Appeals Board No. T- |
Previous | 1 of 2 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
S T A T E O F A R I Z O N A S C H O O L F A C I L I T I E S B O A R D Governor of Arizona Executive Director Jan Brewer John Arnold 1700 WEST WASHINGTON, SUITE 230, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 Phone: ( 602) 542- 6501 • Fax: ( 602) 542- 6529 • www. azsfb. gov October 1, 2008 The Honorable Jan Brewer, Governor State of Arizona 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 RE: Energy and Water Savings Pilot Program Dear Governor Brewer: Arizona Laws 2007, Chapter 266, Section 3 established the Energy and Water Savings Pilot program and appropriated $ 2.5 million toward its implementation. Additionally, statute requires the School Facilities Board ( SFB) to report by October 1, 2009, on the status of projects awarded through that program. The program is divided into two types of awards, Development Grants and Implementation Grants. Development Grants provide funds to assess existing school facilities and practices, and develop recommendations for improvements. Implementation Grants provided funds to implement energy savings projects. Development Grants The SFB received 27 applications for Development Gants. Applications were evaluated based on the following criteria: • Energy and water utilization: SFB and Energy Office Staff analyzed energy and water use over a 12 month period to determine which projects had the most potential for savings. Staff compared this data on a square footage basis and converted the results into an index ( the EUI or WUI) based on 50 points. Energy and water savings potential were equalized for comparison purposes. • Local Resource Index: This index is based on the per pupil bonding capacity of the applicant. • Implementation Funding Plan: Applicants submitted proposed funding plans for implementing the results of the study. Points were awarded based on the specificity of the plan. • District Energy Plan: Awarded points were based on the specificity, completeness, and quality of the plan. Based on these criteria, staff made recommendations to the School Facilities Board, which awarded eleven projects on April 3, 2008. Until the projects are completed, potential energy and water savings will not be known. Table 1 lists those projects and their current status. Table 1 – Project Development Grants District Award Spent to Date Status Agua Fria $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Closed Apache Junction $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Closed Buckeye ESD $ 25,300 $ 20,403 Closed Deer Valley $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Closed Mayer USD $ 12,844 $ 12,844 Closed Page USD $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Closed Peoria USD $ 40,000 $ 10,055 Closed Queen Creek USD $ 15,000 $ 0 Cancelled Toltec ESD $ 6,559 $ 0 Active Tucson USD $ 40,000 $ 28,700 Active Winslow USD $ 10,297 $ 10,297 Closed Total $ 250,000 $ 182,299 Recommendations from the Development Grant Reports The reports generated from the Development Grants review the selected school’s utility patterns and provide recommendations on how to reduce energy and water consumption. The majority of reports received recommend improving the schools mechanical and lighting systems. The reports also focus on behavior modification by creating awareness programs including goals and incentives. Implementation Grants The establishing statute defines implementation grants as a project that saves electricity, natural gas, other energy fuels or water, in a school facility built and occupied before July 1, 1999, through any of the following: ( a) Improvements in the efficiency of energy or water use. ( b) On- site production and use of electricity and useful thermal energy. ( c) Improvements in the operation of buildings and energy- consuming or water- using equipment in buildings. There was up to $ 2,000,000 to award in Implementation Grants. The SFB received 164 complete applications for Implementation Grants valued at $ 11.6 million. Applications were evaluated based on the following criteria ( total 100 points): • Cost Benefit Ratio: The cost benefit ratio is based on proposed project savings versus grant funds requested. Cost benefit ratio = annual project savings x useful economic life/ grant funds requested • Percent Utility Savings: The electricity, gas, and water savings are calculated against the utility budget that includes annual cost of gas, electricity, and water. Percent Utility Savings = 100 X Annual savings ($) / Annual Gas, Water & Electric bill ($) • Local Resource Index: This index is based on the per pupil bonding capacity of the applicant. 2 • Environmental Impact: The environmental savings are based on total pounds of CO2 reduction per dollar spent. The SFB awarded 30 projects in 16 school districts. In total, these projects will save $ 497,243 per year, which means the average payback for these projects is just over four years. Table 2 lists the awarded projects and their current status. Table 2 – Implementation Grants District Name Project Scope Project Award Paid to Date Status Altar Valley ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 84,773 $ 83,696 Closed Altar Valley ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 81,114 $ 81,114 Closed Altar Valley ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 12,890 $ 12,724 Closed Avondale ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 60,913 $ 52,857 Closed Catalina Foothills Lighting upgrade - T12 to T8, New AC, Insulation $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Clarkdale- Jerome Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 98,961 $ 98,672 Closed Colorado River UHS Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control, Water Conservation $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Colorado River UHS Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control, Water Conservation $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Concho ESD Lighting upgrade $ 64,259 $ 57,836 Closed Eloy ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 98,361 $ 89,954 Closed Eloy ESD Lighting upgrade $ 18,234 $ 18,234 Closed Flowing Wells HSD Lighting upgrade $ 5,434 $ 5,434 Closed Fowler ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 98,880 $ 98,880 Closed Fowler ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 58,008 $ 49,446 Closed Gilbert USD Lighting upgrade $ 100,000 $ 74,706 Closed Gilbert USD Lighting upgrade $ 48,385 $ 48,385 Closed Madison ESD Lighting Upgrade and HVAC Control $ 100,000 $ 89,830 Closed Osborn USD Low Flow Faucets, Toilets & Urinals $ 25,000 $ 0 Active Osborn USD Low Flow Faucets, Toilets & Urinals $ 16,000 $ 0 Active Osborn USD Lighting Upgrade $ 7,500 $ 0 Active Osborn USD Lighting Upgrade $ 5,000 $ 0 Active Parker USD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Parker USD Lighting Upgrade $ 71,011 $ 71,011 Closed Parker USD Lighting Upgrade $ 24,006 $ 24,006 Closed Payson USD Lighting upgrade, HVAC upgrade & Control $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Payson USD Lighting upgrade, HVAC upgrade & Control $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Pine Strawberry ESD Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control $ 94,918 $ 94,259 Closed Sacaton ESD Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control $ 94,762 $ 34,115 Active Sacaton ESD Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control $ 31,591 $ 0 Active 3 Sahuarita USD Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Total $ 2,000,000 $ 1,785,159 Actual Energy Savings SFB staff is beginning to receive information related to the actual savings produced by these projects. Table 3 lists six districts that completed their projects by the start of FY 2009. The table compares energy use from September 2007 through December 2007 with energy use from September 2008 through December 2008. A complete review of these districts is attached. The costs savings are the actual savings over the four month period. Because of changing energy needs throughout the course of the year, SFB staff believes it is inappropriate to annualize the four month savings over a one year period. However, in every case but one, the savings to date exceeds the projected savings. The one district that is below expectations, Catalina Foothills Unified, is mainly an HVAC project. SFB staff believes that the expected energy savings will manifest when utility bills from the warmer months are analyzed. Table 3 – Energy Savings between September and December 2008 District Name Project Scope Project Cost KWH Savings Energy Cost Savings Flowing Wells Lighting $ 5,434 5% $ 5,454 Pine Strawberry ESD Lighting, EMS $ 101,796 19% $ 2,244 Catalina Foothills Lighting, HVAC, Insulation $ 219,595 13% $ 2,261 Payson USD* Lighting, Economizer& EMS $ 525,644 19% $ 3,058 Eloy ESD Lighting, EMS $ 106,045 26% $ 2,661 Parker USD** Lighting, EMS $ 240,573 23% $ 6,638 During the last Legislative session, the law changed allowing the SFB access to school district utility records. This law will allow the SFB to track all of the awards in real time. Sincerely, John Arnold cc: The Honorable Robert Burns, Senate President ` The Honorable Kirk Adams, Speaker of the House The Honorable Ken Bennett, Secretary of State Richard Stavneak, Director, JLBC Eileen Klein, Director, OSPB Karla Phillips, Governor’s Policy Advisor on K- 12 Education GladysAnn Wells, Director, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records 4
Object Description
TITLE | Energy and water savings pilot program |
CREATOR | Arizona. School Facilities Board. |
SUBJECT | Arizona--School Facilities Board; School facilities--Arizona--Finance; School plant management--Arizona; |
Browse Topic |
Education |
DESCRIPTION | This item contains one or more publications. |
Language | English |
Material Collection |
State Documents |
Source Identifier | SFB 1.2:E 53 |
Location | New |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | Energy Grant Report 10-1-09.pdf |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Description
TITLE | Appeals Board No. T- |
DESCRIPTION | 74.42 KB |
Language | English |
Publisher | Arizona. Office of the Auditor General. |
TYPE | Text |
Material Collection |
State Documents House Received Reports |
Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | Energy Grant Report 10-1-09.pdf |
DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
DIGITIZATION SPECIFICATIONS | Digitized into PDF form through scanning at the Records Management Division, Arizona State Library. |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
File Size | 74.42 KB |
Full Text | S T A T E O F A R I Z O N A S C H O O L F A C I L I T I E S B O A R D Governor of Arizona Executive Director Jan Brewer John Arnold 1700 WEST WASHINGTON, SUITE 230, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 Phone: ( 602) 542- 6501 • Fax: ( 602) 542- 6529 • www. azsfb. gov October 1, 2008 The Honorable Jan Brewer, Governor State of Arizona 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 RE: Energy and Water Savings Pilot Program Dear Governor Brewer: Arizona Laws 2007, Chapter 266, Section 3 established the Energy and Water Savings Pilot program and appropriated $ 2.5 million toward its implementation. Additionally, statute requires the School Facilities Board ( SFB) to report by October 1, 2009, on the status of projects awarded through that program. The program is divided into two types of awards, Development Grants and Implementation Grants. Development Grants provide funds to assess existing school facilities and practices, and develop recommendations for improvements. Implementation Grants provided funds to implement energy savings projects. Development Grants The SFB received 27 applications for Development Gants. Applications were evaluated based on the following criteria: • Energy and water utilization: SFB and Energy Office Staff analyzed energy and water use over a 12 month period to determine which projects had the most potential for savings. Staff compared this data on a square footage basis and converted the results into an index ( the EUI or WUI) based on 50 points. Energy and water savings potential were equalized for comparison purposes. • Local Resource Index: This index is based on the per pupil bonding capacity of the applicant. • Implementation Funding Plan: Applicants submitted proposed funding plans for implementing the results of the study. Points were awarded based on the specificity of the plan. • District Energy Plan: Awarded points were based on the specificity, completeness, and quality of the plan. Based on these criteria, staff made recommendations to the School Facilities Board, which awarded eleven projects on April 3, 2008. Until the projects are completed, potential energy and water savings will not be known. Table 1 lists those projects and their current status. Table 1 – Project Development Grants District Award Spent to Date Status Agua Fria $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Closed Apache Junction $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Closed Buckeye ESD $ 25,300 $ 20,403 Closed Deer Valley $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Closed Mayer USD $ 12,844 $ 12,844 Closed Page USD $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Closed Peoria USD $ 40,000 $ 10,055 Closed Queen Creek USD $ 15,000 $ 0 Cancelled Toltec ESD $ 6,559 $ 0 Active Tucson USD $ 40,000 $ 28,700 Active Winslow USD $ 10,297 $ 10,297 Closed Total $ 250,000 $ 182,299 Recommendations from the Development Grant Reports The reports generated from the Development Grants review the selected school’s utility patterns and provide recommendations on how to reduce energy and water consumption. The majority of reports received recommend improving the schools mechanical and lighting systems. The reports also focus on behavior modification by creating awareness programs including goals and incentives. Implementation Grants The establishing statute defines implementation grants as a project that saves electricity, natural gas, other energy fuels or water, in a school facility built and occupied before July 1, 1999, through any of the following: ( a) Improvements in the efficiency of energy or water use. ( b) On- site production and use of electricity and useful thermal energy. ( c) Improvements in the operation of buildings and energy- consuming or water- using equipment in buildings. There was up to $ 2,000,000 to award in Implementation Grants. The SFB received 164 complete applications for Implementation Grants valued at $ 11.6 million. Applications were evaluated based on the following criteria ( total 100 points): • Cost Benefit Ratio: The cost benefit ratio is based on proposed project savings versus grant funds requested. Cost benefit ratio = annual project savings x useful economic life/ grant funds requested • Percent Utility Savings: The electricity, gas, and water savings are calculated against the utility budget that includes annual cost of gas, electricity, and water. Percent Utility Savings = 100 X Annual savings ($) / Annual Gas, Water & Electric bill ($) • Local Resource Index: This index is based on the per pupil bonding capacity of the applicant. 2 • Environmental Impact: The environmental savings are based on total pounds of CO2 reduction per dollar spent. The SFB awarded 30 projects in 16 school districts. In total, these projects will save $ 497,243 per year, which means the average payback for these projects is just over four years. Table 2 lists the awarded projects and their current status. Table 2 – Implementation Grants District Name Project Scope Project Award Paid to Date Status Altar Valley ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 84,773 $ 83,696 Closed Altar Valley ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 81,114 $ 81,114 Closed Altar Valley ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 12,890 $ 12,724 Closed Avondale ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 60,913 $ 52,857 Closed Catalina Foothills Lighting upgrade - T12 to T8, New AC, Insulation $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Clarkdale- Jerome Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 98,961 $ 98,672 Closed Colorado River UHS Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control, Water Conservation $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Colorado River UHS Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control, Water Conservation $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Concho ESD Lighting upgrade $ 64,259 $ 57,836 Closed Eloy ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 98,361 $ 89,954 Closed Eloy ESD Lighting upgrade $ 18,234 $ 18,234 Closed Flowing Wells HSD Lighting upgrade $ 5,434 $ 5,434 Closed Fowler ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 98,880 $ 98,880 Closed Fowler ESD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 58,008 $ 49,446 Closed Gilbert USD Lighting upgrade $ 100,000 $ 74,706 Closed Gilbert USD Lighting upgrade $ 48,385 $ 48,385 Closed Madison ESD Lighting Upgrade and HVAC Control $ 100,000 $ 89,830 Closed Osborn USD Low Flow Faucets, Toilets & Urinals $ 25,000 $ 0 Active Osborn USD Low Flow Faucets, Toilets & Urinals $ 16,000 $ 0 Active Osborn USD Lighting Upgrade $ 7,500 $ 0 Active Osborn USD Lighting Upgrade $ 5,000 $ 0 Active Parker USD Lighting upgrade & HVAC Control $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Parker USD Lighting Upgrade $ 71,011 $ 71,011 Closed Parker USD Lighting Upgrade $ 24,006 $ 24,006 Closed Payson USD Lighting upgrade, HVAC upgrade & Control $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Payson USD Lighting upgrade, HVAC upgrade & Control $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Pine Strawberry ESD Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control $ 94,918 $ 94,259 Closed Sacaton ESD Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control $ 94,762 $ 34,115 Active Sacaton ESD Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control $ 31,591 $ 0 Active 3 Sahuarita USD Lighting upgrade, HVAC Control $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Closed Total $ 2,000,000 $ 1,785,159 Actual Energy Savings SFB staff is beginning to receive information related to the actual savings produced by these projects. Table 3 lists six districts that completed their projects by the start of FY 2009. The table compares energy use from September 2007 through December 2007 with energy use from September 2008 through December 2008. A complete review of these districts is attached. The costs savings are the actual savings over the four month period. Because of changing energy needs throughout the course of the year, SFB staff believes it is inappropriate to annualize the four month savings over a one year period. However, in every case but one, the savings to date exceeds the projected savings. The one district that is below expectations, Catalina Foothills Unified, is mainly an HVAC project. SFB staff believes that the expected energy savings will manifest when utility bills from the warmer months are analyzed. Table 3 – Energy Savings between September and December 2008 District Name Project Scope Project Cost KWH Savings Energy Cost Savings Flowing Wells Lighting $ 5,434 5% $ 5,454 Pine Strawberry ESD Lighting, EMS $ 101,796 19% $ 2,244 Catalina Foothills Lighting, HVAC, Insulation $ 219,595 13% $ 2,261 Payson USD* Lighting, Economizer& EMS $ 525,644 19% $ 3,058 Eloy ESD Lighting, EMS $ 106,045 26% $ 2,661 Parker USD** Lighting, EMS $ 240,573 23% $ 6,638 During the last Legislative session, the law changed allowing the SFB access to school district utility records. This law will allow the SFB to track all of the awards in real time. Sincerely, John Arnold cc: The Honorable Robert Burns, Senate President ` The Honorable Kirk Adams, Speaker of the House The Honorable Ken Bennett, Secretary of State Richard Stavneak, Director, JLBC Eileen Klein, Director, OSPB Karla Phillips, Governor’s Policy Advisor on K- 12 Education GladysAnn Wells, Director, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records 4 |