Elkhorn schools say energy upgrades cut utility costs, cite grant funds and targeted projects

Alan, a district facilities staff member, told the school board on March 24 that the district has seen measurable reductions in building energy use after a year of targeted efficiency work and data monitoring.

The presentation said the district received a $100,000 reward from the U.S. Department of Energy in May 2023 and that a second $50,000 payment was available after completing required online classes. District staff described three major partnerships—Data Wrangler (real‑time monitoring and reporting), Focus on Energy (statewide efficiency programs and incentives) and the Energy Star portfolio (benchmarking against similar schools)—as central to identifying savings opportunities.

Staff described work that focused first on the middle school, where the Energy Star benchmarking and other changes produced a steady increase in the facility’s score. According to the presentation, the middle school’s Energy Star score rose from 37 in November 2022 to 57 later that year and was reported at 61 in January. Staff said those gains helped reduce peak demand and lower utility bills: one example shown compared an April 2023 baseline utility estimate of roughly $17,671 for the middle school with the actual, lower April 2024 cost after changes, and staff said that the district reduced that month’s utility bill by about $6,500.

The presentation listed specific projects and estimated savings or costs: a planned CBM (vent sensor) upgrade at the middle school with a total project cost of $92,000; staff said they would reduce the vendor cost by $20,000 through in‑house work, and that Focus on Energy incentives of about $5,500 would apply. The presentation included an estimated energy cost reduction of roughly $12,000 per year for that building and projected a multi‑year payback (staff described the return on investment as about five years).

Staff also cited several low‑cost operational changes that produced savings: pre‑cooling buildings overnight to reduce daytime peak demand, dialed boiler tuning that generated small incentives, and turning off seldom‑used walk‑in coolers. Using the walk‑in cooler example, staff showed a per‑device monthly cost (at the rate quoted in the presentation) of about $712 and said replacing or turning off unused walk‑in units and installing smaller refrigerators produced immediate monthly savings—one combined example cited roughly $1,200 per month between two locations.

District staff described additional uses of the monitoring data: Fund 50 (food service) and Fund 80 (community use) billing, event cost calculations for after‑hours facility use and participation in a Focus on Energy utility‑verification incentive program that could generate payments tied to measured savings. Staff said that, scaled across buildings and after accounting for monitoring costs, the district was “looking at about $55,000 in savings” in the referenced reporting period, and reiterated that some savings figures included recent operational changes and incentive payments.

The presentation closed with a summary that the high school remains one of the district’s more efficient buildings despite size and amenities, that the district intends to scale successful practices to other sites, and that the CBM vent sensor installation is expected to begin the next month.

Board members thanked staff for the detail and asked clarifying operational questions; staff said the work was funded from the DOE reward money and other incentive dollars and that they planned to reuse savings and incentive revenue for further efficiency projects.