Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Efficiency Audits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wilmington committee advances ASHRAE-based energy-audit plan for city buildings
Summary
The Clean Energy Advisory Committee reviewed a draft ASHRAE Level 2 scope of work for energy-efficiency audits of municipal facilities and asked staff to add LEED energy benchmarks, net-present-value reporting and a facility-prioritization plan for inclusion in the next budget cycle (budgets due Jan. 31).
The City of Wilmington Clean Energy Advisory Committee on Monday reviewed a draft scope of work for citywide energy-efficiency audits intended to identify energy conservation measures (ECMs), implementation costs and projected savings.
David (city staff) presented the draft as an ASHRAE Level 2 baseline, saying the scope would cover on-site inspections, data collection, measures analysis and a written report to support next year’s budget request. He told the committee the city does not currently have funding for a full program but needs a scope ready to include in the January budget submission.
Committee members asked staff to add specific, Council-ready reporting metrics to the audit deliverable: a list of recommended ECMs with total project costs, annual energy and cost savings, utility incentives, net project cost, payback period and net present value. PJ Klein and other members emphasized that projects’ simple payback and net-present-value calculations are essential to justify funding requests to City Council.
Members also asked staff to cross-reference U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) guidance on LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and the Energy Star “treasure hunt” checklist as supplementary resources. Staff said the scope would continue to be ASHRAE-focused but could reference LEED-for-existing-buildings best practices and Energy Star tools so contractors know performance benchmarks to target.
On sequencing, the committee recommended prioritizing audits for the highest-energy-use facilities (police headquarters and the Skyline Center were noted as leading examples) rather than auditing the entire portfolio at once, citing diminishing returns on the smallest buildings. Staff agreed to research consultant pricing models (by building count, square footage or portfolio quotes) and return with recommendations at the next monthly meeting.
The committee asked staff to prepare a Council-ready one-page summary of the proposed audit approach and to confirm the timeline: city budgets are submitted by January 31, so a finalized scope is needed to include funding requests for the next fiscal year.
Next steps: staff will (1) update the scope to include the reporting fields the committee requested, (2) research pricing and prioritization strategies and (3) deliver a one-page summary for committee review at the next meeting so members can approve a budget request to City Council.
The committee did not take a formal vote on funding at the meeting; it directed staff to return with cost estimates and a prioritized list of facilities.
