Potter-Dix board members hear energy audit

David Goebel, a representative from Ameresco spoke with members of the Potter-Dix Board of Education (BOE) on March 14 concerning the school’s energy audit and about the improvements that can be made to the current system.

In opening, the he summarized what was discussed at last month’s meeting. The boiler at Dix is a single boiler that is unreliable, old and energy-inefficient; it delivers steam to elements that are also nearing the end of their life-cycle.

Goebel reminded the board members that they had discussed the advantages in changing the system to a hot water system that would increase the efficiency, and provide more control and a more comfortable environment from a heat that is produced by water rather than steam and it extends the life-cycle of the mechanical equipment.

They had also discussed that these new units may be purchased alone without the cooling units which may be purchased later. He said that by doing this, the indoor air quality of the classrooms is improved by providing the right amount of ventilation that is necessary to ventilate and remove the carbon dioxide that is produced from people just being in confined spaces. He reminded the board members that they also discussed energy savings by way of changing lighting fixtures and adding room occupancy sensors, and improving better control of energy management.

According to the Ameresco web site, customers who sign an energy savings performance contract can renew facilities and reduce energy costs without the need for capital expenditures and the political complications that arise during the budgeting process.

He also said that if the school continues on the route that they are on without updating the system and using more energy efficient products, and they continue paying the utility companies the price could escalate each year around 3.9 percent.

Whereas, if they go for a 12 year term and pay 43 percent of this in some of the finance charges, so that the 57 percent that is remaining is the savings.

Goebel presented documents that showed the company’s project history that are specific to this type of area which includes Kansas, Wyoming and Eastern Colorado.

The pre-proposal site visit has already been done. The next steps in include data gathering; spending some time on site with an energy engineer; modeling the system to see how the current system to see how it is operating and how it can be improved upon by the changes that they move forward with; project development (talking to contractors to get pricing); funding the project (look for grants and rebates that might be available from utility companies); final performance contract that includes implementation.

Once that contract is approved, a commitment is made to decide the size of the contract (how much to spend). Wherever the amount falls, that will be the contract for implementation at which point they will have the construction management and they will bring in the selected sub-contractors.

Ameresco will also provide training and commissioning to make sure that all of the systems are implemented properly and the contractors who do the installation will be trained to ensure that on an ongoing basis that the saving that Ameresco projected will actually be there.

Continuing his comments Goebel moved on to the cost of the technical energy audit. He informed the board members that different companies take different approaches, but that most companies charge .25 - .29 cents per square foot, and some places required more engineering designs than others and he didn’t feel that it was appropriate to charge a fixed price of .25 or .29 per square foot, but they do cap it off there.

The quote given to the board members was for the two facilities which represents approximately 100,000 square feet, which comes out to around .15 cents per square foot.

The basis given for the pricing was that the metrics in the Potter building weren’t as extensive in design as primarily pertaining to the steam trap work. All the other metrics that they identified with accessing that table are pretty simple to do the cost calculations and the engineering design and the contract design.

Cash flow analysis: If financed over a period of 12 years, with a down payment of $65,000, with all of the options installed in the first year, they will have to pay approximately $47,000 each year for the improvements. The estimate financial benefit over that time is $21,000 in the first year to around $73,000 in year 12.

The project can be modified to drop the cooling system, which many schools choose to do, the representative stated. But for each of the line-item modifications or deletions, the school will see a change in the cash flow. He said that is how they target where they want to be.

An inflation rate of t3.5 percent was calculated within the estimate at a 3.25 percent interest rate for a term of twelve years, which can be rated at 10 years to change the figures if the school prefers. The company won’t go for a 15 year term unless the project comes out to be more than one million dollars.

The option to change everything over year by year was mentioned. For example, change the boiler in the first year, then change three areas of piping in the second year, the following year a few unit vents, and the next year change out some lighting.

If school officials change things out over the years, this is where they find the true financial benefit by way of capital cost avoidance. If there isn’t a positive number seen, it wouldn’t be a good project.

Goebel told the board members that they may want to have Ameresco look at the football field lighting, that it might need to be upgraded to be more energy efficient. He went on to say that other schools have dropped ceilings and installed new lighting fixtures and this also helps with heating a smaller space since the ceilings are lowered.