Energy reduction costs considered
Judicial annex in need of savings planBy PAMELA BRUST, pbrust@newsandsentinel.com
PARKERSBURG - Wood County commissioners say the next step in trying to cut energy costs in the Holmes Shaver Judicial Annex may be an energy audit savings plan.
"I read where the city of Morgantown hired a consulting firm that will come in and give you an energy savings plan. Adam (Krason) said they had engineers on staff at ZMM that could look at an overall savings plan, and I think that might be the next step. When he looked at the cost of window repairs, you don't really make it up on savings in energy, although it may be a repair that needs to be done," Commissioner Blair Couch said.
The commission earlier received an informal price quote of $300,000 to replace the windows in the Shaver annex after occupants complained of conditions within the building and a look at utility bills.
"We may need an overall study of all the county buildings. I don't think it's the most costly facility we have in terms of energy, but a comprehensive study would probably be a good idea, to see if we could save some money," Couch said.
"The estimate we received was just that, not a bid. If we put it out to bid, it could be less. The problem is gaskets around the windows; they are leaking. Being a pressurized building, we are losing energy out the windows. The question arises what is it going to cost to fix the gaskets or do we replace the windows? Those are questions that have to be answered," commission President Bob Tebay said.
"We've all noticed the cost of utilities, and we've also talked about possible computerization of the heating and air-conditioning in that building, as we have in the Judge Black Courthouse Annex," Tebay said.
Adam Krason of ZMM reported the utility costs for the Shaver annex from September 2007 to September 2008 was around $42,000.
"About 50 percent of that was for heating and cooling, the rest for electricity. If you look at the building, and the number of windows it has, there is a large expanse of windows on the north face, so you don't get a lot of daylight, and most of your cost is in trying to cool the building," Krason said.
"You have heat building up in the windows. You might save 20 percent by replacing the windows. If you are looking at that energy payback, it's not a very feasible project, but it will save energy. Maybe it could be part of a long-term plan," Krason told commissioners.
He suggested the commission consider pursuing Courthouse Facilities Improvement grant funds for such a project. "You could possibly replace several windows at a time, as a three-four-year project. That may be one way to approach it, if you want to move forward with that," Krason said. "But the cooling expense is the largest; you need to reduce the solar heating coming."
"When you look at the electric bills, they are low in the winter; the lowest was $2,600, the highest was around $4,500, most for lighting, based on energy costs; they won't pay for themselves, you won't be paid back quickly," Krason said.
"If you want a full analysis to reduce energy costs, you might consider installing reflective coating on the roof, replacing filters in the air-conditioning units, replacing the lightbulbs with more efficient ones," Krason said.
"But overall, for a building of its size, cost is about $1 per square foot; you are looking at about $1.75-$2 a square foot, so it's really not that bad, but you could look at increasing some efficiency," Krason said.
