School staff present seven-year energy review and propose energy manager, incentives

Ed Smith, a facilities staff member for Winchester City Public Schools, presented a seven‑year review of school utilities and said the district spends roughly $2,200,000 a year on utilities and that new buildings use substantially less energy than older ones.

Smith told the board that John Kerr Elementary, the system’s newest elementary, uses roughly the same total energy as some much smaller older schools despite being about 30% larger, noting design features such as south‑facing windows, LED lighting and a fully electric heating/cooling system that increase efficiency. He pointed to higher recent electricity use at Daniel Morgan, which he said followed replacement of a gas water heater with an electric unit and changes to custodial hours that left HVAC running longer. Frederick Douglass showed a natural‑gas spike in a year the school lost one of two boilers; the district has since overhauled its HVAC there and Smith said he expects usage to decline.

Smith explained the district is tracking energy use in Energy Star/EUI (energy use intensity) benchmarking and that the data have caveats: the database uses broad age and size windows and is self‑reported, so comparisons are directional rather than exact. He described the district’s current energy‑saving practices — LED lighting in gyms and parking lots, no‑idling policy for buses, low‑flow fixtures in newer schools — and said the division conducts targeted energy audits during school closures to identify issues such as lights, smart boards and small refrigerators left on.

To improve outcomes, Smith recommended reinstating an energy management program and hiring a full‑time capital/projects manager who would also oversee energy management. He said the district formerly had an energy manager until about 15 years ago and that the prior position was cut; reviving that capacity would centralize audits, data entry into the district’s EnergyCap/EnergyStar software and regular follow up with schools. Smith proposed a mix of actions: adopt or revise the district’s energy conservation policy, restore an energy manager role, create incentive programs that share a portion of realized utility savings with schools, develop “green champion” roles at schools, and review purchasing procedures so long‑term energy costs are considered in procurements (for example, water‑heater fuel source).

Board members discussed options including forming an ad hoc study group or making energy efficiency an explicit priority in the upcoming strategic plan. Smith said he would delay hiring the capital/projects manager until summer and instead convert a retiring part‑time capital projects position into a full‑time role focused on energy and projects. He estimated a 5% reduction in utility costs on $2.2 million in annual utilities would equal roughly $110,000 in savings and said some savings could pay for the position over time.

Smith also reviewed opportunities and tradeoffs for larger measures such as solar and electric buses, noting upfront costs for charging infrastructure and training even if operating fuel costs fall; he described models other districts use, including long‑term power purchase agreements for solar. He told the board the division will continue monthly reporting, refine benchmark comparisons after the Frederick Douglass HVAC work is fully reflected in the data, and return with policy and staffing proposals.

The presentation closed with a request that the board consider whether energy efficiency should be an explicit objective in the division’s strategic plan and, if so, what level of resources the board would commit.