Hilton Central School District Go Green Committee

1. Hilton Central School DistrictGo Green Committee Hilton Central School DistrictGo Green Committee November 8, 2011

2. Go Green Committee Members • Nicole Allen-Hickey • Al Alton • Michelle Ames • Steve Ayers, Facilitator • Greg Booth • Gary Buchholz • Jodi Burns • Lisa Camillaci • Michelle Civiletti • HerveDauvergne • Don Faso • Adam Geist • Mike Lage • Brandon McAuliff • Adam Norton • Tom Oaks • Bob Pelkey • Jeri Pickett • Dave Preston • Bob Prorok • Steve Randall • Larry Schuth • Mike Short • Jim Smith • Larry Speer • Karen Spillman • Karen Velyk • Greg Wahl • Sarah Warmbrodt • Sarah Welch • David Woodward

3. Go Green Goal The Hilton Central School District is committed to reducing commercial energy consumption and associated overall emissions by 50% by the 2015-2016 school year. This will be accomplished through the use of alternative energy sources and conservation, and the results will be independently verified. The benefit to our community will be a cleaner environment and a reduction in the operational costs of the school district, while providing a valuable learning experience for our students.

4. Baseline Data

5. Alternative Energy Options Reviewed • Wind Turbines • Solar Energy • Geothermal Heating/Cooling • Hydrogen Fuel Cell

6. Wind Turbines – Description • 1 or more 900kw towers (approximately 330+ feet high) • Each tower would be expected to generate 2mw of electricity annually • Electricity generated would be metered up to the utility grid and credited against our accounts

7. Wind Turbines – Campus Applications • Northwood and Village campuses have best locations for distances from school and residential areas • Preliminary feasibility study was positive – a full feasibility study at a cost of $65,000 to cover both potential campus locations is recommended

8. Wind Turbines – Pros and Cons • Pros • Clean, renewable energy • Insulates District from price fluctuations • Long useful life of investment • Significant contribution towards meeting goals of reduced commercial energy usage and carbon footprint reduction • Able to extend energy produced to all campuses • Cons • Significant upfront cost (about $2.5 million) to install turbine • Size may generate adverse public reaction • Could have adverse impact on Hilton Municipal Electric program • SED has not determined if wind turbines will be eligible for building aid

9. Solar Energy – Description • Solar arrays that are ballasted to the roof • Produce electricity, as well as enable hydronic heating for hot water supplies • Does not require cloud free skies to work, but do produce greater output under sunny skies

10. Solar Energy – Campus Applications • Rooftop array is best suited for installation concurrently with a new roof. • Village Elementary and Quest were identified as in need of new roofs in the Building Condition Survey

11. Solar Energy – Pros and Cons • Clean, renewable energy source • Reduces use of commercially produced electricity and production of greenhouse gasses • Could be effective in a small application to support returning to cafeteria trays • Prone to diminished effectiveness during periods of cloud cover, or when receptors are covered with snow • High cost and frequency of maintenance • Possible issues with load bearing capacities of roofs

12. Geothermal – Description • Water is circulated through a closed-loop system to exchange energy with the earth • A heat pump is used to circulate the temperate air, reducing the amount of heating/cooling required to maintain comfortable interior temperatures

13. Geothermal – Campus Applications • Retrofitting a building requires installation of underground pipes, installation of heat pump, and replacement of interior heating/cooling distribution system • Most cost-effective when done in conjunction with a boiler replacement and when air conditioning is desired • The High School is most likely to require a boiler replacement, and has a suitable surrounding campus for underground piping, with Merton Williams, Quest and Northwood also having some potential applications

14. Hydrogen Fuel Cell - Description • Electricity is generated using a hydrogen fuel rod • Generated electricity is used by the facility, with commercial electricity supplementing in periods of peak demand

15. Hydrogen Fuel Cell – Pros and Cons • Clean, renewable energy source • Reduces use of commercially produced electricity and production of greenhouse gasses • High cost of installation • Very short (5 – 7 year) life of fuel rod, with high ($500,000) replacement cost • Significant annual maintenance costs and time, including annual 1-2 week shutdown

16. Alternative Energy Evaluation Criteria • Compatibility with Infrastructure Needs • Contribution to Meeting Commercially Produced Energy Consumption Reduction Goal • Contribution to Meeting Carbon Footprint Reduction Goal • Reliability • Maintenance and Staffing Requirements • Likelihood of Community Acceptance • Potential for Environmental Impact Issues • Educational Value • Net Cost of Ownership (Acquisition Cost Plus Operating Costs Plus Decommissioning Costs minus Energy Cost Savings and Salvage/Trade-in Value)

17. Go Green Recommendations

18. Go Green Recommendations, cont.

19. Go Green Recommendations, cont.

20. Go Green Recommendations, cont.

21. Go Green Recommendation - Summary *Weighting double counts scores in commercial energy reduction, expected reliability, maintenance and staffing requirements, and net cost of ownership. Maximum possible rating is 65.0

22. Next Steps • Board authorization of wind energy feasibility study • Forwarding of recommendations to Project Planning Team for more detailed examination of feasibility for next capital project • Committee to reconvene in January 2012 to determine next steps in meeting long-term goals