District Energy Budgets and Expenditures and Efforts to Reduce Energy Consumption

This survey is the first to examine the energy budgets and expenditures of public school districts nationwide. The data provide information on energy expenditures in FY 00 and FY 01 overall and by type of need (i.e., for utilities, fuel, and other energy needs), and energy budgets for FY 01 and FY 02, as well as actions taken by school districts to reduce energy expenditures. For example, the survey responses provide answers to the following questions:

• How much did public school districts spend for energy in FY 01? What was the mean energy expenditure per pupil?

• How did district energy expenditures change from FY 00 to FY 01?

• How much did public school districts budget for energy for FY 02? How did their FY 02 budgets compare with their FY 01 expenditures?

• What actions (e.g., locking in future utility rates with vendors, closing school early) did districts take to reduce energy expenditures?

Energy Budgets and Expenditures From FY 00 to FY 02

The questionnaire asked district respondents to report their FY 00 and FY 01 energy expenditures, and their FY 01 and FY 02 energy budgets. Data were reported overall and by type of need: utilities, including heating, cooling, and electrical power; gasoline, diesel, and other fuel to operate vehicles; and any other energy needs.

Overall, public school districts spent about $6 billion for energy needs in FY 00. Districts budgeted approximately $7 billion for energy needs for FY 01 and spent approximately $8 billion. They budgeted about $8 billion for anticipated energy needs for FY 02 (Table 1). Table 1 also shows those budgets and expenditures by selected district characteristics. For example:

• In FY 00, small and midsized districts each spent about $2 billion for energy, and large districts spent about $3 billion.

• For FY 01, suburban districts budgeted and spent about $4 billion.

• For FY 02, rural districts budgeted nearly $2 billion.

• For FY 02, districts in the West budgeted nearly $3 billion.

In FY 01, among districts nationwide, 90 percent of energy expenditure were for utilities, 9 percent were for fuel, and 1 percent was for other energy needs (not shown in tables in text).⁵, ⁶

Mean Energy Expenditures Per Pupil From FY 00 to FY 01

Districts were asked to report their energy expenditures in FY 00 and FY 01, and to report student enrollment in the 2000–2001 school year. The mean energy expenditures per pupil were calculated using these survey data.⁷ The estimated percentage change in the mean energy expenditures per pupil was calculated by comparing these data across years. These expenditures and the percentage change in mean energy expenditures per pupil are shown in Table 2.

Overall, the mean energy expenditure per pupil was $137 in FY 00 and $166 in FY 01, a 22 percent increase. The expenditure per pupil varied by several district characteristics in both FY 00 and FY 01. The percentage change also differed by district characteristics, including region, FY 01 energy budget sufficiency status, and percent of the FY 01 overall budget allocated for energy.

In both FY 00 and FY 01, the mean energy expenditure per pupil decreased as district enrollment in 1999–2000 increased. In FY 00, the mean ranged from $165 per pupil in small districts to $125 per pupil in large districts; in FY 01, the mean ranged from $204 per pupil in small districts to $150 per pupil in large districts.

The mean per pupil expenditure for energy also varied by metropolitan status in both years. In FY 00, rural districts spent more per pupil for energy than either urban or suburban districts ($153 versus $125 and $137, respectively), and the amount spent per pupil by suburban districts ($137) was higher than the amount spent by urban districts ($125). In FY 01, the difference between rural districts and other districts continued, with rural districts spending an average of $190 per pupil compared with $154 spent by urban districts and $164 spent by suburban districts.

In FY 00 and in FY 01, district energy spending per pupil also varied by region. In both years, districts in the West spent less per pupil for energy than districts in any other region. In FY 00, districts in the West spent $123 per pupil, compared with $136 in the Southeast, $148 in the Central region, and $150 in the Northeast. In FY 01, districts in the West spent $149 per pupil, compared with $163 in the Southeast, $178 in the Northeast, and $189 in the Central region. Additional differences by region were detected in FY 00 and FY 01. In FY 00, energy spending per pupil of districts in the Northeast ($150) was higher than the spending level of districts in the Southeast ($136). In FY 01, a difference was also detected between the mean energy expenditure per pupil of districts in the Southeast ($163) and the amount spent by districts in the Central region ($189). The percent change in the mean energy expenditure per pupil from FY 00 to FY 01 among districts in the Central region was greater than among districts in any other region (27 percent compared with 19 to 21 percent).

In both FY 00 and FY 01, districts with the lowest poverty concentration spent more per pupil for energy than other districts. In FY 00, the low poverty districts spent $152 per pupil, compared with $134 per pupil in districts with mid-level poverty concentrations and $126 per pupil in districts with the highest level of poverty concentration. The same pattern was detected in FY 01: $185 per pupil was spent in the low poverty districts, compared with $163 and $155 per pupil in the other districts.

Districts with low overall FY 01 budgets per pupil spent less per pupil for energy than other districts in both FY 00 and FY 01. In FY 00, the districts with low overall FY 01 budget per pupil spent $128 per pupil on energy, compared with $139 per pupil spent by districts with mid-level overall budgets per pupil and $143 per pupil spent by districts with high overall FY 01 budgets per pupil. In FY 01, the districts with low overall FY 01 budgets per pupil spent $152 per pupil on energy, compared with $169 by districts with midlevel overall budgets per pupil and $177 by districts with high overall FY 01 budgets per pupil.

The questionnaire also asked districts to report the overall energy budget for FY 01. Responses to this question were used to classify districts by whether or not the amount budgeted for energy needs in FY 01 was sufficient to cover actual energy expenditures. The change in energy expenditure per pupil from FY 00 to FY 01 was significantly different by sufficiency status. Districts that had allocated sufficient funds for FY 01 energy needs experienced a 14 percent increase in energy expenses per pupil: from $140 in FY 00 to $160 in FY 01. Districts that had not allocated sufficient funds for FY 01 energy needs experienced a 25 percent increase in energy expenses per pupil: from $135 in FY 00 to $169 in FY 01.

Mean energy expenditures per pupil in FY 00 and FY 01 were both positively related to the percentage of the district budget that was allocated for energy needs. In FY 00, the mean was $99 per pupil in districts that allocated 1 percent or less of the overall budget for energy needs, $141 per pupil in districts that allocated 2 percent, and $180 per pupil in districts that allocated 3 percent or more of the overall budget for energy needs. In FY 01, the respective means were $126, $169, and $219 per pupil. The percentage change in mean energy expenditure per pupil from FY 00 to FY 01 was higher among districts that had allocated 1 percent or less of the FY 01 for energy than among districts that had allocated either 2 percent or 3 percent or more (27 percent versus 20 and 22 percent, respectively).

Mean Energy Budgets Per Pupil for FY 01 to FY 02

Table 2 also shows the mean energy budgets per pupil for FY 01 and FY 02, and the percentage change in mean energy budgets per pupil during these years. The mean energy budgets per pupil and the percentage change in the mean energy budget per pupil were calculated using survey data on district energy budgets and district enrollment data for each year.

Overall, the mean energy budget per pupil was $152 for FY 01 and $176 for FY 02, a 16 percent increase. The budget per pupil varied by each of the selected district characteristics for both FY 01 and FY 02. The percentage change differed by region, sufficiency status, and percent of budget allocated for energy.

For both FY 01 and FY 02, the mean energy budget per pupil decreased as district enrollment in 1999–2000 increased. For FY 01, the mean ranged from $191 per pupil in small districts to $135 per pupil in large districts; for FY 02, the mean ranged from $220 per pupil in small districts to $156 per pupil in large districts.

The per pupil energy budget also varied by metropolitan status for both years. For FY 01, urban districts budgeted $136 per pupil, suburban districts budgeted $152, and rural districts budgeted $176. For FY 02, the respective mean energy budgets per pupil were $161, $175, and $202.

The FY 01 and FY 02 mean energy budgets per pupil both varied by region. For FY 01, districts in the West budgeted less per pupil for energy than districts in any other region ($136 versus $149 in the Southeast, $166 in the Northeast, and $169 in the Central region). Also, districts in the Southeast budgeted less than districts in the Northeast and Central regions ($149 versus $166 and $169, respectively). For FY 02, the mean energy budget per pupil was $166 in the West and $163 among districts in the Southeast; districts in both these regions budgeted less for energy than districts in the Northeast ($186) and Central region ($196). The percent change in the mean energy budget per pupil from FY 01 to FY 02 among districts in the West was greater than among districts in any other region (22 percent compared with 10 to 16 percent). The percent change also was greater among districts in the Central region than among districts in the Southeast (16 versus 10 percent, respectively).

Districts with the lowest poverty concentration budgeted more per pupil for energy than other districts for both FY 01 and FY 02. For FY 01, the low-poverty districts budgeted $169 per pupil, compared with $150 per pupil in districts with mid-level poverty concentrations and $140 per pupil in districts with the highest level of poverty concentration. The same pattern was detected for FY 02: $194 per pupil was budgeted in the low poverty districts, compared with $175 in mid-level poverty districts and $161 in districts with the highest poverty concentrations. However, for FY 02, the difference detected between districts with mid-level poverty concentrations and those with the highest poverty concentration was also significant.

Districts with low overall FY 01 budgets per pupil budgeted less per pupil for energy than other districts for both FY 01 and FY 02. For FY 01, districts with low overall budgets per pupil spent $140 per pupil, compared with $153 per pupil spent by districts with mid-level budgets and $162 per pupil spent by districts with high budgets per pupil. For FY 02, districts with low overall budgets per pupil spent $164 per pupil, compared with $180 spent by districts with mid-level budgets and $183 spent by districts with high budgets per pupil.

The FY 01 and FY 02 mean energy budgets per pupil were lower among districts that experienced a shortfall in the FY 01 energy budget than among districts that budgeted sufficient funds for FY 01 energy needs. For FY 01, districts that had experienced a shortfall had a mean energy budget of $143 per pupil, compared with $174 per pupil among districts with sufficient energy budgets. For FY 02, the mean energy budget per pupil among districts that experienced a shortfall was $173, compared with $184 per pupil in districts that had sufficient FY 01 energy budgets. On average, there was a greater percentage increase in the mean energy budget per pupil from FY 01 to FY 02 among districts that had experienced a shortfall in FY 01 than among districts that had sufficient energy funds in FY 01 (20 percent versus 6 percent).

The mean energy budget per pupil was positively related to the percentage of the FY 01 district budget that was allocated for energy needs. For FY 01, the mean was $107 per pupil in districts that allocated 1 percent or less of the overall budget for energy needs, $155 in districts that allocated 2 percent, and $210 in districts that allocated 3 percent or more of the overall budget for energy needs. Similar differences were detected in the means for FY 02, which ranged from $134 to $229 per pupil.

There was a negative relationship between the percentage of the FY 01 district budget allocated for energy needs and the percentage change in mean energy budget per pupil from FY 01 to FY 02. The increase in mean energy budget per pupil among districts that had allocated 1 percent or less of the FY 01 district budget for energy was 25 percent, compared to 16 percent among districts that had allocated 2 percent and 9 percent among districts that had allocated 3 percent or more.

Differences Between Energy Budgets and Expenditures

Districts might be expected to consider their energy expenditures from one fiscal year as they develop their energy budgets for the subsequent year. Table 2 shows the relationships between FY 00 energy expenditures and FY 01 budgets, between FY 01 energy budgets and FY 01 expenditures, and between FY 01 energy expenditures and FY 02 budgets.

On average, district energy budgets for FY 01 were 11 percent higher than the energy expenditures in FY 00, with FY 00 expenditures averaging $137 per pupil and FY 01 budgets averaging $152 per pupil. The difference between FY 00 energy expenditures and FY 01 energy budgets varied by several district characteristics:

• Small school districts budgeted 16 percent more and midsized districts budgeted 13 percent more for energy needs for FY 01 than they had spent for energy in FY 00. Both these differences were significantly larger than the 8 percent difference reflected in the budgets of large districts.

• Districts with sufficient FY 01 energy budgets had instituted budgets reflecting a larger increase in energy funding than districts that experienced a shortfall in FY 01 (24 versus 6 percent).

• The FY 01 energy budgets of districts that allocated 3 percent or more of the overall budget to energy needs reflected a 17 percent increase above their FY 00 energy expenditures. This was a larger difference than that reflected in the budgets of districts that allocated 1 percent or less or 2 percent of the overall FY 01 budget to energy needs (8 and 10 percent, respectively).

For FY 01, public school districts nationwide budgeted 9 percent less for energy needs than they had expended in FY 01, corresponding to $166 per pupil in FY 01 expenditures and $152 per pupil for FY 01 budgets. On average, districts with sufficient energy budgets spent 9 percent less than they budgeted, while those with insufficient energy budgets spent 15 percent more than budgeted. The difference also varied by the percentage of the district budget allocated for energy needs. The shortfall in FY 01 energy budgets was smaller among districts that allocated a greater share of their overall budget for energy needs, ranging from 15 percent among districts that allocated the smallest portion of their budgets to energy to 4 percent among districts that allocated the largest portion of their budgets to energy.

Nationwide, the mean energy expenditure per pupil in FY 01 was $166, and the mean energy budget per pupil for FY 02 was $176. This corresponds to a difference of 6 percent between FY 01 district energy expenditures and FY 02 district energy budgets. This difference varied by region, with the FY 02 mean energy budget among districts in the West being 11 percent higher than the FY 01 mean energy expenditure. Differences among districts in other regions were smaller: 5 percent in the Northeast, and 4 percent in the Central region.

The difference between the FY 01 mean energy expenditure and FY 02 mean energy budget also varied by FY 01 energy budget sufficiency status. Districts that had experienced an energy budget shortfall in FY 01 instituted FY 02 energy budgets that were, on average, 2 percent higher than the FY 01 mean energy expenditure. Districts that had sufficient funds allocated for FY 01 energy needs instituted FY 02 mean energy budgets that were, on average, 15 percent higher than the FY 01 expenditures.

Efforts to Reduce Energy Expenditures

In 2001, there were anecdotal reports of school districts employing various measures to reduce energy expenditures (Moore 2001). Respondents were asked about several actions that the districts might have taken each year in FY 01 and FY 02: renovating or retrofitting facilities, locking in rates with energy vendors, participating in consortia that negotiated prices with third-party energy vendors, instituting or increasing fees to use facilities, and closing school or sending students home early (Table 3).

During FY 01, nearly half (47 percent) of public school districts overall renovated or retrofitted existing facilities to improve energy efficiency. The proportion of districts that renovated or retrofitted facilities increased with district size: 40 percent of small districts, 63 percent of midsized districts, and 75 percent of large districts took this action. Districts that allocated sufficient funds for energy needs in FY 01 were less likely than districts with insufficient funds to have renovated or retrofitted existing facilities (42 versus 51 percent, respectively).

Locking in rates with one or more energy providers to reduce energy expenditures was another option taken by some school districts. Thirty-nine percent of all public school districts locked in rates with one or more energy vendors in FY 01. Suburban districts (44 percent) and rural districts (37 percent) were more likely to have taken this action than urban districts (22 percent).

Districts in the West (9 percent) were less likely than districts in any other region to have locked in rates, and districts in the Southeast (34 percent) were less likely than districts in the Central region or in the Northeast to have taken this action (52 percent and 60 percent, respectively).

The likelihood that a district locked in rates with energy vendors in FY 01 also varied by poverty concentration and FY 01 budget per pupil. Districts with the lowest level of poverty were more likely than districts with higher levels to have taken this action (51 percent, compared with 37 percent of districts with mid-level poverty concentration and 34 percent of districts with the highest poverty concentration). Twenty-seven percent of districts with low budgets per pupil locked in rates, compared with 41 percent of districts with mid-level budgets per pupil and 46 percent of districts with high budgets per pupil.

School districts sometimes participate in consortia to negotiate prices with third-party vendors; these prices are typically at lower rates than could be obtained by individual districts. During FY 01, 29 percent of public school districts nationwide participated in consortia. The likelihood that districts participated in consortia varied by nearly all the district characteristics selected for analysis:

• Midsized districts were more likely to participate in consortia than small districts: 39 percent compared with 26 percent.

• Nearly half (45 percent) of suburban districts participated in consortia, compared with 25 percent of urban districts and 17 percent of rural districts.

• Sixty-eight percent of districts in the Northeast participated in consortia. In contrast, districts in the West and Southeast (9 and 10 percent, respectively) were less like ly than districts in the Central region (29 percent) to participate in consortia.

• The likelihood of participating in consortia decreased as poverty concentration increased, ranging from 42 percent of low-poverty districts to 18 percent of high-poverty districts.

• Participating in consortia increased as the overall FY 01 budget per pupil increased. Eighteen percent of districts with low budgets per pupil and 27 percent of districts with midlevel budgets per pupil participated in consortia, whereas 40 percent of districts with high budgets per pupil did so.

• Finally, the likelihood of participating in consortia varied by FY 01 budget allocation for energy needs. Districts that allocated 1 percent (38 percent) and districts that allocated 2 percent (33 percent) of the budget to energy needs were both more likely to participate than districts that allocated the highest proportion for energy (19 percent).

One way that school districts can offset costs is to charge fees to groups that use school facilities such as meeting rooms, physical fitness facilities or gymnasiums, and auditoriums. During FY 01, 12 percent of districts nationwide instituted or increased fees charged to use school facilities. The likelihood that districts took this action increased with district size, ranging from 9 percent in small districts to 29 percent in large districts. In addition, the likelihood varied by metropolitan status, with 16 percent of suburban districts compared with 8 percent of rural districts taking this action.

The questionnaire asked about one other method to reduce energy expenditures: closing schools or sending students home early on at least one school day. During FY 01, 7 percent of public school districts nationwide used this method. Rural districts (8 percent) were more likely than urban districts (3 percent) to close schools or send students home early.

Districts also were asked to indicate if they were using any of these cost-saving measures in FY 02.⁸ Overall, 47 percent of school districts renovated or retrofitted facilities in FY 02 to decrease energy expenditures. As in FY 01, the likelihood that districts renovated or retrofitted facilities in FY 02 increased with district size, ranging from 41 percent of small districts to 74 percent of large districts. In addition, the likelihood of renovating or retrofitting facilities varied by whether the district had budgeted sufficient funds in FY 01 to cover energy needs. Forty percent of districts that had sufficient energy budgets in FY 01 renovated or retrofitted facilities in FY 02, compared with 52 percent of districts that had experienced a shortfall in FY 01.

Forty-four percent of all public school districts locked in rates with one or more energy vendors in FY 02, and the differences by district characteristic s seen in FY 01 remained in FY 02:

• Suburban districts (48 percent) and rural districts (42 percent) were more likely to have taken this action than urban districts (27 percent).

• Districts in the West (18 percent) were least likely to have locked in rates. Thirty-five percent of districts in the Southeast had locked in rates, compared with 55 percent in the Central region and 64 percent in the Northeast.

• Among districts with a poverty concentration of less than 10 percent, 56 percent locked in rates with energy vendors in FY 02. This was a larger proportion than either the proportion of districts with mid-level or high poverty concentrations that locked in rates (43 and 38 percent, respectively).

• Districts with low overall FY 01 budgets per pupil were less likely than other districts to lock in rates for FY 02 (34 versus 45 and 51 percent, respectively).

One-third (33 percent) of public school districts nationwide participated in consortia during FY 02. Midsized districts (42 percent) were more likely to participate in consortia than small districts (31 percent).

Again in FY 02, the proportion of districts participating in consortia differed by metropolitan status and region. One-half (50 percent) of suburban districts participated in consortia, compared with 28 percent of urban districts and 21 percent of rural districts. In addition, a greater percentage of districts in the Northeast (70 percent) participated in consortia than in any other region. Districts in the Southeast and West (10 and 17 percent, respectively) were less likely than districts in the Central region (33 percent) and Northeast to participate in consortia.

Other patterns in the likelihood of participating in consortia that were observed in FY 01 were also detected in FY 02:

• As poverty concentration increased, the likelihood of participating in consortia decreased, ranging from 46 percent of low poverty districts to 22 percent of high-poverty districts.

• Districts with the highest overall FY 01 budgets per pupil were more likely to participate in consortia than other districts; 23 percent of districts with low budgets per pupil, 31 percent of districts with mid-level budgets per pupil, and 44 percent of districts with high budgets per pupil participated in consortia.

• Forty-one percent of districts that allocated the lowest proportion and 36 percent of districts that allocated 2 percent of the FY 01 budget to energy needs participated in consortia, compared with 25 percent of districts that allocated the highest proportion for energy.

Another measure used to reduce energy expenditures was the institution or increase of fees charged to use school facilities, with 15 percent of districts nationwide taking this step in FY 02. As in FY 01, the likelihood of instituting or increasing fees was related to district size and metropolitan status. In FY 02, the likelihood ranged from 12 percent of small districts to 37 percent of large districts. In addition, rural districts (10 percent) were less likely to use fees as a means of decreasing energy expenses than suburban districts (21 percent). Unlike in FY 01, the use of fees in FY 02 varied by region: 23 percent of districts in the West, compared with 11 percent in both the Southeast and Central regions took this step.

In FY 02, efforts to reduce energy expenditures led 6 percent of public school districts to close schools or send students home early on at least 1 day. Urban districts were less likely than either suburban or rural school districts to take this measure (1 percent compared with 6 and 7 percent, respectively).

Top