The Putney School Master Plan Summary

The Putney School Master Plan December 2011

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

The Putney School Master Plan December 2011

Campus Masterplanning Committee Consultants Maclay Architects DEW Construction Corp.

Energy Balance Lyssa Papazian Stevens & Associates, P.C Don Hirsch Design Studio, LLC Future Generations Forestry Preface | i

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Contents Acknowledgements

v

Introduction

ix

1. Executive Summary

5. The Campus Plan 1 Academic Spaces

23

2 Student Housing

24

1 Master Plan Organization

1

3 Faculty Housing

25

2 Mission and Context

2

4 Arts

26

3 Master Plan Concept

2

5 Vehicular Infrastructure

28

4 Master Plan Process

2

6 Landscaping

28

5 Master Plan Assumptions

3

6 Master Plan Goals

3

7 Master Plan Implementation

4

2. The Existing Campus 1 Community Context

5

6. The Net-Zero Campus 1 Strategic Energy Planning

31

2 The Path to Net-Zero

31

3 Putney School Energy Usage

32

4 Energy Improvements

34

5 Renewable Implementation Strategy

38 39

2 Historic Growth of the Putney Campus

5

3 Campus Character and Overview

9

6 Energy Sources for Carbon Neutral and Net-Zero Options

4 Current Challenges

9

7 Predicted Future Energy Usage

43

8 Financial Analysis

45

9 Recommended Net-Zero Strategy

48

3. The Natural Environment 1 Existing Site

11

2 Existing Ecosystem / Landuse

11

3 Campus Lands Overview

12

4 Campus Landscaping

13

7. Appendix & Living Documents 1 Table of Contents

51

4. The Built Environment 1 Overall Campus Space Use

15

2 Gathering Spaces

19

3 Transportation, Circulation and Parking 21

Preface | iii

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Acknowledgements Master Planning Committee

Non-Committee Members

Ben Freeman, Dean of Students Josh Goldberg, Trustee Mark Grieco, Plant Manager Emily Jones, Director Glen Littledale, Science Teacher Lies Pasterkamp, History Teacher Randy Smith, CFO Pete Stickney, Farm Manager Tonia Wheeler, Trustee Dawn Zweig, Science Teacher

Frank Hoard, Assistant Plant Manager Cara Stickney, Athletic Director

Students Mollie Goldblum

Consultants Maclay Architects, Lead Consultant Maclay Architects, led by founding principal Bill Maclay, is an architecture and planning firm specializing in the collaborative and integrated design of buildings that take care of human needs while incorporating energy and resource conservation, renewable energy use, optimal indoor air quality, healthy building design technologies and environmentally responsive land use planning.

Maclay Architects, located in Waitsfield, VT, has received numerous awards for excellence in design and environmental innovation for commercial, institutional, planning, multi-family and single family residential projects. The firm offers standard architectural services, feasibility and planning studies, space planning, historic preservation services, site assessments, environmental and permit consulting.

Bill Maclay has been an innovator and leader in ecological design for over 35 years and his work has been recognized internationally in exhibits, books and publications. Bill has lectured and taught college and university students as well as contractors, building owners and other architects. Bill served on the Board at Yestermorrow Design Build School, and is also a past president of the Vermont Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and past board member of the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility.

DEW Construction Corp., Cost Estimator DEW Construction Corp. is headquartered in Williston, Vermont with an office in Hanover, New Hampshire. We are one of Northern New England’s largest general contractors with annual sales in the $125 million range. DEW’s committed to providing best in class preconstruction and construction services in the marketplace. As part of our preconstruction services, we provide Building Information Modeling (BIM) in-house. This includes 3D, 4D, 5D and post construction and facility management

Preface | v

application.

For every estimate we will prepare a comprehensive Cost Management Report with the following items: • Narrative describing design intent and description outlining basis of cost • List of documents used for basis of cost • Schedules for preconstruction & construction phases • Recommendations sheet which will include: • Design or Program: issues that may impact cost will be addressed • Value Management: cost savings alternatives will be offered • Constructability: identify issues that may be a design impact during construction phase • Detailed estimate • Variance Report: this compares the previous estimate with the current estimate and itemizes why the changes occurred

Energy Balance, Energy/Sustainability Consultant Andrew Shapiro, President of Energy Balance, Inc., has provided energy analysis and design and other high performance building design consulting services for 30 years to a wide variety of clients, including owners, architects, engineers and builders, as well as housing developers, universities, businesses and demand-side management programs. Services range from sustainable building design to research and monitoring projects. He is also the Energy Engineer for the Vermont Energy Education Program, training teachers and students. Recent projects include NRG Systems manufacturing and office facilities (close to 100% renewably powered – LEED Gold) in Hinesburg, VT, Putney Field House (Putney School, Putney, VT, “net zero”, LEED Platinum), several microload/”net zero” houses in Vermont, a “net zero” education LEED Platinum building at the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens and White Pine CoHousing, a six-unit village where he now lives.

Lyssa Papazian, Historical Consultant Lyssa Papazian, Historic Preservation Consulting is a woman-owned sole proprietorship specializing in historic preservation planning, funding, regulation, documentation, and architectural history and has been operating in Vermont since 1998. The firm has worked with a wide variety of clients including municipalities, state agencies, schools and other institutions, non-profits, affordable housing providers, businesses, property owners/developers, planning firms, engineers and architect. Services including National Register of Historic Places nominations, historic preservation plans and reports, the rehabilitation of historic buildings, historic tax credit applications, regulatory review of state and federally funded projects, grant writing, project management, history exhibits, and architectural history. Ms. Papazian believes in planning and partnership to achieve historic preservation goals. She particularly hopes to promote the rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing on all economic levels, the support of traditional neighborhoods and town centers, and the protection and enhancement of agricultural & commercial viability as a means to preserve both rural and urban historic resources. Ms. Papazian holds a Master of Science degree in Historic Preservation and has been working professionally in the field for the past 19 years, first as a Senior Architectural Historian in New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office and for the past 13 years as an historic preservation consultant in Vermont. She brings extensive experience and familiarity with historic structures, preservation law and standards, and the history of northern New England to each project.

As a National Park Service (36 CFR Part 61) – qualified historic preservation consultant, she has completed many projects in consultation with or under the review of the state historic preservation office and is very comfortable working with historic preservation regulations at both the national and state levels.

Stevens & Associates, P.C., Landscape Consultant Stevens & Associates, P.C. has a diversified, multi-disciplined staff consisting of engineers, planners and landscape architects. Based in Brattleboro, VT, the firm specializes in commercial and municipal projects with expertise in schools, affordable housing, senior housing, pedestrian and transportation network improvements, master planning and urban design.

Stevens & Associates, P.C. provides private and public sector clients with complete engineering services through comprehensive planning, feasibility studies, design, preparation of contract documents and construction management. The firm participates on civic boards and maintains a close professional relationship with regulatory agencies to understand the political and permitting context of each project.

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

The firm is committed to building sustainable projects through green design and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. The staff is trained to be whole systems thinkers so that we can support our client’s mission while creating a built environment that promotes economic, environmental and community vitality.

Don Hirsch Design Studio LLC., Theater Consultant Guided by a personal approach that celebrates performing arts centers, Don Hirsch Design Studio provides comprehensive theatre design and development for the performing arts community assisting clients in the intricate planning process for the creation of vibrant theatre spaces.

Don Hirsch Design Studio has created spaces in traditional and non-traditional settings for the presentation of an eclectic blend of performing arts, media, and special event programming. DHDS provides fully integrated design and technology services featuring New Design, Historic Restoration, & Adaptive Use, Master Planning & Needs Assessment, Program Space Study & Concept Development, Theatre Technology System Design, Audiovisual/Media System Design, Business and Operational Planning, Site Inspections & Safety Evaluations.

Don Hirsch, founding director of Don Hirsch Design Studio, LLC has been involved in the art of design for more than thirty years in a career centered on the arts and culture and on the importance of creating and preserving performance spaces. Don has led award winning new design and historic restoration projects with a balanced and pragmatic approach. He is a frequent speaker at conferences and seminars, and lectures extensively on performing arts center design, historic theatre restoration, and on the business of entertainment.

Future Generations Forestry, Forestry Consultant As the sole proprietor of Future Generations Forestry, Andrew Sheere has been working closely with private landowners, municipalities, institutions, and businesses to help them manage their forestland in a sustainable and responsible fashion for over 15 years.

Future Generations Forestry manages ecosystems for many values such as timber, recreation, wildlife, and maintaining water quality depending on the client’s needs; often a combination of all of the above.

To that end,Future Generations Forestry offers an array of forest management services including but not limited to: forest inventory, forestland appraisal, invasive plant management, preparation of forest management plans, property boundary line maintenance, recreation & wildlife management, timber sale marking- planning- and administration, and timber trespass. FGF also offers third-party forest certification through the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or through the Tree Farm program under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).

Preface | vii

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Introduction Over the past two years, members of The Putney School community joined together to design a legacy for the school and define a future campus master plan that will guide the evolution of the campus for years to come. This plan envisions a campus that is more workable, more livable and more sustainable. It is this reinvented campus that will carry the Putney School into the next decade and beyond.

This campus is a treasured place, with its splendid Vermont mountain views, rolling hills, and heritage.

The master plan utilizes this landscape and history to create spaces that better define the school, inspire the individual, and symbolize the spirit of the place.

The Putney School master plan proposes a campus that is functional, one that balances campus needs through the re-envisioning of the existing network of buildings, outdoor spaces and connections. This master plan allows the school to responsibly marshal its resources by planning for campus renewal and anticipating future needs.

The long-term strategy for the campus presented here accounts for the fact that many of Putney’s buildings are ripe for renovation, and some are beyond repair. The plan identifies how the school’s resources can best be utilized to respect and preserve the heritage of our buildings. The strategy also recognizes the need for new infrastructure, parking, utilities and defined open spaces.

This campus master plan acknowledges the rich history of The Putney School and thoughtfully points the way to an intentionally designed campus that serves our needs as we advance into the future. General recommendations are followed by specific steps for implementation. While optimistic, this plan is built upon solid data and analysis of need. It focuses on short-, mid- and long-term priorities, providing flexibility and allowing for the realities of funding. The Putney School Master Plan is responsive to the school’s changing needs and shifting priorities over time.

Preface | ix

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

1.0 Executive Summary The Putney School Master Plan is a plan for sustainability. It differs from the traditional master plan, a plan for future campus growth. Sustainability is defined here twofold – one, to create an economically viable model for the campus in order to incrementally improve the existing building stock, and two, to create an environmentally sustainable campus which embodies the school’s charter. The following document outlines the development of a net-zero energy campus, a campus that will function as a beacon to the rest of the world. This master plan provides future economic stability by proposing ways to manage current resources and energy consumption into the future.

The goal of the Putney School is to evolve practices on campus in tandem with educational programs to allow students to grow through experience. With that foundation, this project offers a resource for learning where students and educators can be involved in choices that impact the future mission of the school.

1.1 Master Plan Organization Following the Executive Summary, which provides a brief profile of the Putney School and its regional context; a description of the master planning process; and an explanation of the goals on this project, the Putney School master plan includes the following key sections: The Existing Campus, The Natural Environment, The Built Environment, The Campus Plan, The Net-Zero Campus and Appendix Documents.

The Existing Campus describes the campus context, its place within the town of Putney and the historical growth of the school in order to understand the campus character and the current challenges experienced on the Putney School campus.

The Natural Environment section focuses on the natural environment in which the Putney School exists, both connecting to the natural ecosystems of the site and the planned landscaping that is currently developed on the campus.

The Built Environment describes the structures on the Putney School campus and how they are used along with describing look at the circulation patterns for both pedestrians and vehicles across the campus landscape.

The Campus Plan lays out programmatic recommendations for the built and natural environment on campus. This section identifies facilities that need to be re-envisioned to better serve the needs of the student body.

The Net-Zero Campus focuses specifically on the energy piece of the puzzle, providing both a current understanding of building energy use and recommendations for future renewable energy implementation. This section identifies in detail the pros and cons of various strategies that can be utilized to move the campus along the path to net-zero energy.

Executive Summary | 1

The Appendix Documents includes all the specifics that have lead to the recommendations set forth in this master plan.

This section includes a newly developed energy and healthy building standard for renovation and new construction as well as a detailed cost estimate, landscape plan and historical documentation.

•

To wish to live adventurously through not recklessly, willing to take risks, if need be, for moral growth, so that one definitely progresses along the long slow road toward achieving a civilization worthy of the name.

1.3 Master Plan Concept 1.2 Mission & Context The Putney School stands for a way of life. Putney is committed to developing each student’s full intellectual, artistic and physical potential. Putney students are encouraged to challenge themselves intellectually, to pursue rigorous learning for its own sake, to actively participate in and appreciate the arts, to contribute meaningfully to the work program that sustains the School community and the farm on which it is located, to engage in vigorous athletics, and to develop a social consciousness and world view that will provide the foundation for life-long moral and intellectual growth.

Putney School Mission Statement adopted June 8, 1997

The Putney School Board prioritized the creation of a master plan to address the following current and future campus needs: •

To prepare a road map for the institution for the future

•

To anticipate proactively, long-range needs and help to meet current needs

•

To ensure that dollars are spent wisely

•

To help create a planning culture based on maintaining the authenticity of the school while guiding the campus community to embrace the future

•

To address the needs of both the academic and cocurricular environments now and in the future

•

Initiated with the school in 1935 and formulated into eight fundamental principles in 1954 by Putney’s founder, progressive educator Carmelita Hinton, the school’s philosophy reads as follows.

To create a 21st century campus (bring the old up to par with the new)

•

To create an engaging environment that builds community

•

To ensure the campus form embraces the vision of the Putney School

•

To work not for marks, badges, honors, but to discover truth and to grow in knowledge of the universe and in the understanding of men, to treasure the hard stretching of oneself, to render service.

•

To build on the place-based identity of the school

•

To learn to appreciate and participate in the creative arts where man gives expression to his struggle for communication of his inner live and for beauty, to grant these arts great prestige.

•

To believe in manual labor, be glad to do one’s share of it and proud of the skills learned in the doing.

•

To play just as wholeheartedly as one works, but watching out a bit for the competitive angle, remembering that play is for recreation and an increased joy in living.

•

To want to lend a hand to the community at large, not to live in an “ivory tower.”

•

To combat prejudices caused by differences in economic, political, racial, and religious backgrounds; to strive for a world outlook, putting oneself in others’ places, no matter how far away or how remote.

•

To have old and young work together in a true comradeship relation, stressing the community and its need for the cooperation of all.

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

1.4 Master Plan Process The Putney School master plan process occurred over a two year period and encompassed goal setting, data collection, analysis and review of options for the future. This document is the culmination of that effort and includes recommendations

Putney School students involved in a charrette during the masterplanning process

for implementation. Originally envisioned as a facilities-oriented master plan to assess current building stock and land use on campus, throughout the process, the master plan grew in scope and ambition.

After the completion of The Field House in 2009 and, actual net-zero energy use during its first year of operation, The Putney School refocused their master planning efforts to include energy efficiency in order to position the school as a leader in sustainability.

Historically, the school’s mission and practices have been rooted in sustainability: growing much of their own food, requiring students to be involved with farming activities, and utilizing existing facilities to their greatest potential, but the completion of the high-performance Field House and its immediate reception on campus as an inspiration and teaching tool for students, staff and visitors, opened the door to a new paradigm of standards and achievements. The success of the Field House forged a new path highlighting the financial and environmental responsibility of the school as it plans for the future.

The final master plan presents a means for financial planning with focused environmental stewardship.

The future reduction of energy use on campus will build the school as a leader in environmental stewardship and protect the school from rising energy costs and price volatility. This evolution of the master plan throughout the process was driven by the school’s desire to, “Walk their environmental talk,” develop a gold standard in environmental campus planning, and develop a financially stable plan far into the future.

1.5 Master Plan Assumptions The major assumptions underlying the master plan are as follows: The size of the student body will remain relatively constant There will be a slight increase in the number of boarding students The school’s focus on sustainability will continue to be a major driving goal, and The general organization of the central campus will not change dramatically

1.6 Master Plan Goals More Effectively Support the School’s Academic Mission Most importantly, this master plan is poised to reconnect the place with the academic mission of the school. Improvements over time and changes to the academic structure have left programs with less than ideal physical spaces. This plan will re-envision the physical structure of the campus to better align with the academic mission of the school into the future.

Develop a Campus Core which Embodies Community Spirit The campus character should be read from the campus core itself, the buildings and the landscape. This plan will provide strategies to enhance the campus core, to enliven the buildings and to make a space that students and staff will gravitate towards, allowing for open communication between all levels and a true sense of ownership of place.

Develop Housing that Nurtures and Fosters Connections Envisioned as a true living community, housing or living spaces play an important role in shaping the context of place. Future growth and development of the housing stock should encourage a larger sense Executive Summary | 3

of community, developing small neighborhood enclaves which open into the larger academic community. This plan will lay out strategies to approach housing as a campus-wide issue, one that can lead to better relationships and connections between all individuals.

Enhance Natural Connection to the Vermont Environment The school is privileged to have an extraordinary setting. Future development should capitalize on the magnificent Vermont mountaintop setting and wonderful natural areas while preserving, enhancing and sustaining those environments for future generations.

The plan also needs to promote a clear sense of place, respecting the history and diversity of the school to stimulate the academic and social growth of the school community. The plan will commit to the historic preservation of key buildings and open spaces that make this place a stimulating learning environment.

Develop a Net-Zero, Healthy and Durable Campus A sustainable campus integrates ecological conservation, economic viability, and social equity through design, planning and operational organization. This plan will provide strategies to meet current needs without compromising vitality of future generations of the school community. Sustainability goals must inform campus decisions on energy, development and maintenance of buildings, protection of indoor and outdoor environments, and relationships with the adjoining community. The school strives to become a local, regional and national leader in the application of sustainability practices, in the areas of teaching, research and outreach, and the master plan aligns with this goal.

Encompass Student Work in the Campus Experience The Putney School students are known for their creativity, the elaborate art installations and their footprints on the campus.

This plan will provide opportunities for this work to be better highlighted in the campus experience and develop spaces for student work to be highlighted.

Develop Roads and Utilities to Support the Campus A campus, just like a town, requires infrastructure to support its mission. The Putney infrastructure is in many ways overused and in need or replacement or redevelopment. This plan will address all of the infrastructure that is needed to make this campus run, evaluate the current stock in terms of future sustainability and make suggestions that will lead to a better organized, functional campus.

Integrate the Theater into the Campus Experience Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

The Putney School is recognized as an art school, a place where artistic expression is held in the highest regard. The current location of the theater program off-site does not nurture this relationship on the main campus. In order to develop a stronger fraternity between the art programs the theater program must be re-envisioned as a integral part of the central campus core.

1.7 Master Plan Implementation The success of the master plan into the future relies on the enactment of specific recommendations, designed to enable the school to meet the aforementioned goals. The following listing provides an overview of the projects and changes identified in the documentation. These items constitute the main components for implementation and are explained in greater detail in the ensuing sections.

Academic Spaces Renovate the Main Building, Reynolds and the Library Add two additional multi-purpose classrooms Renovate substandard / small classrooms Provide additional gathering / teaching space for 40-50 people Student Housing Provide 20 more student beds long-term Renovate or replace Old Boys Faculty Housing Provide 8 additional faculty apartments on campus (3-4 bedroom) Arts Replace Jeffrey Campbell with theater on center campus Develop new exterior locations to show student artwork Provide better storage and work area for both the weaving and ceramic studio Improve accessibility to both the ceramic and weaving studios Sustainability Upgrade all building envelopes to net-zero energy standards Create healthy buildings through moisture remediation and ventilation Install biomass or PV energy production Vehicular Infrastructure Relocation of Putney School Road and Elm Lea Road Expanded parking away from Main Building Landscaping Develop entrance experience around Main Building Enhance pedestrian experience on main campus

2.0 The Existing Campus The Putney School campus is located on a hilltop in Putney, Vermont and is blessed with fantastic views of Vermont’s magnificent mountain ranges. The school’s programs function in an eclectic mix of buildings, some inherited farm buildings and some newer buildings, built specifically for the school.

Before the founding of the school in 1935, a few of today’s buildings were part of two neighboring farming operations.

2.1 Community Context Founded in 1753, the town of Putney Vermont is a small, rural community located in southern Vermont, just north of Dummerston and Brattleboro. With a population of only 2,898 at the 2000 census, the community supports a diverse community that is well known for its support of the arts.

Sacketts Brook, which once turned a dozen waterwheels powering the small community, flows through the heart of the village and past a small collection of eclectic shops, inns and gourmet delights. Back roads lead from the center of the community to the unspoiled country and to hiking, biking and cross-country skiing.

It is here, in Putney, Vermont, where Carmelita Hinton established The Putney School, America’s first coeducational boarding school in 1935. Today, The Putney School lives on as a pioneer in progressive education and continues to thrive as an independent, coeducational boarding and day high school with noteworthy academic, arts, and outdoor programs.

Putney School’s location in New England

2.2 Historic Growth of the Putney Campus Putney School’s 75 year history can be seen in its physical plan – over fifty buildings, ranging in age from 1776 to 2006, including both fine and humble examples of the periods. At first glance the core campus of white clapboard and shingled buildings appear fairly uniform in their simple, Colonial Revival, New England vernacular style. However closer inspection and the chronology of the construction reveals the evolution in design from the purely Colonial Revival of the inherited Main Building toward more purely modern as represented by Reynolds Science Building.

Putney School’s founder Carmelita Hinton wrote in 1945 that Putney was “a building school” because of the transformation of the campus involving hands-on work by the students and faculty/staff in the school’s first decade of operation. The new buildings constructed during this time provided classroom and library space and a dining hall. This trend is emblematic of the school’s philosophy of learning by doing. In part, these efforts resulted in more rustic construction than polished effect, but this evidence The Existing Campus | 5

of hands-on learning is to be honored in the campus buildings.

Accompanying this new construction, the initial decade of the school’s history included a lot of “making do,” and “getting by,” particularly with the residential buildings which by 1945 were heavily used, often overcrowded, and in fair repair.

Early in the school’s history, a capital campaign was launched to address the need for new dormitories and faculty housing which took many decades to bear fruit. Initially envisioned to result in six new dorms with faculty apartments, the actual donations only allowed one to be built by 1947 (Keep). The slow development of funding resulted in the Alumni House and three more new dormitories by 1966 (New Boys, Noyes and John Rogers).

As construction on campus continued through the 1960s, the aesthetic continued to shift. Though a common vocabulary is used for materials and roof lines, the fenestration, asymmetry and modernist massing of joined functional blocks started to evolve through the Library (1936), the Kitchen Dining Unit (KDU, 1941), Leonard’s Keep (New Girls) Dormitory (1947), and Reynolds Science Building (1952). More distinctly modern are the three dormitories, the Boys Dormitory (1955), Noyes Dormitory (1961), and John Rogers Dormitory (1966).

These were a representation of purely contemporary design adapted to the rural New England landscape. The construction of these buildings also involved the hands-on participation of faculty and students, creating an organic, contemporary, hand built design.

Elm Lea farm cattle lecture in c. 1910-15, building with porch on right is White Cottage

1905-06 view of construction of Arts & Crafts Building ( far left), couresy Putney Historical Society

Concurrent with new construction on campus, the adaptive re-use of existing buildings quietly continued to provide extra space through the acquisition and renovation of small houses on West Hill and Houghton Brook Roads which continue to be part of the school’s inventory. In this part of campus, other simple small houses were constructed. These existing and new smaller houses converted to faculty housing as the new dormitories were built.

After the construction of the Art Building in 1975-1978, designed and built with the full participation of students and faculty, there was a two-decade hiatus in construction on campus that ended with a capital planning and campaign effort that continues to this day.

With this initiative, construction on campus resumed in 1998, and the contemporary architecture tradition continued with the most recent additions. Each of the new buildings exhibits a distinctive design– Huseby Dormitory (1999), Currier center (2002) and The Field House (2006). The last two buildings, located at the forefront of the main school entrance, broke with the traditional appearance and materials of the core campus buildings, adding strong modern design with new

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

View of rear barnyard with White Cottage on left and Arts & Crafts Building as a stable on the right, c. 1920s-30, before school, courtesy Putney School Alumni Office

Historic view of the Main Building in c. 1935, courtesy Putney School Alumni Office

Figure 2.3.1 - The Historic Putney School Campus, pre-1900

Figure 2.3.2 - The Historic Putney School Campus, 1900 - 1959

The Existing Campus | 7

Figure 2.3.3 - The Historic Putney School Campus, 1959 - 1999

Figure 2.3.4 - The Historic Putney School Campus, post-2000

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

materials. The choice of natural finish on the Currier and green siding on The Field House allow them to visually recede against the white of the neighboring core buildings, primarily the main building and KDU. The Currier Center in particular is designed to melt into the landscape. These buildings provide a counterpoint to the older buildings without detracting from their character.

2.3 Campus Character and Community The sensibility of the Putney School can be read through the form of the physical plant. The campus, dotted with its small buildings is emblematic of Putney School’s sense of community, a community joined together in small classes and small dormitories with students involved in the daily functions of the school.

The school community learns, works and lives together. Academics feature a student-centered seminar style approach to learning. The nine dormitories range in size from 10-30 students, and most members of the faculty live on campus. All students participate in a work program that operates the school’s dairy and horse farms and provides much of the school’s produce, dairy and meat. Putney also offers a wide range of interscholastic athletics, with special pride in its cross-country ski teams.

2. 4 Current Challenges With a “make it work” attitude through the years, the Putney School adapted existing campus buildings to fit the programs required at any one time. With very few buildings on campus built primarily for their current functions, academic departments long for facilities specifically designed to meet the needs of the various disciplines with flexibility to continually adapt over time..

•

Many Classrooms are inadequately sized and do not provide the flexibility required by the various academic programs.

•

Offices are either undersized or oversized and use space inefficiently.

•

Teachers and administrators are separated across campus because of space issues rather than promoting strong collaboration.

•

The diverse quality of student dormitories creates disparity among the student body.

•

There are too few faculty apartments on campus to house all of the faculty that would like to live on campus, requiring the school to rent spaces in town and detracting from the community spirit.

•

The lack of high-performance building envelopes and prevalence of outdated mechanical systems lead to indoor spaces that are uncomfortable for living and working and are energy inefficient.

•

Moisture issues from older, un-drained basements threaten long-term occupant and building health and limit usable space in some buildings.

This master plan addresses these issues to ensure that all improvements made help to solve these challenges over time while enhancing the overall Putney community.

The Existing Campus | 9

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

3.0 The Natural Environment Located in a rural setting, land use on the Putney Campus is active and vibrant. The Putney School land is farmed for food, logged for wood and traveled for recreation. The campus is unique because of the beauty of the land, the views to the mountains and the understanding that through use and time, the land is constantly growing, changing and adapting.

3.1 Existing Site The main Putney School campus exists in a saddle between two hilltops that flank the campus to the north and south, as illustrated in figure 3.1.1. Broad expanses and corresponding long views open gradually to the west and more grandly to the east. The landscape and topography of the campus create challenges for siting buildings and constructing effective transportation through the campus, but these rolling hills allow for the experience of discovery throughout the campus.

Figure 3.1.1 Existing Site Topography

3.2 Existing Ecosystem/Land Use The main Putney campus exists within two ecosystems. Woodlands surround the eastern half of the The Natural Environment | 11

campus, while a meadow covers the western half of the main campus and beyond, as illustrated in figure 3.2.1.

The woodlands are utilized for recreation and farming activities. Much of Putney School’s woodland habitat is crisscrossed by recreation paths, utilized by students and faculty of The Putney School as well as the larger Putney community.

These tree stands are managed as standing wood lots for the

school utilized for construction, heating and cooking, and the maples are tapped by the students for sap to produce the maple syrup enjoyed by all on campus.

The meadow encompasses the campus core with the majority of the academic buildings and the majority of the farming activities. The meadow spreads from the saddle of the main campus to the west encompassing the playing fields, the gardens, the main barn and the horse farm.

3.3 Campus Lands Overview Three types of open spaces are present on the Putney School Campus:

Recreation plays a central role on the Putney School natural landscape

Figure 3.2.1 Existing Ecosystem / Landuse

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

1. Agricultural: Located mostly at the perimeter of the campus, cornered between Houghton Brook Road and the Putney School Road, this open space is unique to the Putney School. Students are required to participate in farming activities, from which much of the food for the Putney campus is grown. The care of the animals and the upkeep of gardens are central to

The Putney School mission and hands-on learning focus.

2. Recreation: Located at the perimeter of the campus core, this open space is a campus and community resource. Managed recreation zones exist on Putney School land and that of adjoining landowners, requiring ongoing respect and care of the land to preserve this open space typology.

3. Outdoor Gathering Space: Outdoor gathering spaces are located at the interior of the campus core and consist of formal and informal areas where the campus community gathers. The spaces are generally defined by building facades, maintained landscape plantings, and many include outdoor student art. These spaces could be better defined through clarity in entry, edge, size and function to better serve The Putney School community.

3.4 Campus Landscaping In general, the campus landscape is typical of a rural private school, while containing the character of a New England farm. The old sugar maples, tree lined dirt roads, and mix of architecture support this motif.

The trees and shrubs reflect the old and new. Mature sugar maples populate the perimeter, large black locusts occupy the campus core and lilacs border many of the buildings.

Informal quadrangles enable interaction, allowing people to congregate or meet in passing. These informal spaces are essential to the quality of the school environment.

The Natural Environment | 13

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

4.0 The Built Environment A functional, attractive campus contributes to the ongoing success in the competitive private secondary school environment. To continue to thrive, our facilities must be periodically renovated and remodeled to serve current needs. The continued adapting of the Putney School campus buildings, not primarily built for educational activities, has left us with many outmoded facilities – built for an obsolete single use, with an extreme emphasis on economy of construction rather than flexibility.

With over 50 buildings structures on campus, built at various times and for various uses, many of the historic Vermont farm buildings are now at the functional end of their use and are costly to heat, cool, repair and maintain. To serve the campus’ current and future needs, many of these facilities must be updated or replaced. Existing buildings were evaluated based on their current physical integrity and the condition of their major systems, including HVAC, windows, roofs, walls, exterior finish, electrical, plumbing and code compliance. Existing buildings were also analyzed for their ability to be either downgraded or upgraded from their current use to meet a variety of program needs.

For the purpose of this master plan, only structures on the main campus utilized for academic activities maintained our focus. A comprehensive study of the various farm and support buildings was not undertaken as the main campus buildings themselves already require a large amount of deferred maintenance to be addressed. At some point these farm and support buildings will need to be addressed, but in the larger goal of this master plan to develop a net-zero campus, the need to address these buildings that did not use energy for heating and cooling did not seem apparent.

Faculty housing around the periphery of the campus was also not investigated to a great depth. These structures only are considered in the broadest of brush strokes in terms of planning for the future campus.

The buildings of The Putney School Campus are identified in figure 4.1.1.

The massing, scale and character of campus buildings are crucial to good open space development and contribute to a strong sense of identity. This campus has two distinct scales of buildings – those that define a traditionally, residentially scaled farm campus, and those that house the larger academic programs of a modern educational environment. Regardless of size and function, all campus buildings share the responsibility to create an environment that is humane in scale and elegant in detail.

As the demands for building spaces have grown with the campus, functions have been pushed into unlikely locations, developing a campus where specifics of space must be learned and cannot be read from the exterior character of the buildings. While mixing uses within an area, or a building, can help to create a vibrant atmosphere, the mixing of uses should be done strategically so that adjacent functions are compatible and functions can all operate efficiently.

4.1 Overall Campus Space Use The current Putney School’s core building infrastructure includes just over 190,000 square feet of heated

The Built Environment | 15

Figure 4.1.1 Campus Buildings (numbering key can be found in table 4.1.1)

space contained in 30 buildings. This includes nine buildings with classrooms or dedicated to academic uses, ten dormitories or buildings including dormitory functions, twenty attached faculty apartments, and twelve faculty houses which exist at the periphery of the campus.

The Putney School’s academic, administrative and student life functions are primarily located within the main campus core, at the top of the hill. Student dormitories are primarily located at the periphery of this core, some small dormitories still exist within the main central function of the campus.

Faculty housing is spread throughout the campus, attached to individual dorms, and exist peripheral to the main campus, throughout Lower Farm and along the surrounding roads, as illustrated in figure 4.1.2 and detailed in figure 4.1.3 This Building Use diagram illustrates the existing campus buildings in terms building use patterns that currently exist on campus: Academic: Academic spaces including classrooms, laboratories and direct student support such as library, theater and learning center functions.

Administration & Support: Administration and support is made up primarily of office space. This includes Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

both academic offices, such as English or history offices as well as program offices, such as summer programs and college counseling.

Residential - Student: Student residential spaces include all dormitories where students reside.

Residential - Staff: Staff residential spaces include all staff residences including both those attached to student dormitories and those that are free standing.

Community Life / Social: Community Life and Social spaces include those spaces where the Putney community comes together outside of necessarily academic spaces. These also include spaces where the Putney School can welcome in visitors.

Recreation / Athletics: Indoor recreation and athletic spaces are contained within the field house, though this space classification extends far beyond any building boundaries.

Farming / Agricultural: Farming and agricultural spaces include all programs that support the dairy farm operation and the growing of plants and animals. This space classification also extends far beyond any building boundaries.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 50 51 52 53 60 62 63 64

Main Building KDU Field House Old Boys Arts & Crafts Building White Cottage Currier Building Reynolds Library Huseby Wender Arts Greenhouse New Boys Leonard's Keep Woodworking Building Paint Shop Noyes Kiln Root Cellar Old Music Studio John Rogers Main Barn Small Animal Barn Horse Barn Milk House Titus House Arms House Prefab House Hinkle House Cinderblock House Sugar House Goodlatte House Grey House / Alumni House Jeffrey Campbell Theater Lower Farm / Innkeeper's House 2 Innkeeper's House Farm Sheds at Lower Farm Page Farm Wirth House Rogers House Rockwell House

Net/Programmed Space 12,732 11,772 15,322 5,452 4,685 5,307 20,884 10,044 8,281 14,396 7,143

Gross Building Area 14,079 12,572 16,695 6,571 5,073 5,741 21,975 10,533 8,832 15,484 7,479

4,158 9,369

4,601 10,085

6,401

6,778

4,200

4,256

1,432 1,897 1,450 803 1,500 850 825 6,084 8,306 7,969 1,673

6,063 7,874

Total Building Area:

3,623 1,802 1,457 4,858 195,283

Table 4.1 .1Existing Building Program - Building use here is identified by color: green=academic, red=dormitory, gray=support/farming, purple=faculty housing. It should be noted that building square footages here come from a variety of sources, some measurements are very accurate and others are very loose. More detail on measurements can be found in the appendix document including building plans. As is these numbers should only be used for broad brush, programming understanding.

The Built Environment | 17

Figure 4.1.2 Existing Building Use - full campus

Figure 4.1.3 Existing Building Use - central campus

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Facilities / Support: Facilities and support is made up of all of the structures that provide support to the schools systems, to make the facility run. This includes both traditional mechanical support spaces as well as the kitchen for cooking food.

4.2 Gathering Spaces Gathering spaces, both formal and informal, inside and outside, are very important spaces on the Putney School Campus. Because of the identification of community on the campus, the idea of developing small families through the dormitory system – gathering spaces are incredibly important. Some formal gathering spaces, such as the KDU dining hall function as very strong meeting places on the campus, but others such as the display hall in Reynolds leave something to be desired. Existing gathering spaces described by quality can be seen in figure 4.2.1.

Dormitories, which through the Putney School mission require functional gathering spaces in order to develop the sense of community and home for the students and faculty that reside in each residence. It is therefore important to ensure that these gathering spaces are encouraged to grow and develop into strong spaces for all of the students.

Gathering spaces come in all shapes and sizes on the Putney School Campus

Figure 4.2.1 Existing Gathering Places

The Built Environment | 19

Figure 4.3.1 Existing Pedestrian Circulation

Figure 4.3.2 Existing Vehicular Circulation

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

4.3 Transportation, Circulation & Parking Vehicular and pedestrian traffic routes currently overlap on the Putney School campus. With very little delineation between the two functions, both vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes must be better defined for the safety of pedestrians and the accessibility of the vehicles. The main campus circulation path follows the Putney School road and cuts straight through the core campus and through the main green space.

The primary off-road pedestrian way extends through a variety of campus open spaces. It is not a designated pedestrian path but an informal route that has developed over time. This existing campus network of pedestrian routes is ill-defined. Many border vehicular routes and lack pedestrian-friendly landscapes. Winter conditions, steep topography and icy sidewalks create difficult walking conditions.

Dirt roadways make up the existing vehicular structure on the Putney School campus. While vehicles are not necessarily needed to moved across the core of the campus, many vehicles exist within this space for the accessibility of the faculty and staff. Challenges with the current road system includes the fact that these roadways are steep and often challenging to navigate in steep winter conditions and that the vehicular routes cut through some of the most important features of the campus. Improvements could be made to this system to both make the vehicular travel system less visible on campus and safer for travel by all residents.

Parking has always been a challenge on the Putney School campus, including faculty and staff parking, visitor parking, and town parking for those individuals who come to use cross-country ski trails on the Putney School campus. Bus parking provides an aesthetic challenge on the Putney campus, because it is the first thing that is seen when visitors come to the main parking lot. Buses need a new location for parking; a designated parking location needs to exist for visitors coming to use the cross country ski trails; and the main parking lot requires better definition so that it does not spread out into the surrounding fields.

The Built Environment | 21

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

5.0 The Campus Plan The Putney School campus plan is intended as a framework, an outline within which decisions can be made judiciously and positively contribute to the long-term vision of the plan. Prescriptive recommendations have been made in reference to certain buildings and spaces on the campus while other spaces have been left as a broad framework that is meant to guide campus decision making into the future. This campus plan is made up of two parts: this first section refers to program changes, open space structure, circulation systems and infrastructure, while the second section referred to in “The Net-Zero Campus” refers to energy improvements and the installation of renewable energy systems to power the campus.

The goal is to provide a stable framework that enables near-term decisions to be made which continue to uphold the long-term vision for the campus – a vision that produces an efficient and coherent campus while maintaining the intrinsic beauty of the Vermont campus. The following major components of the campus are addressed as locations for improvement, along with sustainability as discussed in the next section.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Academic Spaces Student Housing Faculty Housing Arts Vehicular Infrastructure Pedestrian Circulation Landscaping

5.1 Academic Spaces As a school, classrooms are arguably the most important space on the Putney campus. There is a constant need for new classroom space and expansion of the existing classroom space to accommodate larger classes. There is a limitation on the Putney Campus as to the number of non-specialized classrooms that can easily be transitioned through many different programs, teachers and educational styles. The Putney School hoped to increase the classroom count by at least two new multi-use classroom spaces.

The Main Building, Reynolds and The Library all require improvements to their programmed academic spaces. All three of these buildings need to be addressed for classrooms size, office functionality and efficient use of space. Recommendations have been made for expanding classroom sizes in these three buildings in order to create more usable academic spaces as well as the required additional classroom spaces.

As illustrated in table 5.1.1, currently 20 classroom spaces, with an average size of 435 square feet per classroom, exist on the Putney School campus. All together our recommendations will increase the number of classroom spaces to 25, with an average classroom size of 515 square feet per classroom, including a computer lab that is large enough for teaching. This increase in classroom space can be accounted for in the following changes.

The Campus Plan | 23

Existing SF

Proposed

Pop

Existing

1107 1113 1114 1115 1209 7111 7113 7140 8101 8105 8106 8107 8109 8201 8204 8207 8302 8303 9111 9121 1170* 1172* 1230* 4124* 4125* 4129* 4130* 8120* 8121* 9130* 9135* Table 5.1.1

Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Auditorium Laboratory Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Computer Lab / Teaching Space Classroom - Classroom spaces on the Putney School Campus

SF 14211 420 330 340 340 225 520 1100 5276 775 270 200 200 350 775 740 610 300 580 420 440

SF

Pop

Proposed

Pop 12 15 15 15 10 10 25 330 15 10 8 8 10 15 15 15 4 12 15 15

1. Main Building - reassignment of space to include 3 new classrooms.

2. Old Boys - the replacement of this dormitory with academic space will add 4 additional classrooms.

3. Reynolds - the rearrangement of space will convert the 10 existing classrooms (480 sf/class) to 6 (785 sf/class) more functional classroom spaces.

4. Library - the addition of 2 new classroom spaces including 1 computer lab that is large enough for teaching.

SF 18258 420 330 340 340 331 520 1100 5276 775

Pop

student in each dormitory also varies by quite a large amount, where some dormitories see student space at just over 180 square feet and some dormitories seeing student space of close to 300 square feet. In order to better serve the entire student body disparities between dormitories should be corrected and the worst of the student housing should be renovated or replaced with new student accommodations.

Though almost all student dormitories do need some sort of renovation, the spaces in need of the most drastic renovation are Old Boys, Old Girls and White Cottage. As one of the older buildings on campus, Old Boys has an incredibly leaky envelope which leads to comfort issues for the occupants, has an incredibly small amount of space per dormitory occupant and because of many past renovations has an incredibly disjointed organization. Old Girls is awkwardly located, connected to an academic building and stranded in the center of campus. This dormitory does not create a great sense of community with its social space; this space is likely better utilized for academic activities rather than as a dormitory.

White Cottage is in need of a better organization and better functioning social space. Also fit into an older building, this dormitory could use a face lift to better fit into the function that is required of it today.

923 796 1110

420 440 362 391 313 491 491 491 491 511 595 577 424

Because of the expectation that more of the student body will be boarding students rather than day students in the future, the Putney School is in need of twenty additional student beds, or one new dormitory. Recommendations have been made for the addition of one new dormitory and the expansion of one existing dormitory, these newly created beds will add the twenty needed beds as well as cover the beds removed from the conversion of Old Boys and Old Girls to other functions. The following dormitory additions and conversions can be seen in figure 5.3.1 and table 5.2.1.

The resulting outcome is 5 additional classrooms that will be more functional for the Putney School community.

5.2 Student Housing Student housing exists in a large variety on the Putney School campus. Though all dormitories are small, maxing out at 30 students, and made up mostly with double rooms, there is drastic disparity between what could be considered the good and bad student rooms on campus. The amount of space per Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Existing SF 1001 2302 4102 6102 10102 13102 14101 17101 21102 41100

1152 4202 6202 10202 13202 14202 17201 21202 41200

Student Housing Main Building KDU Old Boys White Cottage 10302 Huseby New Boys 14302 Leonard's Keep Noyes John Rogers Grey House

Table 5.2.1 - Student Housing on the Putney School Campus

2208 901 4405 2255 8670 2315 6540 5246 2524 6063

Pop

SF/Pop 11 6 24 11 29 14 28 16 10 8

201 150 184 205 299 165 234 328 252 758

1. New Dormitory South of New Boys – currently there exists an open space between New Boys and Leonard’s Keep that would be an ideal location for a new dormitory. This location places the dormitory at the periphery of the main campus strengthening the organization that is being developed of academics at the core and living spaces in a ring around the exterior. This location would also allow for good solar access and a courtyard space to be developed between this new dormitory and New Boys to develop a community relationship.

2. Alternate New Dormitory South of Leonard’s Keep – a possible alternate location for a new dormitory exists between Leonard’s Keep and Noyes on the exterior campus loop road. This location would be less ideal than the previous location because of the grade of the site, the lack of solar access and would not provide the same opportunity for community development.

3. Arts and Crafts / White Cottage Connection – speaking to a historical precedent where a large farm building existed in the current location of these buildings, the Arts and Crafts Building could be converted to a more efficient organization and White Cottage could be renovated to solve the problems explained previously in order to create a larger dormitory at the center of campus. With the removal of both Old Boys and Old Girls as dormitories White Cottage would be left alone as a housing unit in the central core of the campus. This renovation and connection would allow the existence of this dormitory in the central campus to make more sense and hold a sense of presence in this area.

5.3 Faculty Housing Faculty housing exists on the Putney School campus in two different varieties: apartments attached to dormitories and stand alone homes at the periphery of the campus. The current challenge on the Putney School campus is that there is not enough, especially of the larger apartments / houses, to accommodate all of the faculty and their families who would like to live on campus. Recommendations have been made

Figure 5.3.1 Possible Housing Improvements

The Campus Plan | 25

to provide eight additional faculty apartments on campus, which will be a mix of dormitory attached and stand-alone housing, as shown in figure 5.3.1.

Opportunities for additional dormitory attached housing exist at the south end of New Boys as well as at the northeast end of Leonard’s Keep. Both of these dormitories have two attached faculty apartments at one end, but providing additional faculty housing here would provide more adult support for the dormitory residents. These attached housing structures would make the most sense to add as other upgrades and renovations are being completed on these individual dormitories.

The field located to the northwest of New Boys as well as the greenhouse would provide the best location for additional stand-alone faculty housing on the campus. This location was chosen because of its location around the periphery of central campus core, close enough to the dining hall that faculty might choose to have dinner there rather than at home, but far enough away that faculty members could have some privacy.

The recommendation is that these four to six additional faculty housing units would be built as four bedroom, duplex apartments that can work for larger families. These new housing units would be clustered in such a way as to create a small community, with a courtyard, in order to encourage a sense of community between the families.

around the Wender Arts building. There exists an opportunity to develop an even stronger feeling of the arts on campus by creatively inserting locations to display student artwork as features within the landscape. All future landscaping changes should be addressed with the possibility of displaying student artwork throughout the campus.

While many of the art programs are located in some of the best academic square footage on campus, there are some programs which are in need of significant building improvements. The Jeffrey Campbell Theater has outlived its current purpose and without a major investment in the building will not be able to fulfill the requirements of theater program for much longer.

This building is in constant danger of failing to meet fire code regulations and therefore must be addressed as a needed program improvement. The current theater program was addressed and a recommendation was given as to the size and requirements for a new theater program for the school.

Throughout the master planning process multiple locations were addressed for this new theater location, all on the main campus, in order to connect the theater program more closely with other campus activities as well as being able to take advantage of infrastructure and parking already developed within the main campus core. The following locations were

PUTNEY SCHOOL THEATRE SPACE PROGRAM

Along with the need for more faculty housing on campus, there is quite a disparity across campus of the quality of faculty accommodations. Existing housing ranges from one room apartments that can barely house a single individual to beautiful four bedroom homes that are ideal locations to live. Revisiting and removing or renovating existing faculty housing should be a priority in the future, in order to create enjoyable places to live. Faculty housing that is in need of review includes the apartments attached to White Cottage and Old Girls specifically, though others are also in need of renovation.

1/3/2011 Total # of spaces

Area of Space (SQ. FT.)

Net Area

1 2 1

300 200 120

300 400 120

Subtotal

820

1600 1600 120

1600 1600 360

Subtotal

3560

0 0 0 400 50 200

0 0 0 800 100 200

Subtotal

1100

200 60

200 60

Subtotal

260

Total Net Area Total of Subtotals Above

Net Area

5740

Total Gross Area Net Area times 1.15

Gross Area

6601

Public reception Lobby Toilet Rooms Ticket/Concession

Performance Area Seating area Performance and wing area Catwalk area above

Performance Support Scene Shop Costume Storage Prop Storage Dressing Rooms Toilet Rooms General Storage

1 1 3

1 1 1 2 2 1

5.4 Arts The arts have always been one of the reasons that students choose to come to Putney School. Walking through the buildings on campus there exists an eclectic mix of student artwork displayed in a large variety of locations. This same experience is not felt walking through the campus grounds, except

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Support Space Mechanical Room Electrical/Switching Room

1 1

Table 5.3 - Putney School Theater Space Program

Comments

20 foot high space 20 foot high space Three 4' x 30' walkways

Erected on performance floor Off-site Off-site 20 SF X 20 Persons

Figure 5.4.1 Possible Theater Locations

discussed as possible new theater locations, as addressed in figure 5.4.1.

1. Replace Old Boys / Attach to Library – if the determination is made that the Old Boys dormitory should be replaced, a theater building could be located here to maintain density in this central campus location. This location would improve accessibility, locating the building close to existing parking, but would not provide direct connection to other art programs on campus.

2. East of the East Lawn – this scenario could see a theater either attached to or separate but located close to White Cottage. This option would put the theater program right in the center of campus and could likely take advantage of the natural grade to drop much of the building out of view. The disadvantage of this location would be that it would be visible in the dramatic view from the East Lawn, and if the Arts and Crafts/White Cottage connection is performed it would create a massive façade in the campus that would not relate to the current building context.

3. West side of Currier – this scenario would take advantage of the art and performance infrastructure already built within the Currier building and would directly link the theater program to the other performing arts programs on campus. Probably the ideal location, this option would allow the theater addition to be smaller than any other option because gallery and bathroom space already exist. The challenge with this option would be to develop a sensitive addition that would work on the most visible façade of the Currier building.

4. Pond Overlook – this location would require a full study as to its feasibility. Though the location overlooking the pond and the Main Barn would be an idyllic location from an arts point of view, the feasibility of locating the theater between the wetlands associated with the pond and the hill leading back to John Rogers would have the be addressed. This location also develops the theater the furthest from existing campus parking of any of these options.

The Campus Plan | 27

5.5 Vehicular Infrastructure One of the largest challenges of the Putney Campus is the movement of vehicles through the central green space. The main vehicular circulation path travels straight through the East Lawn and the Central Park spaces. This masterplan saw it as a goal to remove vehicular circulation from the central of campus as much as possible, and to better define separate locations for vehicular and pedestrian circulation. In order to do this recommendations are made to relocate the existing Putney School Road further down the hill to the east, away from the East Lawn. Elm Lea Road will also be established as the main vehicular circulation pattern, moving the traffic away from the center of campus and down to the loop road around the periphery of the campus. Bollards will be located on Elm Lea Road between the KDU and the connection with Elm Lea road to the south, allowing this road to only be used for deliveries and emergency vehicles.

The Putney School also sees some challenges with parking.

Though the amount of parking on campus is close to ideal, the location of this parking is not necessarily well thought out.

The majority of parking on the campus exists in front of the main building which provides some challenges including bus parking happening here so any visitors see busses in the parking lot before the rest of the campus. Parking recommendations include the following.

1. The main campus parking to the west of the Main Building should be better delineated and broken up by landscaping in order to minimize the visual impact of this parking lot. Currently this parking lot is wider than need be and does not have a very organized flow meaning it is used inefficiently. Better delineation of parking could lead to a smaller square footage of space being denoted as parking but serving the same number of vehicles.

2. Establishing a lot for cross country ski parking. Cross country ski parking currently occurs haphazardly at the entrance to the main parking lot, during the winter when patrons can park on the snowy field, which causes wear and tear on the landscaping itself.

If established as an actual parking lot, especially for visitors, with signage about the trails it would mean less wear and tear at the entrance to the Putney School.

3. Expanded parking to the north of the Field House. A small amount of parking currently exists to the north of the Field House. This parking should be expanded so that buses can be parked here, hidden behind the Field House, but still easily accessible by faculty and

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

staff for field trips and athletic events. This parking can also be used by faculty and staff, which would leave the front parking lot more open for visitors to the campus.

5.6 Landscaping Improving landscaping on the Putney School campus follows two general goals, one of enhancing the pedestrian experience on campus and the other of establishing a better gateway and transitional feeling to the campus. The landscaping should enhance the organization of the built environment and allow to be read as contextual wayfinding throughout the campus. The following recommendations are identified here as opportunities for the Putney Campus to embrace.

1. Enhance the entrance experience between the Main Building and the KDU 2. Enhance outdoor spaces for teaching, learning and informal gathering 3. Allow the growing of food to become a primary experience in the center of campus 4. Cull the smaller trees and brush from the woods spanning through the central campus to improve security and aesthetics 5. Extend the central green to the north east in order to create a strong connection between all the main campus buildings 6. Create better defined parking through landscaping improvements 7. Develop wayfinding for intersection between campus and recreation paths Developing a stronger entrance experience into the campus from the main entrance point that of the parking lot to the west of the Main Building. Master plan recommendations identify specific landscape changes to this area to better identify a gateway and transition the visitor from parking to the central campus. The following specific recommendations address this issue.

1. Pull the parking further from the Main Building providing a larger swath of natural growth across the front of the building.

2. Development of an arbor or more identifiable structure between parking and the Main Building.

3. Develop actual gateways to the campus at both the south and north ends of the Main Building.

Maintaining the intersection between the two separate

Figure 5.6.1 - The Putney School Master Plan Concept

Figure 5.6.2 - The Putney School Master Plan Concept

The Campus Plan| 29

ecosystems on the Putney School campus, that of the field and the forest, is important in enhancing the intrigue and privacy that is created when these spaces come together. Dormitories nestled into the surrounding woodlands create a much more intimate feeling than dormitories set in the middle of the field. Enhancement of the existing ecosystem could occur in the culling of smaller trees and brush from the somewhat overgrown woods that span the central campus, surrounding the Wender Arts Building. Both from an aspect of safety, in providing sight lines through the space, as well as an aesthetic quality, in providing a more park-like space, this intersection of the ecosystems could be enhanced.

Landscaping efforts will also function to enhance the pedestrian experience on the Putney School campus. The centerpiece of these improvements is the conversion of the former central driveway to a pedestrian corridor with very limited vehicle access. This will not only improve the quality and safety of the corridor, but also introduce a central pedestrian artery along what is now a road. As pedestrian transportation is the most common day to day transportation for campus users, this experience should be recognized in all future changes to the Putney School campus.

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus With fuel oil prices tripling in recent years and with the success of the Net-Zero Field House, both the necessity and feasibility of major energy reductions have become apparent to the School. This realization led the Putney School to ask for an energy masterplan as part of the overall campus master plan. This energy plan is intended to guide the School toward a secure, affordable, environmentally responsible energy future for the campus. As part of the plan, we have developed energy standards for all future renovations and new construction and recommended renewable energy sources to meet the reduced building energy loads. The plan also outlines the necessary action steps to move toward the goal of a net-zero campus.

6.1 Strategic Energy Planning It is our opinion that the economic reality of peak oil will drastically change how we assess building and energy performance. Because energy costs have remained relatively stable, when adjusting for inflation, for a long-time, the financial reward for energy conservation and renewable energy has been modest.

However, recently, fuel escalation has been 5-15% over the life of project financing. Thus, detailed financial modeling indicates that significantly higher investments than have been common have an excellent return on investment, and a drastically reduced risk and exposure to future energy cost changes.

Not only is this likely a more secure investment, but it is obviously also good for the planet and the community. Thus, this larger initial investment might in fact be the most prudent investment and best solution.

6.2 The Path to Net-Zero The path to net-zero1 energy consists of two separate but related pieces. The first aspect of the netzero strategy is conservation, or building energy improvements. These include building enclosure improvements, as well as remediating moisture (and in some cases, mold) problems that need to be addressed for occupant health and safety as well as building durability. Additionally, moisture problems could get worse if they are not addressed as the buildings are tightened up. This requires controlling unwanted moisture entry and controlling indoor moisture generation and indoor air quality with, in most cases, new ventilation systems that do not presently exist. Mechanical systems also will need updating, not only to allow proper temperature control of spaces, but to allow the systems to be powered by renewable energy. Proper temperature control not only improves comfort and productivity, but eliminates the need to overheat parts of the building so that others are warm enough. The classic example of this is the older steam heating system, which in the winter overheat many rooms, requiring occupants to open the windows and wasting huge amounts of energy, while other rooms are hardly heated to comfortable temperatures.

The second aspect of the net-zero strategy is the addition of renewable energy sources to meet campus energy needs. Specific renewable energy systems are discussed below, but include solar electric, or photovoltaic, or PV systems to produce electricity; solar hot water systems; and biomass (wood chips or wood pellet) fired boilers for space heating and for backup for solar water heating

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 31

Conservation and renewables are proposed to be pursued in tandem to make progress toward the goal. In the past, the perceived wisdom has been “conservation first, renewables second.” There are three reasons this is no longer the case.

1. It is wise to take advantage of opportunities as they arise: If a building is being worked on for programmatic, deferred maintenance, or another reason, then improvements should meet the proposed energy standards so that there is incremental building improvement.

2. Outside funding should be used as opportunities become available for renewables or conservation through grants and gifts and through efficiency programs offered by Efficiency Vermont.

3. In order to address climate change, both conservation and renewables are needed simultaneously to move towards a net-zero future as quickly as possible.

We recognize that the path to net-zero for the Putney School is not an easy one. The campus’ many older buildings require repair (often urgent) and many require repurposing or remodeling, in addition to energy upgrades. Meeting all these 1

A “net-zero” campus is defined here as all building energy requirements being met by solar energy, or an annual basis. That is, photovoltaics and solar hot water systems would generate as much energy over the course of the year as all campus building energy requirements. A “carbon netural” campus would utilize biomass for a (probably large) fraction of the thermal requirements (heat and hot water), with biomass quantities that could be sustainably regenerated. If all of the wood is harvested on a renewable basis from the Putney School property, it also could be argued that this also would be net-zero as it is a sustainable yield with on-site renewable energy. The former is classified as a NZEB Class 2, and the later NZEB Class 3 in Net-Zero Energy Buildings: A Classification System Based on Renewable Energy Supply Options - available at - http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/44586.pdf.

needs will require integrating energy improvements with all program improvements and different maintenance upgrades.

Notwithstanding, we advocate allocating resources toward a complete net-zero “fix” of fewer buildings at a time, rather than minor fixes to a larger number of buildings. There are two main reasons for this approach. First, it costs more to partially retrofit a building and then to come back and do the rest at another time. The added costs come from having to un-do some of the things done in the first round to complete the second, in addition to mobilizing the builders twice. The second reason is to accomplish tangible, visible progress by achieving the net-zero goal as each building is worked on. It is expected that it will be easier to raise funds for three net-zero buildings than for six partial building improvements. This approach also allows the School and its contractors to become more proficient at accomplishing these “deep energy retrofits,” which require a level of attention to detail that is not typical.

6.3 Putney School Energy Usage Current energy cost (for buildings only, not transportation) for the Putney Campus is projected to cost about $440,000 for 2011. In 2010 the campus used: •

800,000 kWh electricity

•

75,000 gallons of oil

•

14,000 gallons of propane

•

20 cords of wood

Carbon dioxide emissions resulting from oil, propane and electricity usage totaled 1,400 tons.

6.3.1 Building Energy Use & Energy Use Intensity In order to understand where the greatest need for improvement exists it is important to understand energy usage on the campus at a building by building level. Figures 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 look at the total energy usage by each building on the campus. All fuel types are included – oil, propane, wood and electricity -- characterized by energy in the fuels, in kWh. Figure 6.3.1 illustrates the total energy use by building, while figure 6.3.2 looks at energy use per square meter, in order to illustrate how efficient the building is for its size. Energy data utilized here is an average of the 08/09 and 09/10 academic years.

In figure 6.3.2, the range of energy intensity that is required to meet the net-zero goal is noted as two dashed red lines, at 60 and 100 kWh/sq.m-yr (19 - 32 kBtu/sq.ft.–yr). The reason for the range is discussed below.

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Energy Use by Building, All Energy Sources 700,000

600,000

kWh per ye ear, all sources

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100 000 100,000

-

Figure 6.3.1 Energy Use by Building, All Energy Souces

Building Energy Intensity, All Energy Sources

700

kWH/sq.m-yr -- all sources

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Figure 6.3.2 Building Energy Intensity, All Energy Sources

As can be seen from both charts, the KDU is, as expected, the highest energy user due to the inclusion of the commercial kitchen. (See appendices for recommendations for reduction.) The next three highest buildings in energy intensity, figure 6.3.2, are three small buildings, Goodlatte, Arms and Prefab Houses. This is due to cordwood consumption in these buildings, which is burned at a low efficiency and therefore drives up energy intensity. The Currier Center and the Main building are the next highest users on a total energy basis, figure 6.3.1, but the newer Currier Center has a lower energy intensity, somewhere near the middle of all the buildings.

These tables give a partial roadmap of where to begin energy reduction on the Putney School campus.

Of course there will be other reasons to choose which buildings to work on first, such as program

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 33

H ti E Heating Energy IIntensity t it

160

Btu/sq.ft-year

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 -

Figure 6.3.3 Heating Energy Intensity

or deferred maintenance upgrades, but from an energy perspective, reducing the largest users first will produce more immediate energy and cost savings.

A third metric of energy use is how much heating energy each building uses per square foot, or Heating Energy Intensity.

Figure 6.3.3 indicates which buildings would benefit most from building enclosure upgrades and from heating system efficiency improvements. Note the wood heated homes show up again with high heating energy use intensity. The metric used in figure 6.3.3, Btu/sq.ft.-dday refers to the number of BTU’s of energy in the heating fuel that were consumed per square foot of floor space per heating degree day. Heating degree day is a measure of how cold the climate is, approximately 7,700 at Putney. In general a value lower than 5 Btu/sq.ft.-dday indicates an efficient building, 5 – 10 a building where cost effective improvements can be made, and greater than 10 indicates significant opportunities and very large savings potential.

The following three figures, break down total energy intensity by the three building use categories on the Putney School campus, Administration and Academic buildings, figure 6.3.4; staff housing, figure 6.3.5; and student dorms, figure 6.3.6, so that energy use can be more easily compared by building occupancy type.

The following three figures indicate energy use by end use, including electricity, hot water and heat, and, in the case of the

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

KDU, cooking for the same building use categories described before: Administration andAcademic buildings, figure 6.3.7; staff housing, figure 6.3.8; and student dorms, figure 6.3.9.

Note that in all cases, heating is the single largest energy use.

These estimated breakdowns are based on fuel usage records, equipment inventory and usage patterns. While not exact, they are sufficient to indicate how energy is being used, in an effort to better prioritize energy reduction recommendations for each building and to estimate future energy source requirements. For example, total heating loads were used to estimate how much biomass fuel would be used by the Putney School or how much PV would be needed to make the Putney School campus net-zero.

6.4 Energy Improvements When moving toward a net-zero campus, what is the optimal level of energy efficiency that should be implemented in the buildings? For a “Net-Zero” campus (Class 1 or Class 2 Net-Zero buildings) all energy must be supplied from onsite renewable sources, which as we will discuss later means photolvotaics for the Putney School campus. In this case, it makes financial sense to do all energy improvements that cost less than the cost of purchasing photovoltaics to provide the amount of energy that the improvements will save. For example, if it costs $500 to insulate a roof to R-60, and that saves enough energy to avoid installing $800 of PVs, we would put in that insulation, as the insulation is the lower cost option.

Admin + Academic Buildings, Total Energy Intensity, All Fuel Sources 700

600

500

Total kWh/sq.m-yr T

400

300

200

100

-

Figure 6.3.4 Admin + Academic Buildings, Total Energy Intensity, All Fuel Sources Staff Housing, Total Energy Intensity All Fuel Sources 700

kWh/sq.m-yr /sq.m-yr from all fuels

600

500

400

300

200

100

-

Figure 6.3.5 Staff Housing, Total Energy Intensity, All Fuel Sources Student Dorms, Total Energy Intensity All Fuel Sources 400

350

300

Total kWh/sq.m-yr Wh/sq.m-yr

250

200

150

100

50

-

Figure 6.3.6 Student Dorms, Total Energy Intensity, All Fuel Sources

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 35

Admin + Academic Bldgs, Energy by End Use, All Fuel F l Sources S 700,000 Cooking

600,000

Electricity 500,000

Hot water Heat

kWh/year /year

400,000

300 000 300,000

200,000

100,000

-

Figure 6.3.7 Admin + Academic Bldgs, Energy by End Use

Staff Housing, Energy by End Use, All Fuel Sources 120,000 Electricity 100,000 hot water

kWh/year

80 000 80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

-

Figure 6.3.8 Staff Housing Enery Use by Fuel Type

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

heat

Student Dorms, Energy by End Use, All Fuel Sources 200,000 180,000 160,000

hot water Electricity heat

140,000 kWh/year

120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 -

Figure 6.3.9 Student Dorms, Energy by End Use

However, if adding additional insulation, to go from R-60 to R-80 will cost $300 more, and only avoids installing $200 of PVs, we would not add that extra insulation, because it would cost less to install the PVs. This, then, is our net-zero “cost-effectiveness” metric. Note that this approach is unlike typical energy conservation projects that look at “payback.” Here we look at the installed cost of the energy source versus the installed cost of the conservation measure, and choose the less costly. In general, under current market conditions this financial analysis will result in the following building efficiency standards: •

R-5 Windows

•

R-20 Below-grade walls and slabs

•

R-40 Above-grade walls

•

R-60 roofs

•

Air leakage rates of less than 0.1 cfm 50/sq.ft above ground surface area. Air leakage rates are often expressed in terms of allowable cubic feet per minute of air leakage per square foot of above-ground building surface, at a given test pressure (usually 50 Pascals or 50 Pa.) A tested leakage rate of less than 0.1 cfm50/sq.ft. is required for deep energy retrofits. A rate of 0.05 is desirable but can be difficult to achieve on existing building envelopes. We would expect the first projects accomplished to reach 0.1 and subsequent projects to approach the 0.5 level. (The Field house achieved 0.065) The air leakage goals may be adjusted for particular buildings, such as the Main Building, where it may be more costly to achieve a given level of insulation than in other simpler, less historic buildings.

Ventilation is required in all buildings that will be rehabilitated, both from an air quality point of view and to meet current building codes. Heat recovery ventilation (HRV) systems, that are now very common, allow the recapturing of up to 80% or even 90% of the heat in outgoing winter exhaust and transfer of that heat into the incoming fresh air, without mixing of air streams. High efficiency HRV’s are assumed in the renovation of every building on the Putney School campus.

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 37

This strategy assumes traditional fossil fuel energy costs will rise until they are at a parity with cost of energy from PV. At that point, fuel costs may not rise much further as they will have to compete with the price of energy from PVs for market share. Utilizing this logic, the cost of PVs is used for the “cost-effectiveness” test for finding the appropriate level of energy conservation. This strategy is also appropriately utilized for buildings that are too far from the central campus to be considered in a biomass based energy solution. These buildings will run on PV as soon as they are retrofit to net-zero standards.

In considering energy retrofits for each building element here we select the lower cost of conservation or renewables.

If the school adopts a “carbon-neutral” biomass strategy2 – called Class 3 Net-zero in the NREL classification scheme - heat, for the central campus buildings, would be supplied by biomass; hot water by solar hot water systems; and electricity from photovoltaics. A benefit of this system is that the level of conservation of heating energy could be lower for the buildings, since the cost of the fuel is lower. However, we believe that in the future costs of biomass may increase significantly, as increasing pressure is put on our forest resources. In addition there are many questions as to what the best balance of forest resource utilization and forest ecosystem conservation will be in the future. If forests in the northeast become stressed, as some have suggested they will, based on large scale biomass utilization, it may be advantageous to develop a plan which allows for the conservation of more forest. Additionally, we believe that the forest resource can be used responsibly, and that the best way to ensure that is to use the minimum amount of biomass, which eases the problem of harvesting sustainably. Biomass should be envisioned more as a bridge to an all-solar future than an end in itself, in which case there is a benefit to preparing buildings for solar as the only source of energy when renovated.

Due to an uncertain energy future, we strongly recommend retrofitting all buildings to the same standard, the “Net-Zero” (Class 1 or Class 2 net-zero) standard noted above. Though this decision will cost more today, it will save the Putney School a large amount of money into the future.

In general, the net-zero cost-effective level of building enclosure improvements will result in building energy usage between 60 and 100 kWh/sq.m.-yr (19 - 32 kBtu/sq.ft.–yr) for total energy utilization. Some of the older and more articulated buildings and those with historic constraints, such as the Main Building, will cost more per unit area for energy improvements, so the higher end of this range of energy use would be appropriate for those buildings. Simpler and less precious facades can be changed at a lower cost, so deeper energy retrofits are cost effective and would target the lower end of the range. As a reference point, the Field House after uses only 32 kWh/sq.m.-yr (9.6 kBtu/sq.ft.-yr). Note however that occupancy of the Field House is relatively low and temperatures are kept relatively low inside since it is primarily an exercise area, so energy use in this building is lower than if this building were occupied as a dorm or classroom.

6.5 Renewable Implementation Strategy The second part of the net-zero strategy is the implementation of renewable energy. As discussed previously, biomass sources can be utilized for thermal requirements (heat and hot water), if the goal is carbon neutrality, or “Class 3 Net-zero”, but if the goal is Class 1 or 2 net-zero, the choices are photovoltaics (PV), wind or small scale hydro. Since hydro resources are not available on the Putney School campus and the wind resources on this site make it less cost-effective than solar PV, all energy would have to be supplied from PV for this campus. PV would also be required in the carbon neutral scenario (which uses biomass for thermal needs on the central campus) for all electrical loads and to make up those thermal loads that are not feasible to be met with biomass3.

Biomass fired systems are expensive enough to install, and require enough maintenance to operate, that it is advantageous to connect as many buildings as is practical to each system to minimize the number of boiler rooms4 and fuel storage systems. A central biomass system would allow for the use of wood chip fuel, which is the lowest cost biomass fuel and the least processed, thereby requiring the least non-renewable

2

There are many different biomass scenarios, some of which may be considered carbon neutral and some may not. Because sustainable forestry actually increases forest carbon sequestration, biomass (chips or pellets or cordwood) from sustainably harvested wood can be considered carbon-neutral (or even carbon-positive.) Biomass from waste wood products that would otherwise rot can be considered carbon neutral because the carbon released by rotting is similar to that released by burning. However, biomass from wood cut in an unsustainable manner should not be considered carbon neutral, because this process would cause an increase of carbon in the atmosphere. The issue of fossil fuels used for cutting, preparing and delivering biomass fuels further complicates the matter. Additionally, fossil fuels are used for the production of renewable energy equipment, such as photovoltaic panels and wind turbines. The present analysis does not take these factors into account in the carbon emissions calculation.

3 Buildings that are too far from the center of campus or not clustered together are not canidates for a pellet-fired hydronic system, due to cost and maintenance requirements.

These buildings are typically houses, which can be served, in the biomass scenario, with pellet stoves. Since these stoves require manual filling every day, or every few days, with bags of pellets, these systems are not fully automatic. So a heat pump system is required for backup, especially for days when houses are not occupied, and once installed, may be a more appropriate primary source of heat. Also, for peripheral houses with good solar exposure, solar hot water backup would be electric; where solar exposure is poor hot water may be made with a heat pump water heater, again powered by electricity, therefore both scenarios make the case for heat pumps over biomass pellet boilers.

4

A given boiler room may contain more than one boiler, for sizing, staging and redundancy purposes.

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Figure 6.5.1 Campus Heating Zones for Biomass Mini-District Heating Scenario

energy to extract, process and deliver. However, plant costs are relatively high and siting can be difficult.

Because of this, we have proposed an alternative for the Putney Campus consisting of mini-district heating system “nodes� at various central campus locations, each serving several buildings. Buildings that are too far from a central location or a node, such as more remote staff housing, would require different strategies to serve thermal loads. Figure, 6.5.1 illustrates which campus buildings would be included in the central campus mini-districts and how they would be structured.

6.6 Energy Sources for Carbon Neutral and Net-Zero Options Table 6.6.1 summarizes the energy sources for each of the three renewable energy options. Alongside the table is a more detailed discussion of each energy source.

6.6.1 Solar Hot Water Solar hot water is recommended for all buildings that have appreciable hot water loads. For those with very small hot water loads, such as the administration building, an electric hot water heater (probably instantaneous if the water is not too hard) would make more sense, or if there is a biomass boiler water may be heated as a zone of the boiler. For all larger loads, solar hot water is the preferred approach. This approach is cost effective, the technology is well developed and mature, and there is an adequate delivery infrastructure. The cost of the energy provided is lower than that provided by PVs. In the coming years, heat pump hot water heaters may develop to the point that PVs with heat pump water heaters may be just as cost effective as solar hot water and may have lower maintenance. At the present however, heat pump water heaters are only available in sizes adequate for single family homes and cannot produce water hot

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 39

Three Renewable Energy Strategies for Putney School

Renewable Energy Type [1]

Strategy Name

Number of boiler rooms 0

Source for electrical loads PV [3]

"Net Zero" (Class 1 and Class 2 Net Zero)

Photovoltaics/ ASHP [2]

"Carbon neutral" (Class 3 Net Zero)

Biomass central

1

PV [3]

"Carbon neutral" (Class 3 Net Zero)

Biomass distributed

3 to 5

PV [3]

Central Buildings Peripheral Buildings Source for Source for hot Source for heat Source for hot heat water water Air source Solar hot water Air source heat Solar hot water heat pump w/electric pump w/PV w/electric w/PV backup w/PV backup w/PV Boilers, Solar hot water Woodstove or Solar hot water fired by w/boiler pellet stove with w/electric wood chips backup ASHP or only backup w/PV ASHP w/PV Boilers, fired by wood pellets

Solar hot water Woodstove or Solar hot water w/boiler pellet stove with w/electric backup ASHP or only backup w/PV ASHP w/PV

[1] Net zero classification system from Net-Zero Energy Buildings: A Classification System Based on Renewable Energy Supply Options , Shanti Pless and Paul Torcellini -- http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/44586.pdf [2] ASHP = Air Source Heat Pump.

[3] PV is most likely all ground mounted, inlarge arrays, possibly at several locations, net metered to all buildings on campus Table 6.6.1 Three Renewable Energy Strategies for the Putney School

enough for a dormitory or kitchen. Solar hot water is currently more cost effective, but only marginally so, for single family homes so the comparison should be watched as the plan is implemented over time.

Pro’s of Solar Hot Water: •

Only “current” solar energy is used, whereas biomass uses solar energy stored over the last 10 – 100 years.

•

Requires no non-renewable input for fuel transport.

•

Lower cost per unit of energy delivered than PV systems

Con’s of Solar Hot Water:

5

•

Requires electric backup, and therefore some PV associated with the system

•

Must be located on or near the building where hot water is needed

•

Requires periodic maintenance, (mostly checking of pH in antifreeze)

•

Location must have solar exposure which some houses do not have currently thus some trees would need to be cut, or a heat pump water heater could be used with PVs at another location

6.6.2 Photovoltaics (PV) Photovoltaics are the “gold standard” of renewable electricity.

The environmental and visual impact of these systems are as low as it gets for renewable electricity generation systems.

The technology and delivery infrastructure is mature and the systems should require very little maintenance5. PVs can be installed incrementally, as funding is available. PVs do take significant outdoor space, but they can be located at multiple locations, to reduce the visual impact of any given array and to locate the fields as well as meeting the capacity requirements for the closest electrical connection.

While wind energy is available at a lower cost for large turbines – 1 to 3 megawatt (MW) capacity – there is not enough wind at the Putney School for these very large systems, and siting them elsewhere is contentious. The Vermont Group Net Metering laws do allow large scale installations anywhere on the utility grid that serves the school to be metered directly to the school, therefore developments of community based wind, wind installations funded by the users of the energy, as opposed to by a third party or electric utility, should be monitored over the years to come, but at present this should not provide the basis for a future energy plan. In the future, community wind may become a strong alternative, and the magnitude of the electrical load at the Putney School may still be large enough at that time to make sense in relation to such a project.

Proper grounding is standard for lightning protection, but additional lightning protection should be evaluated for cost and track record.

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Pro’s of Photovoltaics: •

Only “current” solar energy is used, whereas biomass uses solar energy stored over the last 10 – 100 years.

•

Requires no non-renewable input for fuel transport.

•

Very little maintenance is required , and none on a regular basis (as is required with biomass systems)

•

May be located anywhere on campus that is reasonably close to power lines, preferably threephase lines.

Con’s of Photovoltaics: •

Relatively high cost

•

Large area of land required for PV installation: about 6 acres would be required for a one MW (megawatt, or 1000 kW) system. About 0.75 MW (4.5 acres) of installed would be required for electric loads for the biomass options and about 1.25 MW (7.5 acres) for the all PV option.

6.6.3 Biomass – Wood Chips Vermont has been a national leader in heating schools with wood chips. The fuel cost is very low and the energy sources and jobs created are local. The technology and delivery infrastructure are mature and the systems are reliable. The storage of wood chips requires a lot of volume, as deliveries are by large tractor trailer trucks, and it is advisable to be able to store two full loads at a time. This “bunker” system for chip storage requires space, as indicated in figure 6.6.2, as well as the space required for tractor trailers to turn around. The boiler room requires a tall stack, which can have a significant visual impact. A large distribution system would have to be installed to connect all the central buildings to the biomass plant.

Biomass plants do operate reliably, but they also require regular operator attention. A cash flow analysis, included in the appendix document 7.3.1 Putney School Energy Usage 22 Nov 11, will include these costs. . Computer based control systems can be set up to monitor the system remotely to reduce the effort required by the operator.

Fuel could be produced from the Putney School forests, even if not by students, but by a contracted forester, who would assure sustainable forestry practices. When chips are purchased on the open market, they may be cheaper but it is more difficult to insure that sustainable Area for Central Biomass Wood Chip Plant harvesting practices are used consistently. Progress is being made in area, sq.ft.

Boiler room 960 (24x40) this direction, however, with standards Chip bin 1764 (42x42) beginning to be developed. Since wood Truck access drive 4200 (42X100) chip fuel is local, we anticipate that (100' x building width) costs will escalate more slowly than other fuels, but the certainty of this is assumes 15' wide road going by end of truck quite low. Because of the uncertainty access drive for turnaround, otherwise need ~50' at we use similar fuel escalation rates as end of road other fuels in analysis of future costs.

Table 6.6.2 Area for Central Biomass Wood Chip Plant Pro’s of Central Biomass - Wood Chips: • Biomass uses solar energy stored over the last 10 – 100 years.

•

Lowest energy cost renewable source considered feasible to the Putney School in the near terms, lower cost per unit of energy delivered than PV, considering fuel costs over time as compared to cost of installing PVs

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 41

•

Lower initial cost than an all PV system

•

Fuel could be obtained from the Putney School property or from other local sources

•

Chips are the least processed biomass fuel that can be burned automatically

•

Very clean burning

•

Future costs expected to rise more slowly than other thermal fuels

Con’s of Central Biomass - Wood Chips: •

Requires ongoing fuel supplies and therefore ongoing fuel cost, as compared to PV where energy would be free after the initial investment is made

•

Requires a very large location on the central campus for heating plant with chip storage and tractor trailer truck access

•

Requires tall smokestack, depending on location

•

Requires regular maintenance and checks by the system operator

•

funding for renovations. This rapid deployment would allow the school to cut costs of fuel quickly, from the oil which is currently used. . Once the building is renovated, the excess heat could be exported by a relatively inexpensive underground piping system to a nearby building not powered by renewable sources. Or the boilers could be removed and employed elsewhere if the building is shifted to photovoltaic-powered heat pump system.

There is some movement now toward the production of dried, smaller wood chips, as compared to large green chips currently used in central plants. If this occurs, this fuel source could likely be utilized for a lower cost in some of the available pellet boilers. This would lower the energy input of the fuel production and could possibly be produced on site. Such chips are being produced in Europe now, and there is interest in producing them locally.

Pro’s of Distributed Biomass - Wood Pellets: • Biomass uses solar energy stored over the last 10 – 100 years.

•

Lower cost per unit of energy delivered than PVs, considering fuel costs over time compared to cost of installing PVs

•

Lower initial cost than an all PV system and a lower installed cost than a central wood chip heating plant

•

Pellet boilers can often be easily located in existing mechanical rooms and pellet storage bins can be provided by outdoor silos or in basements

•

Simple fuel delivery

•

Current pellet boilers requires little maintenance

•

Very clean burning

•

In the future, equipment that is installed MAY be able to be run on locally produced, dried, smaller wood chips

•

Can be installed incrementally, in comparison to a central wood chip plant that requires a significant initial investment

Requires substantial initial investment in plant and distribution system

6.6.4 Biomass – Wood Pellets The last few years have seen a revolution in the US in the wood pellet boiler field, with numerous excellent boilers being imported from Austria in particular, as well as other northern European locations. These boilers operate virtually automatically: they clean their own ashes into a bin; turn themselves off and on; have sensors in the flue gases to modulate air and fuel inputs for optimal efficiency and lower emissions; and they interface with modern computer based control systems. This technology is mature, though relatively new to the northeast U.S. As a result, the installation and maintenance infrastructure is continuing to develop, but mature enough to rely on this hardware. The wood pellet manufacture and delivery infrastructure is established and growing, so costs will be competitive. A large wood pellet producer is located near the school in Jaffrey, NH. The major downside of wood pellets is that the costs are significantly higher than wood chips per unit of energy produced – about double. We assume that pellet costs, which now are about 2/3 of the cost of oil per unit of energy, to rise at a similar rate as oil. On the other hand, the systems can be put in quickly in small modules, or with modular boilers linked together. Pellet storage systems are small, using silos outdoors, or, increasingly, prefab or custom bins in basements. These systems can be deployed easily and quickly to meet present heating needs, before a larger building on campus has the Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Con’s of Distributed Biomass - Wood Pellets: •

Requires annual fuel supplies and therefore annual fuel cost, as compared to PV where energy would be free after the initial investment is made

•

Higher fuel cost than wood chips

•

More processed fuel than wood chips, requires more non-renewable inputs (7 – 15% of fuel value of pellets, depending on source)

•

Requires regular checks by the system operator

•

Requires some investment in a plant and distribution system, but much less than a central system (shorter distances and smaller pipes)

6.7 Predicted Future Energy Usage Based on the assumptions that 1) changes will be made to the Putney School buildings in accordance with the standards described in section 6.4 Energy Improvements and 2) one of the options for a whole campus energy strategy will be pursued, the Putney School will see a dramatic reduction in its campus energy use. Table 6.7.1 indicates this change and details how much of each fuel source would be utilized under each of the energy scenarios. Table 6.7.2 compares the energy usage, energy intensity, energy cost and CO2 emissions for the campus as it exists today and for the three campus energy strategies for the future. It can be seen here that the energy use, energy intensity, energy cost and CO2 emissions are the lowest under the net-zero, all-PV strategy. Further detailing the points as described above, figures, 6.7.3, 6.7.4, 6.7.5 and 6.7.6 indicate campus energy use, energy intensity, energy cost and CO2 emissions respectively.

Putney School Energy Use Futures - By Fuel Type Energy Source

Description

As Is [1] All PV's PV s [4]

As Is Major conservation + all PV with ASHP's Wood Pellet + PV Pellet Nodes + major + Solar DHW [2] conservation+ PV

Oil gallons 66,000

Wood Chip + PV + Central Wood chip plant Solar DHW [3] + major conservation + PV

Propane gallons 16,000

Firewood cords

Electricity Wood Pellets kWh [5] 780,000 60

15

Wood Chips tons 0

0

0

15

1,150,000

0

0

0 0

0 0

15 15

702,000 702,000

246 5

0 541

[1] Assumes 20% load reduction in heating and 10% reduction in electricity [2] Assumes factor of 3 heating load reduction, 10% reduction in electricity and 50% solar hot water, and PV's for all electricity use Peripheral buildings [[3]] Assumes same load reductions as #2, with all backup p from pellets. p p g still using g some fossil fuel, and PV's for all electricityy use [4] Assumes factor of 4 heat load reduction, heat pumps with COP=2.3 for heat and COP=2.0 for hot water backup, and PV's for all electricity use [5] District heating piping w/assumed 15% piping loss; mini-district system to have 10% loss. 60 tons pellets for 2011 pellet conversion at Main Bldg

Table 6.7.1 Putney School Energy Use Features by Fuel Type

Putney School Energy Use, Energy Intensity, Energy Cost and CO2 Emissions Option

As Is [1] All PV's [4]

Description

Campus Energy Use

Energy Intensity

Annual Energy cost, 2011 rates

MMBtu/yr [6]

[8]

14,000

kWh/sq.m-yr [7] 236

4,000

67

($49,000)

7,000

118

$60,000

130

7,000

118

$28,000

70

As Is Major conservation + all PV with ASHP's

Wood Pellet + PV + Solar DHW [2] Pellet Nodes + major conservation+ PV Wood Chip + PV + Central Wood chip plant Solar DHW [3] + major conservation + PV

$319,000

CO2 Emission Tons per year[9] 1,300 0

[1] Assumes 20% load reduction in heating and 10% reduction in electricity [2] Assumes factor of 3 heating load reduction, 10% reduction in electricity and 50% solar hot water, and PV's for all electricity use [3] Assumes same load reductions as #2, with all backup from pellets. Peripheral buildings still using some fossil fuel, and PV's for all electricity use [4] Assumes factor of 4 heat load reduction, heat pumps with COP=2.3 for heat and COP=2.0 for hot water backup, and PV's for all electricity use [6] All Fuels [7] ASHP's result in lower energy intensity due to COP of heat pump requiring less than half the energy to operate [8] F For allll b buildings, thermal a negative happens ildi th l fuels f l only. l PV's PV' show h ti costt due d to t paymentt for f PV electricity l t i it exportt assuming i similar i il ffraction ti exported t d (75%) as h now at the Field House [9] Energy Cost, Energy Content and CO2 Emissions of Fuels Oil gallons Btu/unit CO2 content/unit Cost/Unit Cost/MMBtu

Propane gallons 136,000 22 $3.85 $28.31

91,500 13 $3.00 $32.79

Firewood Electricity cords kWh 22,000,000 0 $200.00 $9.09

3,413 1.2 $0.13 $38.09

Pellets Chips PV-Electricity tons tons * 16,000,000 8,200,000 3,413 105 21 0 $230.00 $44.00 $0.23 $14.38 $5.37 $66.97

Table 6.7.2 Putney School Energy Use Futures and Energy Intensity

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 43

Campus Energy Use MMBtu/yr, All Fuel F lS Sources 16,000 14,000 MMBtu/year u/year

12,000

Figure 6.7.3 Campus Energy Use MMBtu/yr Note that wood chip systems have slightly higher piping losses than pellets due to longer piping runs. PV use is lowest due to COP of 2.3 for the heat pumps; that is, they produce 2.3 times the heat output as electrictiy input.

10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 As Is

All PV's

Wood Pellet + PV + Solar DHW

Wood Chip + PV + Solar DHW

Energy Intensity kWh/sq.m-yr 250

kWh/sq.m-year .m-year

200

Figure 6.7.4 Energy Intensity kWh/sq.m-yr Note that because of the COP of air source heat pumps, as described above, the all PV scenario has the lowest energy intensity of all options.

150

100

50

As Is

All PV's

Wood Pellet + PV + Solar DHW

Wood Chip + PV + Solar DHW

Annual Energy Cost at 2011 Rates $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $$/year

$200,000

Figure 6.7.5 Annual Energy Cost at 2011 Rates Note that while non-zero, costs for biomass are not very high with micro-load buildings. Negative cost reflects payment from utility for exported electricity.

$150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 -$50,000

As Is

All PV's

-$100,000

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

Wood Pellet + PV + Solar Wood Chip + PV + Solar DHW DHW

CO2 Emission Tons per year

1,400

MMBtu/year Btu/year

1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 As Is

All PV's

Wood Pellet + PV + Solar DHW

Wood Chip + PV + Solar DHW

Figure 6.7.6 CO2 Emission Tons per year Note zero emissions from operation of PVs. Note also that wood pellet emissions are higher than that of wood chips due to the increased energy used to produce the more hightly manufactured pellets.

6.8 Financial Analysis What does this all cost and what is it worth? This is an easy question to ask, but tough to answer! This analysis must take into account the cost for the building energy efficiency upgrades, the installation of biomass systems, the installation of PVs, the costs for solar hot water and the costs for the installation of air source heat pumps. When everything is accounted for the total cost for each energy scenario is as follows: •

Net-Zero, All-PV - $18,700,000

•

Carbon-Neutral, Wood Pellets - $15,500,000

•

Carbon-Neutral, Wood Chips - $16,400,000

The full detailed costs of each of these three scenarios can be found in table 6.8.1. Based on the DEW Cost Estimate, appendix document 7.2.1 Complete Final Putney 1.3 Estimate Report 11-18-11, and the work of Andy Shapiro this table indicates the full up-front cost for all three of the energy scenarios for the Putney School.

Predicted Energy Scenario - Total Costs

Name

Net Zero / PV

Description

Cost for Efficiency Upgrades [1]

Cost for BioMass Systems [1]

Costs for PV's [2]

8,757,000

$

$ 6,571,429

$

$

8,757,000

$ 1,991,000

$ 4,011,429

$

8,757,000

$ 2,872,000

$ 4,011,429

More load reduction $ + all PV/HP's

Carbon neutral Pellet Nodes + wood pellets major load reduction+ PV Carbon neutral Central Wood chip plant + major load wood chips reduction

-

Costs for Solar Hot Water

Costs for Air Source Heat Pumps [1]

Total Cost

295,000

$ 3,032,000

$ 18,700,000

$

295,000

$

472,000

$ 15,500,000

$

295,000

$

472,000

$ 16,400,000

[1] from DEW - Putney Master Plan - Building Upgrades excel document.

Pellet system and piping costs based on recent cost experience with the pellet system for the Main Building Costs for Air Source Heat Pumps include electrical service upgrades where appropriate.

[2] Based on 1.05 kWh/year per peak Watt installed; cost of $6 total per peak watt installed (before tax credits, if available)

Table 6.8.1 Predicted Energy Scenarios - Total Costs

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 45

Two present value summaries are presented in table 6.8.3 and 6.8.4. Full cash flows, on which these are based, can be found in the appendix document 7.3.1 Putney School Energy Usage 22 Nov 11. The first of these summaries, table 6.8.2, illustrates the present value of energy costs for the next 30 years. The campus as-is scenario includes oil, propane, electricity and cordwood being consumed consistently at the same rate as the campus utilizes today. The future scenarios include PVprovided electricity, cordwood (for at least cooking in the wood oven) and/or wood chips and wood pellets. The future scenarios also assume significant reductions in energy, as detailed in section 6.7 Predicted Future Energy Usage.

Negative values in the above table represent costs to the Putney School., while positive values indicate income. The net-zero,

all-PV scenario actually shows an income of $2,660,000 to the school over this 30 year period which is made possible by the utility requirements to pay approximately $0.06 per kWh exported to the grid. In comparison, note the extraordinary cost, $14,910, 000 over 30 years, of doing nothing to improve the School’s energy future.

Two versions of net-present values are illustrated in table 6.8.3, one at 5% real escalation and one at 10% real escalation.

Since one cannot know the future, we present both, with our assumption being that the future will fall somewhere in between these two rates. Inflation is assumed to be 2%, and a discount rate of 3% was used. The development of this table includes several assumptions, as described below.

Putney School 30-yr Present Value of Energy Costs -- All Fuels [5] Low Escalation (5%) High Escalation (10%) Campus As Is ($13,000,000) ($14,910,000) Net Zero PV [6] $2,660,000 $2,660,000 Net Zero Wood Pellets ($3,360,000) ($7,940,000) Net Zero Wood Chips

($1,720,000)

($3,860,000)

[5] Includes electricity, oil, propane, cordwood, pellets, wood chips and cost of added or savings from decreased maintenance. All fuels escalate at the same rate (5% or 10%), up to cost of energy from PV, except cordwood, which goes with general inflation only. Includes $0.06 credit per kWh exported [6] Savings due to decreased maintenance and payment for exported electricity 6.8.2 Putney School 30-yr Present Value of Energy Costs - All Fuels

Putney School 30-yr NPV of Investment [5] Campus As Is Net Zero PV Net Zero PV w/ tax credits [8] Net Zero Wood Pellets Net Zero Wood Pellets w/ tax credits [8] Net Zero Wood Chips Net Zero Wood Chipsw/ tax credits [8]

Low Escalation (5%) ($13,000,000) ($2,690,000) ($142,523) ($5,020,000) ($3,420,000) ($4,450,000) ($2,850,000)

High Escalation (10%) ($14,910,000) ($780,000) $1,780,000 ($7,690,000) ($6,090,000) ($4,680,000) ($3,080,000)

[5] Includes cost of full implementation plus cost of electricity, oil, propane, cordwood, pellets, wood chip fuels and cost for added or savings from decreased maintenance. All fuels escalate at the same rate (5% or 10%), up to cost of energy from PV, except cordwood which goes up with general inflation only. Includes $0.06 credit per kWh exported [8] 40% combined Federal and State credits. No accelerated depreciation credit is taken.

Applied only to PV cost 6.8.3 Putney School 30-yr Net Present Value of Investment

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

1) The entire cost of all improvements – major energy conservation and new renewable energy systems is incurred in the first year. More likely implementation would be phased, but since the timing is uncertain, we show costs in year one.

2) The Putney School is paying for all the improvements. When fundraising is completed to pay for improvements, it could be argued that there is limited cost to the Putney School.

3) There is no value to the Putney School other than monetary savings on energy. The less easily quantified values include: •

Improved indoor air quality which improves health

•

Reduced or zero carbon emissions

•

Nation-wide visibility as a “green” school

•

Improved ability to attract students

•

Elimination of future fuel cost anxiety

It is difficult to place a dollar value on these attributes. There are studies attempting to evaluate the monetary values of these attributes, but these values are not included here. Despite these rather clear additional benefits, the question will always be asked “Are the costs worth the savings?” meaning a cashonly analysis. So a cash-only net present value is presented in table 6.8.3. The full cash flows (18 pages) supporting this summary can be found in the appendix document 7.3.1 Putney School Energy Usage 22 Nov 11.. Net present values assume full installation costs (less tax credits where so noted) and includes added or reduced costs for maintenance by system type, fuel cost (oil, propane, cordwood, pellets or chips), and income from PV payments by electric utilities.

As can be seen, if the 40% combined State and Federal tax credits can be taken, by donors, for the cost of the PV system, the NPV is positive for either low or high escalation rates for the net-zero, all-PV scenario. Capturing this credit would involve a third party owning the PV systems and leasing them to the school, in essence functioning as a utility for the school. This arrangement is often set-up by nonprofits to be able to take advantage of the tax credits. For-profit businesses can also take an accelerated depreciation benefit, which is not reflected here, in order to leave some financial benefit for the donor who would participate in such an arrangement. (This benefit also varies by tax bracket.)

Oil Cost, Putney School As Is $1,400,000

$1,200,000

$1,000,000

$$/year

$800,000

$600,000

, $400,000

$200,000

$0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Year

6.8.4 Oil Cost, Putney School As Is

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 47

A host of assumptions go into this analysis, as noted above.

Another of these assumptions bears mention. It should be noted that energy costs for fossil fuels cannot be expected to escalate indefinitely. Basic economics would indicate that when the price for energy from oil goes above the price of energy from photovoltaics, one of several things is very likely to happen: other synthetic fuels will be priced to compete with PV, energy users would switch to PV for energy, or fossil fuel prices would be capped at this level. The cash flows all assume that this cross-over happens, and when it does, oil (or its substitute) will escalate at the general inflation rate. This happens sooner with the higher fuel cost escalation rate, as can be seen in figure 6.8.4. (All cash flows presented are in nominal dollars.)

These scenarios can, of course, be run with varying assumptions. The authors have chosen what seem to us the most plausible, in consultation with the Putney School.

Summary of Costs, Cash Flow and Present Value Analysis As can be seen, there is extraordinary financial benefit to the Putney School in securing a stable, renewable energy future.

The all-PV scenario has the lowest present value of future energy costs of all the scenarios explored in this document – indeed there are no energy costs and the school receives payments for production of the renewable electricity. This same scenario also has the highest net present value (NPV,) which includes cost of installation in the analysis, even recognizing the significant benefits to the School that are not captured in such an analysis. If tax credits can be captured, this scenario has a positive net present value at the lower fuel escalation rate, and it is the only option with this outcome.

It is an extraordinary outcome that the all-PV approach can have a positive net present value. This outcome points the way to a renewable, secure energy future for the Putney School.

6.9 Recommended Net-Zero Strategy There are a number of factors that impact the recommendations here for the energy future of the Putney School. These have been touched upon previously and are synthesized below.

•

•

PV energy source has the lowest long term environmental impact, lowest operating cost and lowest maintenance, but it also has the highest installation cost.

The central biomass system costs more than biomass nodes, but fuel cost is lower over time. Siting may be problematic and there is a large investment in piping

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

•

Biomass nodes offer an incremental option for installation, allowing system to be built up over time, while staunching the flow of dollars going into oil.

•

All scenarios benefit from “micro-load” retrofits or “deep energy retrofits”

•

Funds are likely to be raised incrementally.

•

Future biomass costs are unknown, but likely to increase in proportion to fossil fuel increases.

•

Future regional energy demand and availability – electric, fossil and biomass – are unknown, as are future costs for PVs.

In recognition of the above factors, we recommend the following direction for the Putney School’s energy future: 1. Perform micro-load retrofits whenever a building (or portion of building) is worked on in any capacity.

2. Install biomass nodes in largest users, as is currently being done for the Main Building. As building energy usage is decreased with energy upgrades, pipe woodpellet heat to adjacent buildings to make use of boiler capacity, as is being done with the Main building and the future piping extension planned to the KDU. Having one or two such systems installed will give practical experience for the school’s operators, and these systems can pay for themselves in as little as 5 years in fuel cost savings. It may be as long or longer than five years until all buildings can get micro-load retrofits so the investment in the pellet boilers is not lost, even if the campus moves to an all-PV energy source in the future.

3. As soon as is practical, retrofit one or two peripheral buildings with micro-load building enclosure retrofits, air source heat pumps (ASHP) and solar hot water, to gain experience with this approach. Preferably one larger and one smaller peripheral building would be chosen for this process.

4. Concurrently, raise funds for PV arrays, and install in chunks as funds become available and as outside funding opportunities present themselves 5. Continue to raise funds for and implement microload retrofits, ASHPs, solar hot water and PVs, concentrating first on peripheral buildings and any central core buildings not served (or not serve-able) by biomass systems. The final step would include the addition of ASHPs and SHW to the central buildings first served by biomass systems, after they receive

micro-load retrofits.

6. Develop an annual monitoring protocol. This monitoring protocol will become incredibly important as changes begin to be made on campus to track the effectiveness of each of the measures that are pursued.

7. Annually review the net-zero plan with the net-zero team to check-in on progress in the previous year and prioritize projects for the upcoming year. As the world changes some of the assumptions presented in this report will change and will require a reprioritization of the process.

8. Update the full net-zero plan every five years to address the changing world of energy prices and technologies and to continue to make the most advantageous decisions for the Putney School.

The strategy laid out here lowers fuel costs in the short term, moves toward a net-zero or carbon neutral future, and preserves flexibility to accommodate future unknown conditions, which will affect the choices available and the factors favoring these choices. For example, if in the future, electrical supply on the grid is severely constrained, the best environmental, and possibly financial, choice for Putney School could be to export more electricity and use more sustainably harvested biomass for heating.

IN SUMMARY: Begin where you can, at the scale you can. Gain experience with new techniques and new technologies incrementally, before embarking on large projects. Be persistent in moving toward the best possible future, retaining flexibility as you go.

6.0 The Net-Zero Campus | 49

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

7.0 Appendix & Living Documents 7.1 Campus Diagrams & Information 1. Master Plan Documents: The campus diagrams which appear as figures in the text, appear here at their original size for the purpose of a more detailed understanding of the forces affecting change on the current campus.

2. Building Plans: Floorplans have been developed for all of the academic/administrative buildings and the student dormitories. All of these plans exist here as well as individually in 7.8 Detailed Building Information. Individual building plans have been developed to different levels of detail and should be used accordingly.

3. Proposed Plan Changes: Program changes have been suggested for multiple buildings around the Putney School Campus. Any proposed program changes are detailed in these floorplans, as well as existing individually in 7.8 Detailed Building Information. Note that some buildings do have multiple options that have been proposed.

4. Proposed Infrastructure Changes: Infrastructure changes have been suggested for the Putney School Campus, specifically in reference to the roads serving the campus. The proposed changes are identified in this documentation.

5. Putney Building Program: This excel spreadsheet details the individual programmed spaces within each of the buildings on the Putney School campus. All rooms are identified by number and correlate to the numbering which exists on the building plans and proposed building plans.

7.2 Cost Estimate 1. Complete Final Putney 1.3 Estimate Report 11-18-11: The final cost estimate as prepared by DEW includes detailed estimates for all individual building energy upgrades, program changes, infrastructure upgrades, and campus energy systems.

2. Detailed Cost Estimate by Building: This excel spreadsheet is the living document which allows the Putney School to continually update the cost estimate as changes continue to be made to the Putney School campus.

3. Putney Master Plan - Total Cost of Scenarios 11-18-11: This excel spreadsheet provides a total cost for the energy options on the Putney School campus. This also exists in the master plan document as table 6.8.1 and 6.8.2

Appendix & Living Documents | 51

7.3 Energy Assessment 1. Putney School Energy Usage 22 Nov 11: This excel spreadsheet provides all of the background information used by Andy Shapiro of Energy Balance to understand current energy usage on the Putney School campus as well as develop expectations for use in the future. This document also includes the detailed cash flow analysis as described in the text.

7.4 Historical Assessment 1. Historical Assessment & Inventory: This document, developed by Lyssa Papazian details the overall history of the Putney School campus as well as the history of individual buildings on the Putney School campus. A small piece of this document appears in the master plan text, and the important notes for each individual building appear in 7.8 Detailed Building Information.

2. Timeline of the Physical Plant: This excel spreadsheet outlines the timeline for the construction of the Putney School campus by individual building, providing any information if known on the architect/builder, alterations, architectural style and features.

3. Appendix 1 Marlboro College Preservation Plan: This document is referenced in 7.4.1 Historical Assessment & Inventory and provided here as a resource for a possible approach to historic sensitivity on the Putney School campus.

4. Appendix 2 Bennington College Preservation Plan Overview & Summary: This document is also referenced in 7.4.1 Historical Assessment & Inventory and provided here as a resource for a possible approach to historic sensitivity on the Putney School campus.

7.5 Landscape Assessment 1. Putney School Landscape Review 05-10-11: This document, developed by Stevens & Associate, provides an overview of the landscaping that currently exists on the Putney campus as well as details landscaping recommendations for the entire campus.

2. Putney School Maps: This document includes all of the maps/imagery that have been completed by Stevens & Associates including land use, aerial photography, the recreational trail network, soil data and plant data.

3. Putney School Topography: This map outline the topographic data collected in the fly-over completed in the spring of 2011.

Full topographic data has been transferred to the Putney School for future uses.

7.6 Forestry Assessment 1. Putney School Forest Management Plan: This document, developed by Andrew Sheere of Future Generations Forestry, outlines a foresty management plan for the extensive land that the Putney School owns, providing recommendations for use and protection of these lands into the future.

7.7 Theater Program 1. Theater Program & Description: This document, developed by Don Hirsch Design Studio, outlines the requirements for a new theater building on the Putney School campus. The program developed here has been utilized in producing the recommendations to the school in document 7.1.3 Proposed Plan Changes.

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011

7.8 Detailed Building Information This section includes detailed information for all of the academic/administrative, faculty housing and student dormitory buildings on the Putney School campus. Documents in this section are irregular, data has been collected in detail for some buildings and not for others, but will include a summary data sheet for each building which outlines program, energy and historic considerations. Also included for some of the buildings are pdfs of building plans, pdfs of proposed program changes, CAD models and sketch-up models.

7.9 Developmental Documents 1. 2010.01.24 Board Presentation: This is the presentation that was seen by the board in January of 2010 and provides a basis for the development of the Putney Master Plan from the very beginning of the process.

2. 2011.01.16_Board Presentations by MA & EB: These are the presentations seen by the board in January of 2011, which outlined the work to date completed on the Putney Master Plan by both Maclay Architects and Energy Balance. This provides a good mid-way progress report for the master planning process.

Appendix & Living Documents | 53

Putney School Masterplan | December 2011