Report on Proposed HVAC System Upgrade for Hopkinton Public Schools and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction and Mandate

The Hopkinton School Committee is tasked with determining a future-facing heating and cooling strategy as a component of its long-range capital plan. This decision is framed by the town’s “net zero” resolution, a commitment that directly aligns with global efforts to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy). A presentation by consulting firm CMTA provided an analysis of energy options for the high school and middle school, focusing on pathways to sustainable infrastructure.

Current Infrastructure Assessment and SDG Implications

An energy audit of the high school and middle school revealed conditions that challenge the district’s ability to meet key Sustainable Development Goals. The findings underscore the urgency of infrastructure modernization.

• Compromised Learning Environments: Classroom temperatures reached as high as 83°F at the high school and 81°F at the middle school. These conditions directly undermine SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) for students and staff and create a significant barrier to providing SDG 4 (Quality Education).
• Failing and Inefficient Systems: The high school’s chiller is operating at 50% capacity and is failing, representing an unsustainable and unreliable infrastructure. This situation is contrary to the principles of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), which calls for resilient and sustainable systems.
• Modernization Challenges: While the middle school benefits from recent boiler and HVAC control upgrades, a full conversion to a greener system would be complex, highlighting the challenges of retrofitting existing structures to meet modern sustainability standards.

Proposed Solutions and Contribution to Climate Action (SDG 13)

CMTA presented four distinct options for upgrading the HVAC systems, each with varying costs and levels of contribution to the district’s sustainability objectives. The options represent a tiered approach to achieving climate and energy goals.

1. Traditional Plus Cooling: $11.5 million
2. Air Source Heat Pump: $13.7 million
3. Geothermal Water-to-Water Heat Pump: $18.9 million
4. Geothermal Distributed Heat Pump: $22.9 million

The consultants recommended the Geothermal Water-to-Water Heat Pump system. This option offers the most robust alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals by:

• Advancing SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) by electrifying the heating systems and significantly reducing reliance on fossil fuels, with natural gas remaining only for kitchen use.
• Directly supporting SDG 13 (Climate Action) through a drastic reduction in the schools’ carbon footprint.
• Investing in resilient, long-term infrastructure, a core tenet of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Improving classroom conditions to support SDG 3 and SDG 4.

Financial Analysis and Sustainable Economic Growth

The financial model for the proposed upgrades reflects a strategy of long-term investment in sustainability. While greener systems require a higher initial capital outlay, they are projected to yield significant long-term savings on utility costs, promoting SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Financing for this sustainable infrastructure project can be supported through multi-level partnerships, demonstrating SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) in action. Potential rebates include:

• MassSave (State Program): An estimated $1.3 million.
• Investment Tax Credit (Federal Program): An estimated $6.4 million.

The project’s funding would necessitate a debt exclusion, requiring approval from the Town Meeting and reflecting a community-wide investment in a sustainable future. The recommended project could be executed in two phases, costing $10.7 million and $8.2 million, respectively.

Committee Deliberations and Path Forward

Committee members expressed concerns regarding the project’s financial impact, weighing the urgent need for infrastructure renewal against the town’s existing debt and the potential tax burden on residents. This deliberation highlights the critical balance between advancing ambitious sustainability goals and ensuring fiscal responsibility and public support. Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations, Susan Rothermich, emphasized that the high school’s system requires intervention within the next five years.

The committee must now decide on a strategic direction—either maintaining existing systems or transitioning toward a greener geothermal or air source approach. This decision will be a pivotal moment in shaping the district’s commitment to providing a healthy, sustainable, and effective learning environment aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. A vote on the capital plan is anticipated at the next meeting.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article discusses the physical conditions of school buildings, specifically the high temperatures in classrooms (“up to 83 degrees at the high school”). This directly impacts the quality of the learning environment, which is a core component of providing quality education.
2. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The central theme is the replacement of an old heating/cooling system with a more energy-efficient and cleaner alternative. The article explicitly mentions options like “high-efficiency energy system,” “air source heat pump,” and “geothermal water-to-water heat pump,” all of which relate to clean energy and energy efficiency. The town’s “net zero” resolution further reinforces this connection.
3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • The project involves a major upgrade to public infrastructure (the high school and middle school). The discussion focuses on building resilient and sustainable infrastructure by adopting modern, environmentally sound technologies like geothermal systems, moving away from failing and inefficient older systems.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article highlights a local government (School Committee) engaging in long-range capital planning to make its community’s public buildings more sustainable, guided by a town-wide “net zero” resolution. The process involves public finance, voter approval (“debt exclusion that Town Meeting would have to approve”), and balancing community development with fiscal concerns (“A large segment of town is concerned about taxes and spending”).
5. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The town’s “net zero” resolution is a direct climate action policy at the local level. By considering geothermal systems that would “electrify heat” and reduce reliance on gas, the School Committee is planning a concrete measure to mitigate climate change by reducing the carbon footprint of its buildings.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
   • The article’s focus on rectifying high classroom temperatures and fixing a failing chiller system (“at 50% capacity; it is failing”) is directly aimed at upgrading educational facilities to provide a more effective and comfortable learning environment.
2. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • The recommendation to install a “geothermal water-to-water heat pump” system is a move towards using renewable energy (geothermal) for heating and cooling the schools.
3. Target 7.3: By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency.
   • The proposal to convert the high school to a “high-efficiency energy system” and the statement that “the better the system, the more is spent on cooling but less on utilities” both point towards a goal of improving energy efficiency.
4. Target 9.4: By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and processes.
   • The entire project is an example of upgrading public infrastructure (schools) by adopting a “clean and environmentally sound technology” like the proposed geothermal system to achieve greater sustainability and efficiency.
5. Target 11.b: By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, disaster risk reduction and holistic disaster risk management at all levels.
   • The town’s “net zero” resolution, which guides the School Committee’s decision-making, is an integrated policy aimed at resource efficiency and climate change mitigation at the local level.
6. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • While the article discusses local planning, the principle is the same. The School Committee is integrating climate change measures (adopting greener technology) into its long-range capital plan, guided by the town’s “net zero” resolution.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 4.a:
   • Classroom Temperatures: The article explicitly states current temperatures are “up to 83 degrees.” A measurable indicator of progress would be the reduction and stabilization of classroom temperatures to comfortable learning levels.
   • Cooling System Capacity: The current chiller is at “50% capacity.” A successful upgrade would bring the system to 100% capacity, providing a clear metric for improvement.
2. For Targets 7.2 and 7.3:
   • Share of Renewable Energy: The choice of system (e.g., geothermal vs. traditional) serves as an indicator. Progress is measured by the adoption of the geothermal system, which increases the share of renewable energy in the schools’ energy mix.
   • Reduction in Fossil Fuel Use: The plan states that with the geothermal option, “gas remaining only in the kitchen.” This provides a specific, measurable reduction in the use of natural gas.
   • Utility Costs: The article implies that a more efficient system would lead to lower utility costs. Tracking these costs before and after the installation would be a key indicator of improved energy efficiency.
3. For Target 9.4:
   • Investment in Sustainable Infrastructure: The article provides specific cost estimates for the different options, such as “$18.9 million” for the recommended geothermal system. This financial investment is a direct indicator of resource allocation towards sustainable infrastructure.
4. For Targets 11.b and 13.2:
   • Implementation of Climate Policies: The primary indicator is the School Committee’s decision itself. A vote to adopt the “greener air source or geothermal approach” would be a direct measure of the implementation of the town’s “net zero” resolution within its capital planning.

4. Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: hopkintonindependent.com