Energy Efficiency - Rural Action - LGIF Report 2015

OHIO’S LOCAL GOVERNMENT INNOVATION FUND
Increasing Energy Efficiency in a Four County Region of Appalachian Ohio
Prepared for the Village of Somerset by Rural Action, Inc.
March 2015

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................3
Background & Regional Context .......................................................................3
Results by Region

Village of Somerset........................................................................................5

City of Logan .................................................................................................7
Athens County............................................................................................... 9
Morgan County.............................................................................................10
Key Lessons......................................................................................................12
Identified Resources.........................................................................................14
Methodology.....................................................................................................17
Next Steps.........................................................................................................18

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Energy efficiency and sustainable development are
new directions being explored by communities in
Appalachian Ohio. Rural towns and villages devastated by
decades of extractive industries are finding new solutions to
century-old problems. This work is taking place alongside a
global movement toward climate change mitigation, green
infrastructure development, and the sustainable use of natu-
ral resources. Using Ohio’s Local Government Innovation
Fund (LGIF), four local governments in Appalachian Ohio
identified steps to take within their own communities toward
increasing energy efficiency and reducing carbon emis-
sions. Called “Increasing Energy Efficiency in a Four County
Region,” this project was led by the Village of Somerset in
Perry County, Ohio.
Through this project, representatives from Somerset, Logan
(Hocking County), Athens County, and Morgan County identified a variety of local government en-
ergy efficiency projects to implement. In Somerset, officials measured energy usage in the village’s
water and waste water treatment facilities and identified investments to reduce expenses and en-
ergy consumption. In Logan, representatives developed plans for a transit hub that would expand
transportation options and provide a compressed natural gas fueling station for adjacent counties.
Athens County officials worked on an energy aggregation plan that resulted in forming a new entity
to combine local government purchasing power across the county. Morgan County elected leaders
learned best practices for reducing energy costs in public buildings through energy audits and
simple investments.
Participating governments entered this LGIF project at different stages of implementing energy
efficiency measures. As participants discovered, there are many opportunities for local government
development that reduces costs and creates more livable communities. The resulting strategies
can be adopted in many rural communities. Indeed, one project goal was to create a set of best
practices to share with other local governments interested in increasing efficiencies while revital-
izing their towns through green infrastructure development. The following sections contain detailed
information about the unique needs and progress of each participating local government. The final
section outlines lessons learned and places emphasis on the process of learning and working
together to create sustainable development in Appalachian Ohio communities.
2 BACKGROUND & REGIONAL CONTEXT
Appalachian Ohio is a geographically recognized and politically designated region of southern and
eastern Ohio stretching from Clermont County in the southwest to Ashtabula County in the north-
east. The region is 32 counties amidst rolling foothills to the south and along a deep valley that
cuts through the eastern half of the state following the Ohio River. Appalachian Ohio – part of the
larger Central Appalachian region of eastern Kentucky, all of West Virginia, and southwest Virginia
(as defined by the Central Appalachian Network) – is home to some of the most biologically diverse
flora and fauna in the world. Rich, mixed-mesophytic forests such as Appalachia’s are found in
only two regions of the planet: central/southern Appalachia and eastern/central China. Communities
throughout Appalachia rely on this rich ecosystem for timber, medicinal understory plants, hunting,
recreation, and tourism. Surface mining, mountaintop removal, and manufacturing pollution over
the past century to the present have critically endangered an estimated 95% of the region’s eco-
system, according to the World Wildlife Fund. Culturally and politically, communities in the Central
Appalachian region are built upon deeply rooted histories, diversity from incoming migrant popula-
tions throughout the past two centuries, resilience from decades of industrial waves and subse-
quent decline, and ingenuity through arts, crafts, music, agriculture, and invention found in few
other parts of the country.
3

Midway through the second decade of the 21st century,
Appalachian Ohio continues to face some of the most
challenging economic conditions in the nation. Of the
32 Appalachian Ohio counties, six are considered
“distressed” by the Appalachian Regional Commission,
a federally administered partnership with all Appalachian
states that monitors and fosters development in the
region. Six others are considered “at-risk,” while 19 are
“transitional,” and one is considered “competitive.”
It’s important to note that “transitional” counties still
represent per capita incomes below 200% of the federal
poverty level, unemployment rates nearing 10% of the
working population, and poverty rates just below 20%.
Enterprises that flourished in the Appalachian region
during the country’s industrial push during the 19th
and 20th centuries have all but disappeared. Coal
mining, timbering, clay extraction, and manufacturing
declines hit hard the (. Few industries have come to
replace them.
New energy developments – led by shale gas extraction
in the eastern half of Ohio – present economic opportuni-
ties in the short term for some external businesses and
employees, with lasting economic effects and environmental impacts yet to be determined. Some
community members embrace this new wave of resource extraction, others fear a repeat of past
industrial exploitation. In light of this new industrial push, economic solutions that work for and are
led by all community members are being sought by some in the region. Pockets of regional busi-
nesses that embrace local goods and talent are creating new opportunities with the goal of rippling
economic security. This kind of locally-rooted, innovative, entrepreneurial development is consid-
ered by many experts, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, as the pathway toward
socioeconomic equality for the region (“Moving Appalachia Forward,” 2010) – one that identifies
regional assets and rests decision making in the hands of those most affected.
As community members and organizations across the Appalachian Ohio region work to build last-
ing economic solutions, local governments have begun to join in the efforts. These leaders recog-
nize that regional change occurs in a joint approach between both public and private actors. Local
governments have begun to take an increased interest in running more efficiently and sustainably
to conserve funding, local employment, and the natural environment upon which community liveli-
hoods depend. Focus areas include energy efficiency, public utility efficiency, adoption of green
building practices, rehabilitation of outdated facilities, greenspace creation, transit expansion and
alternative transportation, and other initiatives all tied to new economic opportunities, improved
business environments, and long term reduced costs.
In Ohio, the Local Government Innovation Fund – administered by the Ohio Development Services
Agency – provides fiscally constrained local governments with the opportunity to study current
conditions in their region, collaborate to establish sets of best practices, determine project feasibility
and required financial investment, and make recommendations for action. Beginning in 2013, a
coalition of local governments in the Appalachian region of the state was selected to study the
efficiency of services they provide and identify innovations to reduce energy costs, create efficient
and livable communities, establish a funding pathway forward, and develop employment oppor-
tunities. The Village of Somerset in Perry County led this work with the City of Logan in Hocking
County, Athens County, and Morgan County. The project – titled “Increasing Energy Efficiency in
a Four County Region” - studied the current state of utilities and public services in each local
government and identified energy efficiency projects moving forward. The following are results
from each participating government.
Above) 2015 Appalachian Ohio county economic
status from the ARC. communities founded on
these industries. LGIF participant counties are
marked with an asterisk
4

3 RESULTS BY REGION
Village of Somerset, Ohio
Increasing Local Water Utility Efficiency
Background
Founded in 1810 by settlers from Pennsylvania, the village of Som-
erset is located in north central Perry County. Booming coal and iron
industries helped expand the village’s population in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. As these resource deposits began to dwindle, the
population managed to maintain around 1,500 residents as community
members found jobs in nearby cities and metropolitan areas.
Somerset’s geographic location near metropolitan areas – Columbus
is only 40 miles away – provides employment options for residents
able to commute.
Over the past five years, community members and organizations in
Somerset began to engage in new endeavors to create local employ-
ment opportunities and more sustainable practices. Somerset officials
committed to doing their part to reduce energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions. With the consent of Somerset Village Council,
Mayor Tom Johnson signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agree-
ment along with Columbus, Cleveland, Zanesville and 28 other Ohio
cities and villages. By signing, these communities agree to put actions
in place that would reduce carbon emissions to below 1990 levels. The
Village recently developed a Sustainability Roadmap with AEP Ohio
that includes a multipoint approach to creating a more sustainable,
livable, and engaged community over the coming decades. This
strategy, called Somerset Clean and Green, prioritizes development
that includes:
1. Energy efficiency and renewable energy;
2. Water and wastewater;
3. Waste reduction and recycling;
4. Parks and open spaces;
5. Economic development.
Somerset officials will use this plan to guide future community
development and are seeking funds for implementation.
Current Projects and Ideas Explred
Somerset was able to explore several new efficiency ideas under this
grant. Some projects are already underway through the Clean and
Green Initiative. Currently a streetscaping project for Somerset’s
historic district is planned to commence in May 2015 with $300,000
in funding secured from Ohio Department of Transportation, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Appalachian
Regional Commission. As part of this project, the village will replace
30 of its existing 70 streetlights with highly energy efficient models.
The village is also actively working to create more parks, public gardens, and trail systems for
community use. A plan to create a $1 million multi-use trail system through Somerset is in the
works with discussions between village officials and the CSX Railroad Company to acquire the
land, followed by work with regional planning organizations to identify funding sources.
Through LGIF meetings, Somerset officials first explored the development of a new anaerobic bio-
gas digester to produce methane gas from food waste and employ local residents with emphasis
on opportunities for those with developmental disabilities. This was done through a partnership
5

with PerCo, Inc. and the Perry County Board of Developmental Disabilities. After studying the proj-
ect’s feasibility, Somerset elected to support PerCo to study the development of a biogas facility
in nearby New Lexington. This decision was made after identifying the minimum requirement of
organic waste that would be needed to support this facility – an amount that Somerset would not
be able to generate alone. Somerset also explored the possibility of working with PerCo in order to
provide curbside trash and recycling pickup in the village; however, consulting provided by Rural
Action, Inc. determined that this would not be possible using the current collection process.
After consultation with technical assistance providers, Mayor Johnson identified one area of
improvement in particular to target: water and wastewater efficiency. The village currently operates
five pumping stations that serve the wastewater system. Excessive inflow of water (due to pipe
leaks and water infiltration) generates additional work for these pumping stations. This adds high
operating costs and wear to aging water treatment infrastructure. These costs constrain the
village’s budget and tie up funding that could be used for other improvement projects. Rising
operating costs are also reflected back on residents through increased water service expenses.
Energy Efficiency in Water and Wastwater Treatment
Through technical assistance, the village of Somerset obtained baseline energy usage statistics
for both water and wastewater treatment facilities, a key step in understanding the village’s energy
usage and gauging the effectiveness of improvements. Energy benchmarking data provided by
the Rural Community Assistance Program determined that 12 month energy usage and costs for
both the Somerset water treatment and wastewater treatment plants is significantly above aver-
age for municipalities of this size. At the water treatment plant, energy usage was 217,960 kWh
(255% above average) and energy cost was $25,081.60 (374% above average) over a one-year
period. For the wastewater treatment plant, energy usage was 268,560 kWh (217% above average)
and energy cost was $27,540 (289% above average) that same year. These above average costs
are accrued by Somerset and reflect back on community members as higher utility costs. These
inefficiencies are attributed to aging equipment, high quantities of water inflow, line breaks, leaks,
chemical run-off in water requiring additional treatment, and pumping station locations.
Planning was completed during the LGIF project to address these issues through targeted im-
provement projects and identifying funding for additional projects. A $1.2 million budget is already
available, but additional funds are needed to complete all improvements. The water and wastewa-
ter treatment stations have already been upgraded with high efficiency pumps, but upgrades such
as variable frequency drives, control systems, new or repaired water lines, and radio frequency
water meters to locate leaks remotely and quickly are needed. Funding for these upgrades is
being pursued through regional partnerships and opportunities in local government energy
efficiency initiatives. The funds needed for these improvements are outlined below.
Sewer & Water Infrastucture Funds
Sewer Infrastructure Water Infrasturcture
Item Cost Est. Item Cost Est
Oxidation Ditch Upgrades $10,000 Dredge Reservoir $565,000
Clarifier Upgrades $12,000 Motor Replacement with VFD $50,000
Motor Replacement with VFD $75,000 Radio Read Meters – 620 total $217,000
Sludge Belt Press $185,000 Paint High Street Water Tower $150,000
Sewer Line Replacement -3,000 ft. $ 240,000 Upgrade Intake at St. Joe’s Lake $25,000
Manhole Rehab – 10 total $30,000 Upgrade Water Lines – 2 mi. $130,000
Sewer Extend and N. Lift Station Elimination $365,000 Waterline Ext. out of town – 7 mi. $630,000
Sewer Extend and S. Lift Station Elimination $460,000 SUBTOTAL $1,767,000
Upgrade Existing Lift Station $75,000 NON-CONSRUCTION (20%) $353,000
Sewer Improvements at Park $40,000 TOTAL $2,120,000
Sewer Extend – 2,000 ft. and Lift Station $280,000
SUBTOTAL $1,772,000
NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS (20%) $354,000
TOTAL $2,126,000
6

Discussions with surrounding rural communities outside Somerset are also taking place to
determine interest in municipal water expansion. The village’s water plant is currently oversized
for its customer base and could expand to include additional customers, resulting in more revenue
and more efficient operations while providing water to more Perry County residents. A coin
operated bulk water vending machine is also being explored for residents outside the coverage
area for municipal water. This type of system would allow customers to purchase water at their
own convenience without having to do so between specific hours or at a neighboring village,
while also generating revenue through water sales.
Another greening effort is Somerset officials’ commitment to working with educational opportunities
for local farmers to learn about chemical run-off and prevent buildup of chemicals in the watershed;
the presence of harsh chemicals in the water being treated results in additional processing and
energy use. The village is also working with the Perry County Soil and Water Conservation District
to develop and implement a watershed emergency plan. This plan will be designed to help people
and conserve natural resources by relieving imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods,
fires, wind-storms, highway spills and other natural occurrences. Upon completion of the plan, the
village will create educational materials for distribution to the public.
City of Logan Ohio
Creating a Rural Public Transit Hub
Background
Logan, Ohio is the county seat of Hocking County, which borders
Morgan, Athens, and Perry County to the north and southeast. The city
was established along the Hocking River in the mid-1800s and flour-
ished after the discovery of large coal deposits and the eventual rise of
the coal industry. Other business sectors also built up the Appalachian
town, including a rich pottery industry from abundant clay deposits in
the surrounding river banks; iron ore deposits in the region’s sandstone
bedrock led to a strong iron industry. Several national manufacturers
also called Logan home, including the Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company and General Electric. Today, the area’s economy is largely
driven by the tourism industry generated by Hocking Hills State Park
– a region that attracts millions of visitors to its rich hemlock forests,
deep sandstone gorges, rare plants and diverse wildlife.
Currently, Logan is in a time of economic and cultural transition, as Hocking County works to
increase employment opportunities and reduce the rate of poverty throughout the region. While
the unemployment rate dropped one percentage point between 2014 and 2015, the overall poverty
rate increased by one percent. Cities like Logan, once home to numerous industries, have begun
to reassess employment opportunities and new industries to support the population. Tourism zre-
mains an economic driver, but new sectors are being explored as pathways for regional prosperity.
Like all of the LGIF participants, Logan officials are beginning to implement development strategies
that utilize new technology and resources to become more energy efficient, reduce financial strain,
and create new employment sectors. While Logan has not completed an overarching sustainability
plan like Somerset’s Clean and Green Initiative, plans for energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste
reduction and recycling, green space preservation, and sustainable economic development are all
being created.
Current Projects and Ideas Explored
The City of Logan entered the LGIF planning ses-
sions with numerous efficiency improvements al-
ready underway. For this reason, the city was able
to share many successes with other participants
and think critically about other projects needed.
7

The city did an energy audit several years ago among all their facilities and continues to monitor
energy costs on an ongoing basis. The audit cost approximately $300,000 and resulted in an ap-
proximate 12% savings in city energy costs by changing city street lights and traffic lights to LEDs.
Replacing just one traffic light alone saved the city approximately $700 per year. The savings has
decreased in recent years due to utility hikes, but electric aggregation can offset this. Either way,
the costs saved by doing this (even if diminishing slightly) have been far greater than taking no
action at all toward efficiency.
Logan City Council passed legislation to aggregate electric costs within the city, and an opt-out
opportunity was passed by the citizens. Officials have been working with Columbus-based law
firm Brickler & Eckler to secure the best rate possible. In spring 2014, bids were accepted by the
city but only one bidder responded. In counsel with Brickler & Eckler the city decided not to accept
that bid and plans are in place to seek new bids. Logan government is also interested in creating
more green spaces, bike and walking routes, and recreational opportunities for residents. Officials
would like to see the city become more pedestrian and bike friendly.
In May 2012, Logan opened a new $9 million wastewater treatment plant, and is replacing and
evaluating their old sewer lines for inflow and infiltration. In September 2014, Logan established
a storm water utility. This consists of a $3 per month per household fee to be used toward future
storm sewer improvement projects – a reinvestment fund for the city. With 7,000 – 8,000 custom-
ers in the city, this would equate to $21,000 - $24,000 of revenue per month – or approximately
$270,000 per year.
Public Transit Hub Creation (Logan City Green Project)􀀤
Since Logan already performed baseline energy data research and implemented some energy
efficiency programs, the city was able to focus on additional issues. After considering their primary
goal during the planning sessions, Logan officials decided to explore the creation of a transit hub
within the city. Such a facility would provide central access to transportation for public service
agencies, as well as regional services like GoBus, a rural-to-urban bus system administered by
Hocking Athens Perry Community Action. A site has already been identified in downtown Logan,
with a development plan that would leave the building’s historical façade intact and rebuild the
rear of the structure into the transit hub. One issue being explored is whether there are brownfield
remediation needs at the site.
Nine organizations in Hocking County will support and utilize the transit hub, including healthcare
agencies, training institutions, and transportation businesses. A central transit location would
allow interaction between different organizations while enhancing access and transportation for
the citizens of Logan and Hocking County. Its location would provide easy access to governmental
services and support economic development of this historic downtown area. Creating a transit hub
would also expand transportation services throughout Hocking County and provide transportation
into surrounding counties and states with service from GoBus.
The facility would also host a compressed natural gas (CNG) refill station and service hub for CNG
vehicles in conjunction with Hocking College, a community college with a CNG vehicle program
located in Hocking County. Access to a station should create an incentive for regional fleet
conversion to CNG vehicles and provide training for Hocking students who will learn about the
operation and maintenance of a CNG fueling station. Currently there is no CNG filling station
between Columbus and West Virginia, so creating a filling relay point in Logan would drive
additional traffic through the city and boost local businesses.
As a whole, this project would provide a passenger transit point to increase efficiency and expand
services for all agencies currently transporting individuals, fostering coordination, regionalization, and
joint use. It would provide a sheltered area and basic amenities for customers waiting for shuttles.
There will also be space for vehicle maintenance, vehicle sheltering, park and ride, and term and
daily parking. Leasable office space could also be available for new and existing businesses to
help offset construction and operation costs. If CNG fueling is added, agencies would access
8

a cheaper, lower emission fuel. The site footprint is also large enough for solar installations and
permeable surfaces to be installed, further greening the site.
Logan city officials have verified that the site is available for development and that the city infra-
structure would support the facility. The groups and agencies outlined above are in support of this
project, but are seeking a development leader. The city is pursuing investors toward this end, and
several LGIF participants may seek joint funding for this endeavor in late 2015.
Athens County, Ohio
Aggregating Low-cost, Local and Renewable Energy
Background
Athens County shares borders with project partners in Hocking, Perry,
and Morgan Counties. The cities, towns and unincorporated com-
munities that make up Athens County are faced with many problems
typical of Appalachian Ohio and these other counties. Employment
opportunities for the more than 64,000 county residents are outside of
Athens City, the county seat and home to Ohio University. Historically,
coal mining, salt production, and the former state mental health facility
played major economic roles in the county, but have stagnated or van-
ished entirely over the past half century. A transitional economy beyond
extractive industries continues to develop in the county. New work in
forestry, agriculture, arts and crafts, tourism and education are being
led by county residents with a unique resilience that is driving local
prosperity. Many organizations are now working with community
members to bolster the regional entrepreneurial spirit and develop
small to medium scale businesses.
County government officials haven’t been blind to the region’s culture
of self-sufficiency and ingenuity. As new businesses are born and
employment opportunities emerge, Athens County representatives are
looking at ways to build a local government that incubates new ideas,
provides services to residents more efficiently, embraces sustainable
technologies, reduces carbon emissions, and creates new employment
opportunities in emerging service sectors. Energy is among the top priorities identified by county
residents for elected officials to address in the coming years. County officials are now researching
and implementing ways to make local governments more energy efficient, reduce operating costs,
increase material diversion from landfills to raw material markets and establish a highly trained
county workforce that emphasizes sustainable practices and cost savings to residents.
Over the past several years, officials have reinvested money into energy efficiency upgrades in
county buildings, passed electric and gas aggregation options for the county by ballot initiative,
focused on expanded waste diversion through recycling infrastructure, upgraded waste treatment
facilities with energy efficient motors and drive systems, and explored alternative local energy
generation. Participation in the LGIF meetings with other county representatives has since led to
expansion of these efforts and new endeavors that promise a more energy efficient and livable
Athens County.
Athens County has undertaken many new sustainable initiatives in the past several years. During
the project period, the county was selected to participate in the Georgetown University Energy
Prize, a $5 million national competition to enact sweeping energy improvements in U.S.
communities. If Athens wins, this money would be used to reduce energy usage in the county
and create new opportunities in renewable energy and sustainable job creation.
9

Other improvements have taken place at the county courthouse, where new LED light bulbs
replaced old T12 bulbs and are now saving the local government $75 per month. The cost savings
alone will pay for the bulbs within the next 7 – 8 years. The county plans to make similar changes
at other buildings in the future. Along with this, energy use data at county buildings is being
collected and entered into the EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager by staff from Ohio University’s
Voinovich School for Leadership and Public Affairs.
During LGIF planning meetings, Athens County also became interested in investigating the feasi-
bility of a biodigester, after seeing the Perry County model. The county operates the Plains Waste
Water Treatment Plant, and the City of Athens currently disposes of their organic waste through
a land application process. This could be a potentially large source of feedstock for a biodigester.
After much consideration, the primary area of focus for Athens during the LGIF project became
electric aggregation and the creation of a local council of governments to administer this. It’s
this area that Athens is targeting to support a start-up energy provider and reduce total cost
for residents.
Renewable Energy Aggregation (Southeast Ohio Public Energy Council)
Residents of Athens County passed electric aggregation options in the fall of 2013. Aggregation
allows local governments to group purchase energy for their communities. Ohio is one of twelve
states with this legislation; Ohio passed legislation allowing aggregation in 2001. Many areas of the
state have benefited from this cost saving program (Bricker and Eckler, 2014; Policy Matters
Ohio, 2013).
With passage of aggregation, Athens County could have simply worked with an existing energy
supply company to bid for its energy needs. This method would have provided savings for Athens
Countyresidents but much of the savings would have accrued to out of town companies. Local
officials are committed to working local economic development into all of its energy efficiency
work. Sustainable energy is also one of the targeted industries of the Athens County Economic
Development Council. For these reasons, County Commissioner Chris Chmiel found a local energy
entrepreneur to step forward and help create a business to meet the county’s aggregation services
while also creating local jobs in energy production. This project grew over the course of LGIF
meetings and has evolved into the Southeast Ohio Public Energy Council (SOPEC). This council
of governments has registered with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) and will
hopefully grow into a formidable regional asset in the sustainable energy sector.
Structurally, SOPEC is a council of governments that combines the pooled purchasing power of
Athens City, Athens County and county villages, starting with Amesville, to acquire reasonably
priced electricity and other energy services. SOPEC recognizes that the energy industry is
undergoing a dramatic transformation driven by deregulation and the rise of distributed generation.
These communities have joined together to provide electric aggregation, energy efficiency
programs and local generation of renewable power. As other communities join SOPEC, other
energy services, such as gas aggregation, will be added.
Pricing for electricity provided through SOPEC is competitive with statewide providers, with a cost
of 7.549 cents per kilowatt hour that includes transmission and distribution service, along with
administrative fees. Of energy aggregated, 75% will come from conventional sources and the re-
maining 25% will be sourced from wind farms in the western United States. Gradually, local
solar power projects will provide renewable energy that will be blended into the electric mix
administered by SOPEC.
Morgan County, Ohio
Identifying and Improving Energy Usage in County Buildings
Background
Morgan County shares borders with Athens County to the south and
Perry County to the west. The county has the smallest population
10

(14,904 residents) among the counties participating in this LGIF project,
as well as a very low population density of 36 people per square mile. The
county seat, McConnelsville, is home to 1,700 residents. The Muskingum
River runs throughout Morgan County and directly alongside McConnels-
ville. The river is a historically significant trade route with other Appala-
chian cities built along the river, including Zanesville to the northwest and
Marietta to the southeast. The river also presents numerous recreational
activities for residents in the area.
As an area with a small, dispersed population, Morgan County is work-
ing to overcome many issues that other counties do not face. The county
does not have any public water or sewer system. Although there are sev-
eral local water boards throughout the county, there are many areas with-
out public water access. This results in unregulated wastewater outflow into public aquifers and
limited access to municipal water. Additionally, access to services like recycling and broadband are
limited throughout the county.
Morgan County officials share many overarching goals with their fellow participants in this LGIF
project. Although Morgan County borders Athens and Perry County, officials from Morgan en-
tered this project at a much different stage than others. The county had some recent success with
sustainable operating initiatives, including electric and natural gas aggregation several years ago,
construction of a fairly new primary county building, and some energy efficiency advances at the
150-year-old courthouse. But a small annual operating budget has limited advances in the county.
There are many sectors in which Morgan County officials would like to focus future community
development. Recycling and waste stream diversion is one area that County Commissioner Adam
Shriver would like to advance. Currently only some areas have bulk recycling collection contain-
ers that are operated by the Morgan County Board of Development Disabilities. The lack of curb-
side collection and limited public information connected with such an initiative reduces the overall
amount of recycling in the county. Through this project, LGIF participants were able to connect
with Morgan officials and show how some of their communities were able to provide curbside
recycling pick up and lower trash collection rates by negotiating with service providers. The
structure of recycling is changing in Morgan County as the Board of Developmental Disabilities
considers paths forward to make the system efficient and impactful. County commissioners will
be involved with these discussions and bring information from LGIF meetings to help increase
recycling rates and decrease costs for the service while bolstering local employment opportunities
in recycling and waste management.
Transportation expansion and efficiency were also identified as important areas for the county.
Morgan County currently maintains several fleets of vehicles for their transit, county highway
patrol, sheriff, senior citizens, board of developmental disabilities, job and family services agency
and schools. Participants discussed ways of sharing some of the transportation, maintenance and
fueling services within the county, as well as between counties.
Public spaces and multi-use pathways throughout the county were also identified as areas of
importance. The Muskingum River is an important recreational asset for the county. There is an
opportunity to better utilize this asset through the development of more public green spaces, bike
and recreational trails, and river access points. Morgan County currently owns one county park,
which is at the end of Main Street in McConnelsville. Project participants are currently researching
grant information for waterway and recreational development, including Ohio Department of
Natural Resources and Clean Ohio grants that Somerset was able to acquire.
Energy Audits and Efficiency Improvements
As a starting point for reducing overall county expenses, Morgan officials decided to focus primar-
ily on energy efficiency and cost reduction in county buildings in the coming years. The county will
11

approach this by performing full energy audits on all county buildings, determine the best
technology to reduce operating expenses, establish a budget for these efforts (including expenses
and savings over time), and acquire funding to enact and maintain these changes.
However, due to their limited operational budget, the county had difficulty completing energy
audits within the LGIF project. Coordinating these services can cost a significant amount of upfront
investment and time on the behalf of a local government already at capacity fiscally. In moving
forward, Morgan officials are seeking financial or in-kind funding opportunities to perform energy
audits in the county and begin to see where gaps exist. With this information, the county can
begin to plan for strategic improvements with potential cost savings documented and roles for
participants laid out.
4 KEY LESSONS
Over the course of LGIF planning meetings, tours of successful projects and facilities, consultation
with area experts, and ongoing conversations between participants, numerous shared lessons
have emerged. These lessons represent important information for any region when considering
crossjurisdictional sustainability strategies. These recommendations and insights are particularly
useful as additional communities in Appalachian Ohio and across the country begin to explore
options for creating efficient and livable cities.
• Community members and their representatives generally want the same things: sustainable, livable,
enjoyable places for all residents to call home
Over the course of the LGIF planning meetings, participating representatives all expressed the
idea that sustainable, energy efficient, affordable, and livable regions are what they want for their
constituents. It’s also what their communities want but often are unable to achieve because of
financial constraints. Many communities are also engrained in a “traditional” sense of community
and economic development that bypasses key issues and technologies to save financial and
natural resources.Participants found this LGIF planning project particularly successful because
t focused on creating sustainable and livable communities, not just what participants themselves
called “traditional community planning.”
• There are multiple benefits to investing in energy efficiency in local goverments
In addition to saving city and county funds and lowering costs for community members over a
long term period, investing in infrastructure improvement projects has multiple benefits for fiscally
constrained regions. Investments in new efficiency plans can create jobs implementing as well as
maintaining these projects. Or, if the project opens a new industry in the region (such as recycling
and material processing), community members can work in the businesses. New municipal
projects can also relieve tension on the planet’s already constrained environment, whether through
efficiency projects at existing buildings that save on electric consumption or by creating businesses
that divert waste into new products. These projects can even have a positive effect on inward
migration for rural communities rather than population loss to neighboring cities, as new options
and more livable communities cater to young families and new businesses.
• The needs of each community must be determined, as each has site-specific requirements
While all participants share the same goals for their communities, each must identify which goals
make the most sense. Some communities might not have the population within their county
required to operate efficient waste diversion technology, such as methane digesters for organic
waste produced in restaurants, on farms, and in grocery stores. Another community might have
the population and interest to make such a project work.
• Progress towards goals comes in different stages and at varying rates for communities
Just as communities must identify the projects that make sense based on their needs and
12

resources, they must also realize that progress will come at varying rates. The reasons for these
sometimes-slow, sometimes-fast stages of progress are numerous and complex. It takes careful
study and consideration by diverse groups of stakeholders from each community to understand
these factors. For example: following this LGIF project, officials from Morgan County identified
numerous factors that slowed their progress in implementing energy efficiency initiatives. Limited
county funding as well as limited understanding of such projects by some county leaders played a
significant part. In this way, civic infrastructure and public infrastructure both play a part in making
progress toward new community projects. Factors that affect the speed of sustainable develop-
ment might include local leadership; community readiness; access to technical assistance; finan-
cial, resource, or planning capacity.
• Not all technologies and solutions are appropriate for every community, but they should still be explored
Community officials working to create efficient, public infra-
structure in Appalachian Ohio have a diverse group of re-
gional technology and research hubs they can access. Many
of these resource hubs have developed answers to energy
efficiency and sustainable design in LGIF communities.
While not all of these technologies and solutions are appro-
priate for all communities, stakeholders should still explore
these options. Participants during this LGIF project learned
of numerous technological innovations that are changing
communities throughout southern Ohio. In Perry County, one
partnership led to the start of a commercial scale methane
gas digester in New Lexington that is creating a renewable
energy source, diverting tons of waste material, and provid-
ing employment opportunities. While not all communities
are able to adopt projects of this scale yet, learning about
the project was inspiring. The desire to be able to undertake
such projects is fostering collaborative ways, across city and
county lines, to make them happen or to explore alternative
solutions to the same problems.
• Collaboration across county lines can reduce costs and risk for all
As local government officials discovered new projects and approaches during this planning pro-
cess, associated costs and levels of readiness became increasingly apparent. Participants real-
ized, though, that one solution to overcoming city or county barriers to projects was to rely on
regional partnerships. Collaboration became a key tenant of the City of Logan’s efforts to create
a transit hub and compressed natural gas (CNG) refueling station. Alone, Logan would have the
entire burden of generating enough demand to make this project successful, but with partners
throughout the county and beyond, such demand for transportation and maintenance on CNG
vehicles from other municipalities would be sufficient to sustain the project. Collaborative projects
can reduce financial burdens on one community while also creating increased cross-county traffic
and further exchange of goods as customers from surrounding counties visit a shared site.
• Elected officials don’t often get to come together,, collablorate, or work as regional partners
In rural communities where geographic distance and heavy workloads can keep officials busy far
over a full time schedule, interaction with neighboring representatives often goes by the wayside.
As a result of this targeted LGIF grant, county commissioners and mayors came together – some
for the first time – and had the chance to build relationships with one another. This essential need
of local government leaders, particularly in rural communities where collaboration makes a big
difference in results, is overlooked far too often according to project participants. By coming
together, decision makers not only learned and planned but also built a coalition of local
representatives. These collaborators are working to increase sustainable design and
infrastructure, plus generate the community support necessary to sustain this work.
13
The diagram above shows the basic
function of a methane gas digester, similar
to the model in New Lexington that was
demonstrated to LGIF participants.

• Seeing projects in action is more impactful than just hearing about them
Participants in this project found that tangible and demonstrable projects are highly valuable for
others to see. While many ideas can be shared on paper, tours of projects were highly effective in
conveying new approaches to local government leaders. Without these demonstrations, new
approaches to efficiency and investment might be overlooked by community representatives.
Tours and demonstrations also have the potential for larger community learning opportunities,
including showcasing projects for investors, educators, technical assistance providers,
businesses, and residents.
• Many local governments are interested but unable to invest in efficiency projects
Throughout this project, fiscal limitation of local governments was one significant obstacle
facing participants. Funding solutions are needed for future work and can be difficult to attain.
Local governments exploring new solutions toward energy efficiency must provide adequate
attention to funding strategies. This includes feasibility studies of projects and comprehensive
budgets to bring to possible funders. Having a budget and research showing financial savings
as a result of investments can make a significant difference when approaching funding sources.
• Many officials simply don’t have the knowledge of new funding opportunities
Local governments often meet requirements for state, federal, and private funding but have no
knowledge of such opportunities. There are numerous financial assistance options available to
local governments for sustainable development initiatives. By sharing resources and communicat-
ing with one another, local officials can better identify resources and financial opportunities that
can benefit their communities and those in surrounding counties. Through this process, many
participants during this LGIF research project learned of vital funding sources for creating addi-
tional public spaces, rehabilitating energy inefficient buildings, participating in energy audits, and
training public workers on sustainable practices.
5 IDENTIFIED RESOURCES
During the LGIF project, staff from the Buckeye Hills–Hocking Valley Regional Development Dis-
trict identified the following resources that may assist the participating local governments.
Funding agencies and Funding Opportunities
During the fall of 2014, Buckeye Hills staff had the opportunity to hold individual discussions and
conversations with funding agencies in the region. The general purpose of these discussions was
to evaluate the proposed use of high tech appurtenances and construction techniques in tradition-
al infrastructure construction projects and normal funding scenarios. The goal was to determine
if specific equipment items such as biogas digesters as part of a sewer plant upgrade would be
an eligible expense in that particular funding program, or if other arrangements would need to be
made to cover the costs of these items. The same question was posed regarding high efficiency
pumps, motors, grinders, and other appurtenances that are part of typical water and sewer type
infrastructure projects, which are the most common use of public program funding at Buckeye
Hills. Nearly every funding agency contacted by Buckeye Hills staff had the same response to
these questions. All of these items would be eligible and allowable as part of projects that could be
submitted for funding from the respective agencies. There appear to be no provisions that would
prevent these items from being part of a project under any of these programs.
One concern was raised while speaking with communities and partners involved in this project.
While the use of these technologies is approved under nearly all public funding programs that were
contacted by Buckeye Hills, using these techniques could raise the initial costs, which may make
a project unaffordable for a sponsoring community. The experience of Buckeye Hills staff is that
communities in the district struggle to assemble affordable funding packages for needed projects,
and any extra or potentially unnecessary costs could put a project in jeopardy, regardless of the
potential benefits or positive outcomes that may result. In short, sometimes the long-term benefit
14

of adding some of these technologies to a project may not be enough to offset the additional cost
of purchase or installation. Adoption of these technologies may be slow until pricing reaches
relative parity with traditional items specified during the engineering process.
Another hurdle to the application of these technologies could be that local parties are simply not
aware of them during project design or inception. It is the hope of Buckeye Hills that studies like
this can help raise the general awareness of alternative and efficient equipment options during
the design of any infrastructure project taking place in the region.
Identified Support Programs/Provider programs
The Buckeye Hills region is serviced by at least seven electrical providers. During the project
period, Buckeye Hills staff spent time researching incentive programs and other opportunities that
may exist for communities in the region to realize savings on energy costs. Most of these efforts
revolved around electrical service providers, as they seem to be offering the widest array of
programming to promote utility conservation and savings.
American Electric Power (AEP) – During the reporting period Buckeye Hills had several conversa-
tions with representatives from AEP regarding incentive and rebate programs, as well as other
opportunities for both private consumers and local governments to save on energy costs.
The largest and primary programs offered by AEP are focused on incentives offered at the time
of purchase, or just after, of electrically driven equipment. In order to qualify,
users must purchase certain pre-approved hardware (blowers, motors, bulbs,
etc.). Use of these pre-approved items ensures material savings when used in
place of older equipment or in lieu of less efficient options. AEP representa-
tives can provide on-site testing to determine the electrical usage levels for
existing equipment, then provide reference to what new approved equipment
would use in comparison. According to AEP officials, lighting replacement has
provided the largest amount of incentive for users. One identified challenge
with these incentive programs is that the incentives change, often yearly.
A community would need to move quickly to secure identified incentives and efficiencies after
formulating a strategy. Delaying may jeopardize the community’s ability to participate in the
program and realize the estimated savings. AEP officials were concerned that the general public
may not be aware of these opportunities, or may view them as too complicated. Buckeye Hills rec-
ommends that local governments receive direct information from their electric provider concerning
incentives, and that the local governments promote those opportunities to their community members.
AEP also recently completed a pilot program called the Community Saver program, which provides
resources to local communities with mutual goals for completing incentive, rebate, or other energy
conservation activities. Goals are established by reviewing the current energy usage of the
community, and then reviewing the participation rate of citizens in the various programs offered
by AEP. Scenarios are provided that illustrate the potential savings if the community could increase
levels of participation in those programs. The Community Saver program began in 2014 with two
communities in the Buckeye Hills region: the Village of Somerset (Perry County), and the Village of
Amesville (Athens County). Officials from AEP indicated that they were pleased with the pilot phase
of the program and are anticipating keeping the program going in to the future, with a few changes
based on the pilot experience. Sherry Hubbard (sjhubbard@aep.com), Jon Buck
(mjpbuck@aep.com), or Paul Prater (pdprater@aep.com) can be contacted for more information
about this program.
South Central Power Company – South Central offers an online facility assessment wizard at
http://members.questline.com/FacilityAssessment.aspx. They also offer an eLibrary and “Ask An
Expert” services on their website at www.southcentralpower.com. South Central Power also offers
technical, business, research, and other assistance to their customers.
15

Buckeye Rural Electric – Buckeye Rural Electric offers an energy audit program by appointment.
Additional information is on their website at www.buckeyerec.com/main/content/energy-audits.
Buckeye Rural also offers information about solar projects at
www.buckeyerec.com/main/content/solar-information. This information includes information on net
metering, technical guidelines, application for interconnection and parallel operation, and other items.
Building Operator’s Certification – http://development.ohio.gov/bs/bs_buildcert.htm
This program “is a professional certification for staffs, which operate and
maintain commercial and public buildings, and involves energy and
resource efficient operation of building systems. The Office of Energy
obtained a license for implementation of the program in Ohio and works
in partnership with the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.” Based on
discussions held with LGIF partners, Buckeye Hills staff felt this program
could be a great asset to those communities who wish to invest in the
education of their maintenance staffs to bolster energy efficiency activities.
There are two levels of training available from this program. Level 1 is for those new to the industry
or with two or more years of experience in building operations and maintenance. Level 2 is targeted
to those who have completed Level 1 training, or have three or more years of experience in the
operation and maintenance of a facility. Using the information and techniques from the program,
it is estimated that a certified operator could, for example, cut electricity use by 15% or more in
a target facility.
The overall program is organized by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Council (NEEC)
(www.neec.net). The Building Operator Certification program is administered in Ohio and the
Midwest by the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA) (www.mwalliance.org).
This is not a free program. Tuition for the Level 1 certification is $1,400 and includes 74 hours of
classroom instruction, or 7.4 CEUs (continuing education units). Level 2 costs $1,150 and includes
61 hours of instruction, or 6.1 CEUs. AEP does offer a tuition rebate upon successful completion
of all course requirements to AEP customers.
For more information visit the Building Operator’s Certification website at www.boccentral.org.
This site contains a listing of the courses being offered, course outlines, locations, as well as tuition
information. Please note: not all trainings are available in Ohio at all times.
Best Practices from NADO Partners
During June 2014, Buckeye Hills staff worked with the National Association of Development Orga-
nizations (NADO) to put forth a “call to peers” to learn about activities and programs other regional
development organizations across the country have undertaken to assist communities with energy
efficiency.
Several agencies responded to this call to peers with information on activities currently being un-
dertaken, but one was of particular interest. The Merrimack Valley Planning Commission (MVPC) in
Haverhill, Massachusetts initiated a project called the “Performance Contracting Initiative,” which
gave MVPC the opportunity to collectively purchase services through a one-time offer from quali-
fied vendors. The planning commission was able to solicit for a suite of services on behalf of all
member counties, towns, school districts, and other governmental entities, as stipulated in state
code as part of an effort to finance large investments in manageable phases. Under this agreement
individual communities or government bodies would be free to craft agreements individually once
the larger project is initiated. This process speeds up procurement activities by bundling services
and products together at the onset of the project, rather than clearing each item individually. In an
individual agreement, a community would identify hardware and equipment upgrades that could be
installed and would guarantee energy savings by the vendor. If no such project or upgrade can be
identified, the party is not obligated to continue participation. A basic description of this initiative is
on MVPC’s website.
16

The RFQ for this initiative is available at:
http://mvpc.org/wp-content/uploads/MVPC.ESCO.RFQ_1.pdf
Buckeye Hills staff is willing to organize a conference call with representatives from MVPC in
Massachusetts to learn more about this activity. At the time of this report, it was unclear if similar
authorizing language exists in Ohio Revised Code that may support these types of shared
contracting.
6 METHODOLOGY
This Local Government Innovation Fund (LGIF) proj-
ect, led by the Village of Somerset, Perry County,
Ohio, studied energy usage in four local govern-
ments in Appalachian Ohio. ME/IBI Engineering
Group led the effort and focused on identifying cost
effective new technology and green infrastructure
opportunities in order to make government energy
consumption more efficient.
Representatives from the Village of Somerset, the City of Logan, Athens County, and Morgan
County all participated in planning and information sharing sessions over the course of one year
to identify energy efficiencies through existing infrastructure, collaborative efforts, and new infra-
structure investment opportunities. Meetings were held in each of the four jurisdictions. Additional
meetings and facility tours were held at the Hocking College Energy Institute near Logan. Each
mayor and/or county commissioner involved was asked to identify infrastructure improvements
that they would like to better understand and find investment for through the LGIF planning grant.
Resources were provided to the meeting attendees on a variety of topics including municipal
energy efficiency, energy data management, water conservation, downtown beautification, waste
and recycling, water and sewer upgrades, fleet management, and workforce training. Hocking
College’s Energy Institute provided expert advice on industry practices and project feasibility
throughout the process. Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs
provided technical assistance and expertise as ideas were advanced and vetted.
Other resource providers participating in the project were PerCo, the Perry
County Recycling Company assisting in reviewing the possibility of incorpo-
rating sewer biogas digesters, Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP)
providing assistance with energy efficiency analysis and water and sewer in-
frastructure planning, and Rural Action advising on solid waste recycling opportunities and leading
on project documentation. Buckeye Hills Regional Development District participated in meetings
and researched additional resources to benefit participants as they move forward.
Project Steps
1. Establish Baseline Usage – Each government entity collected baseline data on energy usage
in water and sewer systems, government owned buildings and regional fleets;
2. Review Best Practices – As a group, each government reviewed current energy efficiency
projects in their communities and discussed efforts in partnering regions;
3. Select Projects – Participants chose projects for further research and possible implementation;
4. Determine Engineering Cost - Assisted by ME/IBI Group’s engineers, each participating
government created budgets for their chosen projects, developed estimates and project
scope for funding requests;
5. Identify Funding - Assisted by Buckeye Hills Regional Development District, funding
opportunities were identified for each project;
6. Share Information – Implementable energy savings projects and funding sources were
provided to the Buckeye Hills Development District Region and other interested
local governments.
17

7 NEXT STEPS
This Local Government Innovation Fund project enabled something to happen that unfortunately
seldom does in local decision making: collaboration across county lines. This level of collabora-
tion is increasingly difficult for fiscally constrained local governments, especially in rural counties.
Through this LGIF grant, officials from four counties came together and formed a coalition working
to increase energy efficiency. The solutions they found have the potential to restore local econo-
mies, communities, and the surrounding environment. Many ideas were shared. Some options
were out of reach at the present. Others are well on their way to reality. But most importantly a new
collaborative group of government officials is working together to share resources, consider new
approaches, and reduce costs that burden all residents while conserving resources.
Going forward, each local government involved will continue working on their selected projects,
in addition to secondary goals identified during planning sessions. Funding is necessary for many
projects to be completed, or for feasibility studies and budget creation to first take place. The
group will work to identify joint funding wherever possible. Resources identified by Buckeye Hills
will be used to assist participants in implementing their plans for energy efficiency.
All participants are available and seeking additional discussions with new local government
projects taking place in Appalachian Ohio as outlined above. This is especially true of local gov-
ernments with limited financial capital to invest in infrastructure projects, which could save gov-
ernments and community members considerable money, resources, time, and environmental deg-
radation. Contact information for each government in this project is listed below. Interested parties
should reach out to the appropriate contacts about future assistance or partnership.
Contact Information
Perry County Athens County
Somerset Mayor’s Office Athens County Commissioners Office
100 Public Square 15 S. Court Street
Somerset, Ohio 43783 Athens, Ohio 45701
740-743-2963 740-592-3219
Hocking County Morgan County
Logan Mayor’s Office Morgan County Commissioners Office
10 S. Mulberry Street 1 55 E. Main Street
Logan, Ohio 43138 McConnelsville, Ohio 43756
740-385-8310 7 40-962-3183
18

Energy Efficiency - Rural Action - LGIF Report 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Energy Efficiency - Rural Action - LGIF Report 2015