03-17-2025 JDA Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

unknowns as design continues to develop. There are opportunities for greater efficiency that the team intends to pursue, such as lighting power density reductions, but there are also potential increases to the energy load as more information becomes available both regarding the process loads of the tenant’s operations and the temperature and soil conditions of the site for the Darcy well operation. The current design assumes that the Darcy wells connected to the office & process loops can achieve the full cooling needs of the project, but should the test well in the future prove that is not possible, a supplementary chiller may need to be added which would increase the electricity usage of the project above what the current results represent. For these reasons, we believe the proposed % target is a fair assessment that reflects both the design team’s best efforts to achieve the goal of the Sustainable Design Guidelines with real conditions factored in. Full Waiver 2.2.2 Electrification Technological This waiver requests to substitute the full electrification goal to an operational carbon reduction goal for the project, with a target of 65% or greater reduction against the typical “cost base” system that would have been proposed if the Guidelines were not in place. Energy modeling conducted to date demonstrates that this is feasible with the proposed design (currently showing 67%), and the team believes it prudent to include a slight buffer for the same reasons described in the efficiency narrative above. Additional efficiency measures to reduce interior loads such as lighting, equipment, and processes will continue to be studied through the Xcel EDA process and as the tenant interior design develops further. While all-electric designs were studied by the team and are reflected on the Energy & Carbon Results table, the rough-order-of-magnitude pricing that the team has provided based on real subcontractor estimates of these conceptual systems demonstrate that the all-electric designs are both out of the project’s budget and do not provide a feasible payback period when IRA incentives are not included, as in the case of this deal structure. The cost increase for the all-electric option (2B) compared to its similar option which includes natural gas heating (1A) is due to both slight premiums on equipment itself, but primarily the increased requirements for electrical services to be supplied to the site for this equipment. Substitution of air-source heat-pump rooftop units in lieu of gas-fired DX rooftop units, for example, will require an additional dedicated service, as will the substitution of gas boilers for electric boilers of a similar efficiency. Pursuit of the IRA incentives is not believed to be viable with Option 1-A both due to the same deal structure limits mentioned above, but also due to the lowered contribution of the ground-source system towards the project’s overall energy load. The team will continue to review the viability on both counts but at this time does not believe the IRA incentives could be pursued in any option on this project.