Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants say Grand Forks schools’ energy project has exceeded first-year dollar savings guarantee
Summary
Consultants reported that the district’s guaranteed energy-savings project produced roughly $820,000 in total savings to date — more than double the year-one guarantee — driven by energy and maintenance reductions across dozens of buildings, though some utility bills remain under review.
Brandon Bombak introduced a presentation March 9 on the district’s guaranteed energy‑savings project and turned the floor to Connor Daley of CMTA, who reviewed the first full year of post‑construction performance.
Daley said the district had been spending about $1.8 million a year on utilities across roughly 26 facilities before the project, plus about $400,000 annually on operations and maintenance. The project combined LED lighting, envelope improvements (door sweeps and seals), HVAC replacements and new building automation controls, Daley said. He told the board: “We guaranteed an energy savings that equated to about $347,000 a year,” with an additional $32,000 in annual maintenance savings.
On energy units, Daley reported construction‑period reductions (an 18% drop in electricity consumption and an almost 30% reduction in gas use during a 15‑month construction window) and first‑year performance that was “a few percentage points higher than what our guarantee was” but still showed strong reductions in consumption and demand. On the dollar side, Daley reported roughly $412,000 in savings during construction and about $408,000 for year one, totaling approximately $820,000 to date — well above the $347,000 year‑one guarantee.
Daley cautioned the board about data caveats tied to utility billing. He said the district and its consultants are working with Excel Energy to correct what they believe are erroneous bills at a few sites, including Viking Elementary School, and that corrected bills could alter some facility‑level numbers. He added the energy‑financed portion of the project (roughly $5.4–$6 million of the approximately $17.8 million total) is structured to be paid off within 15 years per state statute.
Board members asked follow‑up questions about specific building impacts, including the effect of a pool being returned to service at one school; Daley said the pool was included in an adjusted baseline so its operation was already accounted for in presented numbers. Several trustees praised the long‑term approach and the prior board’s decision to invest in efficiency measures.
What happens next: consultants will continue to reconcile utility meter data with Excel Energy and issue updated reports as corrected bills are received. The district will monitor monthly performance and provide updated figures to the board.
