Grand Forks schools exceed first-year guaranteed energy savings as upgrades come online

Grand Forks Public Schools officials and their engineering consultants reported that the district’s guaranteed energy savings program has outperformed early expectations, producing both immediate construction-period savings and continuing reductions in utility use since performance tracking began in November 2024.

The presentation to the school board on Aug. 11 summarized an $18 million facilities project completed in late 2024 that replaced lighting with LEDs, upgraded building envelopes, installed new HVAC equipment and added air conditioning to some schools. Connor Daley of engineering firm CMTA said the district has saved about $668,000 since construction work started in 2023 and that the first-year guaranteed annual savings are $347,000 in energy plus $32,000 in operations and maintenance, a combined contractual guarantee of $379,000 a year.

Board members heard technical and financial details about how the project was scoped and measured and discussed items that can affect comparisons to historical utility use.

The consultants said the project replaced more than 18,000 light fixtures with LEDs, installed over 325 HVAC devices, added cooling at J. Nelson Kelly Elementary, Lewis and Clark Elementary and Viking Elementary, and replaced a boiler at Lake Agassiz that removed the district from the UND steam system. Funding sources cited were roughly $5.4 million from energy-savings-backed financing and about $12.4 million from prior bond proceeds; the overall project cost was described as $18 million with no construction change orders reported for the energy project scope.

Connor Daley said the district’s total districtwide energy consumption has dropped about 29 percent from the three-year baseline used for the contract (2019–2021) to the construction period and early performance data. He estimated annual electricity savings of about 2.7 million kilowatt-hours, roughly 1,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided, and the equivalent of taking about 217 gasoline-powered vehicles off the road each year.

Daley and Brandon Baumbach, who introduced the item for the superintendent, described measurement methods: the project uses a three-year historical baseline that smooths out atypically hot or cold years and allows limited baseline adjustments if a building’s use changes materially (for example, a pool that was offline during the baseline period). When the central pool returned to operation, the team adjusted that building’s baseline model upward and increased the guarantee by the same amount, the presenters said, so the district’s total measured savings remained unchanged.

Board members pressed on whether savings reflected changed thermostat or operating behavior rather than equipment efficiency. Daley said the guaranteed savings calculations are based on the district’s historical operating patterns; the consultants optimize equipment and controls for efficiency but do not police building operating set points. “We are using that three-year average baseline for that exact reason so that we can take out any of those abnormalities,” Daley said. He added that the project team provides guidance on operations but the buildings-and-grounds department retains authority to set temperatures and schedules.

Board member questions also covered scope selection. Daley explained the scope was determined by a comprehensive audit of each building; initial designs considered additional HVAC renovations but the final set of buildings was limited by available funding and board prioritization. Jonathan Elwein, director of buildings and grounds, told the board that large schools such as Central and Red River received partial upgrades but that full replacements for those large facilities did not fit into the project budget; he said the district is developing a larger-scale plan for remaining needs.

The presenters noted additional, lower-cost measures that improved the district’s utility bills, including the installation of capacitor banks at three buildings to improve power factor and negotiating utility rate schedules for five schools; those changes were projected to save an extra estimated $20,000–$30,000 per year beyond the guaranteed savings.

No action was required; the item was listed as discussion. The project team said it will return with the full first-year performance report in about six months.

Ending: The consultants framed the results as a district success tied to completed upgrades and continuing tuning of controls. Board members said they appreciated the data and asked that the administration return with updated performance figures at future reporting intervals.