Larimer County highlights 20 years of energy upgrades, plans geothermal‑powered emergency services building

Larimer County commissioners heard a work‑session briefing March 23 from facilities staff on more than 20 years of energy‑ and water‑efficiency work and the county’s near‑term plans to monitor and extend those gains.

Barb Andrews, the county’s energy manager, outlined the program’s arc: a 2004 building component replacement program that established recurring funding for mechanical and envelope improvements; early renewable projects including a small geothermal system at the landfill in 2007 and rooftop solar in 2010; and a recent push for LED lighting and water‑saving turf changes. "That building component replacement program was a pivotal, foundational piece for us," Andrews said, describing it as the reason the county can plan work years in advance.

The most prominent new project is the county’s emergency services building, which staff said is being designed as the county’s first full‑electric building with a geothermal mechanical system. Ken Cooper, facilities director, said the geothermal option added what he described as roughly a "$2 million premium" to mechanical costs but that staff secured about "$2.5 million in grants" tied to electrification and geothermal work. He said the geothermal approach will lower the building’s operational carbon footprint compared with straight electrification on the current grid and reduce recurring costs by eliminating natural‑gas use.

Staff said they will use an e‑gauge monitoring platform to separate grid imports, solar generation and EV charger loads at the emergency services building so commissioners and the public can see how geothermal affects total building load in real time. Andrews said the county is also deploying lower‑cost, circuit‑level e‑gauges (about $3,500 each) to expand monitoring where full submeters would be prohibitively expensive; staff estimated a full submeter retrofit for a complex site could approach roughly $100,000.

Commissioners pressed staff for savings estimates. Facilities staff said the county uses a 2021 baseline for reporting and that the portfolio’s annual energy bill is roughly $2.5 million; they cautioned that year‑to‑year weather and grid changes make firm cumulative savings figures complex. The presenters explained commercial demand‑charge mechanics and gave an example that a high one‑hour demand spike can cost thousands of dollars (staff cited roughly $18 per kilowatt as a typical demand rate, which they said can translate to about $3,000–$4,000 for one peak hour in some cases).

Electric‑vehicle charging also factored into the discussion. Staff said a single Level‑3 fast charger can nearly double a building’s hourly electrical use when heavily used; level‑2 chargers have smaller impacts. The county currently charges for EV use and said charging revenue at the site covers its costs, though pricing and broader grid impacts will continue to be monitored.

On water, landscape technician Nulan Sutton described a plan focused on removing nonfunctional turf, upgrading irrigation and working with contractors. Staff said a three‑year average for six targeted locations (2020–2022) was about 9.22 million gallons at a cost of roughly $60,000; after implementing changes, 2023 water use for those sites fell to about 6 million gallons and roughly $33,000–$34,000 in cost.

The county also noted recognitions tied to the work: participation in ClimateWise, LEED Gold certification for an alternative‑sentencing facility in 2012, Energy Star certifications in 2016, and a recent Colorado Green Business Network silver recognition with a goal to reach gold in 2027.

Looking ahead, staff said they will finalize an energy management plan to sit alongside the facilities master plan and the county water plan, expand e‑gauge monitoring and targeted submeters, pursue audits and retro‑commissioning for candidate buildings, and use the emergency services building as a data point for future geothermal or electrification decisions. A question about repurposing the Taft Hill landfill for a private solar array was answered by staff who said the idea remains under consideration but is being handled by solid‑waste staff rather than facilities.

The board adjourned the work session at 11:19 a.m.