The Greening of L.A. Community Colleges

When Los Angeles voters overwhelmingly approved Propositions A and AA-bond measures that provide a combined $2.1 billion to finance repairs, rehabilitation, and new construction for the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) – they also funded an extensive sustainable development program.

"In 2002, California experienced traumatic spikes in our energy rates," explains LACCD Chancellor Mark Drummond. "The rate increases caused LACCD costs to rise dramatically-to the tune of millions of dollars. Yet we still had blackouts. In fact, we had blackouts on nights when there were 20,000 students in our classrooms. It became very clear that we needed to carefully examine the whole question of energy efficiency and pollution control, and develop a positive, long-term strategic solution."

Using LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) guidelines, LACCD will construct at least 43 environmentally-friendly facilities across its nine campuses. The board has also committed itself to a 15 percent to 25 percent renewable energy standard, including a promise to generate at least 10 percent of all energy on-site.

"There are two fundamental reasons why we chose to pursue a green path," says Drummond. "First, we live in an area beset by congestion and pollution, and there is a great deal of pressure from the environmental side to avoid making things worse. The second reason was cost."

LACCD tasked DMJM Management, in joint venture with Jenkins/ Gales & Martinez, to serve as program managers and handle the master planning, design, and construction of the program. "In 2000, there were only 12 LEED-certified buildings in all of the United States," reports Bharat Patel, sustainability specialist and engineering manager for DMJM Management.

"Today, many organizations, including educational institutions, may boast of having one ‘LEED-platinum’ building," Patel says. "But the LACCD board of trustees didn’t want to have one showpiece building and ignore the larger picture. Now, LACCD will serve as a training ground for sustainable development. I give the board of trustees a great deal of credit for supporting this so staunchly."

Having already commenced master planning and design work for each campus, LACCD expects to spend $525 million in the first three years of the program. LACCD’s program will examine every aspect of a building-its function, structure, placement, systems, materials, etc.-both individually and collectively. But the purpose is not just environmental advantage.

At a recently completed green-designed educational facility, three examples presented unequivocal evidence that building green is a good value. Over a 20-year span, a green-designed roof will provide approximately $4 of energy savings per square foot. For lighting, motion-sensor switches costing anywhere from $30 to $150 provide 25 percent to 75 percent energy savings; essentially, they will pay for themselves in less than three years.

Finally, using variable-frequency-drive (VFD) motors in the HVAC system offers an average saving of 30 percent, while only costing 10 percent more than equivalent traditional motors. VFD motors pay for themselves within four years. With numbers like these, the economic argument for building green seems as compelling as the environmental reasons.

"There are a great number of rebates available for sustainable design, especially in California," says Patel. "We’ve reduced the costs of photovoltaic systems (solar panels) considerably-through utility rebates, for example." Rebate programs administered by the utility companies lowered LACCD’s costs for an installed solar system from $8 per watt of energy production capability to $2 per watt.

Not only will such systems pay for themselves over time, with incentives like these, many of the systems pay for themselves very quickly. And finding ways to maximize value and minimize lifecycle costs is as fundamental to sustainable design as it is to being environmentally friendly."

"When we looked at the dollars-and-cents reality, we found out that we were talking about a cost increase of only 5 percent to 10 percent," says Drummond. "When you compare those additional costs-including design and construction-to the cost of not doing it, it would have been a very poor decision not to move ahead with the program." Even conservative estimates show that the program will pay for itself in less than 10 years. If LACCD has more energy difficulties-and that seems certain-it could pay for itself even faster.

Arthur Schurr is a New York-based writer whose articles on infrastructure have appeared in numerous national magazines.