How a community club turned energy upgrades into a costed grant proposal
A Tasmanian community club wanted to reduce energy costs, improve its facilities and make the most of a grant opportunity. The work was to decide which upgrades belonged together, what they would cost and how to explain that clearly in an application.
The organisation, sporting code and location have been withheld. Identifying details have been generalised and selected figures rounded. This case study describes assessment and grant application support, not a completed installation or a confirmed funding award.
The answer upfront
The proposed package combined solar, more efficient hot water and heating, community EV charging and a future energy strategy. The three bill-saving upgrades were forecast to save around $11,000 a year. Using the submission's costs, those three upgrades had an indicative simple payback of about four years before the requested grants. EV charging and strategic planning served purposes beyond bill savings.
Submission-stage estimates. Savings exclude additional EV charging demand and costs. The four-year payback applies only to solar, hot water and heating, not the full package. Funding and implementation are not confirmed.
- ~240,000 kWh/yr Existing electricity use
- 5 Proposed projects
- ~$103,000 Proposed budget, ex GST
- ~$11,000/yr Forecast bill saving, ex GST
The question
The club provided sporting facilities, shared amenities and spaces used by members, volunteers and community groups. Electricity was an ongoing cost that competed with other priorities.
A grant opportunity created a chance to invest, but the club needed answers before selecting equipment:
- Which upgrades would provide worthwhile savings?
- Which would improve services for members and the wider community?
- Would the projects fit the facility’s future redevelopment plans?
- Could the scope, costs, eligibility and delivery risks be explained clearly in an application?
Tasman Energy Advisory reviewed the facility, ranked the opportunities and developed the technical scope, budget and supporting material for a coordinated energy upgrade proposal.
The brief was a community facility energy assessment and project-development exercise, including grant application support. It was not a detailed engineering design or a comprehensive energy audit.
The facility at a glance
| Item | De-identified project details |
|---|---|
| Organisation | Tasmanian community sporting club |
| Facilities | Club buildings, shared amenities and associated infrastructure |
| Energy supply | Electricity, with some gas use also present |
| Existing solar | None |
| Existing improvements | LED lighting, reverse-cycle heating in most areas and heat-pump hot water in part of the facility |
| Remaining opportunities | Resistance hot water, one panel heater and suitable roof space for solar |
| Important constraint | Planned redevelopment of part of the facility |
| Advisory work | Facility review, opportunity ranking, eligibility review, project scope, budget, risk assessment and application content |
What the assessment found
1. Daytime electricity demand was a good match for solar
The application recorded annual electricity use of approximately 239,000 kWh. Average demand during the daytime period was about 30 kW.
The proposed solar system was approximately 33 kW of panels with a 30 kW inverter. Its estimated generation was about 42,000 kWh per year.
The submission’s interval-data analysis indicated that roughly 97–99% of that generation could be used on site. Most of the solar electricity would replace purchased electricity, rather than being exported.
That was a strong starting point for commercial solar on a community facility. The forecast still needed to be checked against the final load profile after the efficiency upgrades. Average daytime demand does not show how much solar will be used at every moment.
This is a different load from a home that exports most of its solar. Where export is high, storage can be the question. Here, very little surplus was forecast, so a battery was not part of the preferred scope. See Would a home battery pay for itself?
2. Hot water offered a substantial efficiency opportunity
The application proposed replacing two electric-resistance hot-water systems serving shared amenities with heat-pump systems.
Estimated annual electricity use would fall from about 30,000 kWh to 7,500–8,000 kWh. That was a forecast reduction of around three-quarters for those systems.
Controls would favour operation during solar-producing hours where practical, while maintaining the required hot-water service.
The saving came from needing less electricity to provide hot water. Using solar to supply the remaining demand was a separate benefit. The same unit of electricity was not counted twice.
3. Some upgrades were already done
LED lighting was already installed, most spaces already had reverse-cycle heating, and part of the facility already used heat-pump hot water.
The review did not recommend a broad lighting replacement or replacement of all heating equipment. It targeted the remaining resistance panel heater and the identified hot-water systems.
Major insulation and glazing work was not prioritised for areas affected by future redevelopment. That was a timing decision for this site, not a conclusion that building improvements lack value.
4. Community infrastructure needed its own business case
The EV charging proposal provided eight charging points through four dual-port AC chargers.
Its purpose was to improve access to charging for members, visitors and the wider community. It was not an electricity-saving measure for the club. Charging vehicles adds electricity demand.
The scope included managed charging, access arrangements and a cost-recovery approach. Final design would still need to confirm electrical capacity, safe access, operating costs and responsibilities.
The proposed package
Costs below are rounded to approximately the nearest $500, excluding GST. They reflect the submission budget, not current offers to other sites.
| Project | Proposed work | Approximate capital cost |
|---|---|---|
| Solar | Rooftop generation matched to daytime demand | $32,000 |
| Hot water | Replace the identified resistance systems with heat pumps and suitable controls | $8,000 |
| Space heating | Replace the remaining panel heater with a reverse-cycle heat pump | $3,500 |
| Community EV charging | Four dual-port AC chargers, electrical works, load management and associated site works | $56,500 |
| Future energy strategy | Establish and verify the baseline, review performance and plan later improvements | $3,000 |
| Complete proposed package | Five coordinated projects | $103,000 |
The future strategy was proposed post-award work. It was separate from the assessment and application preparation described in this case study.
The budget excluded items such as major redevelopment, structural strengthening, network augmentation and ongoing operating costs unless they were specifically included in the underlying supplier scope. There was no separately identified contingency allowance.
Savings and payback
Simple payback asks how many years of savings are needed to recover an upfront cost. It is that cost divided by the expected annual saving.
The figures below use the submission’s unrounded capital costs and forecast electricity savings. No requested grant has been deducted.
| Investment | Estimated annual electricity bill saving, excluding GST | Indicative simple payback |
|---|---|---|
| Solar | $6,900–$7,100 | About 4.5–4.6 years |
| Heat-pump hot water | $3,700–$3,900 | About 2.1–2.2 years |
| Remaining space-heating upgrade | About $300 | About 12 years |
| Three energy upgrades together: about $43,500 capital | $10,900–$11,200 combined forecast | About 4 years |
| Full package, including EV charging and the future strategy | Same energy-saving forecast; no EV income assumed | About 9–10 years on energy savings alone, before additional operating costs |
The combined forecast is the submission’s package estimate, not a sum of each rounded upper or lower value. Individual estimates may not stay additive once operating schedules change.
These are illustrative payback calculations, not a full investment appraisal. They exclude finance, maintenance, degradation, replacements and changes in energy prices. The full-package figure also excludes charging income, purchased charging electricity and charger operating costs, so it is not a completed EV charging business case.
The quoted-budget summary did not itemise any equipment rebates or certificate discounts already embedded in supplier prices. No extra rebate has been assumed or deducted here. Those inclusions need confirmation before the figures are treated as final net investment costs.
Hot water and solar carried most of the bill-saving case. Heating also improved comfort. EV charging provided a new service, and the strategy supported later decisions.
How the proposed funding changed the club's contribution
The application proposed a $100,000 federal grant, a $1,000 state contribution and a small club cash contribution.
| Funding scenario | Approximate club contribution to the submitted capital budget |
|---|---|
| Both proposed grants approved | $2,000 |
| Federal grant approved; state contribution unavailable | $3,000 |
| Neither grant approved; unchanged scope proceeds | $103,000, unless another funding source is secured |
The club committed to cover the additional $1,000 if the state contribution was unsuccessful. That commitment did not cover the absence of the main federal grant.
These were proposed funding arrangements, not confirmed awards. Eligibility, grant agreements, any other incentives and final costs still needed to be satisfied.
A grant can greatly reduce what the club pays. It does not reduce the full cost of the equipment or improve its technical performance. A short recovery period for the club’s small contribution should not be presented as the payback of the whole project.
What the package was expected to achieve
The submission forecast around 64,000–65,500 kWh less grid electricity purchased each year, approximately 27% of the recorded baseline, before additional EV charging demand.
That combined two different effects:
- Heat pumps reduced the electricity needed for hot water and heating.
- Solar supplied part of the remaining electricity demand on site.
It was a reduction in grid purchases, not a 27% reduction in all electricity used by the facility.
The corresponding forecast was about $11,000 in annual electricity bill savings and approximately 13 tonnes of electricity-related emissions avoided. The emissions estimate used the 2025 National Greenhouse Accounts Tasmania factor of 0.20 kg CO₂-e per kWh.
These were planning estimates. Final performance would depend on weather, facility use, tariffs, system settings and how the upgrades interact. No EV transport-emissions benefit was included.
Turning the proposal into something deliverable
The advisory work went beyond selecting equipment. It brought together:
- a review of the facility and existing improvements;
- a prioritised opportunity register;
- a review of grant eligibility and supporting evidence requirements;
- defined project inclusions, exclusions and quoted-budget allowances;
- staged delivery plans and operational responsibilities;
- a risk assessment covering costs, approvals, safety, performance and ongoing operation; and
- technical content for the application.
The proposed sequence began with baseline confirmation, design and approvals. Solar, hot water and heating would follow, with charging infrastructure and final commissioning coordinated around facility use. Performance monitoring would then inform the longer-term strategy.
The application also separated proposed post-award work from application preparation, and required the grant agreement and approved start date before funded work began.
Electrical capacity and roof suitability remained detailed-design checks. A favourable visual inspection, or an operator’s advice, was not treated as final engineering approval.
What success would look like after installation
The monitoring plan called for solar production, grid imports and exports, bills and charging data to be reviewed against the pre-project baseline.
EV charging would need to be tracked separately. Otherwise, new vehicle-charging demand could hide savings from the facility upgrades, or make the original forecasts look misleading.
The club intended to use verified savings, through its budgeting process, to support community activities and access to its facilities. That was a proposed use of future savings, not evidence that money had already been reinvested.
Lessons for other businesses and community organisations
- Match solar to the load. Regular daytime demand can make solar valuable without first adding a battery.
- Check major heating loads. Hot water can offer a larger saving than more visible upgrades.
- Retain improvements already made. Serviceable LED lighting and efficient equipment should not be replaced simply to enlarge a project.
- Respect the redevelopment plan. Avoid investing in areas likely to change soon.
- Separate savings from new services. EV charging can be worthwhile, but its costs and income need their own assessment.
- Keep grants conditional. Requested funding is not approved funding, and someone must own any shortfall and ongoing costs.
- Plan to verify results. A forecast is most useful when the organisation also knows how it will measure performance.
A larger public site can need a different order of work, especially where assets, gas and renewal timing dominate. See how a Tasmanian council sequenced a sporting precinct.
Final outcome
The completed advisory work produced a prioritised, costed proposal and supporting grant-application material.
It identified an approximately $43,500 group of energy-saving upgrades within a broader $103,000 package. It also made the community-service elements, funding assumptions, delivery risks and future verification requirements explicit.
Funding, construction and measured savings are separate milestones. They are not claimed as completed outcomes in this case study.
Planning energy upgrades for a business or community facility?
Tasman Energy Advisory provides independent business and community energy advice, from understanding current energy use to prioritising upgrades and developing a practical investment plan.
If your organisation is considering solar, efficient heating, hot water or a funding application, start with the facility, the operating needs and the evidence. Discuss your project.
No commissions. No referral payments. Independent advice based on your organisation’s needs.