to construction and operational issues discovered during
commissioning. The school also experienced early user-operator
challenges, such as staff not understanding the visual indicators for the
manual operation of windows. The school anticipates building performance
to improve significantly in coming years as system and operational kinks are
resolved.
“I think that changing our
operating systems in respect to
the environment is essential and
awesome.”
Washington Middle School
Teacher
One unsolicited report was received from an elementary school in the Auburn School District. Although not
required to, nor a volunteer project with grant assistance, they decided to apply the WSSP (2004 version) to their
new construction project to take advantage of WSSP as a planning tool. They reported the WSSP was helpful as a
comprehensive project planning tool to identify, organize, and make decisions on high-performance design
features that they had not previously considered, and that, as a result of the process, they anticipate to beat the
energy code by 15%. It is unknown how many schools have used the WSSP standards before they were required to
because they are not required to inform OSPI of this. The law only applies to school projects that receive state
assistance. Those projects built without state assistance may or not use the WSSP, and they are not required to
report to OSPI.
Site
Districts are consciously choosing WSSP actions to reduce site impact.
Reported site benefits include habitat protection; improved
stormwater infiltration and quality; better access by bicycle and bus;
light pollution reduction; and community partnerships from joint use of
facilities.
Grove Elementary included a community playfield in its site design.
Forest View protected an on-site ravine by going to a 2-story design.
The school also included bike racks and educational signage, carpool
spaces, stormwater bioswales, pervious concrete walkways, and
reinforced grass for access adjacent to the school. Several schools used
native vegetation to reduce water use for irrigation and to enhance
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Reinforced grass system adjacent to Everett’s
Forest View Elementary School
Page 23
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
habitat. Rachel Carson Elementary included a vegetated roof to reduce impervious surface, create habitat, and
reduce energy load, and to study the effectiveness of the system.
Joint use of on-site school facilities with the community was pursued
by all districts. Willapa Valley designed their athletic facilities for
shared use with a sports club and Grove Elementary enabled joint use
and included an upgrade to an existing community playfield as well.
Grove also added a bike lane to connect the school to the library,
located 600ft beyond the site. Cumulative site strategies that WSSP
schools are implementing are promising and could add up to
significant habitat and stormwater quality benefits in the state, and
provide social benefits such community integration with trails and safe
bike/pedestrian access, or joint use of facilities. Furthermore,
incorporating natural habitat or green space on site and pairing them
with educational signage offers opportunities for and access to
environmental and outdoor education.
Bioswale to filter stormwater at Pioneer
Middle School in Steilacoom
Water
Planned water consumption reductions due to WSSP implementation are significant. Most districts reported
planned reductions in potable and irrigation water use through a combination of strategies including efficient
fixtures, rainwater collection or reuse, and native plant landscapes. Fourteen of the 18 volunteer schools were able
to reduce irrigation water consumption by 50% or more. Willapa and Oakview will both use non-potable water for
landscape irrigation, for a 100% reduction in potable water for outdoor use. Both projected significant savings
from installation of low-flow fixtures, translating to a possible 20% potable water reduction for indoor use.
Oakview also plans on a 45% potable water reduction for sewage conveyance through these strategies.
Washington Middle School’s (2004 pilot) preliminary data indicates that the early operational data results are
closely aligned with the projected potable water savings of 647,000gallons/yr. This was achieved through
rainwater harvesting, dual flush toilets, waterless urinals, infrared sensors, and other water conserving fixtures.
They are on their way to realizing a cost savings on a 30-year lifecycle,
Table 7.0: Energy Performance and a reduction in sewer and water costs. The water saving strategies
Design Intent
were identified as important to reducing overall operation and
Anticipated Energy
School
maintenance cost by 20%, from system efficiencies and durability. The
Performance over WSEC
school also reported an important side benefit in this category: student
Forest View
20%
and staff pride in the rainwater harvesting system.
Gray
25%
An interesting note is that one district reported not to prioritize water
conservation measures because the cost of water in our state is still low.
Schools are also not in session or have limited facility use during the
summer when some regions charge higher water rates. The return on
investment (ROI) for installing low-flow fixtures or rainwater harvesting
systems is longer when compared to energy conservation efforts. With
energy prices being more volatile, districts favored energy efficiency
strategies over those in the water categories.
Energy
Most districts anticipate significant energy performance improvements
at their WSSP volunteer projects when compared to the same project
built to Washington State Energy Code (WSEC, non-residential). All 18
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Grove
42%
Hamilton
10%
Lynnwood
50%
Oakview
20%
Pioneer
15%
Shadle
31%
Snohomish
15.5%
New Market
26%
Willapa
AVERAGE:
12.6%
24%
Source: O’Brien & Company
Note:
11 schools submitted energy
performance estimates
Page 24
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
volunteer projects achieved the Superior Energy Performance strategy (E1.1), with an average WSSP Scorecard
score of 6.4 points. Eleven schools provided estimates for their energy performance projections, ranging between
10 and 50%, for a combined average energy performance improvement of an anticipated 24% over code, as
reflected in Table 7.0.
Gray Middle school chose multiple energy-saving strategies. They
included in-floor radiant heating and cooling of large public areas
fed by a ground-source loop, a displacement ventilation system with
heat recovery, energy-saving lighting controls in the gymnasium and
library, and daylighting design to minimize the use of electrical
lighting. They also performed commissioning for mechanical and
electrical systems and conducted computational fluid dynamics
testing to confirm mechanical performance to arrive at an
anticipated 25% reduction in energy use over the same building
designed to code baseline. More than six percent (6.4%) of their
total energy need is delivered from their renewable geothermal
system.
Pex piping for radiant heat, just before concrete
floor pour at Rachel Carson Elementary School
Hamilton Middle School’s efforts to exceed code by 10% will result in anticipated annual energy and operational
savings of $30,000 over current conditions. The New Market Skills Center expects to beat code by 26%. Lynnwood
High School expects to beat code by an impressive 50%. The school received a $300,000 grant from Snohomish
PUD to explore and incorporate design strategies that reduce long term energy consumption by 50% over WSEC.
Grove Elementary anticipated 42% improvement is achieved primarily through pursuit of superior energy
performance strategies in building orientation, lighting design, envelope improvements, high efficiency equipment,
and natural cooling for 90% of the building. Rachel Carson Elementary did not report a direct estimate of total
energy savings beyond code. However, the design intent indicates 57% energy savings from its geothermal system
6
alone, but it is not confirmed that the design intent has been met or that the anticipated savings will be realized.
WSSP is helping districts select strategies to achieve significant energy efficiency benefits. Actual energy
performance results should become available as early as summer 2010, or when most schools have been in
operation for at least 24 months.
Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)
Although Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) was of priority for districts, few
included statements of benefits related to IEQ strategies in their reports. It
seems that most districts view this as a given, particularly given the importance
7
of IEQ in the proposed update to the school health rule. Districts implemented
these strategies due to staff, student, and stakeholder interest in healthy
indoor environments, and potentially because of risk avoidance.
Forest View reported that 90% of all critical tasks areas in their building have
direct lines of sight to the outdoors. Olympia School district completed air
Light tubes are installed in each classroom at
Centralia’s Oakview Elementary School
A baseline for this benefit was not provided. It is assumed that this savings is reported over the heating/cooling energy
need the schools would have without the geothermal system.
6
The Department of Health and State Board of Health have been working with stakeholders on a revision to WAC 246366 Primary and Secondary Schools, which governs health and safety issues at K-12 schools. Some of the proposed
changes or existing requirements relate to indoor environmental health of facilities. These directly relate to provision of
natural light and include a new requirement for all HVAC systems to include ducted returns, and bans open plenums.
7
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 25
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
quality testing at Washington Middle School and found that total volatile
organic compounds (TVOC) and formaldehyde levels were less than 20%
of maximum allowable concentrations used by LEED®. Many districts
reported the design calls for manually operable windows, and the
Northshore school district is considering making this a district policy.
Overall benefits resulting from IEQ tend to be more qualitative and
therefore more difficult to measure. However, a number of studies have
concluded that access to daylight and fresh air and removal of materials
that contain VOCs can have multiple performance, satisfaction, and
8
health benefits. Also, Forest View, as well as other schools, designed for
100% supply of fresh air, which is good for IEQ but can work against
energy efficiency due to increased heating and fan power needs. For
example, choosing HEPA air filters will make the fans work harder to
push the same amount of air through the filter. As both goals are
equally important, IEQ strategies must always be balanced with energy
efficiency strategies.
Clerestories bring natural light into Everett’s
Forest View Elementary School’s main hall
Photo by Timothy Aguero Photography
Materials
Potential benefits from high-performance strategies in the materials
section of the WSSP Scorecard are at least four-fold: 1) reduced
waste; 2) increased resource use efficiency; 3) reduction and
elimination of exposure to toxics; and 4) financial savings from
resource efficiencies.
The New Market Skills Center reported being able to recycle 90% of
all construction waste. They recycled 4,000 tons of crushed glass
(estimated to be 9 million bottles) for structural fill under the
building, used certified Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) lumber
for 95% of the studs and trusses, and were able to procure 40% of
all materials within 500 miles of the site. Gray Middle School
experienced savings from salvaging glu-lam beams from the old
structure.
Educational signage about using materials made
from local natural resources, prepared for Pioneer
Middle School by the DLR Group
Clear financial savings can result from waste reduction strategies
such as materials recycling, salvage, and reuse. Less waste means
reduced disposal fees, and materials reuse and salvage reduces
procurement needs. Increased resource efficiency also reduces
procurement fees and has obvious environmental benefits. Using
The linoleum floor covering at Pioneer Middle
less- or non-toxic materials for school construction and operation
School is made from rapidly renewable
resources
has positive health benefits. Furthermore, the benefits of procuring
materials from local sources include supporting the local economy
and reduced transportation cost. The latter reduces the embodied energy of the selected materials as well, as less
energy is used in transporting local materials to the project site.
Several reports that include data on the relationship between IEQ and student performance are cited in the January
2005 Washington High-performance School Buildings report to the Legislature, prepared by the Washington State Board
of Education and OSPI. These reports are included in the references of this report as well, and include: Heschong
Mahone Group 1999 and 2003; Myhrvold, 1997; Nicklas et al, 1997; Schneider 2002; Dougan et al, 2003; and EPA 2003.
8
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 26
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Despite these benefits, districts chose the least number of strategies
from this category. This may be because environmental, social,
health and financial benefits from materials selection are less well
known, and not easily measured. Return on investment can be low,
and green materials frequently have a first-cost premium.
Nonetheless, the volunteer districts selected various highperformance strategies from this category. High-performance
materials strategies seem to be of sufficient importance for IEQ,
health, and environmental benefits to justify added cost. Districts
who committed to implementing these strategies did so by choice,
and found it important to look beyond cost to consider the more
“global” effect of their material selections.
The old building shell at Oakview Elementary was
reused as part of the new structure
Implementation Challenges
Few volunteer schools reported on direct challenges experienced with implementing the WSSP high-performance
strategies. As early adapters and “volunteers”, this may not be an indicator as to how other districts less familiar
with WSSP and who don’t construct many schools, would respond. Their interest and familiarity with high
performance building techniques may be unique among the 295 districts statewide and this must be taken into
account when reviewing the results provided in this report. However, two major challenges were identified in the
volunteer submittals: difficulty applying the WSSP to modernization projects and difficulty evaluating human factor
benefits. Additionally, it will be challenging to identify and calculate the operational impacts of both work
processes and costs of some of the high-performance features on on-going operations.
Difficulty applying WSSP to modernization projects
The Spokane School District reported difficulty in applying WSSP strategies to a complex modernization project on
an urban site. Existing conditions such as floor-to-floor height, building orientation, concrete post and beam
construction, student occupation during construction, and site constraints were listed as challenges to adapting
the protocol efficiently and cost effectively.
Difficulty evaluating human factor benefits
A universally accepted method to identify human factor benefits from WSSP or LEED schools has not yet been
developed. Many factors contribute to changes in test scores and overall staff and student health. Many
challenges have been identified in a preliminary evaluation conducted by Bethel School District of their highperformance buildings and WASL scores, student attendance and staff attendance. Other school districts report
similar challenges:
1) Districts generally only keep student records for one or two years, constraining their ability to compare
attendance records;
2) Districts hesitate to compile staff attendance records, which are not kept in the same aggregated way as
student attendance records, due to personal privacy sensitivities; and,
3) Students and staff also move between new WSSP buildings and old buildings (particularly when the WSSP
is applied to an addition only), further challenging evaluation of the high-performance school building
effect on student test scores, absenteeism, and staff turnover rates.
Difficulty comparing energy savings
It is often assumed that after one year of occupancy, schools would be able to compare the energy use in the new
buildings against the building they replaced or other schools in their district. However several factors make this
comparison irrelevant:
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 27
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
1) No building operates at peak efficiency in its first year. Districts require at least one year to evaluate and
perfect building operation before WSSP effectiveness can be evaluated; and,
2) Projects built under WSSP frequently enlarge their campuses and improve facilities for increased
academic and community-wide use. Increased facility size and longer operating hours to accommodate
community use lead to an overall increase in energy use at the new facility. This makes it extremely
difficult to effectively compare and measure the energy efficiency of the new facility compared to the old
one.
Pioneer Middle School created various educational posters about
the high-performance features on-site and in the building, under
the motto of “Developing Global Citizens“.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
The Willapa Valley Senior High School project team conducted an
eco-charrette to determine which, and how many, highperformance strategies to pursue.
Page 28
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
WSSP Cost Analysis
An initial cost analysis on WSSP was attempted but the results were inconclusive. This section will describe some
of the challenges encountered in attempting to collect and analyze the data. Too few districts reported their
numbers in consistent format to be able to compute meaningful averages across the board. Additionally, the 18
schools represented an extreme range of projects, further making comparison impossible. They ranged from a
rebuild of a small classroom building at an elementary school, to a complex new high school with additional
amenities supported by the local community. The additional WSSP project costs that districts were asked to
consider include construction costs, architecture & engineering (design) costs, overhead costs, and other costs.
Construction cost appeared to be the best indicator of WSSP cost impacts, since construction costs were most
consistently reported among the volunteer projects and are less subject to district differences in project approach
and overhead costs. Several districts incurred additional cost from efforts that exceeded the scope of the particular
WSSP volunteer project. For example, two districts used available grant funds to conduct district-wide WSSP
evaluations, one district completed a district-wide Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) evaluation, and one district
completed two eco-charrettes as a learning opportunity for staff. All of these are valid uses of the grants.
Data Analysis Challenges
Reports and calculations submitted by the 18 reporting volunteer districts are disparate in several areas. In
general, cost reporting challenges related to variations in:
Report timing and project status differences;
Variability in project type and size;
Reporting inconsistencies;
Baseline uncertainty;
Reporting instructions to districts not detailed enough; and,
Conflicting objectives.
These variations underscore the need for development of an easy-to-use
reporting tool, along with detailed instructions on how to calculate cost,
what to submit and when, and what constitutes an additional WSSP cost
or savings.
Light shelves at Pioneer Middle School help to
reduce glare and improve daylight distribution
inside the school
Report timing and project status differences
The volunteer projects are in various phases of design, construction, and occupancy. Some districts reported
project cost estimates and projections; some reported running totals of project cost incurred to date, while others
were able to report actual cost.
Variability of project size, type, and WSSP point score
The volunteer project sizes, costs, and types cover a broad range. Construction costs differ due to regional
conditions and project complexity. The variety of high-performance strategies selected as well as differing building
sizes further broadens the cost range. Project variability was too great to determine (or even estimate) average
WSSP cost premiums or benefits.
Reporting inconsistencies
Too many reporting inconsistencies occurred to be able to make any comparisons.
Baseline uncertainty
The early reporting tool the volunteer districts received provided guidelines on how to calculate “additional” cost
related to WSSP implementation. Most districts used the cost of code compliance as the baseline for any
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 29
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
additional costs, as they should. However, the phrase “standard (non high-performance) was interpreted by some
as the district standard, which is higher that code minimum. Some of the early adapting school districts now
require some of high-performance strategies district wide, but this cannot be assumed to be typical over the state.
Opinion differs on what should be the base cost, but in order to calculate any meaningful comparison over 295
school districts, it is suggested that code minimum should be the baseline. Amount of additional cost incurred is
also directly related to the variety of strategies selected by the districts as well as their Scorecard point
achievements.
Reporting instructions to school districts not detailed enough
Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the volunteer project submittals highlight the need for additional guidance to
districts and better reporting tools to clarify which costs to report and how to calculate them, and how to include
savings from avoided costs. Some double reporting occurred (the same cost was recorded in more than one
category) and uncertainty existed around which costs to include. For example, one school reported commissioning
fees in more than one WSSP Scorecard category, and schools reported a wide range of commissioning fees,
between $3,000 and $13,000. The WSSP requires basic commissioning (as does the state) but schools can earn one
point for “additional” commissioning. The State already requires and basic commissioning and provides some but
all of the funding for it through its construction assistance program, so this base cost should not be included in the
reports. In several district submittals it is not clear whether the reported commissioning fee was limited to
additional cost beyond basic commissioning, but the cost of additional commissioning, which is not funded by the
state, should be considered.
Some districts utilized a standard percentage increase of total project cost to estimate additional WSSP overhead
cost. Other projects provided comprehensive cost detail for WSSP management, data tracking, and reporting to
OSPI, and included consultant costs in this total. Yet other districts applied the cost of a district-wide evaluation of
WSSP to the cost of the current volunteer project. There was confusion about the grant reporting requirements vs.
the reporting WSSP volunteer project reporting requirements to OSPI even though districts were asked to submit
both.
Costs & Savings by Category
The top WSSP category for additional cost reported is Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ). There was a high degree
of variability in the amount spent in this category. The most expensive IEQ strategies were ducted HVAC systems
and audio/video systems.
All districts reported anticipated high-performance saving expectations in their narratives, particularly in energy
and water. What cost data that was submitted showed that cost varies greatly within each category. The additional
costs reported for IEQ are far and away the highest, reflecting a high priority for indoor health.
Additional cost for Energy, Site, and Materials strategies are also significant, but still notably less than IEQ. Two
districts were able to report cost benefits related to their Materials choices (through materials salvage). Highperformance strategies in this category were also least utilized, which may explain why the projects experienced
the least amount of cost increase in this category.
WSSP cost increases in the Extra Credit category are explained by increased Architecture and Engineering costs for
eco-charrettes, Energy Life Cycle Cost Analyses (ELCCA), and innovation. An ELCCA is required by the State and is
arguably part of the baseline budget as it is part of the school construction assistance program. It is also a
component of a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA).
One school included a green building information system, the Green Touch Screen, as well as other educational
signage. The Green Touch Screen provides instant feedback on high-performance building systems, such as the
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 30
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
amount of water in a cistern, electricity being generated or sold back to the grid from roof photovoltaics, or
weather station information. It offers opportunities for environmental education and ongoing system monitoring.
Cost Savings
Two districts reported initial cost savings from particular WSSP strategies. Most districts estimated current and
future cost savings in Materials, Energy, and Water categories in the report narratives and life cycle assessments.
No savings were reported for strategies in Site, IEQ and Extra Credit.
Two schools opted for Material Efficiency Strategies (reuse and salvage) that resulted in upfront savings. One
school showed savings from salvaging and abating glu-lam beams from deconstruction of the old school, yet a
different school reported reusing the same material as a cost. This shows that attempting to capture any savings
or avoided costs from construction is complex and could be interpreted differently for each project.
The New Market Skills Center Life Sciences Building reports expected Energy savings of 26.6% over baseline from
their high-performance HVAC systems, efficient electric lighting, envelope improvements (insulation), and
improved heat recovery.
Grove Elementary School at Marysville was designed for an expected 42% energy savings over a baseline, codecompliant building.
Lake Washington School district completed an Energy Life Cycle Cost Analysis (ELCCA) and selected a hydronic
heating system with efficient condensing boilers. This system cost $5,000,000 less over a 30-year-period and also
had the lowest first cost in construction and equipment purchase. The condensing boiler is expected to save 49% in
energy compared to a similar building built to code and with the same use patterns, thereby reducing utility
expenses by 35%. It has not bee verified that the equipment that was installed was in line with the design intent,
nor had actual savings been able to be measured as the school has just opened.
Water saving projections were mostly reported in quantity, not cost. Fourteen of the schools projected to reduce
irrigation water consumption by 50% or more. Two projects planned to use non-potable water for irrigation to
achieve 100% reduction in outdoor water use. Low-flow fixtures translated to an anticipated 20% potable water
reduction for indoor use at these projects as well.
No financial savings were reported for the categories of IEQ, Site and Extra Credit. Some IEQ strategies can
actually increase first and operating costs, due to costly equipment and increased energy requirements for
filtration and air exchange. Schools generally justify these costs because of reduced health risks and the long term
costs associated with illnesses, absences, and litigation. Indoor health is a high priority for schools. It has been
connected to student performance in several studies and is aligned with many schools’ missions. As districts gain
experience with WSSP implementation as well as integrated design in general, they can be expected to identify less
expensive pathways to achieving the goal of indoor environmental quality.
Many sustainable design leaders (such as Professor Charlie Brown, Professor of Architecture and Director of the
Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory, and this Consultant) believe that by conducting upfront planning, additional
costs due to implementing high performance features can be reduced. In addition, it may reduce initial and
operating costs due to building design synergies. Initial data observed in this investigation suggest this may be true
when conducting eco-charrettes early on in the WSSP implementation process. More and better data inputs are
required to support this conclusion, however. Others agree that integrated design can help manage costs, but not
reduce.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 31
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Additional Findings
Districts included additional WSSP implementation feedback in the narrative reports. A few themes and some
unique findings are identified.
WSSP Grants
Most districts incurred additional WSSP costs beyond what the grant covered. Several districts used grant funds to
evaluate which WSSP strategies should be adopted district-wide, thus providing broader long-term benefit beyond
the particular project. Additional funding through grants is still needed to support the implementation of WSSP.
Commitment levels
Most districts went beyond the minimum WSSP point requirement and beyond their grant amounts to implement
WSSP strategies. This is partly because districts find it necessary to plan for achieving more points than the
minimum, in case some become unattainable. The high point scores also suggest that districts are motivated to
test WSSP strategies and that they were committed to the process. Several districts noted in the narrative reports
their pride in the new facilities and, in particular, in the environmental strategies incorporated in their project.
Design choices related to project-specific goals that extended beyond immediate benefits, and reflected projectspecific conditions.
An important consideration is what this commitment means in terms of cost implications. The reporting districts
were all early adopters, committed to the process and likely already familiar with the WSSP requirements at
project start. These volunteers used their grants to “test” a variety of high performance techniques in their
districts, which allowed them to exceed the minimum requirements. Cost implications and other challenges may
be more significant for districts that are entirely new to the WSSP requirements and high performance strategies,
and won’t have additional resources to help pay for some of the upfront cost of Protocol evaluation and staff
education. Continued assistance for WSSP implementation is necessary to achieve compliance statewide.
Rebates and other resources
Seven districts reported that they received rebates for high-performance features recognized by the WSSP.
Districts reported receiving anywhere from $7,543 to $561,918 in rebates and many reported them as a separate
line item. Some utilities (such as Snohomish County PUD) provided technical assistance, including participation in
eco-charrettes. Utility incentives and rebates should be pursued as part of WSSP implementation.
WSSP as a planning tool
One district hired a consultant to perform a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis of their design. The report cites
WSSP benefits including some qualitative benefits of the program, including: more project team brainstorming and
ideas; more clarity on the impacts of each decision; more buy-in; and self-documentation that allows the district to
track why decisions were made. Perhaps the most important result was the identification of standards that can be
used district-wide to achieve savings on other projects, and allow for tracking of data to confirm savings estimates
over the first two years of school operation. Continuing to provide grants for districts completing their first WSSP
project would enable school districts to complete a district-wide evaluation of the high performance strategies,
educate staff, and provide a district-wide foundation that will reduce cost for future projects.
WSSP and LEED®
Washington State volunteers all chose to use the WSSP, as well as the projects now required to comply. Districts
reported to prefer WSSP over LEED® because it does not require additional documentation costs and certification
fees. One district reported that LEED certification would have cost them between $25,000-$75,000 in fees and
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 32
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
project management costs. The New Market Skills Center reported that their WSSP Scorecard result is equivalent
of LEED Silver, if they had chosen to pursue this rating system.
Recently, LEED for Schools was developed. This standard more closely represents the needs and conditions of
school facilities when compared to the original LEED® standard, and districts may opt to use this program in the
future. Appendix B details several other programs and how the WSSP relates to other reference standards to
green building programs in the state and beyond.
Community Support
Eco-charrettes can include parents, students and community members to gain ideas and input on project design
and end-use. Such broad-based participation can be helpful in identifying community partnerships and resources
to achieve particular strategies, and in gaining community buy-in. Lynnwood High School is an example of creating
community partnerships. Bainbridge Island School District reported that utilizing WSSP strategies generated
community support for their project as well.
Recognition
Bethel School District is one of 25 districts nationwide asked to participate in the Energy Smart Schools Pilot
Program by the Department of Energy. School Districts were chosen on the basis of demonstrated interest in
healthy, high-performance buildings; a willingness to partner with stakeholders to overcome barriers; a
commitment to life-cycle costing; and good design and construction practices focused on achieving 50% improved
efficiency in new schools and 30% improved efficiency in existing buildings.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 33
Conclusion
The data provided by the 2006 volunteer projects does not have sufficient reporting consistency to draw
conclusions about the WSSP’s quantitative environmental and financial impacts, or qualitative student and staff
performance benefits. However, the reported experience of the 18 volunteer projects offers enough basis to draw
conclusions about how schools are approaching the WSSP in this early stage of implementation, how they are
using the Scorecard, whether the Protocol enables districts to meet the minimum requirements without too much
difficulty, whether the Protocol needs to be changed, and about anticipated and projected environmental, social,
and economic benefits statewide.
1) Implementing the WSSP raises general awareness of high performance strategies to schools and
district-wide.
The WSSP Scorecard served as a helpful and educational planning tool for districts. Review of the highperformance strategies helped teams identify and prioritize project goals and allowed them to evaluate
systems and designs they hadn’t considered. Districts used the Scorecard as a framework for assessing the
long-term environmental and financial impacts of each high-performance strategy, and some used the results
to identify strategies that could be adopted district-wide. The Protocol also helps educate district staff and the
community about high-performance buildings and operations, encourages community- wide adoption of
waste reduction, increases the market for locally produced goods and materials, improves energy
independence, and creates enduring buildings that are valued by end users.
2) Implementation of the WSSP can provide multiple environmental, economic, and social benefits in
the State.
Projected benefits from the WSSP strategies pursued at the volunteer projects can be significant.
Environmental benefits include planned reductions in energy and water use, habitat and water quality
protection, and increased use of non- and low toxic materials that are manufactured to higher environmental
standards.
Economic benefits can include financial savings for districts from material reuse and salvage and long-term
operational efficiencies, increased used of locally produced materials supporting the local economy, and
potentially increased efficiencies in project planning and construction through the integrated design process.
Social benefits include potential student and staff health and performance benefits from healthy indoor
environments and more community connections through shared facility use.
By providing a comprehensive set of strategies that offers choice and flexibility, the WSSP is helping to build
“whole” schools that benefit the environment, end users, and the community at large.
3) Achieving WSSP minimum threshold can be achieved.
Despite gaps in data and reporting inconsistencies, the volunteer experience suggests that WSSP minimum
can be achieved. None of the districts reported difficulty applying the Protocol to their project or meeting the
requirement; however, these are the early adapters and those who sought to test the application of the WSSP.
All districts reported increased costs for their volunteer projects. Some districts included the costs of a districtwide evaluation that will have multiple future project benefits in the cost reporting of their volunteer project.
4) WSSP implementation is more difficult for modernization/addition/historic renovation projects.
Modernization, addition, and historic renovation projects appear to have more challenges and limitations in
applying WSSP strategies. This is due to existing building and site conditions that can constrain highperformance strategy selection and design opportunities. However, the WSSP point system was designed to
include modernization and most projects could achieve the minimum. Existing conditions can reduce the
flexibility encouraged by the WSSP and may lock these types of projects into using specific strategies. This also
suggests that the current point exemption for historic renovation projects, with even greater restraints, should
be continued.
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
5) Integrated design can help manage cost and integrate high-performance features.
Eco-charrettes are the first step in integrated design, which includes multi-disciplinary and iterative design
reviews, gathering knowledge through modeling and testing, and verification through commissioning and post
occupancy evaluations. Integrated design can help manage and reduce the total cost of projects and improve
total benefits (see AIA: Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, 2007) by allowing whole system design,
streamlining decisions, reducing change orders, and reducing energy, water, and material waste.
6) School districts would benefit from training in WSSP implementation and cost tracking,
integrated design, and total cost of ownership (TCO) studies.
Districts that chose to invest in a district-wide evaluation of high-performance strategies benefitted from
internal staff education and will likely experience reduced cost of implementing some of the strategies in
future WSSP projects. Training in cost tracking and reporting procedures will prepare districts to better
identify, evaluate, and report on the benefits and costs of the strategies they choose to pursue. Training in
integrated design and TCO studies can help with overall decision making and implementation of WSSP
strategies.
7) Consistent reporting instructions will aid OSPI in communicating requirements to school projects,
and a clear data reporting tool will improve future cost and performance data submitted by the
districts.
There are many inconsistencies in the volunteer cost reports. Reporting differences exist both in the use of the
Scorecard and the format and type of information provided in the narrative reports. Furthermore, the
districts’ various understanding of baselines and what is considered “additional" cost, as well as incomplete
submittals, made analysis and data interpretation difficult. District approaches in implementing the WSSP
differ, and there seems to be confusion between the legal reporting requirements and the requirements that
the volunteer schools had for their grants. Better instructions on reporting needs and how to calculate
additional WSSP costs and cost savings will aid schools in future reporting requirements.
8) The volunteer projects represent a good first test of WSSP implementation and provide a
foundation from which to improve the Protocol and cost reporting in the future.
One of the reasons the grants were offered was to provide districts with the means to familiarize themselves
with the WSSP and test strategies in the field. The grants helped cover some of the additional costs districts
incurred to implement WSSP strategies. Several districts used grant funds to expand the WSSP evaluation to
determine feasibility of high-performance strategies district-wide. OSPI will improve the directions to the
districts on how to report additional costs, however variation is still likely to occur.
9) The WSSP standard needs to keep pace with new developments and updated codes
Since the Final Draft was published in January 2006, some minimum requirements such as those in
stormwater and energy code have changed and updated. The WSSP needs to be on an update schedule so
that it truly reflects “high-performance” schools.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 35
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Consultant Recommendations to OSPI
The following recommendations to OSPI were prepared by the Consultant to guide future reporting by the
volunteer projects.
Recommendation: Improve instructions to districts on the information they are required to submit and set a hard
due date with repercussions if they do not meet it. Provide guidance to districts on optimum timing to prepare
their reports. For example, request that districts prepare their estimates to coincide with 30, 60, or 90% design
documents to enable more consistent data analysis and comparison between the various projects.
Recommendation: Establish and clarify what is considered conventional for each of the categories. Determine how
to include or consider district building requirements that place schools at varying custom baseline levels. If districts
with rigorous green building requirements have a higher baseline cost, the schools in these districts will incur less
difference in cost between their custom baseline and WSSP implementation.
Recommendation: Provide instructions to school districts on how and when to conduct an eco-charrette. Prepare
guidelines on when in the process an eco-charrette should take place, what agenda items must be covered, who
should be at the table, how to determine and set appropriate project goals, and what types of outside resources
could be used. Guide districts on what they should expect from a consultant if they choose to hire outside
resources to conduct the eco-charrette, and provide tips for how districts can best apply additional integrated
design practices.
Recommendation: Compare costs of WSSP implementation for multiple schools within the same district. There
likely is a district learning curve with the WSSP, and it would be beneficial to track reported WSSP costs to
determine whether WSSP costs for each new school is reduced from the one before.
Recommendation: Ask districts to report whether the rebates they receive are directly tied to implementing a
strategy. If so, the rebate cost should be accounted for in the reported WSSP total cost difference. Projects may
receive rebates specific to implementing a WSSP strategy that they would not otherwise have received.
Recommendation: Prepare a staff satisfaction survey that districts can use as part of their 5-year post-occupancy
performance evaluation requirements. Use this survey to begin collecting qualitative data on staff experience of
working in a high-performance school building.
Recommendation: Provide a better explanation for post-occupancy reporting requirements. The post-occupancy
reporting requirements as defined by law are different from those that are required in the WSSP Scorecard. Many
of the volunteer schools choose to pursue the Extra Credit Scorecard strategy of post-occupancy reporting (EX 2.2)
but may not be clear on what they are required to track. Clarify and standardize the post-occupancy performance
requirements language and distribute to all participating schools.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 36
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Resources and References
Resources
RCW 39.35D High-Performance Public Buildings
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=39.35D
OSPI’s High-Performance Schools Webpage:
http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/HighPerformanceSchoolBuildings.aspx
High-performance Guidelines for School Districts
http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/pubdocs/HPSBPGuidelines.doc
WA Sustainable Schools Protocol
http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/pubdocs/HighPerformanceSchools/WSSPFinalDraft.006.pdf
Collaborative for High-Performance Schools – CHPS Scorecard
http://www.chps.net/index.htm
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). U.S. Green Building Council.
http://www.usgbc.org/
Washington Green Schools
http://www.wagreenschools.org
References
Dougan, David S., and Damiano, Leonard A., 2003. Productivity and Energy Conservation are NOT Mutually
Exclusive Objectives. April 2003.
Environmental Protection Agency. Indoor Air Quality & Student Performance. EPA, 2003.
HMG, Heschong Mahone Group. Daylighting in Schools – An Investigation Into the Relationship Between
Daylighting and Human Performance. August 1999.
HMG, Heschong Mahone Group. Windows in Classrooms: A Study of Student Performance and the Indoor
Environment. Prepared for the California Energy Commission (PIER), 2003.
Kats, Gregory H. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building. October 2003.
Nicklas, Mike and Baily, Gary. Student Performance in daylit Schools in North California. 1996.
Myhrvold, Olson, Lauridsen, Indoor Environment in Schools. Pupils’ Health and Performance in regard to CO2
Concentrations. 1996.
Schneider, Mark. Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities. November 2002.
Washington State Board of Education and OSPI. Washington High-performance School Buildings: Report to the
Legislature. Prepared by Paladino & Company. January 31, 2005.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 37
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Washington State’s High-Performance Schools
The following schools have either been early users of the WSSP or have been subject to the WSSP for their new
construction or modernization/ addition projects. This list does not include the 18 volunteer construction projects
reviewed for this report. They represent the additional WSSP schools including the early WSSP Pilot projects, early
WSSP adopters who voluntarily chose to apply the Protocol, and all currently known schools subject to
implementing the WSSP.
Five Pilot Projects were awarded grants in 2004 to test the Draft Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP).
At that time, the minimum protocol point level was 38 points.
Pilot Projects, 2004 - 2006
School District
Olympia
Bethel
Northshore
Spokane
Tacoma
Project
Square Footage
Washington Middle School
100,049
Project Type
Status
Thompson Elementary
64,962
New Construction &
Modernization
New Construction
Cottage Lake Elementary
34,628
New Construction
Occupied
Lincoln Heights Elementary
55,400
New Construction
Occupied
271,000
Historic Renovation
and addition
Occupied
Lincoln High School
Occupied
Occupied
A few districts that OSPI is aware of chose to build to high-performance standards on their own, without being
required to by law, and without receiving special grants f from the state. These schools did not have reporting
requirements. They include Spokane, Tacoma, Lake Washington, Highline, and Auburn.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 38
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
A total of 35 projects applied to the state for project approval from July 2007 to September 2008. They represent the first
projects required to comply with RCW 39.35D. Class II districts were required to comply after July 1, 2008, so his list does only
includes Class II projects after July 2008. The first table on this page shows the projects that are proceeding to use the WSSP.
The second table shows the 17 projects that were granted exemptions due to bond issue dates for their projects.
Projects Required to Build to High-Performance Standards
July 2007 – September 2008
School
District
Project
Square
footage
Project Type
Approximate
Status
(Summer 2008)
WSSP Checklist
submitted to
OSPI
Bellevue
Eastgate Elementary
66,294
New Construction
Construction

Bellingham
New Shuksan Middle
85,134
New Construction
Construction

Bethel
Spanaway Lake High

Addition
71,963 &
80,115
New & Modernization
Bid

Deer Park
Deer Park High
Federal Way
Panther Lake Elementary
49,472
New Construction
Pre-bid

Federal Way
Valhalla Elementary
43,235
New Construction
Bid

Lake WA
Lake WA High
133,242
New Construction
Project approved

Moses Lake
Sage Point Elementary
New Construction
Construction

Oak Harbor
Oak Harbor High
New & Modernization
Bid

Seattle
Denny Middle School
46,850
51,136
159,949
124,620
New Construction
Pre-bid

Seattle
Nathan Hale High
214,858
New& Mod (2 phases)
Pre-bid

Tacoma
Portland Ave Middle
118,104
New Construction
Construction
(Sept 2009)

Yakima
Yakima Valley Technical
Skills Center
41,107
New Construction
Bid

Projects that Received an Exemption due to Bond Issue
District - Class
Project
District - Class
Project
Camas - I
Garfield Repl @ Camas High
North Thurston- I
Chinook Middle
Camas - I
Hayes Freedom High
North Thurston - I
Nisqually Middle
Eatonville - I
Eatonville Middle
Othello - I
Lutacaga Elementary
Everett - I
Kent - I
Federal Way
Kent - I
Everett High Little Theater
Mill Creek Middle
Lakota Middle
Covington Elementary
Othello - I
Othello - I
Seattle - I
Sumner - I
McFarland Junior High
Othello High
Ingraham High
Victor Falls Elementary
Moses Lake - I
Chief Moses Middle School Gym
Sumer - I
University Place - I
Lakeridge Middle
University Place
Status unknown
Freeman - II
Freeman High Mod
Montesano - II
Beacon Ave Elem Mod
Riverview - I
Riverview Alternative
Valley - II
Valley K-8
Summary: Thirty-five projects sought project approval from OSPI after July 1, 2007. Twelve of these submitted a WSSP
checklist and are on track; 12 were granted “Not Practicable” status due to the bond issue date for their projects, and three
projects are either delayed or re-submitting at this time. As of July 2008, both Class I and Class II school district construction
projects are required to comply, as well as skill centers.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 39
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Appendix B: Relationship of high-performance schools with other programs and initiatives
Several green building rating systems and high-performance schools programs are currently in existence. Some are
national, and some are state- or region specific. The Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) and
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) are the two programs that are accepted for meeting the
requirements of RCW 39.35D. Additional programs exist that schools can use to implement and monitor
sustainability initiatives at their facilities, such as the recently developed Washington Green Schools Program,
which is currently in pilot and is anticipated to be available to all Washington State schools in mid 2009.
Schools built to high-performance standards provide for operational efficiencies and well-being of the occupants,
and can be used as a tool to teach about the environment and sustainability. Washington State has several
initiatives underway that support or compliment the goals of high-performance schools:
The school environmental health and safety rule has undergone a revision process to strengthen the
protections offered to school occupants, especially students. The proposed updated rule provides minimum
standards for a safe and healthy indoor environment. The Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP)
does not conflict with health rules but rather provides for enhancement of the built environment by
promoting more daylighting, products without indoor air contaminants, user-controls, such as operable
windows, improved acoustic performance, and more.
Effective operations and maintenance of school facilities results in a healthier environment, less illness, and
less liability for the district. The WSSP currently doesn’t address operational issues except offering a point
when districts have a maintenance plan. The state is looking into the idea of advancing the whole systems
approach to building construction, operation, and maintenance to ensure a healthy, well managed
environment. Proper training on the operations of any building, especially a high-performance building that
may have state-of-the-art features, is necessary to ensure the building is run as effectively and efficiently as
possible.
State law requires schools to conduct environmental education as part of basic education. The Education for
Environment and Sustainability program at OSPI supports these goals through curriculum development and
student projects on sustainability in their community. The WSSP offers a point if the district has a plan for
using the building as a teaching tool and providing teachers with background information.
A new state law calls for the creation of a framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Efforts
are underway in various sectors, including public buildings. There are points in the WSSP that address these
goals through improved energy performance, purchase of green power, use of renewable power, energy
management systems as well as additional building commissioning to ensure the building is performing as
designed.
Washington Green Schools is a new program currently in pilot that focuses on ongoing green school
operations and maintenance. The program serves as a good resource for WSSP schools who want to continue
to apply new practices to keep up commitment to their original WSSP goals.
Collaborative for High-Performance Schools
The Collaborative for High-performance Schools (CHPS) is a non-profit, membership organization, originally set up
to advance high-performance schools in California. The CHPS green building standard is the basis for the
Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP). CHPS is transitioning to become a national organization. Some
benefits to the national organization include:
National core criteria with regional flexibility;
A cost effective way for K-12 to go green; and,
Access to the resources and programs being developed by CHPS.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 40
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
The support of the national organization would help leverage the limited resources in Washington to implement
high-performance schools. It would also provide a forum for continuous improvement of the criteria.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Schools
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Schools standard of the US Green Building Council
(USGBC) also used CHPS to align its building standard with the special needs of schools. This is an option for
Washington schools to use instead of WSSP or LEED NC to meet Washington State regulations. However, because
of the cost of the detailed documentation required for certification, it is not expected that many districts will
choose this option.
Washington Green Schools
Washington Green Schools (WAGS) was launched in early 2008 in pilot form. The program’s primary focus is
improving school operations and maintenance practices to increase environmental performance. The web-based
program is voluntary and designed to assist schools in reducing their environmental impact while involving
students, staff, and the greater community in the implementation of green actions items and hands-on learning
opportunities. The program is designed to develop student leadership and project management skills, and includes
community education and involvement.
WAGS will go live to all Washington schools in 2009, and will compliment WSSP as an ongoing measure for schools
to integrate green practices at their facilities and as part of their curriculum.
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 41
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Appendix C: WSSP Scorecard
WSSP Scorecard
Possible Points
SITE
1) Selection & Use
S1.0
S1.1
S1.2
S1.3
S1.4
S1.5
S1.6
Code Compliance
Sensitive Areas
Greenfields
Central Location
Joint Use of On-Site Facilities
Joint Use of Off-Site Facilities
Minimal Footprint
R
1
1
1
1-2
1
1-2
S2.1
S2.2
S2.3
Public Transportation
Bicycles (lanes & security)
Minimize Parking
1
1
1
S3.0
S3.1
S3.2
S3.3
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
On-Site Infiltration
Stormwater (runoff) Treatment or Reduction
Enhanced Stormwater Treatment
R
1
1
1
S4.1
S4.2
Heat Island Reduction through Landscaping
Heat Island Reduction through Roof Design
1
1
S5.1
Light Pollution Reduction
2) Transportation
3) Stormwater Management
4) Outdoor Surfaces
5) Outdoor Lighting
Subtotal Site
1
17
WATER
1) Outdoor Systems
W1.0
W1.1
W1.2
Water Use Budget
Irrigation Water Reduction (50%)
Scheduling Water Controller
R
1-2
1
W2.1
W2.2
Potable Water Use for Bldg Sewage Reduction (45%)
Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%)
Subtotal Water
1
1-2
6
Recycling: Storage & Collection of Recyclables
Site Waste Management - Waste Reduction (50%, 75%)
Bldg. Structure/Shell Reuse (50%, 75%)
Bldg. Non-Shell Reuse (50%)
Salvage or Refurbished Bldg. Materials (5%, 10%)
Resource Reuse - Furniture (30%)
R
1-2
1-2
1
1-2
1
Recycled Content (5% /4 mat'ls, 10%/8 mat'ls
Rapidly Renewable Materials (biobased)
Certified Wood (20%, 50%, chain-of-custody)
Eliminate Ozone-Depleting Substances
Region/Local Materials (20% mnfd; 20% extracted)
Subtotal Materials
1-2
1
1-3
1
1-2
17
Minimum Energy Performance
Superior Energy Performance
R
4-12
HVAC and Operable Windows
1
2) Indoor Systems
MATERIALS
1) Waste Reduction & Efficient Use
M1.0
M1.1
M1.2
M1.3
M1.4
M1.5
2) Environmental Procurement
M2.1
M2.2
M2.3
M2.4
M2.5
ENERGY (must have 4 points from Energy)
1) Efficiency
E1.0
E1.1
2) Controls
E2.1
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
Page 42
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
WSSP Scorecard (Cont’d)
Possible Points
1
E2.2
Daylight-Responsive Controls
E3.1
E3.2
Renewable Energy (5-10% bldg. supply)
Distributed Generation (5-10% bldg. supply)
1-4
1-3
E4.0
E4.1
Fundamental Commissioning
Additional Commissioning
R
2
E5.1
Energy Management
3) On-Site Alternative Sources
4) Commissioning
5) Management
Subtotal Energy
1
24
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1) Daylighting
IEQ1.0
IEQ1.1
IEQ1.2
IEQ1.3
2% Daylight Factor (new const. 50% critical spaces)
2% Daylight Factor (75%, 100%); renovation 50%
Fixed-Position Shading
Views - Direct line of Vision Glazing
R
1-3
1
1
IEQ2.1
Electric Lighting Quality
1
IEQ3.0
IEQ3.1
IEQ3.2
IEQ3.3
IEQ3.4
IEQ3.5
IEQ3.6
IEQ3.7
Minimum: Ventilation, Filtration, Moisture control
Low-Emitting Interior Finishes
Low-Emitting Materials - Furniture & Seating
Source Control - Minimize Contamination
Ducted HVAC Returns
Particle Arrestance Filtration
IAQ Management (construction, pre-occupancy)
Natural Cooling
R
1-4
1
1
1
1
1-2
3
IEQ4.0
IEQ4.1
IEQ4.2
Minimum Acoustical Performance
Improved Acoustical Performance
Enhanced Audio
R
1-2
1
IEQ5.0
ASHRAE 55 Code Compliance
R
IEQ6.1
IEQ6.2
User Controls (operable windows)
User Controls (temperature & lighting)
1
1
24
2) Electric Lighting Quality
3) Indoor Air Quality
4) Acoustics
5) Thermal Comfort
6) User Controls
Subtotal IEQ
EXTRA CREDIT (only five count toward minimum point level)*
1) Integrated Design
EX1.1 Eco-Charrette
2) Operations
EX2.1 Green Power Contract
EX2.2 Post-Occupancy Evaluation
EX2.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
3) Education
EX3.1 Green Building Learning Opportunity
4) Innovation
EX4.1 Project and/or District Innovation
Subtotal Extra Credit
Total Points AVAILABLE
Total Points POSSIBLE
MINIMUM WSSP POINTS
Prepared by OSPI and O’Brien & Company
1
1
1
1
1
1-3
8
96
93*
40
Page 43
Appendix D: WSSP Costing Sheet
School Name:
Pts
Base Costs
Actual
Costs
Total
Addn'l
costs
Comments
PLEASE NOTE: The complete WSSP Scorecard was reproduced here. However, there may not be additional high-performance costs for some of the items, especially in Site Selection and
Use. Please leave those categories blank. If you used LEED, please use the LEED scorecard to record costs. The PURPOSE of this sheet is to capture ADDITIONAL cost related to designing
and building high-performance schools.
BASE COST is the cost if it was built to minimum code requirements or if it was standard (not high-performance).
ACTUAL COSTS are the materials or construction costs. See below for where to record "soft" costs.
TOTAL ADDITIONAL COST is the Actual Cost minus the Base Cost.
SITE
Base Costs
Actual Costs
Addn'l
cost
$0
$0
$0
1) Selection & Use
S1.0
S1.1
S1.2
S1.3
S1.4
S1.5
S1.6
Code Compliance
Sensitive Areas
Greenfields
Central Location
Joint Use of On-Site Facilities
Joint Use of Off-Site Facilities
Minimal Footprint
S2.1
S2.2
S2.3
Public Transportation
Bicycles (lanes & security)
Minimize Parking
S3.0
S3.1
S3.2
S3.3
Sedimentation and Erosion Control
On-Site Infiltration
Stormwater (runoff) Treatment or Reduction
Enhanced Stormwater Treatment
S4.1
S4.2
Heat Island Reduction through Landscaping
Heat Island Reduction through Roof Design
S5.1
Light Pollution Reduction
R
2) Transportation
3) Stormwater Management
R
4) Outdoor Surfaces
5) Outdoor Lighting
Subtotal Site
0
WATER
1) Outdoor Systems
W1.0
W1.1
W1.2
Water Use Budget
Irrigation Water Reduction (50%)
Scheduling Water Controller
W2.1
W2.2
Potable Water Use for Bldg Sewage Reduction (45%)
Potable Water Use Reduction (20%, 30%)
2) Indoor Systems
R
Comments
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
Subtotal Water
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
MATERIALS
1) Waste Reduction & Efficient Use
M1.0
M1.1
M1.2
M1.3
M1.4
M1.5
Recycling: Storage & Collection of Recyclables
Site Waste Management - Waste Reduction (50%, 75%)
Bldg. Structure/Shell Reuse (50%, 75%)
Bldg. Non-Shell Reuse (50%)
Salvage or Refurbished Bldg. Materials (5%, 10%)
Resource Reuse - Furniture (30%)
M2.1
M2.2
M2.3
M2.4
M2.5
Recycled Content (5% /4 mat'ls, 10%/8 mat'ls
Rapidly Renewable Materials (biobased)
Certified Wood (20%, 50%, chain-of-custody)
Eliminate Ozone-Depleting Substances
Region/Local Materials (20% mnfd; 20% extracted)
Subtotal Materials
R
2) Environmental Procurement
0
ENERGY
1) Efficiency
E1.0
E1.1
Minimum Energy Performance
Superior Energy Performance
E2.1
E2.2
HVAC and Operable Windows
Daylight-Responsive Controls
E3.1
E3.2
Renewable Energy (5-10% bldg. supply
Distributed Generation (5-10% bldg. supply)
E4.0
E4.1
Fundamental Commissioning
Additional Commissioning
E5.1
Energy Management
R
2) Controls
3) On-Site Alternative Sources
4) Commissioning
R
5) Management
Subtotal Energy
0
INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1) Daylighting
IEQ1.0
IEQ1.1
IEQ1.2
IEQ1.3
2% Daylight Factor (new const. 50% critical spaces)
2% Daylight Factor (75%, 100%); renovation 50%
Fixed-Position Shading
Views - Direct line of Vision Glazing
IEQ2.1
Electric Lighting Quality
IEQ3.0
IEQ3.1
IEQ3.2
Minimum: Ventilation, Filtration, Moisture control
Low-Emitting Interior Finishes
Low-Emitting Materials - Furniture & Seating
R
2) Electric Lighting Quality
3) Indoor Air Quality
R
High-Performance Schools Status Report to the Legislature
IEQ3.3
IEQ3.4
IEQ3.5
IEQ3.6
IEQ3.7
Source Control - Minimize Contamination
Ducted HVAC Returns
Particle Arrestance Filtration
IAQ Management (construction, pre-occupancy)
Natural Cooling
IEQ4.0
IEQ4.1
IEQ4.2
Minimum Acoustical Performance
Improved Acoustical Performance
Enhanced Audio
R
IEQ5.0
ASHRAE 55 Code Compliance
R
IEQ6.1
IEQ6.2
User Controls (operable windows)
User Controls (temperature & lighting)
4) Acoustics
5) Thermal Comfort
6) User Controls
Subtotal IEQ
0
$0
$0
$0
Subtotal Extra Credit
TOTAL POINTS
0
0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL POINT COSTS
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Base Costs
$0
Actual Costs
$0
Additional
$0
EXTRA CREDIT (only five count toward minimum point level)
1) Integrated Design
EX1.1 Eco-Charrette
2) Operations
EX2.1 Green Power Contract
EX2.2 Post-Occupancy Evaluation
EX2.3 Life Cycle Cost Analysis
3) Education
EX3.1 Green Building Learning Opportunity
4) Innovation
EX4.1 Project and/or District Innovation
OTHER (soft) COSTS for high-performance schools. Be as specific as possible.
Architect design fees to implement WSSP
Mechanical / Electrical fees to implement WSSP
Acoustical Engineer
Landscape Architect
District Overhead: management, labor, research, etc
OTHER:
Subtotal Other Costs
GRAND TOTAL POINT AND OTHER COSTS