school energy and environment survey research findings … · share of respondents by connection 0...

Research Findings

School Energy and Environment Survey

Respondents ARe VeteRAn educAtion pRofessionAlsThe majority of respondents maintain more than 20 years experience in the education field.

Respondents ARe HigH-leVel distRict decision-mAkeRs Respondents to the Honeywell/Education Week Research “School Energy and Environment Survey” were qualified based on role and title. They are all district-based administrators or school board members.

We’re Connecting With EducatorsIn July 2009, Honeywell Building Solutions and Education Week Research conducted an online survey of Education Week Web site subscribers self-identified as school district administrators or school board members.

Overall, the survey found that districts nationwide are cutting spending in key areas like building maintenance and capital investment. But, unless they find solutions to address the required energy and infrastructure improvements, they’ll have to dedicate more money to utility bills, and less to teachers, supplies and other

critical needs. As one of the world’s leading energy companies, Honeywell is poised to help educators overcome these budget challenges with strategic, effective solutions.

What is your connection to education?Share of respondents by connection

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

District-Based Administrator 80%

5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Less than 5 years 5-9 years 10-14 years 15-20 years More than 20 years

64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%

0-24% 25-49% 50-100% Costs decreased Not sure

25%

School Board Member 20%

32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%

Mid-Atlantic / Southeast 14%

South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%

Yes 61%Very Important 60%

Somewhat Important 37%

Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%

Lack of expertiseand resources 13%

Not enough money to pursue 74%

Consideration underway 35%

Considered but rejected 9%

Implementation underway 12%Not considered 27%

Fully implemented 4%

Not sure 13%

At least one renewable 61%

Solar photovoltaic 29%

Geothermal heating and cooling 24%

Wind power generation 20%

15%

Biomass power generation 3%

Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%

All Respondents “Renewable Considerers”*

No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%

Share of respondents by commitment status / region

District Type “No” “Not Sure” “Yes”Rural 68% 15% 17%Suburban 55% 17% 28%Urban 34% 26% 40% Total 55% 18% 26%

No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%

Chief of Staff 0%Chief Financial Officer 1%

Director, Facilities Management 3%

Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%

Director, Finance 0%Other 11%

Director, Technology 8%


Assistant Superintendent 21%

District Superintendent / Chancellor 28%

No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8

Cut or modification in at least one area 66%

Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%

Capital investments 22%

Extracurricular activities / athletics 16%

Salaries and benefits 14%

Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%

Have not had to make modifications 34%

Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16

Honeywell Analysis*According to the Honeywell Renewable Energy Scorecard, a selection tool that helps pinpoint the technology with the most significant economic drivers:

• Delaware is the only state in the region where solar PV has a brisk payback • Geothermal has limited financial drivers across all the states • Most districts in the region would get the quickest payback with biomass thermal

wable enewtoool that too

withh the ers:

regionn the rbacackpaybpayba

Survey Results • Solar PV: 18% • Geothermal heating and cooling: 18% • Solar thermal: 13% • Wind power generation: 8% • Biomass power generation: 3% • Biomass thermal: 0% • None: 41%

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%

Scaled back project 28%

Project no longer possible 13%

Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-24% 25-49% 50-100% Costs Not sure decreased

40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d

550 10-100%00% Costs decreased

2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Solar thermal (e.g., solar domestic hot water systems)

Which title best describes your role within your organization?Share of respondents by title

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Source: Honeywell / Education Week Research “School Energy and Environment Survey” (2009).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


How many years of experience do you have in the education field?Share of respondents by experience

The survey consisted of 253 respondents from across the United States.

suRVey cAptuRed A nAtionAl sAmpleResponses are well-suited to national averages for state and district type.

Respondents WoRk foR A Wide RAnge of distRict siZesAlthough 72 percent of respondents work for districts with fewer than 10,000 students, our survey captured a disproportionate share of responses from larger districts (consistent with Education Week reader profile).

How many students does your school district serve?Share of respondents by school district population

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%

2% 5%


25%


32%32%

24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2,499 2,500- 5,000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4,999 9,999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16


• Delaware is the only state in the region where solar PV has a brisk payback

• Geothermal has limited financial drivers across all the states • Most districts in the region would get the quickest payback with biomass thermal


with t eh the ers:

egionn the rebackackpaybpayba


Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


It’s clear from the Honeywell and Education Week Research “School Energy and Environment Survey” that districts nationwide are struggling with energy costs.

in which state is your district located?Share of respondents by state

Which best describes your district?Share of respondents by district type

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Sources: Honeywell / Education Week Research “School Energy and Environment Survey” (2009); U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics 2008 (Table 90).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


national Average for schools:27% City45% Suburban (Town)28% Rural


Escalating ProblemsThe rise in energy costs is, ironically, hurting many school districts’ efforts to increase energy efficiency. Two-thirds of respondents’ districts made spending cuts or modifications as a direct result of rising energy bills. Key impacted areas include building maintenance and capital investments.

By reducing spend in these areas, many districts find themselves caught in a vicious cycle: deferred maintenance and upgrades lead to less efficient equipment, which leads to higher energy bills, which ultimately leads to more strain on budgets. Unless districts find ways to address the required energy and infrastructure improvements, they will likely continue to struggle and be forced to make additional cuts.

Respondents’ distRicts fAcing incReAsing eneRgy costsOur survey suggests that the vast majority of school districts have experienced rising energy costs in the past three years.

… But one-tHiRd do not HAVe A long-teRm eneRgy stRAtegic plAnAlthough nearly all respondents agree that energy management is important to their district’s long-term success, one-third of respondents report that their district has no long-term strategic plan for managing energy consumption and costs.

By what percentage has your organization’s total energy costs increased in the past three years?Share of respondents by increase

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


eneRgy costs impActing inVestments And pRioRitiesTwo-thirds of respondents’ districts have cut or modified in at least one of our survey areas. In particular, district leaders see these rising costs as impacting maintenance schedules, transportation, staffing levels and capital investments.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


How critical is energy management to your district’s long-term success?Share of respondents by response

Has your district developed or implemented a long-term strategic plan for managing energy consumption and costs?Share of respondents by response


Have rising energy costs directly affected your district to cut spending or make modifications in any of the following areas? (please check all that apply.)Share of respondents by increase

funding gAps constRAin RetRofits And ReneWABle pRoJectsThree-fourths of respondents reported that limited funding is the biggest obstacle to launching energy retrofits or renewable energy projects.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


if you have not gone forward with energy retrofi ts or renewable energy projects, what has been the biggest hurdle? (choose one.)Share of respondents by hurdle

...WHicH is fuRtHeR complicAted By tHe Recession

More than half of respondents have scaled back, delayed or eliminated the possibility of projects due to the economic downturn.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%

2% 5%


25%


32%32%

24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2,499 2,500- 5,000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4,999 9,999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16





with t eh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Has the recent economic downturn impacted any planned energy effi ciency or renewable energy projects? (check all that apply.)Share of respondents by project impact

Through facility improvements and infrastructure upgrades, Honeywell helps customers save 15 to 25 percent of their energy bill on average.


Renewable ConfusionAlthough school districts have evaluated renewable energy sources as a potential solution to key challenges, many do not have the internal resources or expertise to pinpoint the technology that can deliver the greatest return on investment. Less than half of respondents said they had a clear understanding of the variables that impact the economic viability of these projects.

Wide VARiAtion in consideRAtion of ReneWABles The survey suggests that nearly 60 percent of respondents’ districts have or are considering using renewable resources. Many (35 percent) are still in consideration phases.

solAR pV most-consideRed ReneWABle tecHnologySolar photovoltaic, wind and geothermal were the top technologies considered.

… But solAR pV mAy not deliVeR tHe gReAtest pAyBAck

While solar PV is the most visible option with 29 percent of districts nationwide considering the technology, it may not be the option with the greatest payback. The results from the Mid-Atlantic/Southeast region provide an interesting case in point.

Respondents not confident in tHeiR undeRstAnding of ReneWABlesMore than half of surveyed district leaders and school board members expressed that they did not have an informed understanding of the variables that impact renewable energy project viability or were unsure whether they were properly informed.


Considered but rejected Considered but rejected Considered but rejected 9%

Implementation underwayImplementation underway 12%Not considered Not considered 27%27%

Fully implemented Fully implemented 4%

Not sureNot sure 13%13%

At least one renewable At least one renewable At least one r 61%


Geothermal heating and cooling Geothermal heating and cooling Geother 24%


15%


Biomass thermal Biomass thermal Biomass ther 2%

None 39%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Solar thermal Solar thermal Solar ther(e.g., solar domestic hot water systems)

Honeywell Honeywell Honeywell Analysis*Analysis*Analysis*Analysis*According to the Honeywell Renewable According to the Honeywell Renewable According to the Honeywell Renewable According to the Honeywell Renewable Energy Scorecard, a selection tool thatEnergy Scorecard, a selection tool thatEnergy Scorecard, a selection tool thatEnergy Scorecard, a selection tool thatEnergy Scorecard, a selection tool thatEnergy Scorecard, a selection tool thatEnergy Scorecard, a selection tool thathelps pinpoint the technology with the helps pinpoint the technology with the helps pinpoint the technology with the helps pinpoint the technology with the helps pinpoint the technology with the helps pinpoint the technology with the helps pinpoint the technology with the most significant economic drivers:most significant economic drivers:most significant economic drivers:most significant economic drivers:most significant economic drivers:most significant economic drivers:

• Delaware is the only state in the region • Delaware is the only state in the region • Delaware is the only state in the region • Delaware is the only state in the region • Delaware is the only state in the region • Delaware is the only state in the regionwhere solar PV has a brisk paybacwhere solar PV has a brisk paybacwhere solar PV has a brisk paybacwhere solar PV has a brisk paybacwhere solar PV has a brisk paybacwhere solar PV has a brisk paybacwhere solar PV has a brisk paybacwhere solar PV has a brisk paybacwhere solar PV has a brisk paybac

• Geothermal has limited financial driver • Geothermal has limited financial driver • Geothermal has limited financial driver • Geothermal has limited financial driver • Geothermal has limited financial driver • Geothermal has limited financial drivers across all the statescross all the statescross all the states• Most districts in the region would get th• Most districts in the region would get th• Most districts in the region would get th• Most districts in the region would get the

quickest payback with biomass thermaquickest payback with biomass thermal

wableenewtoool thattoo

withh the ers:

regionn the rbaackpaybpayba

Survey Results• Solar PV: 18%• Geothermal heating and cooling: 18%• Solar thermal: 13%• Wind power generation: 8%• Biomass power generation: 3%• Biomass thermal: 0%• None: 41%

No No 20%

Not SureNot Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Has your district considered using a renewable resource to help meet its energy needs?Share of respondents by consideration status

What types of renewable energy technologies has your district considered or implemented?Share of respondents by technology considered

What types of renewable energy technologies has your district considered or implemented?Share of respondents by technology considered

do you feel you have an informed understanding of the variables that impact the economic viability of renewable energy projects?Share of respondents by response

*Data subset: Answered “Has your district considered using a renewable resource to help meet its energy needs?” with “Consideration Underway,” “Considered but Rejected,” “Fully Implemented” or “Implementation Underway.”

No 32%32%32%

Not SureNot Sure 20%

Yes 48%

All Respondents

“Renewable Considerers*”

* Note: The analysis and forward-looking statements regarding the Honeywell Renewable Energy Scorecard are offered exclusively by Honeywell, and should not be construed as supported by nor attributed to Education Week Research.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Sustainability GapWhile there’s growing interest for schools to incorporate environmental sustainability into their building operations and curriculum, there is a clear gap between interest and activity. Many schools have not yet made a formal commitment to reducing their environmental impact and most have not completed a greenhouse gas inventory to benchmark emissions.

When broken down by district type, the gap becomes more evident. For example, 40 percent of urban districts have made environmental commitments, yet only nine percent have completed an inventory.

some distRicts HAVe mAde enViRonmentAl commitmentsThe majority of respondents (55 percent) report that their districts have not made formal commitments to reduce their carbon emissions. However, there seems to be more traction with urban and suburban districts where 40 percent and 28 percent have set goals.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%2% 5%


25%


32%32%24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2499 2500- 5000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4999 9999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16




withh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Have environmental sustainability topics been incorporated into your districts’ curriculum?Share of respondents by curriculum incorporation

do you fi nd that some students are self-positioning themselves as leaders in efforts to reduce their schools’ carbon footprint?Share of respondents by student leadership

sustAinABility cuRRiculum And student leAdeRsHip gRoWingSlightly more than half (52 percent) of respondents report that environmental sustainability has been incorporated into their curriculum. A similar share (54 percent) report that students are driving a carbon emissions reduction agenda in their districts.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%

2% 5%


25%


32%32%

24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2,499 2,500- 5,000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4,999 9,999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16





with t eh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Has your district made commitments or set goals to reduce its carbon footprint (emissions)?Share of respondents by commitment status

… But feW distRicts HAVe BencHmARked emissionsA mere seven percent of respondents reported that they had completed a greenhouse gas inventory to catalog current emissions to create a benchmark; the vast majority of respondents (72 percent) reported that their districts had not conducted such an inventory to gauge the impact of environmental initiatives.

Has your district completed a greenhouse gas inventory to catalog its current emissions and create a benchmark?Share of respondents by inventory status


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


5% 8% 11% 12%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


64%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 52%

15%

2% 5%


25%


32%32%

24%%24%

16%

4%4%4%8%8% 8%8%

1% 0%%1% 0%6%

0-2,499 2,500- 5,000- 10,000- 15,000- 25,000- 50,000- 75,000- 200,000+ 4,999 9,999 14,999 24,999 49,999 74,999 199,999

Rural 33%

Urban 26%

Suburban 41%

Midwest 23%

West 24%

Northeast 26%


South 12%

Not Sure 6%No 33%



Not Important 4%

Not a priority 12%







Not sure 13%





15%


Biomass thermal 2%

None 39%

No 32%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 48%


No 6%

Not sure 13%

Yes 80%

No 55%

Yes 13%

Not sure 32%



No 55%

Yes 26%

Not sure 18%



No 71%

Not sure 21%

Yes 8%

Yes 52%

No 29%

Not sure 18%

Yes 54%

No 24%

Not sure 23%



Business Manager 4%

CIO / CTO 5%






No 20%

Not Sure 20%

Yes 61%

Slide 6

Slide 8


Maintenance 31%

Transportation 29%

Staffing levels 25%




Other 13%

Class size 9%

School calendar 6%


Slide 9

Slide 10a Slide 10b

Slide 11 Slide 12

Slide 13a Slide 13b

Slide 15

Slide 16





with t eh the ers:



Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

0 10 20 30 40 50

Delayed project 24%



Not sure 43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


40

50

60 52%52%

15%15%

25-49% decreased

15%15%%2%2%

Not sure d


2%2%% 5%5%5%5%

25%25%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


Printed on recycled paper containing 15% post-consumer waste.

SL-53-2226April 2010© 2010 Honeywell International Inc.

Find Out MoreTo learn more about Honeywell Building Solutions, contact your local Honeywell representative, visit www.honeywell.com/buildingsolutions or call 1-800-345-6770, ext. 612.

Honeywell Building Solutions

Honeywell

1985 Douglas Drive North

Golden Valley, MN 55422-3992

1-800-345-6770, ext. 612

www.honeywell.com

Honeywell is proud to support the Clinton Climate Initiative, USGBC, ACUPCC and other groups that encourage the responsible use of

our natural resources.

Nearly 50 percent of Honeywell’s product portfolio is linked to energy effi ciency, and

our work helps eliminate millions of pounds of carbon dioxide emissions each year.

Honeywell has been recognized with multiple awards including the “Green Innovation of the

Year” award from Frost & Sullivan.

HoneyWell. efficient And sustAinABle fRom tHe stARt.Increasing efficiency and leveraging renewable resources is the right thing to do ecologically. However, it’s important that environmental stewardship and conservation make good business sense too. And that’s our focus at Honeywell.

Honeywell has been committed to sustainability and energy conservation as real-world goals long before “green” issues became so popular. It is this perspective that makes Honeywell uniquely qualified to help lead forward-thinking companies, organizations and homeowners around the world to energy-efficient and environmentally responsible solutions.

otHeR HoneyWell sustAinABle seRVices cAn Help you:

Fund improvements within • existing budgets

Improve comfort while reducing • energy use

Dramatically reduce energy costs•

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions • and environmental impact

Meet environmental regulations•

Honeywell’s comprehensive sustainability services offering provides customers with resources and tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while making smart fi nancial decisions. Honeywell also provides sustainability training, awareness and education, and on-site staffi ng to help schools meet their environmental commitments and goals.

school energy and environment survey research findings … · share of respondents by connection 0...

Documents