Published: May 22, 2008 04:42 pm         

School board looks at energy companies' proposals, yet to make a decision

When making a major purchase, one usually does not limit himself at looking at one vendor.

That's the strategy the Cumberland County Board of Education employed at two work sessions held May 12 and 13. The board heard presentations from four energy performance contracting companies.

"I couldn't tell you which company the board is leaning toward," Director of Schools Aarona VanWinkle told the Chronicle. "They have the information to make a well-informed decision."

The four companies the BOE considered were TAC Energy Solutions, Siemens, Trane and Johnson Controls. Each company was allotted around an hour to present their proposal for energy savings.

First, the board heard from TAC Energy Solutions. VanWinkle noted the group gave a $1.4 million annual savings estimate, guaranteeing at least $1.2 million in savings.

It was a presentation during a February work session that prompted the board to look further into energy performance contracting.

The DOS went on to mention each company promised the savings accumulated from utility costs would cover the cost of the project over time. If not, the savings companies all agree to pay the difference.

TAC highlighted the need for change with the CCHS rooftop units and the school's boiler. The group said Cumberland County schools had system-wide inefficient lighting and needed around-the-clock thermostat control as well as having non-standardized equipment and parts, VanWinkle explained.

For the changes TAC suggested to take place, on-staff training would be required for maintenance workers.

VanWinkle said the group did pose some financing options, but there wasn't much help available.

The DOS told the Chronicle the Siemens company gave a similar analysis of the school system's utility needs. Siemens showed where schools needed water conservation, lighting improvements, automated controls for thermostats and low-flow dishwashers at dishwashers at all school aside from SMHS.

They gave a $4.5 million estimated project cost, but once again guaranteed the savings in utility costs would be enough to cover it over time.

Johnson Controls never gave an overall estimate for the project, VanWinkle noted. They gave the same basic recommendations for energy savings, she said, with the same guarantee on savings covering the cost.

Trane was the only group that projected the savings to be more than the cost, giving the school system an annual increase of $42,000 to use elsewhere in the budget, VanWinkle said.

In giving similar suggestions, Trane broke down the cost for each building in the school system. With Central Office currently paying around $81,500 in utilities yearly, Trane projected $32,000 in savings over a 12-month period.

CCHS pays nearly $250,000 in utilities in a year, but with replacing the boiler and implementing other changes, Trane gave an estimate of almost $28,000 in savings.

At SMHS, the group estimated saving the school just more than $50,000 in annual utility costs from their current $231,000.

With the elementary schools, VanWinkle said she was surprised by some of the large amounts in savings in smaller schools.

For example, Pine View Elementary has more than $70,500 in utility costs. Trane projected almost $31,000 in savings after implementing the recommended changes.

The company gave a total project cost of around $8.5 million but savings of $9.9 million.

Furthermore, VanWinkle spoke of loan options Trane presented. One option was taking a loan with a 3.8-percent interest rate from Bank of America. Another was a 4.5-percent interest rate loan from SunTrust for the project, which Trane representatives said would be closer to four-percent interest after further negotiation. According to the company, the interest rate would also be covered in the utility savings, VanWinkle said.

A special-called meeting has yet to be announced in which the BOE will come to a decision on energy-performance contracting. The DOS said it's likely there will be a meeting called for the week following Memorial Day, which would give the board time to look over the extensive amount of information they were given from each of the energy companies.