Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oley Valley SD board hears $4.7 million energy-efficiency proposal; asks staff to pursue grant-qualified options
Summary
A Verigy energy-services team outlined LED, HVAC, refrigeration and solar opportunities that could cut district energy spending; the board instructed staff and the committee to pursue deeper scoping and grant-qualified work, request contracts for legal review, and return with recommendations.
Verigy, an energy-services firm, presented an efficiency and potential solar plan to the Oley Valley School District board on April 14, proposing measures the firm estimates could be part of a roughly $4.7 million, 20-year self-funded project and produce an estimated first-year savings of $176,110.
The presentation, delivered by Bill King, Verigy regional account manager, outlined prioritized measures including full interior LED conversions (classrooms and corridors), upgrades from pneumatic actuators to direct-digital HVAC controls, replacement or retrofit of kitchen walk-in refrigeration controls, high-efficiency pumps with variable-frequency drives, upgraded air-handling units and targeted window replacements. King also raised the possibility of boiler fuel conversion to dual-fuel capability and described a ‘gridcap’ peak-control technology to lower peak billing.
King said the district’s total annual operations and maintenance (O&M) spend is about $1.5 million and reported district energy-use intensity (EUI) metrics against a K–12 baseline: high school 50.2, middle school 56.7 and elementary 41.9 (baseline cited as 48.5). He presented conservative estimated savings—about $176,110 in year one, about $21,464 in fuel-oil reductions—and a rough 20-year, self-funded project total near $4.7 million, while cautioning that the scope needed more detailed site assessments.
Why it matters: the board was focused on return on investment and grant leverage. Several board members questioned whether the projected savings justified a $4.7 million outlay without substantial grant support. One member noted that $176,110 on a $4.7 million investment equates to only a roughly 3.2% return and urged staff and Verigy to identify higher-return individual measures (for example, LED retrofits and refrigeration controls) and to prioritize items that qualify for state grant matches.
During Q&A, Verigy discussed funding routes: the Pennsylvania School Facility Improvement Grant (a 25% match program, with awards ranging from roughly $500,000 up to multi‑million-dollar applications), cooperative purchasing vehicles (Aqualas/Co-Stars), and county-level grant channels. King advised that some replacements—original unit ventilators and AHUs—would be candidate items for facility-improvement grant funding.
Board action and next steps: the board asked staff and the relevant committee to pursue deeper scoping of HVAC and electrical systems specifically for grant qualification, to request the full contract packages and related documents from Verigy for solicitor review, and to bring more detailed, grant‑aware proposals back to the May meeting (the presenter provided to deliver contract drafts and supplemental photos). The board did not approve a project at the meeting; instead, it directed further investigation and to prepare motions for potential roof- or ground-mounted solar contract options so the board can compare both alternatives.
What was not decided: no contract was executed and no formal vote approved an energy retrofit or solar project at the April 14 meeting. The financial figures presented were described by Verigy as preliminary estimates that would be refined with additional site work and grant eligibility analysis.
Quotes: Bill King, Verigy regional account manager, said, “We are the national K–12 leader as an energy services company” and framed the firm’s role as finding grant‑eligible, high‑impact measures. Superintendent Aaron Weston and board members asked for prioritized, grant‑qualified scopes and legal review of contract language before any approval.
Context and follow-up: Verigy recommended phased work, typically done in summers to minimize disruption; the firm noted cooperative purchasing options to accelerate procurement. The board requested contract packages and asked the solicitor to review them; staff were directed to return with grant‑qualified proposals and recommended motions at the next meeting for consideration.
