Strafford County reviews no‑cost energy scoping study; commissioners back further engineering work

Strafford County commissioners heard a no‑cost “scoping study” from Eversource, Unitil and consulting partner GDS Associates that identifies energy‑efficiency opportunities across county buildings and outlines next steps including a cost‑shared detailed engineering study.

Jeremy Blanchard of GDS Associates summarized the study as “a scoping study. It is a no cost to the county, energy efficiency, high level audit,” and walked commissioners through recommendations for four campus buildings: the Riverside Alms House, the Department of Corrections, the courthouse and Heider House.

The study highlights a mix of low‑cost, short‑payback measures and larger projects. Retrocommissioning of existing HVAC controls is described as a low‑cost, often three‑year payback measure. The team also recommended evaluating on‑site generation options, including combined heat and power (CHP) systems — for example, reciprocating‑engine CHP (a technology sold by Tecogen) that recovers waste heat to provide domestic hot water — and newer linear generator technology that produces electricity without heat recovery. Jeremy Blanchard said typical CHP payback estimates in the memo are in the mid‑multi‑year range and that study payback numbers did not include utility incentives.

Consultant Jack Poluchek, representing Eversource, said the utility and Unitil would work with the county on incentives if the county moves forward. He added that Eversource and Unitil can provide incentives and that understanding utility interconnection and incentive caps is part of the next technical steps.

Commissioners and staff discussed technical and operational limits. The presenters warned that a CHP plant sized to supply base thermal load is likely to serve only a portion of electrical demand (one presenter said a facility uses roughly 300–800 kW and a plant would typically be sized to meet the base 300 kW). Commissioners flagged switching gear and circuit segregation needed to island loads during an outage as additional infrastructure expenses beyond generation equipment.

Project economics and next steps. The presenters recommended a detailed engineering study to produce firm equipment sizing and contractor pricing; they estimated the study cost at roughly $20,000–$40,000 and said it is frequently cost‑shared 50/50 between utilities and the customer, leaving an estimated county share of about $10,000–$20,000 depending on scope. Commissioners indicated they would support measures with shorter paybacks: one commissioner said, “any energy savings that has at least a, you know, a 10 year payback or less we're gonna be on board with.”

County staff and the consultants agreed on immediate follow‑up actions: the consultants will resend the scoping report electronically to county staff (to Janet for distribution), and Eversource/Unitil and county staff will schedule follow‑up to prioritize measures and scope an engineering study. Commissioners discussed financing options such as bundling measures into a bond and using projected savings to service repayment.

Why this matters. County staff reported the county’s annual electricity bill is roughly in the same order of magnitude as a large CHP installation (presenters referenced $750,000–$800,000 annually for county facilities). The recommended mix of low‑cost controls, lighting and pump/VFD projects can provide near‑term savings while larger on‑site generation or solar projects would require engineering, interconnection review and evaluation of tax incentives and utility program rules.

What the consultants and utilities said next. The presenters noted the state’s utility program (NH Saves) is regulated by the state PUC and funded through a systems‑benefit charge on customer bills; incentive availability and program rules should be confirmed before purchasing equipment. Presenters also flagged federal investment tax credits that currently support some on‑site generation projects and noted solar tax incentives affecting private‑sector finance may change on a statutory timeline. The consultants recommended doing the low‑cost “low‑hanging fruit” projects first while pursuing a detailed engineering study to firm CHP/solar options.

County direction. Commissioners did not take a formal vote to approve capital spending at the meeting. Instead they reached a shared decision to pursue the next‑step engineering study and to receive the consultants’ report for review. Consultants will follow up with county staff to scope the engineering study and gather data needed for firm proposals and incentive estimates.