Strafford County hears utility-backed energy-efficiency and on-site generation study; commissioners favor engineering study

Strafford County commissioners discussed a utility‑supported energy efficiency scoping study during their meeting, hearing from Eversource and Unitil consultants about low‑cost retrocommissioning, lighting and controls upgrades, and larger on‑site generation options that could supply electricity and heat to multiple county buildings. Jack Palousek of Eversource and consultants from GDS Associates presented the findings and recommended an engineering study to refine scope, cost and payback estimates.

The study, described by consultant Jeremy Blanchard as a "high level" no‑cost audit, identified measures for four county facilities (Riverside/Olms House, the Department of Corrections, the courthouse and Heider House). Blanchard told the commissioners retrocommissioning—optimizing existing building controls—typically shows a roughly three‑year payback and is a low‑cost first step. "If anything, [paybacks] would be lower with those incentives from the electric and gas utility," he said, referring to utility incentives not yet folded into the tables presented.

The consultants outlined larger options as well. Palousek and Blanchard described on‑site generation approaches including combined heat‑and‑power (CHP) units (reciprocating engines that produce electricity and recover heat) and linear generators that produce electricity without heat recovery. Blanchard said CHP can be "barely cost effective" in the county’s case—he estimated a 4–5 year payback for a project that could cost on the order of three quarters of a million dollars to nearly a million dollars, before incentives. Commissioners asked if a single plant could serve both sides of the campus; Blanchard said systems are typically sized to meet a facility’s base thermal load and that switchgear and load‑isolation work would be required to island particular circuits during an outage.

Commissioner Levitt, who said he has 35 years in the electrical business, pressed on sizing and switching gear and asked whether the suggested generation could support the jail and neighboring buildings during an extended outage. Consultants said a plant would likely meet base load (roughly 300 kW on the low end for the county facilities) and would require additional infrastructure to serve full campus loads in an outage. County staff flagged aging boilers in the jail and Riverside—"20 year old boilers"—and suggested cogeneration could offset near‑term boiler replacements.

Consultants said next steps would be a paid detailed engineering study (typical scope $20,000–$40,000, cost‑shared 50/50 with utilities), which would develop firm pricing, interconnection options and options for combining CHP and solar. Palousek and Matt O’Keefe of Unitil emphasized the need to engage utilities before buying equipment so projects are eligible for incentives. "If you go buy a piece of equipment and install it and then ask for an incentive, most often the answer is going to be no," O’Keefe said.

On policy and funding, the presenters noted state and federal incentives: the commercial investment tax credit remains available for some on‑site generation technologies, while some solar tax incentives may change in July of the following year. They also described state‑run NH SAVES programs funded through a system benefit charge and regulated by the Public Utilities Commission; those incentives can reduce paybacks but are budgeted and require preapproval.

Commissioners said they supported pursuing projects with paybacks in the near term (one commissioner said they would back projects with a 10‑year payback or less) and directed staff to circulate the consultants’ report electronically to county contacts (Janet) and to follow up about priorities, including the recommended engineering study. The consultants said Eversource and Unitil can help cost‑share the engineering study and would return with answers on interconnection limits (commercial generation caps were discussed, with a municipal solar cap of 5 MW cited as distinct from non‑municipal 1 MW limits). The county will evaluate bundling measures, potential bonding, and grant opportunities discussed during the session.

The presentation also included a long list of additional lower‑cost items (pipe insulation, vending misers, LED conversions, heat‑pump water heaters) consultants described as "low hanging fruit" to pursue while the county considers larger generation projects. Commissioners and staff agreed to pursue distribution of the written scoping report, coordinate with utility account executives for detailed answers, and consider the paid engineering study as the next formal step.