Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
04/10/2018 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB190 | |
| HB1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 190-ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
3:33:22 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of Senate Bill 190 (SB
190).
3:33:39 PM
SENATOR TOM BEGICH, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 190, provided an overview as follows:
This bill is a continuation and expansion of an
existing piece of legislation that we are currently
operating under. The State of Alaska is responsible
for $650 million in energy costs associated with close
to 5000 different facilities.
In 2010 the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act set forth a
goal of energy efficiency retrofits for 25 percent of
our state buildings, those were buildings over 10,000
square feet. The goal was to get to that target of 25
percent by 2020. Our state was able to reach that goal
by 2014 and Senate Bill 190 simply extends that
program to schools and those other large community
centers which are eligible for power-cost
equalization; this creates incentives for buildings
receiving state support for energy bills so that they
may perform retrofits saving the state, school
districts and communities money.
I have spoken before in the Senate Education Committee
and in other forums about the high cost of energy in
rural schools and this would be a way of addressing
some of those costs and ensuring that more of those
energy cost that are diverted away from teachers can
go back to teachers, for example.
Senate Bill 190 proposes financing efficiency
retrofits by incentivizing a successful private
financing called "Energy Service Performance
Contracts," or contracting "ESCOs," there's other
names for these, you will hear those names described
as we go through the process, but essentially it's a
partnership with private companies to absorb the
frontend of the cost of these retrofits so that we can
benefit publicly on the backend. These processes in
this contracting has minimal cost to the state
upfront, the energy contracting companies pay for
those upfront costs associated with the energy
efficiency retrofits and then are paid back using
those guaranteed cost savings. SB 190 sets a goal for
the state and certain public buildings to enter into
about a $100 million worth of these performance
contracts by 2025 to pay for energy retrofits set
forth in the bill.
3:36:25 PM
SYDNEY LIENEMANN, Staff, Senator Begich, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided a sectional analysis of SB
190 as follows:
Section 1
Outlines the legislative intent that the energy audits
and retrofits outlined in this legislation be financed
using service-performance-contracting mechanism where
upfront construction costs are paid by a third party
either using Alaska Housing Finance Corporation's
energy efficiency revolving loan programs or by a
contracting company with those costs paid back by
guaranteed energy savings from those retrofits.
Section 2
Adds to a statute regarding the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation to coordinate with the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) when performing energy audits for
community buildings eligible for power cost
equalization (PCE) over 5,000 square feet.
Section 3
Gives the Alaska Energy Authority, the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation, and the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities the authority to
perform energy audits on community facilities eligible
to receive power cost equalization over 5,000 square
feet, and these are the three state entities with
expertise or funding streams that are dedicated to
performing energy audits or energy retrofits.
Section 4
Requires that public schools receive energy audits on
the same schedule as other public buildings as
required by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act which
passed into law in 2010.
Section 5
Defines those public schools excluding charter schools
eligible for energy retrofits under this bill.
Section 6
Outlines coordination between the Alaska Energy
Authority and the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities to perform those audits on PCE
eligible community facilities.
Section 7
Since this legislation extends the universe of public
buildings requiring energy audits, it extends the
deadline and pushes that back to 2025 from 2020; it
also makes this contingent on the financing being able
to be paid off within 15 years so if those energy
efficiency retrofits will payoff within 15 years and
also says, "If funding is available," so it's not a
mandate.
Section 8
Expands buildings that described as public facilities
to include educational buildings like schools and
reduces the minimum size for buildings to be
considered for retrofits from 10,000 square feet down
to 5,000 square feet.
Section 9
Adds to the section of Alaska statute governing the
Alaska Energy Authority, a section which requires all
PCE eligible public facilities to receive an energy
audit every seven years unless the facility managers
refuse the energy audit. AEA will work with the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
identify public and private funding sources and
perform the audits.
3:39:06 PM
SENATOR BEGICH noted documents in the packets and pointed out
Hawaii's fact sheet on a similar program where the state saved
hundreds of millions of dollars. He referenced a document that
detailed Alaska's school energy costs from 2007-2017 which
indicates the high costs the state pays for energy in schools.
He pointed out the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities' 2016 report on savings achieved on performance
contracting. He concluded the document overview by addressing
the state's current energy performance contracting policies
which has saved $3.6 million.
He summarized that for a small upfront amount of money, the
state could save as much as $100 million on energy costs.
3:41:23 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed section 1 regarding legislative intent
and read from the bill's sectional analysis and queried as
follows:
Upfront construction costs are paid for by a third
party, it mentions Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
or by a contracting company with those costs paid back
using guaranteed energy savings. So, I'm looking at
the fiscal note and it looks like the general fund
appropriation, at least I'm looking only at the first
year and I realize it drops slightly in the ongoing
years, but it's $621,000, but it's $2 million and that
looks like receipt authority. So, you're thinking that
construction companies are going to fund this upfront
and then somehow get their costs paid back through
guaranteed energy savings, how does that work?
SENATOR BEGICH explained as follows:
This is exactly how we do it now and those savings
have been realized and the little bit of general fund
money you brought up, because we are going to be doing
more audits, that's one of the reasons why you would
have that.
3:43:07 PM
MS. LIENEMANN explained the ESCO process as follows:
The way it generally works is one of these contracting
companies will set into a contract with the state or
with the federal government and they will perform an
audit to see how much money can be saved and there
will be those guaranteed savings and then the money
that you would normally be paying to your energy bill
above the cost savings would go to the company to pay
them off over the length of the contract, then after
five years or ten years, whatever the length of the
contract is, the contract company is done, you get to
receive those energy cost savings and your costs drop
dramatically after you have paid off those upfront
capital costs.
3:44:01 PM
SENATOR BEGICH added to Ms. Lienemann's explanation as follows:
That's one of the keys here, we don't have the ability
to just simply fund at the school-district level or at
the state level. The kind of retrofits we are talking
about here would cost the state tens of millions of
dollars to do so. So, this methodology basically
doesn't change in the near term the cost of energy
that would be paid, say at the length of the contract,
five or ten years, but the minute that contract is
paid off, all of those savings are realized and that
is when the big benefit kicks in. So, it's a way of
looking at our tough fiscal situation and innovatively
coming up with a way we can retrofit buildings that
would otherwise probably languish for another 10 or 20
years, possibly even up to replacement time before we
can do anything to ensure energy savings from them.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if a survey has been done on the number of
5,000-square-foot facilities that would be impacted by the
legislation.
3:45:28 PM
MS. LIENEMANN answered that the Alaska Department of
Transportation on Public Facilities (DOT&PF) in their fiscal
note cited 430 buildings.
SENATOR COGHILL addressed section 2 regarding the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) coordinating with the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) to perform audits. He asked what was previously
permissive and what would be new from the requirement.
MS. LIENEMANN explained that DOT&PF was responsible for audits
but because PCE is administered by AEA, AEA takes ownership of
the facilities. She summarized that the bill would allow AEA to
work with DOT&PF to perform the energy audits.
SENATOR COGHILL addressed section 8 and noted that both
governmental and educational facilities were included. He asked
what the breakout was between governmental and educational
facilities.
MS. LIENEMANN replied that previous reports were done by the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and the Cold Climate Housing
Research Center that broke down the different number of
buildings that belong to school districts as opposed to the
State of Alaska.
3:47:54 PM
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the requirement in section 9 can be
waived and asked for an explanation.
MS. LIENEMANN explained that the goal was not to make a mandate
for anyone to have an energy audit without a community facility
impacting its PCE. She emphasized that the legislation was not
meant to be a threat, just something helpful that the state
could provide.
SENATOR BEGICH added that he was very keen on not adding more
mandates to communities but to make the state more efficient in
how it does its facility management. He opined that the opt-out
provision would encourage communities to do an energy audit
rather than discouraging them.
SENATOR WILSON noted that Senator Begich during his sponsor's
statement said 25 percent of the state's buildings were
retrofitted for energy efficiency and asked why he did not go on
to get another 25 percent of state buildings under compliance.
3:49:33 PM
SENATOR BEGICH replied that in discussions with DOT&PF, the
department indicated that there were just a few buildings. He
explained that the idea was to try and make as big an impact as
possible. He said he had a strong concern about energy costs,
particularly in rural Alaska. He asserted that SB 190 is a way
to get to long term lowering of energy costs in rural Alaska and
to redirect state resources to teaching and education.
SENATOR WILSON pointed out that in some rural communities there
is a general cost to provide power and once the threshold goes
below the minimum cost, somebody must bear the cost. He said if
a school does not bear the cost, then the cost gets spread out
equally throughout the community through higher rates. He asked
if there was a plan to address the expectation for lower rates
after retrofitting that resulted in bills staying the same due
to an increase in rates.
3:52:18 PM
SENATOR BEGICH replied that there is no mandate, primarily if a
school district that is receiving PCE does not want to
participate. He noted that SB 190 is part of a complex process
of determining ways to lower costs without raising the cost for
individuals. He asserted that he would continue to propose
legislation to effectively lower energy costs. He said he did
not think any school district would want to raise the energy
costs for residents. He conceded that he has heard resistance
due to higher rates, but that was one of the reasons why there
is no mandate. He summarized that if ways are found to lower
energy costs in the long run, then ways to payback the
artificially increased energy costs in rural villages will be
found.
CHAIR MEYER addressed section 5 regarding a statute quotation as
to what a public school is. He noted that the "public school"
definition did not include charter schools and asked if there
was a reason why that was not included.
MS. LIENEMANN explained that the decision was to, "Keep the
universe small to start with," but there were no reasons why
other educational facilities could not be included if the
program proved to be successful.
SENATOR BEGICH added that charter schools tend to be smaller and
operate under tight budgets. He said he did not feel that it was
necessary to include a charter school in the process but
indicated that they certainly could be.
3:54:54 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if people who go through the proposed process
would receive a grant and there would be no money out of their
pockets.
MS. LIENEMANN answered as follows:
The aim is that there would be no grant, but they
wouldn't be out of pocket money to start out with. So,
they would enter into a contract, the energy-service-
contracting company would come in, perform the
upgrades and then the school district or the community
center would see no difference in their energy costs
for the length of the contract with the savings going
to pay off that contract, to pay off those upfront
capital costs. For the school district or for the
community center, or the public facility, they would
essentially see no change in their energy costs until
the end of the contract when it would drop
dramatically despite having those efficiency upgrades
having been made.
SENATOR BEGICH emphasized that there would be no upfront costs
to the school and that the contractor would bear the upfront
cost.
CHAIR MEYER noted his concern that even though a school is
retrofitted that energy savings may not be realized because
students may leave windows and doors open. He confirmed that the
proposed program was optional, but questioned the fiscal note
presented by the DOT&PF and the need for four people to
administer an optional program. He added that he wondered if AEA
has the staff to do all the audits that need to be done.
3:57:32 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
3:57:58 PM
DONALD GILLIGAN, President, National Association of Energy
Service Companies (NAESCO), Salem, Massachusetts, testified in
support of SB 190. He noted that members of NAESCO have
delivered approximately $60 billion worth of performance
contracting projects during the last 30 years. He detailed that
NAESCO is delivering $6 billion to $7 billion worth of projects
a year. He noted that over $3 billion out of the $6 billion to
$7 billion in projects are in public schools. He explained that
the types of projects NAESCO delivers, Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPC), are authorized by the federal
government and all 50 states. He added that the ESPC contracting
process has had very strong bi-partisan support for 30 years. He
noted that the current White House administration supports
public-private partnerships where private money is invested to
improve public facilities.
He explained that a performance contract repurposes money spent
on wasted energy or obsolete equipment into a payment stream for
capital improvements. He detailed that the capital improvements
pay for themselves from energy and maintenance savings over the
life of the contract while delivering capital improvements in
the form of new lighting, heating, controls, windows, doors,
roofs, whatever the building needs to become energy efficient.
He addressed measures that typically are in a performance
contract which includes retrofitting, advanced measures and
renewable energy measures.
4:01:24 PM
He explained what is driving the retrofits and noted that there
are a couple of major drivers. He said number one is a mandate
at all levels of government to stop wasting money and what the
contracts do is stop wasting money and diverts an expenditure
into a productive use. He disclosed that there are federal
mandates which have been ongoing for the last 20 years to
upgrade the efficiency of federal facilities. He noted that
Senator Begich has talked about the success of Alaska mandating
the upgrading of many state facilities. He asserted that
committee members will see that the key to the program's success
is an actual mandate that is enforced at the state level where
the state is behind a real push for energy efficiency.
MR. GILLIGAN disclosed that over the last 4 or 5 years at the
federal level, the federal government has done about $5 billion
worth of ESPC projects in response to President Obama's
performance contracting challenge. He noted that the Trump
administration has just issued a new set of contracts for
federal facilities, 21 companies have the ESPCs with the
anticipation that there will $10 billion worth of projects done
over the next 8 years at the federal level. He added that the
Trump administration also developed a new analysis of how much
value there is in performance contracting around the country and
they came up with the estimate of a potential market of $200
billion to $300 billion.
4:03:33 PM
He disclosed that the employment potential of the programs
results in every million dollars' worth of projects involves 9
to 10 direct or indirect jobs. He specified that the ESPC jobs
really cannot be outsourced because local contractors deliver
the projects in the local communities. He added that there are
multiplier jobs for the value of keeping the expenditures
currently spent on wasted energy in the community, ultimately
adding up to approximately 21 jobs per million dollars' worth of
projects which would mean that the target in SB 190 would
produce more than 2,000 jobs. He emphasized that the performance
of the projects is dependent on long term operations and
maintenance, but that means there are additional jobs or job
upgrades in maintaining this equipment rather than spending the
money on wasted energy.
4:05:08 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if NAESCO members have ever been involved
in Alaska projects.
MR. GILLIGAN answered yes. He disclosed that Siemens-Alaska has
been involved and detailed that NAESCO members have done several
projects for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Bureau of Land
Management in Fairbanks as well as some very large projects at
Alaska's military bases.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if Siemens-Alaska is a local company.
MR. GILLIGAN answered that Siemens-Alaska is a branch office of
an international company.
SENATOR COGHILL asserted that SB 190 was an excellent idea. He
noted that he wonders if the payback from the energy savings is
realized or do retrofits continually have to occur. He remarked
that energy may be saved but questioned whether costs are ever
reduced. He asked if the payback time is something that has
become valuable.
MR. GILLIGAN answered that the project can be developed
according to the requirements of the customer. He noted that if
the customer wants a very quick payback so that the project can
generate cash savings from day-one, that kind of project doesn't
get you a comprehensive retrofit, it may not solve some of the
long-term capital or maintenance problems in the building. He
pointed out that a customer can have a three or five-year-
payback project which generates cash savings from day-one. He
said on the other end of the spectrum that a customer could
invest their savings in long-term capital improvements solving
the bigger long-term problems of the building so that the state
or local government would not have to appropriate new tax money
to deal with issues like roofs or windows.
4:08:02 PM
SENATOR COGHILL opined that the concept was an as-needed basis
and noted that he would look over a range of projects to see how
they turned out. He noted that the bill addresses 5,000-square-
footage facilities, a size that he believed was small, and
inquired if smaller facilities result in tighter margins. He
asked if Mr. Gilligan has dealt with 5,000 square foot municipal
and state facilities.
MR. GILLIGAN conceded that doing individual 5,000-square-foot
buildings is very difficult. He continued as follows:
The state organizing a project of willing customers so
that you can aggregate a fairly large number of
facilities and be able to do those in a streamlined
way, it would be quite difficult to do individual
5,000-square-foot buildings scattered across the whole
state of Alaska, you would really have to pull them
together and figure out how to do it, but there are
resources in Alaska that I think can handle this.
4:09:22 PM
SENATOR COGHILL commented as follows:
I think when we start talking about communities that
we are going to qualify based on the PCE, certainly
energy is a big issue, but they are definitely islands
to themselves, so they are definitely going to be
something you would have to template and maybe I will
ask the sponsor how he envisions that kind of a
template.
SENATOR EGAN noted that he had done an energy audit on his home
and received an AHFC loan for an energy upgrade. He explained
that he had to pay off the loan and the state did not lose
money. He asked if the proposed legislation was an offshoot of
the energy audit and loan that he received.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the program Senator Egan described is like
the proposed legislation.
MR. GILLIGAN answered essentially yes. He specified that the
difference is the energy service companies guarantees the
savings and takes the technical risk that the retrofits will
save the money that is required to pay off the loan.
4:11:30 PM
SENATOR EGAN concurred with Mr. Gilligan and noted that his home
was re-audited and ultimately saved money.
MR. GILLIGAN explained that the projects typically have the kind
of reports that Senator Egan noted but not just once, every year
for the length of the project so that the customer can be
assured that the project is saving money. He emphasized that if
a problem develops, the ESCO is responsible for fixing it.
CHAIR MEYER asked if Siemens-Alaska is one of the contractors
that is used for ESCO projects.
MR. GILLIGAN answered yes. He noted that Siemens does a
tremendous amount of performance contracts across the country.
4:13:16 PM
STACY SCHUBERT, Director, Governmental Relations and Public
Affairs, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), Anchorage,
Alaska, admitted that people tend to think about AHFC regarding
energy efficiency for the Energy Rebate Program and
weatherization.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the concept proposed in SB 190 will work
the same way as home audits.
4:14:13 PM
JOHN ANDERSON, Director, Research and Rural Development, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), Anchorage, Alaska, explained
AHFC's role as follows:
How we got involved in this is back in 2009 with the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. AHFC in
conjunction with the Alaska Energy Authority received
many millions of dollars, at that time we had also
received $300 million for the Home Energy Rebate and
Weatherization Program. Our team at AHFC found a hole
in the process to be able to use $10 million to go
after multi-family-public-facility retrofit and energy
efficiency projects. What we did back then is we went
in and did benchmarking on 1,200 facilities, and
benchmarking is basically a documentation of the
facility's size, use, energy use and basic
information; of those benchmark buildings we chose 327
buildings that were very inefficient as far as data
that we had collected, and we went and performed
level-2 audits on the 327 buildings and half were
schools. From that process, and from 2009 and 2010,
state legislation happened that provided AHFC the
bonding authority of $250 million; that's just bonding
authority, we do not have that money, but it also
helped us create the Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan
Fund for public facilities. Through that process and
the involvement of that, AHFC developed a standard of
what we call the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan
(REAL) or for funding, it's titled "loan," but our
intention is for funding of some nature.
At the end of the day that is what AHFC really wants
to see in reference to not just public facilities and
us working with DOT&PF and AEA, but our own 1,600
public housing units that we have that are really of
the commercial model, mainly. The standard is what we
believe is the important characteristic here. In the
REAL manual we do have ESCOs listed, we do have energy
performance contracting models that are in there, but
we have also worked in conjunction with DOT&PF to
create a smaller version of that aspect called Energy
Project Developers, it was a statewide RFP and DOT&PF,
and Alaska Housing worked hand-in-hand to put that
out, there's a smaller list of approved qualified
entities that perform smaller projects. The process to
do 5,000 square foot buildings one-on-one, the ESCOs
will not touch that type of a project, we've been told
over and over its very difficult for them.
That's really in a nutshell is how AHFC got involved.
We developed a white-paper, a very in-depth white
paper, in November of 2012 is when we published it,
and that white-paper indicated through all of the
information that we had gathered at the time of all of
the audits and all of the bench markings we did that
the potential improvements from energy savings could
be roughly $125 million a year for public facilities
alone. You have to remember that that is a time-and-
time caption because the cost of energy in 2009-2011
is a lot different than what it looks like today. Any
type of a project that gets established through this
or through the lesser version of the energy project
developer or even inhouse capability, at some point in
time the project has to pencil-out based on energy on
that day. We don't know what the future brings, we
don't know if it's going to escalate, we don't know if
it's going to de-escalate, so it's a very difficult
process. The ESCO guarantee in normal fashion will
guarantee the energy savings, not cost, so that is a
factor moving forward. Senator Begich pointed out that
the local utilities, even though they might be seeing
an energy consumption reduction, the cost may
increase. We have witnessed that in other communities
on a smaller level with our weatherization program,
but it's kind of an unknown factor. We could also
continue to have a technical assistance for our
revolving loan program for the REAL manual, we have a
competitive grant right now through the Department of
Energy, that is also doing what is called a "kick
starter" program where we are actually providing up to
$10,000 in minimal grants to go through this process
using those energy project developers, to get a
project kind of kick-started in some of these rural
communities and see actual how big the benefit is.
4:19:54 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if AHFC worked with the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA).
MR. ANDERSON answered correct. He noted that AHFC has had a
monthly coordination meeting with AEA for the past three years
and meetings have been useful. He explained that the intent is
to make sure there is not overlapping of services and that
activities are coordinated. He added that AHFC works with DOT&PF
regarding project maintenance and verification, an aspect
required for contracts and guarantees.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked what Mr. Anderson meant by "Maintenance
has to be written into the contract." She disclosed that she had
worked in rural Alaska and commented as follows:
I'm going to speak about schools, that's where I
worked, that those buildings, which are called
"plants," they require some expertise to maintain. So,
with these energy upgrades are we talking now about
yet more expertise being required in rural areas?
4:21:41 PM
MR. ANDERSON explained that he was referring to a normal ESCO
model or "EBC" contract and explained as follows:
You would have a process that that contractor has to
provide to the owner of the facility, maintenance and
verification that their upgrades and their process is
doing what they said they were going to do to achieve
the goal.
SENATOR GIESSEL replied as follows:
I'm still blank. So, the project is finished, maybe it
took five years to finish and the contractor is on
their way and they are waiting to be paid back now
with the savings, somebody living in the community
where this 5,000-foot school is, it's going to have to
maintain that building, they are going to have to have
the expertise. So, that's not what you are referring
to when you say maintenance must be in the contracts?
MR. ANDERSON replied that Senator Giessel was correct that that
was not what he was referring to. He specified that he was
referring to a maintenance and verification process that the
contractor performed like they said they were going to.
SENATOR COGHILL readdressed his question on 5,000-square-foot
facilities and asked if Mr. Anderson's expectation was to get
several communities to quantify a general savings.
MR. ANDERSON replied that he thought the process could be done
regionally to combine a lot of facilities into one project.
4:25:08 PM
CHRISTOPHER HODGIN, Energy Project Manager, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Anchorage,
Alaska, explained the department's implementation of SB 190 as
follows:
Some parts of the bill regarding the 5,000 square foot
threshold and the ability to make those sized projects
work, what DOT&PF has done on recent projects, we have
had cases where we have had buildings that were
smaller scale, so we bundled those projects. In a
recent case we had 16 maintenance stations that we
bundled together, so we have a term contract with
Energy Service Contractors, Siemens being one of our
providers, so that's how we were able to address those
situations with remote stations that were smaller in
nature.
A little about what Mr. Anderson was speaking about
from Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, he was
speaking to validating the savings after our project
was complete, that phase is called "measurement and
verification," so after a project is complete the
ESCOs like Siemens visit the project sites again to
take measurements and validate the projected energy
savings that they proposed as part of the projects
were indeed realized.
He explained that DOT&PF operates the state's Energy Performance
Contracting Program. He detailed that the department has
invested $35 million in approximately 70 state buildings. He
specified that funding was done with a combination of financed
funds borrowed from lenders, state funds, and the federal
government's American Reinvestment Recovery Funds. He disclosed
that the annual monetized savings from the program is $3.3
million.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the state has invested $35 million in
making retrofits and the savings has been approximately $3.3
million per year.
MR. HODGIN answered correct.
CHAIR MEYER inquired if the $3.3 million in savings will be used
to pay off the loan that was financed.
4:28:28 PM
MR. HODGIN answered correct. He noted that DOT&PF's recent
project with its maintenance stations used Siemens and the
savings will be used to repay the loan with a private lender.
CHAIR MEYER asked where the state funds came from.
MR. HODGIN replied that he believed the state funds were a
combination of general funds from different maintenance
appropriations.
SENATOR GIESSEL commented as follows:
I'm still caught in the practicality here. If we are
talking about rural schools, I seriously am aware that
maintaining these facilities requires some technical
knowledge that may not be available in the community.
So, if these facilities are going to be upgraded,
there's going to be more information needed by the
folks that actually live in these small communities of
175 people. I'm just wondering about the practicality
of this, not we don't want to do it; again, having
worked in these rural schools I can tell you number
one, it's been my experience being there in the winter
these buildings are vastly over heated, I mean yes,
opening windows to cool the place off. There are a lot
of issues when we are talking about rural energy in
schools.
CHAIR MEYER noted that PCE buildings run on diesel or heating
oil and asked if alternative energy sources are being considered
for retrofits.
4:31:31 PM
KATIE CONWAY, Government Relations and Outreach Efficiency
Manager, Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska, addressed
PCE buildings receiving retrofits as follows:
The PCE component and potential benefit in cost
savings to both the state and the facility owner
should that result in implementation measures
conducted in the building would only concern the
electricity savings, but there would likely be a
pretty significant savings on the heat side as well. I
can say that the community facilities receiving power
cost equalization would probably have a lot of
potential savings identified in audit.
CHAIR MEYER replied that PCE is obviously the electric part but
noted that heating fuel should also be thought about for energy
savings as well.
MS. CONWAY answered that the audit would point at both electric
and heat savings opportunities.
4:33:48 PM
AMBER MCDONOUGH, Account Executive, Energy and Environmental
Solutions, Building Technologies Division, Siemens Industry,
Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, disclosed that Siemens has worked
DOT&PF, AHFC, and AEA. She asked if Chair Meyer was inquiring if
consideration was given to all options when Siemens makes
recommendations. She detailed that Siemens goes through several
stages during project development where different options are
proposed with preliminary pricing so that the end user can pick
the most viable solution. She said incorporating renewable
technology is ultimately up to the end user.
4:35:01 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
SENATOR BEGICH noted that his office has worked with rural
districts on exploring renewable energy sources.
CHAIR MEYER pointed out that a renewable energy program could
qualify for money from alternative energy programs.
CHAIR MEYER held SB 190 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 190 Version J.PDF |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB190 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB190 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 190 Supporting Document Hawaii EPC Fact Sheet.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 190 Supporting Documents DOTPF Energy Efficiency Projects.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 190 ESPC PowerPoint.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 190 Supporting Documents State ESPC Policies.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 190 Supporting Documents School Energy Costs.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| HB 1 Version RA.PDF |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB 1 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB 1 Memo of Changes.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB 1 Supporting Document-Voting Information and Statistics.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB 1 Support Letters.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB 1 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 1 |
| HB 7 Version J.PDF |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Summary of Changes.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Sectional Analysis ver J.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Supporting Document-Article Columbia University.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Supporting Document-Article Denver Post.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Supporting Document-Article Washington Post.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Support Material Testimonies.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 7 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 7 |
| HB 235 Version J.PDF |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Summary of Changes.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Supporting Document - NCSL Awards for Law Enforcement or First Responders.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Officer Down Memorial Pages.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Letters of Support.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Venn Diagram AK Medal for Heroism North Star Medal.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM SSTA 4/17/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| SB 190 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| SB 190 Updated Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 190 |
| HB 1 Sectional Analysis ver R.A.pdf |
SSTA 4/10/2018 3:30:00 PM |
HB 1 |