Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 9 · column 1 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Net positive
cash flow
The contract as proposed includes a project that actually increases energy costs at the high school: Air conditioning the gym.
The entire contract still nets out at no additional cost to the county. But were the gym project removed, there could be a net positive cash flow to the county.
If these projects were done individually by the county, that cash flow might even increase.
But there are some drawbacks to doing the improvements on a case by case, prioritized basis by the county.
First, with the Ameresco contract, the county taxpayers would not be on the hook - provided the contract is done within the mandates of the code and is a “lease/purchase" agreement - however, the Commonwealth of Virginia would be. Liability is shifted to the state. Too, under this arrangement, the projects are done all at once and it may offset the higher costs of doing them in the future.
The drawbacks are that the projects are more expensive as a package, and that Ameresco has the expertise to analyze and manage the energy savings. The county does not.
Going project by project may save money, but it would also put the county taxpayers on the hook and it would take longer. If the projects were rigorously managed by the county, the same savings may be achieved, but the county would have to create a new position to do so.
Comparing the two strategies is really not an option as there would be too many unknowns. That is a factor that also works in Ameresco’s favor.
88.8%