Certified Green Schools:

Perspective

Savings & Benefits Fail To

Materialize In North Carolina

Todd Myers
Environmental Director
Washington Policy Center

Certified Green Schools

Summary and Highlights

orth Carolina taxpayers are the winners when public schools operate efficiently and when every
public dollar is put to its best use and evaluated carefully. Officials and administrators who pursue
these goals should be applauded for their commitment. But good intentions do not ensure beneficial
outcomes.
Such is the story with green school buildings in North Carolina. This report analyzes green facilities
in four school districts: Wake, Durham, and Buncombe counties, along with the Iredell-Statesville public
schools. Research focused on schools receiving certification from the U.S. Green Building Councils
Leadership in Energy and Environment Design, or LEED, system.
This reports author concludes green school buildings in North Carolina fall far short of their promises
to protect the environment through lower energy costs and increased efficiency.
None of the green schools are best-performing in energy use when compared to similar schools in
the same district
In every school district, at least one of the green schools performs below average compared to
similar schools in the same district
In many cases green schools require changes that end up increasing cost and reducing energy
efficiency
Buncombe County: Instead of using 30 percent less energy, the countys two green schools used 7
percent more energy than nongreen schools
Iredell-Statesville: Third Creek Elementary is billed as the first LEED Gold- certified school building
in the nation but spends about $7,775 more per year on energy than the districts average elementary
school
Durham County: Among 28 comparable schools, the two green schools rank No. 10 and No. 15 in
energy efficiency, with both schools performing significantly worse than a much older district school
that spends about 34 percent to 37 percent less on energy
Wake County: The districts one green elementary school uses more natural gas per square foot than
comparable elementary schools in the district
Policymakers seeking efficiencies in school construction should analyze the lackluster results of their
sister districts and invest public dollars only in methods and technology that produce savings and
benefits

The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the staff or board of the John Locke Foundation.
For more information, call 919-828-3876 or visit www.JohnLocke.org
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n

johnlocke.org

washington policy enter | washingtonpolicy.org

Certified Green Schools

Introduction

The situation is similar in North Carolina, where a

number of schools intended to save energy actually use
more energy per square foot than other schools.4

Charles T. Koontz and Joe. P. Eblen Intermediate

Schools in the Buncombe County School District were
Of course not every green school performs poorly.
designed as models of energy efficiency.
Some green schools are more efficient than their
Built in 2011 and 2012, these schools received
counterparts in the same district. Even when that is
certification from the U.S. Green Building Councils
the case, however, green schools are usually more
(USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environment
expensive to build and operate than traditionally built
Design (LEED) system. Both are LEED Silver certified
schools, raising the question of whether they save
and were designed to use 30-35 percent less energy
money for the local school district.
than a typical school.1
In many cases green schools require changes that end
Now that they are a few years old, do they meet that
up increasing cost and reducing energy efficiency. One
standard? The answer is no.
facility director in North Carolina indicated that meeting
Utility data from the 2014-15 school year show that, LEED standards for one school would have required
when compared to other middle schools in Buncombe including a larger air conditioning unit to increase air
County, the two schools rank below average for energy circulation in the school. That larger unit would not only
efficiency, using more energy per square foot than most have cost more; it would have used more energy. Such
of the other schools. Both schools spent 77 cents per counterintuitive requirements are one reason LEED
square foot for energy through May of 2015, compared green schools do not live up to their promises.
to the average of 72 cents per square foot for the other
eight middle schools in the district. Instead of using
30 percent less energy, these green schools used seven
Counterintuitive requirements are
percent more energy than non-green schools.
These schools are not unique. Across North Carolina
and the United States, so-called green buildings often
use more energy than their non-green counterparts in
the same school districts. For example:
In Spokane, Wash., none of the new green elementary
schools are as energy efficient as the traditionally
built Browne Elementary School. One of the
allegedly green schools uses 30 percent more energy
than Browne.
In Santa Fe, NM, the facilities director reports the
district will not build another green-certified building
anytime soon after the first such building, Amy Biehl
Community School, consistently incurred some of
the highest energy costs in the district.2
USA Today found in 2012 that green schools perform
poorly in Houston as well. The newspaper reported,
Thompson Elementary ranked 205th out of 239
Houston schools in a report last year for the district that
showed each schools energy cost per student. [Green
school] Walnut Bend Elementary ranked 155th.3

one reason LEED green schools do

not live up to their promises.

In this report we examine green schools in four North

Carolina school districts Buncombe County, IredellStatesville, Durham, and Wake County to compare
the energy performance of those schools to others in
the same district. Schools provide a good opportunity
to assess green building standards in general because
schools are about the same size; have the same building
elements; are located in the same climate; and there are
a number of similar buildings nearby for comparison.5
Do Green Schools Live up to Their Promises?
Advocates claim that green schools produce many
environmental benefits. The USGBC defines a green
school as a school building or facility that creates
a healthy environment that is conducive to learning
while saving energy, resources and money.6 Many
of these points involve subjective judgments that are
difficult to measure. Efforts to link the supposed health
benefits from green buildings and the learning progress
PERSPECTIVE

Certified Green Schools

of students are vague and subject to many other

influences.7
Energy use and energy costs, however, are useful
and objective metrics that can be easily measured
and compared. Since a reduction in energy use is
at the center of what it means for a building to be
green, it is the most useful way to compare the actual
environmental results of these schools to traditionally
built schools. Additionally, we try to compare schools
built recently. The question is not whether new green
schools are superior to old, traditionally built schools.
The important question is whether spending more for
a new, green school will yield cost and energy savings
compared to a new, traditionally built school. Stated
another way: Does the energy use of green buildings
justify their significantly higher construction and
operating cost?
Using this metric, the green schools in North Carolina
that we studied fare poorly. Every school district that

To meet the LEED standard, building designers must

achieve points in a number of categories. The LEED
checklist for schools includes categories for:8
Sustainable Sites
Water Efficiency
Energy and Atmosphere
Materials and Resources
Indoor Environmental Quality
Innovation and Design Process
Regional Priority Credits
Points are awarded in each category and if a school
design receives 40 out of a possible 110 points, it is
certified as green. At 50 points a building achieves
LEED Silver status; at 60, LEED Gold; and at 80 or
above, Platinum, the highest rating. Our study covers
a variety of certification levels, including some at the

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

lowest end of the scale, like Silver-rated W.G. Pearson
uses more energy per square foot than a traditionally
Elementary School in Durham, as well as some meeting
built school located in the same district.
the LEED Gold standard, like Third Creek Elementary
At a time when resources for education and for in the Iredell-Statesville School District.
protecting the environment are scarce, state legislators
Some rating categories are specifically designed to save
and policymakers should look closely at green schools
energy, such as points for energy savings in a computer
and question whether policies that promote or require
simulation of the building. Others are unrelated to
those costly standards actually yield the promised
energy, like the four points awarded for Public
benefits.
Transportation Access.
What are Green Buildings?
Advocates of LEED argue this system of flexibility
Before examining the performance of green schools in allows schools to meet the standard at a relatively low
North Carolina, it is important to know what the term cost. As districts move up the ladder of certification
means. Although definitions vary, the most common toward Platinum, the flexibility is reduced and the cost
standard for green schools is the Leadership in Energy can increase significantly.
and Environmental Design (LEED) system created and
As we shall see, even at the low end of the green
promoted by the USGBC.
building spectrum, the additional design, construction
j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n

johnlocke.org

washington policy enter | washingtonpolicy.org

Certified Green Schools

and operating costs more than outweigh the energy

savings achieved by the buildings.
Data Transparency
One thing is worth noting. We have examined energy
efficiency for schools in several states and we have
never had as much difficulty receiving public data as we
did in North Carolina. At one end of the transparency
spectrum were officials at Buncombe County Schools,
who provided the data within one week of our request
one of the best responses we have seen.
At the other end of the spectrum, however, were
officials at Wake County and Iredell-Statesville.
Requests were made at the end of the 2014-15 school
year, both so we could get a complete school year, and
so other school-related demands would be reduced.
Despite that courtesy, Wake County officials provided
the data three months later and the electricity data
appeared incomplete. Meanwhile, Iredell-Statesville
officials provided printed copies of the electricity,
natural gas and sewer bills in a large cardboard box.

Having worked at a state agency that had to respond to

many public disclosure requests, we certainly understand
the time and effort it takes to compile requested
information. We also understand that school districts
are not staffed to respond to such requests on a regular
basis. The wide gap in response time between districts
within the state, however, indicates the problem with
compliance had less to do with staffing or time than
with the simple failure of school officials to prioritize
transparency.
It was the most difficult time we have had in receiving
data that should be readily available from public
institutions.
Buncombe County School District
Buncombe County school district has two green
schools. 9 Both are Intermediate schools that serve
children in grades 5 and 6. In total the district has
10 middle and intermediate schools. To ensure our
comparisons are accurate, we compared the green
intermediate schools to the performance of other

Does the energy use of green buildings justify their significantly

higher construction and operating cost?

PERSPECTIVE

Certified Green Schools

schools of similar size and type in the same district. comfortable. Clyde A. Erwin Middle School built
Here are our findings.
seven years earlier than Eblen in 2004 uses nine
percent less energy per square foot.
Joe P. Eblen Intermediate School
During the 2014-15 school year, green-designed Eblen
Intermediate School used 6.2 kilowatt hours (kWh) per
square foot and 13.7 cubic feet of natural gas per square
foot. The school uses little natural gas, ranking second
in the district for natural gas use per square foot, but is
second-to-last in electricity use, ranking ninth out of ten
middle/intermediate schools.
On a cost basis, Eblen spends 77 cents per square foot for
energy, ranking it 6th out of the ten schools in the district.
As noted above, Eblen spends seven percent more than
the non-green middle schools in the district and 20
percent more than the most efficient middle school in the
district, Valley Springs Middle School, built in 1989.
One reason older schools use less energy is that
they have fewer power draws and can have poor
air conditioning systems, making the buildings less

Far from using 30 percent less energy as the designers

claimed Eblen uses more energy than most other
equivalent schools. If Eblen were simply as efficient as
the average of the other schools, energy costs would be
$5,746 lower per year.

Looking at the best scenario, the difference between

Eblen and the worst-performing school, North Windy
Ridge, is also very small. Eblen only uses about five
percent less energy than North Windy Ridge. Bringing
North Windy Ridge up to the standards of Eblen would
have saved the district only about $3,800 a year, or
$76,000 over the typical 20-year lifespan of a school
building. For a building that cost about $14 million,
that represents a savings of one-half of one percent.
Typically green schools cost at least two percent more
to build, meaning the undiscounted loss would be
$204,000 in the best circumstances.10

Energy Cost Per Square Foot

Buncombe County Middle and Intermediate Schools
$0.80
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20

j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n

johnlocke.org

washington policy enter | washingtonpolicy.org

Valley Springs
Middle

North Windy
Ridge

Koontz
Intermediate

Natural Gas/Sq Ft

North Buncombe
Middle

Electricity/Sq Ft

Enka
Middle

Eblen
Intermediate

Cane Creek
Middle

CD Owen
Middle

$-

CA Erwin
Middle

$0.10
AC Reynolds
Middle

Certified Green Schools

However, since Eblen actually performs worse than the the promised energy savings. Ultimately the district
average building, the additional cost to meet the LEED spent more money to construct buildings that are less
standards will likely never be recovered.
efficient.
Charles T. Koontz Intermediate School
Built at the same time, using the same green approach,
the energy-use numbers for Koontz are almost identical
to those of Eblen Intermediate School.

Green school advocates offer a number of explanations

for why buildings fail to deliver promised energy
savings. We will discuss these reasons in detail below,
but one is worth mentioning here. New buildings
green and traditional often have more amenities,
including air conditioning and more electrical outlets to
accommodate computers and other equipment. Green
school advocates, then, claim that new schools are more
comfortable and more accommodating than traditional
schools. For this reason, they might argue, comparing
a school built many years ago to one built today is
invalid.

During the 2014-15 school year, Koontz Intermediate

School used 5.8 kilowatt hours (kWh) per square foot
and 14.8 cubic feet of natural gas per square foot. The
school uses little natural gas, ranking third in the district
for natural gas use per square foot, but ranks seventh
out of ten middle and intermediate schools in electricity
use. On a cost basis, Koontz performs slightly worse
than Eblen, spending about 77 cents per square foot
for energy use, making it the seventh-best school in the There are a couple of problems with these justifications.
district for energy efficiency.
First, five of the other eight schools use less energy, so
As in the case of Eblen, the additional cost to meet any justification may account for some, but not all, of
the LEED green building standards did not yield the discrepancy.

Energy Cost Per Square Foot

Buncombe County Middle and Intermediate Schools
$0.90
$0.80
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20

Valley Springs
Middle

North Windy
Ridge

North Buncombe
Middle

Koontz
Intermediate

Enka
Middle

Eblen
Intermediate

Cane Creek
Middle

CD Owen
Middle

CA Erwin
Middle

$-

AC Reynolds
Middle

$0.10

PERSPECTIVE

Certified Green Schools

Second, labeling the schools as green implies they are

more energy efficient and have a smaller environmental
impact than other schools. Arguments that attempt to
explain away additional impact on the environment by
citing added amenities demonstrate that the adjective
green is less important than other design goals, like
building comfort. It is hard to continue to call these
green buildings when the designer has sacrificed
reducing environmental impact in favor of other,
energy-using priorities.
Compared to the promised savings, neither of the
green intermediate schools in the district perform as
promised. Given these poor results, it is likely that
spending additional school funds to meet the green
standards would not be a beneficial public expense.
Iredell-Statesville School District
There is only one LEED-certified elementary school in
the Iredell-Statesville school district, but it holds the
distinction of being the first elementary school in the
nation to be certified as a LEED Gold building.11 Built
in 2002, it is older than many green schools around the
country and provides a good opportunity to see whether
green certification stands the test of time, especially
since this school was built to such a high standard.

We compared Third Creek to other elementary schools

in the district for the period of July 2014 to April 2015
because some schools did not provide data for May
2015. Additionally, we eliminated schools for which
data were unavailable or incomplete. Ultimately, we
compared 14 of the 17 schools and the data show a
wide range of energy performance. The chart shows the
electricity and natural gas use per square foot for each
of the 17 schools we examined.
The schools range in size from 51,698 square feet to
108,960 square feet. Third Creek Elementary School is
toward the upper end at 94,000 square feet. There does
not, however, appear to be a relationship between the
size of the school and per-foot energy use.
Third Creek Elementary
Of the 14 elementary schools, Third Creek Elementary
ranks 11th in total energy cost per square foot, spending
80 cents per square foot over the course of the year.
It spends about 12 percent more for energy than the
average elementary school in the district, and about 60
percent more per year than the best-performing school,
Shepherd Elementary.
Overall, Third Creek Elementary spends about $7,775
more per year on energy than it would if it were as

Energy Cost Per Square Foot

Iredell-Statesville Elementary Schools
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20

j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n

johnlocke.org

washington policy enter | washingtonpolicy.org

Union Grove

Troutman

Third Creek

Shepherd

Sharon

Therms per Sq Ft

Woodland Heights

Electricity Per Sq Ft

Scotts

Lake Norman

Harmony

East Iredell

Cool Spring

Cloverleaf

Central

$Celeste Henkel

Certified Green Schools

efficient as the average elementary school in the district. Durham School District
Over the 20-year lifespan of the school, that would There are several LEED-certified schools in the
mean an additional $155,500 in energy costs.
Durham school district, including two buildings that
Additionally, the school cost $8,749,600 to build meet the LEED Gold certification level. Two of the
in 2002. 12 Applying the conservative two percent green schools are elementary schools, and with 30
additional cost for green buildings especially since elementary schools overall, they provide an excellent
it met a high standard added about $171,560 to the opportunity to compare the energy-saving performance
total cost. If the school saved energy early in its life, of the LEED certified schools to traditionally built
it certainly is not doing so now, meaning the district schools.
probably did not recover the additional cost to meet the The two green schools are W.G. Pearson Elementary
LEED Gold standard. Between additional construction School, which received the lowest level of LEED
costs and energy costs, Third Creek Elementary will certification, Silver, and Sandy Ridge Elementary
cost the district an estimated $327,000 more in energy School, which is certified at the LEED Gold level the
use.
second highest level available.
The district does not have another LEED-certified
building, so administrators may have recognized that the
promised green benefits do not match the additional
costs when building and remodeling schools in recent
years. Given its age, the high level of certification it
received and its performance, Third Creek Elementary is
a warning to other school districts about the gap between
the promise and reality of building green schools.

Although there are 30 schools in the district, we have

chosen 28 for comparison, all of which purchase
electricity from Duke Energy and natural gas from
PSNC Energy. The other two schools Little River
and Mangum purchase their electricity from other
sources. As a result, their rates and other price variables
may be different. If there were more diversity of

Energy Cost Per Square Foot

Durham Elementary Schools
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00

$-

Bethesda
Burton
Club Blvd.
Creekside
Easley
Eastway
Eno Valley
Fayetteville St.
Forest View
Glenn
Harris
Hillanddale
Holt
Hope Valley
Lakewood
Merrick-Moore
Morehead
Oak Grove
Parkwood
Pearson
Pearsontown
Powe
Sandy Ridge
Smith
Southwest
Spaulding
Spring Valley
Watts

$0.50

kWh/Sq Ft

Therms per Sq Ft

PERSPECTIVE

10 Certified Green Schools

utility suppliers among the schools, we would include

them, but since these two schools are outliers, the best
approach to obtaining an accurate apples-to-apples
comparison is to choose the 95 percent of elementary
schools that use the same utility supplier.
Additionally, most of the schools have similar ratios of
electricity and natural gas use. Only one school, Glenn
Elementary, uses only electricity. Finally, the schools
are, for the most part, similar in size.
Sandy Ridge Elementary School
The data from the most recent school year, 201415, shows Sandy Ridge Elementary, which is LEED
Gold certified, actually ranks 15th out of 28 schools,
or slightly below average. It uses about 37 percent

Ultimately Durham Public Schools green

elementary schools do not live up to their
alleged distinction.
more energy than the best-performing school, Holt
Elementary, which was last remodeled in 1992.
Comparing it to more recently-built schools, Sandy
Ridge uses about 3.5 percent more than Creekside
School, built in 2004 and remodeled in 2010.
The construction cost for Sandy Ridge School, including
for the landscaping and parking lot, is reported at
$15,357,880. 13 Using the two percent cost increase
average, meeting LEED standards would add about
$301,133. This is probably low, because two percent is
the average for LEED certified buildings and estimates
show that meeting LEED Gold is much more expensive
to achieve.
Additionally, if Sandy Ridge were as energy efficient
as Creekside, it would save the district an additional
$4,282 per year. Over the 20-year lifespan of the
building, it will spend an estimated $85,650 more than
if it were as efficient as Creekside.
Ultimately Durham Public Schools will spend nearly
$400,000 more for a building that is supposed to be
more energy efficient, but actually performs worse than
the average school.

j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n

johnlocke.org

washington policy enter | washingtonpolicy.org

W.G. Pearson Elementary School

Pearson Elementary School performs better than Sandy
Ridge School in energy use, despite actually achieving
a lower level of LEED certification. Out of the 28
elementary schools we examine here, Pearson ranks
tenth overall, just behind Creekside School, which ranks
ninth.
Both schools perform significantly worse than Holt
Elementary which was last remodeled in 1992 and
spends about 34 percent less on energy than Pearson
and 37 percent less than Sandy Ridge. Southwest
School is next-best, and was constructed in 1991. The
fact that the two most efficient schools were built within
a year of each other indicates the builders at the time
were focused on efficiency.
It is also likely they use less energy because they were
designed with fewer electricity draws than newer
schools. This is likely in the case of Pearson Elementary.
Pearson ranks fifth among the 28 elementary schools
we looked at for natural gas use, but sixteenth in use
of electricity per square foot. It seems likely that the
increased electricity use is due to the inclusion of more
electrical equipment or more outlets for such equipment.
Interestingly, results for Sandy Ridge show the opposite.
It ranks 11th overall in electricity use per square foot,
but 21st in natural gas use. There is no obvious reason
other than the fact that the LEED Gold certification
simply is not delivering on its promises that the
school would perform so poorly.
Ultimately Durham Public Schools green elementary
schools do not live up to their alleged distinction.
Compared to other elementary schools in the district,
their level of energy efficiency is about average. Indeed
they perform slightly worse than Creekside Elementary,
which was built and remodeled in recent years but did
not seek or receive LEED green certification.
In such circumstances it is our experience that some
school districts justify the additional cost of building
green by pointing to other amenities. That may or may
not be true, but at the center of green claims about
LEED buildings is that they are more environmentally
friendly by saving energy, that the higher cost is worth
it because they are helping to save the planet. That

Certified Green Schools 11

is not the case with Durhams two green elementary times as much as others. One reason for these anomalies
schools.
could be that meters are shared by schools or different
buildings and are, therefore, allocated to other schools.
Wake County School District
The largest school district we examined, the Wake
County Public School System, has one LEED-certified
green school, Alston Ridge Elementary School,
out of nearly 100 elementary schools in the district.
Alston Ridge was certified LEED in 2013. It received
the lowest level of certification, Silver, and it received
very few of its points in the Energy and Atmosphere
category.14 For this reason we would not expect to see
the building perform significantly better in energy use
than other schools, since certification was achieved
by scoring points in other categories like Indoor
Environmental Quality and Water Efficiency.

To address this, we focused only on natural gas data.

The data fall within a general range and with the large
number of schools, they help minimize the impact
of outliers. About 90 percent of the schools have
natural gas bills that fall between five and 15 cents per
square foot. This provides a fairly consistent basis for
comparison.

Although there are many other elementary schools in

the district, comparing the performance of Alston Ridge
to other schools is difficult due to inconsistent data. For
example, half of the schools provided no data related
to electricity costs. Additionally, while virtually all
schools reported natural gas data, the cost per square
foot varies significantly, with some schools paying six

Alston Ridge Elementary School

Additionally, we also focused on the other new

elementary schools built as part of the districts 2006
Community Involvement Program to build and refurbish
district schools. There are eight new elementary schools
built during this project for which we have data.
The only LEED-certified school in the district, Alston
Ridge opened in 2010 and was certified in 2013.15
At nearly 105,000 square feet, it is about 15 percent
larger than average, but within the typical range for
elementary schools.

2006 Community Involvement Program

New Wake County Elementary Schools Natural Gas Per Square Foot

$0.25
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$Alston
Ridge

Herbert
Akins
Road

Lake
Myra

Laurel
Park

Mills
Park

River
Bend

Sycamore
Creek

Walnut
Creek

PERSPECTIVE

12 Certified Green Schools

For the most recent school year, Alston Ridge spent 11

cents per square foot for natural gas, exactly the average
amount for all the elementary schools in the district.
Additionally, compared to new elementary schools built
as part of the districts 2006 Communty Involvement
Program (CIP 2006) building program, it uses slightly
more natural gas per square foot.16 Herbert Akins Road
Elementary is an outlier at 22 cents per square foot,
but all other elementary schools built as part of the
CIP 2006 program have costs ranging from 11 cents
per square foot down to nine cents per square foot, for
Walnut Creek Elementary School. Alston Ridge spends
about $1,300 more per year than the average of the
other new elementary schools built under the CIP 2006
program.
As we mentioned, electricity data are inconsistent for
these schools. For example, although Alston Ridge
reported more than $59,000 spent on electricity and
lighting in 2014-15, none of the other schools reported
more than $15,000 in those areas. Focusing only on
natural gas provides a level playing field for comparison
of all these new schools.
Additionally the building cost $24,469,718 for
construction, putting the LEED certification cost
estimate at about $479,800.17 The district achieved
the lowest level of LEED certification and appears to
have chosen low-cost methods to meet the standard. As
a result, the additional cost may be closer to the two
percent of budget or even lower. Whatever the level, the
school is using more natural gas per square foot than
comparable elementary schools in the district.
As we noted above, it is not surprising that we do
not see significant or indeed any energy savings
from Alston Ridge, because of the focus on earning
LEED points outside the energy efficiency area. That
conclusion is borne out by the data.
North Carolina Green Schools The Results
Of the four North Carolina school districts examined by
this study, none have green schools that help protect
the environment as their promoters had promised.
Further, none of the schools will come close to energy
savings that recover their higher initial construction
costs, and most schools are less efficient than their nongreen counterparts located in the same districts.

j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n

johnlocke.org

washington policy enter | washingtonpolicy.org

Results are fairly consistent across the districts. None

of the green schools are best-performing in energy use,
and in every school district at least one of the green
schools performs below average, compared to similar
schools in the same district. Ironically the two LEED
Gold schools, LEEDs second-highest ranking, in this
study perform worse than the average school in their
districts. Given the difficulty of meeting that green
standard, we would expect to see above average levels
of energy efficiency, since they cost so much more to
build.
The consistent failure of green buildings to produce
promised energy savings is not unusual, as we noted
above. The performance of North Carolinas green
schools, however, is a further indication that legislators
and school officials should think twice before requiring
schools to spend additional taxpayer and school dollars
to earn LEED certification. The experience of schools
across the country demonstrates that district facilities
directors are often adept at finding cost-effective ways to
reduce energy use, based on the particular buildings they
manage. Requiring them to meet a formulaic, one-sizefits-all approach, however, often leads them in the wrong
direction, increasing costs without returning savings.
Our discussions with facilities directors in North
Carolina, and the fact that some districts have not
sought LEED certification for new schools, indicates
they have been unsatisfied with the results of green
schools.
The failure of green buildings to produce energy
savings as promised is also an environmental failure.
Many advocates who promote LEED or similar rating
systems point to the supposed carbon dioxide emission
reductions achieved by green schools. The failure to
save energy, or even slow the increase in energy use,
wastes resources on efforts that do nothing for climate
change or the environment. Instead misguided green
building rules divert scarce funding from efforts that
could have a positive environmental impact, or which
could be used to fulfill other public needs.
Ultimately for taxpayers, students and the
environment the real-world data shows that North
Carolinas green schools fall well short of their energysaving promises.

Certified Green Schools 13

Endnotes
1. Architectural Design Studio, Koontz and Eblen Intermediate
Schools, ads-architects.com/portfolio/schools/koontz-eblen.
html (Accessed June 29, 2015)
2. Santa Fe School District, Santa Fe Pubic Schools Energy
Benchmarking Report, October 8, 2012, sfps.info/
DocumentCenter/View/7049 (Accessed August 8, 2013)
3. Frank, Thomas, Green schools: long on promise, short on
delivery, USA Today, December 11, 2012
usatoday.com/
story/news/nation/2012/12/10/green-schools-constructionleed/1753823/ (Accessed August 8, 2013)
4. According to the NC Department of Public Instructions
School Planning Division, In 1993, the North Carolina
General Assembly passed a bill requiring all Local Education
Authorities to establish an energy budget as a minimum
efficiency requirement or maximum energy usage for all
schools built in their jurisdiction. In addition, the 2009 North
Carolina State Building Code has set forth ASHRAE 90.1 as the
standard for building energy usage. It is the recommendation
of School Planning that each school facility be designed to
operate with at least 30% less energy than the base building
described in the 90.1-2004 standard. See North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction, Energy Guidelines For
K-12 Public Schools, March 2009, schoolclearinghouse.org/,
p. 2 (Accessed November 19, 2015)
5. The North Carolina Department of Public Instructions School
Planning Division provides multiple publications outlining
common-sense strategies for building energy efficient public
schools without the need to undertake LEED certification
process. Nevertheless, school districts are not required to
follow NC DPI guidelines for the construction or renovation
of school buildings. For example, see North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction, Energy Guidelines For
K-12 Public Schools, March 2009, schoolclearinghouse.org/
(Accessed November 19, 2015)
6. See, for example: Colorado Chapter USGBC, Colorado
USGBC, usgbccolorado.org/green-buildings/GreenSchools
Colorado.html (Accessed August 8, 2013)
7. For example, test scores vary widely from school to school and
measuring the impact of the school building as opposed to
socioeconomic or other factors is virtually impossible.
8. U.S. Green Building Council, Schools v2009 Checklist,
usgbc.org/resources/schools-v2009-checklist-xls (Accessed
August 31, 2013)
9. Buncombe County Schools, http://www.buncombe.k12.nc.us
10. Joint Legislative Audit Review Committee, High Performance
Public Buildings: Impact on Energy Use is Mixed, May 18,
2011,
leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAndStudyReports/2011/
Documents/HighPerfPublicBuildingsPreliminary.pdf
(Accessed 8/25/2013)
11. North Carolina Green Building, Third Creek Elementary
School,
http://www.ncgreenbuilding.org/site/ncg/public/
show_project.cfm?project_id=67 (Accessed October 13, 2015)
12. US Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable

13.
14.
15.
16.

17.

Energy, Third Creek Elementary, May 6, 2003, http://eere.

buildinggreen.com/finance.cfm?ProjectID=119
(Accessed
October 13, 2015)
Bordeaux Construction Company, Sandy Ridge Elementary
School, bordeauxconstruction.com/portfolio-items/sandyridge-elementary-school/ (Accessed July 15, 2015)
U.S. Green Building Council, Alston Ridge Elementary
School,
May
2013,
usgbc.org/projects/alston-ridgeelementary-school (Accessed October 13, 2015)
Wake County Public School System, Sustainability, wcpss.
net/Page/254 (Accessed October 13, 2015)
Wake County Public School System, Wake County Public
School System Seven-year Plan, wakegov.com/budget/cip/
fy04/Documents/CIP%20Tab%203_Education%20FY08%20
Adopted.pdf (Accessed October 13, 2015)
Wake County Public School System, 2013 Building Program:
Map of Projects Alston Ridge Elementary, September 31,
2015, wcpss.net/Page/260 (Accessed October 13, 2015)

PERSPECTIVE

14 Certified Green Schools

About the Author

Todd Myers
Washington Policy Center
With more than a decade in environmental politics and public
relations, Todd Myers experience includes work on a range
of environmental issues, including spotted owl habitat, oldgrowth forests and salmon population. Currently, he serves as
a member of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council and
was a member of the executive team at the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources.
Todd is the Environmental Director at the Washington Policy
Center, a market-oriented think tank in Seattle.
Myers is a Wall Street Journal Expert Panelist for Energy and the Environment. Several Washington state
newspapers, the BBC, USA Today, Fox News, CNN and the Wall Street Journal have all featured his work.

The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the staff or board of the John Locke Foundation.
For more information, call 919-828-3876 or visit www.JohnLocke.org

j o h n l o c k e f o u n d at i o n

johnlocke.org

washington policy enter | washingtonpolicy.org

Certified Green Schools 15

PERSPECTIVE