Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Optimization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Energy‑optimization program reports $1.3M in verified utility savings; district exceeds contractor projections
Summary
Navitus (optimization firm) presented a year‑four validation showing the district achieved roughly $1.3 million in total verified utility savings vs. the baseline and a surplus of about $822,000 over contract projections; EUI and equipment‑life benefits cited. Board discussed gym temperature and HVAC controls.
The district’s energy‑optimization partner reported verified energy savings after year four of monitoring and tuning, presenting numbers that exceeded the contractor’s original projections and highlighting both utility cost reductions and equipment‑life benefits.
Luke Lindstead and Gary Wooldridge of Navitus (optimization contractor) told the board the program’s baseline (2016–2019, excluding COVID years) showed projected utility savings tied to the first phase of work; the contract projected about $193,000 in utility savings for year four, but the firm measured roughly $402,000 for the year. Across the four years, the presentation listed total verified utility savings of about $1,300,000 and an $822,000 surplus versus contract projections.
Navitus also presented an engineering‑rule‑of‑thumb metric for capital‑avoidance: reduced runtime on HVAC equipment is estimated to extend equipment life and avoid replacement costs the firm quantified at roughly $205,000 per year (a bald engineering estimate, the firm said). Navitus noted an energy‑use intensity (EUI) drop from a baseline around 66 kBtu/sq ft down to approximately 33 in the most recent period — a decline the firm characterized as “very low” and a credit to district staff for operations and controls work.
Board discussion focused on occupant comfort versus control sequencing. Trustees and staff recounted an unusually cold gym during recent events; the firm and district facilities staff (Jeff Webster) explained differences in control strategies across units (discharge‑air set points vs. zone control), how outside‑air minimums affect perceived draft, and the tradeoffs between energy savings and maintaining occupant comfort. Navitus said thermostats and control logic are monitored remotely and that the firm and district staff review control data and make periodic adjustments.
Context and next steps: Navitus said the first phase of work (automation, HVAC controls, lighting and other measures) was approximately a $5 million investment and that, absent the solar installation and phase‑two projects, the measured savings make a meaningful contribution to the district’s capital‑project financial picture. The contractor estimated the first phase would approach cash‑flow parity within roughly 10 years and noted that equipment life expectancy after reduced runtime can be in the 15–20 year range.
No formal board action was required on the presentation; trustees thanked the contractor and facilities staff for implementation and ongoing monitoring.
