Leveraging Prop 39 Awards
(Energy Project Funding)
PROP 39 California Workforce Investment Board (CAWIB)
2
Veronica Soto, Program Manager, Emerald Cities Collaborative CAWIB Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Team
CWIB Goals for Prop 39 Training
1) Train 500 disadvantaged youth, veterans, and other disadvantaged jobseekers in green job skills;
1) Create structured paths to apprenticeship;
2) Diversify green job opportunities (beyond Prop 39 creation options); and
3) Align systems and leverage funding to optimize results and reduce duplication.
Approach & Grants
Technical Assistance and Capacity Building – California Labor Federation WED Program – Emerald Cities Collaborative
Development – Workforce Investment Board of Santa Cruz County – Six Regional Programs
Training Implementation – Six Regional Programs
Proposals for Development Grants are accepted through March 27, 2015 www.cwib.ca.gov
Training Project Snapshot
Regional Pilot Training Goal
Placement Goals
Sacramento Valley (SETA)
65 100% - Enrollment, , 90% (Completion) - Receive MC3 Certificate
71% - Placement in Registered Apprenticeship
31% - Placement in post-secondary education
70% - Placement in construction or energy efficiency employment
Central Valley (Fresno WIB)
125 100% Enrollment, 95% (Completion) - Receive MC3 Certificate
67% - Placement in Registered Apprenticeship
10% - Placement in post-secondary education
10% - Placement in construction or energy efficiency employment
East Bay Area (Richmond Works)
125 100% Enrollment, 90% (Completion) – Receive MC3 Certificate
60% - Placement in Registered Apprenticeship
12% - Placement in post-secondary education
88% - Placement in construction or energy efficiency employment
Training Project Snapshot Regional Pilot Training
Goal Placement Goals
San Francisco (SF Conservation Corps)
75 100% Enrollment, 80% (Completion) - Receive MC3 Certificate
50% - Placement in Registered Apprenticeship – (Laborers - 18, Carpenters - 8 , and Painters – 4) 11% - Placement in post-secondary education 50% - Placement in construction or energy efficiency
employment
San Mateo & Santa Clara (Work2Future)
120 100% Enrollment, 88% (Completion) - Receive MC3 Certificate
90% - Placement in Registered Apprenticeship 3% - Placement in post-secondary education 79% - Placement in construction or energy efficiency
employment
Los Angeles County (LA Trade Tech)
250 95% Enrollment, 90% (Completion) - Receive MC3 Certificate
26% - Placement in Registered Apprenticeship 80% - Placement in post-secondary education 39% - Placement in construction or energy efficiency
employment
Tracking Metrics Workforce Issue Area
Data being tracked to Measure Progress
Training Investments
Completion rates and certificate attainment Placements in joint- apprenticeship, and industry-related job
placements Retention in employment
Workforce Diversity
Tracking recruitment numbers of target populations enrolled in training
Tracking recruitment methods for achieving diversity
Training Delivery
What type of entity is performing the training (CBO, Labor, etc) Methods for delivering training (classroom instruction, hands-on, etc.) Supplemental instruction – assistance with remediation; soft skills;
physical fitness Quality – can it meet the highest trade standard (i.e. math of the
mechanical trades)
Involvement of Registered Joint-Apprenticeship Programs
Diversity of trades involved in partnership Creation of clear articulation agreements between training partner
and union apprenticeship program Are trades willing to institutionalize this MC3 program as a permanent
form of a pipeline into apprenticeship?
Job Creation Tracking
Certified Payroll Reports submitted by LEAs to DIR
Verifiable Self-Reported Employee Wage Records for workers directly employed by LEAs
Reports include the following types of workers: Trainees Apprentices Full-Time Jobs Created
Labor and Workforce Development Agency and DIR to provide technical assistance to LEAs and contractors performing funded projects, including online reporting system currently under development.
CAWIB to prepare Annual Report
PROP 39 APPRENTICESHIP PREPARATION 3
John Olszewski, Instructor for Apprenticeship Preparation Program Los Angeles Trade Technical College
GOALS: PLACEMENT & JOB CREATION
Placement
1 MC3 Training
2 Trainee
Assessment & Employment
Plan
3 Determine
Apprenticeship Pathway
4 Union/Cont
ractor Alignment
5 Job Start
Preparation
Outreach and Enrollment Recruitment and pre-screening - Completed by community partners
Local Partners BuildLACCD Chrysalis CA Conservation Corps First African Methodist Episcopal (FAME) GRID Alternatives LA Conservation Corps LA/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council LA Job Corps Southern California Edison South LA YouthBuild (K-12) US Vets VCN LA YouthBuild Center Vernon Central WorkSource Center/AJCC Volunteers of America, LA
Program Overview
Orientation
Career exploration of clean energy sector Basic fitness training Academic readiness
Energy Efficiency and Construction Boot camp (160 hrs)
120-hour base MC3 Curriculum (AFL-CIO) – certificate of completion 40 hours of intensive math/computation work, work readiness, and
craft exploration
Program Metrics
250 participants begin orientation • 95% (238) enroll in boot camp • 90% (214) of boot camp participants will successfully complete
boot camp • 90% (192) of boot camp completers will successfully earn MC3
Post-Program • 50 participants will enter union apprenticeship program • 74 participants will enter into direct employment • 116 participants will enter into continued education
Apprenticeship Prep Cohorts
Semester Target Population
# of Participants
Dates Times Culmination Event
Orientation
Summer 2014
Vets 15-20 7/7-8/21 M-TH 1:00-6:30pm
8/22 7/1at 4pm TE 101
Fall 2014 18-24 youth 28-34 10/27-12/18 M-TH 1:00-6:30pm
12/19 10/14 at 1pm TE 101
Winter 2015
Vets 15-20 1/5-2/5 M-TH 7:00am-12:00pm
2/6 12/9 at 1pm TE 101
Career Training Focus
Plumber Pipefitter Welder HVAC service
technician Electrician Construction wireman Construction
electrician Communications and
systems installer
Transportation system journeymen
Architectural sheet metal worker
Fabricators/installer of HVAC systems,
Shipbuilder,
Rail worker
Solar installer
Construction and craft laborer
LATTC Apprenticeship Prep Program
Post- Boot Camp Pathways
Option 1 – Enter Union Apprenticeship
Option 2 – Enter direct energy efficiency employment
Option 3 – Postsecondary training - enroll in stackable certificate or degree program at LATTC
Training • 2 Days Intro/Prep
– Math/English assessment – Physical education pre-test
• AFL CIO’s Multi Core Craft Curriculum (MC3) – OSHA 10 (certification) – CPR First Aid (certification ) – Blueprint reading – Math skills – Labor History – Industry awareness (overview of construction industry) – Tools and materials – Physical education
• 1-Week Intensive Prep – Interview prep – Finalizing resumes
What Participants Receive
– Pathway to Union Apprenticeship through Union and LACCD Build Program contractors
– Toolkit and PPE
– MC3 curriculum training and certificate of completion
– Safety Training Certificates • First Aid/CPR • OSHA 10
– Support Services via onsite WorkSource Center
– Access to LATTC services
Engage Craft Unions Early
Identify Pre-Apprenticeship Graduate Pathway
Solidify Contractor Partnerships
Identify Contractor Manpower Needs & Schedule
Identify Project Placement Opportunities
Check-in with Contractor after Placement
Union & Contractor Partnership Alignment
Identify Pre-Apprenticeship Graduate Pathway
Identify Barriers to Entry or Employment
Provide Case Management through Partners to Address Barriers
Interview Skills Development
Manage Graduate Expectations
Check-in with Graduate after Placement
Prepare Graduate for Placement
CALIFORNIA CLEAN ENERGY JOBS ACT (PROP 39) - JOB CREATION
for Local Educational Agencies and Community Colleges
November 5, 2014 | Christine Marez
PANEL MEMBERS
Christine Marez Director of Energy Cumming Corp (Moderator)
Veronica Soto Program Manager Emerald Cities Collaborative
Tim Rainey Executive Director California Workforce Investment Board
John Oslzewski FedOSHA & Special Programs Los Angeles Trade Tech College
Joe Sullivan Director of Energy Solutions, IBEW/NECA/LMCC
Jim Caldwell Statewide Director and Sector Navigator Energy Efficiency & Utilities
• Nov 6, 2012 California Clean Energy Jobs Act (Prop 39)
• $550 Million Annually for 5-Years (2013 – 2018)
$381M to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)
$47M to Community College Districts
$28M for low-interest and no-interest revolving loans
$3M to California Workforce Investment Board (CWIB)
$5M to California Conservation Corps (CCC) for energy surveys
Proposition 39 Background
PROP 39 LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES 1
162 LEAs Prop 39 Funds
Proposition 39 – LEAs (YEAR 1)
PROP 39 COMMUNITY COLLEGES 2
313 Energy Projects At 72 Community Colleges
Prop 39 – Community Colleges (YEAR 1)
Year 1: Project Types
8
Project Type Count % of Total Projects
Lighting 171 54.63%
HVAC 59 18.85%
Controls 48 15.34%
Other 15 4.79%
RCx 14 4.47%
Technical Assistance 3 0.96%
Self- Generation 2 0.64%
MBCx 1 0.32%
Total Projects 313
The Guidelines provide “step-by step” instructions for Proposition 39 Implementation
Impact of Prop 39
PROP 39 is a catalyst for:
• Energy Capital Investment
• Energy Awareness (Schools, Colleges, Stakeholders)
• Energy Development
- Renewable Energy Projects (SolarPV)
- Job Creation
- Workforce Development
- Educational Programs (STEM, apprenticeships, etc)
- Reinvest energy cost savings to promote further energy investment and awareness
A CATALYST FOR ENERGY INVESTMENT
PROP 39 CASE STUDIES
3
GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT • EEP Plan development and
submission to the CEC over $1,000,000 in eligible energy projects
• Identified $9.3 Million in eligible projects in Year 1
• Benchmarked all school sites (EUI Ranking)
• Performed ASHRAE Level I and II Audits
• Obtained over $164,000 in “free” audit services from California Conservation Corps
• Identified $108,000 in Utility
Rebates and Incentives
Prop 39 Case Studies
CANADA COLLEGE, SAN MATEO CCD Design-Build 1.1 MW Solar PV Project BUDGET $4,250,000
• $2,788,421 Local Funds (PG&E
Savings by Design)
• $961,579 California Solar Initiative Funds
• $500,000 Prop 39 Funds Best Value Procurement • RFP to 10 Vendors
• BAFO
Prop 39 Case Studies
SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
• EEP Plan development for over
$2,700,000 in eligible energy projects
• Identified $3.9 Million eligible projects in Year 1
• Benchmarked all school sites (EUI Ranking)
• Performed ASHRAE Level I and II Audits
• Identifying over $100,000 Utility
Rebates and Incentives
• FASTRAK 7-Week Schedule for CEC Submission
Prop 39 Case Studies
CONTACT Christine Marez, Director of Energy Services 523 West 6th Street, Suite 1001 Los Angeles, CA 90014 C: (626) 688-4634 Email: [email protected]
Thank You
PANEL DISCUSSION
• Prop 39, CA Clean Energy Jobs Act, passed in 2012 • Allocate up to $550 million of resulting revenues to support energy
efficiency and alternative energy projects along with related job creation. Focus on Local Education Agencies (LEAs) with funding awards in each year for five years, beginning in 2013-14.
• Objectives:
– Create good-paying energy efficiency and clean energy jobs in CA – Leverage existing energy efficiency and clean energy programs to
increase economic and energy benefits – Provide full public accounting for money spent
Proposition 39
2
• Public School Districts (K-12)
• Charter Schools
• State Special Schools
• County Offices of Education
• California Community College Districts
Who is Eligible for the Program?
3
4
• Typical electric energy usage
distribution at a CA school • Nearly 50% of electrical energy
use at California schools is attributed to interior and exterior lighting
• Space conditioning (HVAC) accounts for another 30% of total school electricity use.
Electric Consumption in California Schools
4
http://www.ccc.ca.gov/work/programs/prop39/Documents/Sample_Energy_Survey_Report.pdf
5
• Gas usage distribution at a typical CA school
• Natural gas use is predominately space heating and water heating, accounting for 62.7% and 29.3% of total gas use, respectively.
Gas Consumption in California Schools
5
http://www.ccc.ca.gov/work/programs/prop39/Documents/Sample_Energy_Survey_Report.pdf
• Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: – Repairs to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems
– New chillers, boilers, and furnaces
– New lighting and lighting control systems
– Installation of energy-efficient windows, programmable thermostats, and thermal window shades
– On-site clean energy generation such as solar photovoltaic
• State’s energy loading order recommendations: – Decrease electricity demand by increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy usage
during periods of high demand or cost
– Meet new energy supply needs with renewable resources
– Meet new energy generation needs with clean fossil-fuel generation
Prop 39 Eligible Projects
6
Prop 39 2013 – 2014 Allocation Chart
7
Total Allocation of Funds, 2013-14 LEAs $428,000,000
School districts, charter schools, and county offices of education (89%) $381,000,000
Community college districts (11%) $47,000,000
Educational Subaccount of the State Energy Conservation Assistance Account (ECAA) Program $28,000,000
California Conservation Corps (CCC) $5,000,000
California Workforce Investment Board $3,000,000
Total $464,000,000
Steps to Prop 39 Funding
8
• Step 1: Electric and Gas Usage/Billing Data
– 12 months site energy usage before project installation
• Step 2: Benchmarking of facilities
• Step 3: Energy project Prioritization Considerations
• Step 4: Sequencing of Facility Improvements
• Step 5: Energy Survey
• Step 6: Project Identification
– Energy Saving Calculator Tool
• Step 7: Complete and Submit an Energy Expenditure Plan
– Energy Expenditure Plan reviewed and approved
– LEA Independent Responsibilities:
» DSA Compliance
» CEQA Compliance
» Contracting
» Project Management
• Step 8: Project Tracking and Reporting
– 12 months site energy usage after project installation
– Use Energy Commission Calculator
9
Proposed Hierarchy for Reducing Energy
Project Prioritization
• No-cost and low-cost improvements – Operations and Maintenance Measures
• Lighting and building envelope projects – Reduce baseline energy use
• HVAC and Domestic water-heating projects – Evaluate and resize to new, reduced energy
usage
• Energy Generation – Solar or other renewable generation options
Example of Hierarchy Structure
9
10
Reporting Requirements
• One year after project completion – and no later than 15 months – recipients must report project expenditures to State Citizens Oversight Board (COB)
• Report must include: – Total final gross project cost – Information on past 12 months of energy usage and billing – Estimated amount of energy saved and consumption data – Name plate rating of new clean energy installed – Time between awarding of funding and project completion
• COB must then submit completion reports back to the Legislature
Completion Reports
10
Reporting Schedule
11
12
Potential Limitations
• Prop 39 Administrators can require recipients to pay back funds if: – They are not used in accordance with state statute – A project is torn down or remodeled – The property is deemed to be surplus and sold prior to the payback
• Division of the State Architect (DSA) may be required if: – The alteration project exceeds 50% of building replacement cost – The building seismic mass is increased by more than 10% – The building seismic load capacity is reduced by more than 5%
12
• California Energy Commission Website for tools, FAQs, and all of the necessary forms needed to complete an Energy Expenditure Plan: http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition39/
How to Apply
13
Energy Assessment Process
14
Site Survey/Interview/As-
Build Review
Utility Bill Analysis/Equipment
Performance Data/Hours of
Operation
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Measures
Identification
Energy Model Development/Energy Savings Calculation
Energy and Cost Savings, SIR Calculations
Rebate and Incentives Analysis
• Conduct Site Survey: – Document existing conditions
• Collect equipment nameplate data – Make, model, type, size, capacity, counts, etc.
• Take photos – Visit spare equipment storage rooms – Interview facility managers & maintenance staff:
• Gather year-round hours of operation, proposed upgrades, rehabs, & construction, replaced equipment, energy conservation/renewable goals
– Review as-built plans, electrical drawings capital improvement plans, deferred maintenance plans, past
audits/surveys, facility condition assessments, etc.
Data Collection
15
Equipment Inventory - Lighting
16
Space Eligible Occ Snsr ?
Existing Fixture Type
Watts/ (E) Fixt.
No. (E) Fixtures
Hours/ Day
Days/ wk
Hrs/ year
Exist. kW
Exist. kWh
Bank floor 4x2x3 F032 T8/ elec 92.0 62 12 5 3,120 5.70 17,796
Vault 4x2x4 F032 T8/ elec 112.0 2 9 5 2,340 0.22 524
Safety deposit vault 4x2x2 F032 T8/ elec 62.0 2 6 5 1,560 0.12 193
ATM area 4x2x4 F032 T8/ elec 112.0 2 12 5 3,120 0.22 699
Closet CF 21.0 2 9 5 2,340 0.04 98
Hall 4x1x2 F032 T8/elec 31.0 4 9 5 2,340 0.12 290
Work room 1 4x2x2 F032 T8/ elec 62.0 7 6 5 1,560 0.43 677
Drive Through room 4x4x4 F032 T8/elec 112.0 1 12 5 3,120 0.11 349
Storage room CF 21.0 1 4 5 1,040 0.02 22
Storage room 1 4x1x2 F032 T8/elec 62.0 1 4 5 1,040 0.06 64
Break room 1 4x2x4 F032 T8/ elec 112.0 6 12 5 3,120 0.67 2,097
Break room 1 4x1x2 T8/elec 62.0 2 12 5 3,120 0.12 387
Conference room 1 4x2x4 F032 T8/ elec 112.0 6 9 5 2,340 0.67 1,572
Work room 1 4x1x2 F032 T8/elec 62.0 2 6 5 1,560 0.12 193
Manager CF 21.0 1 12 5 3,120 0.02 66
Stairs CF 21.0 4 4 5 1,040 0.08 87
Basement Incandescent 75.0 12 3 5 780 0.90 702
Basement CF 21.0 3 3 5 780 0.06 49
Exterior 175 metal halide 195.0 6 12 7 4,368 1.17 5,111
Subtotal 6 126 10.90 30,978
EXIT Signs Exit Signs 5W LED 5.0 8 24 7 8,736 0.04 349
Subtotal 8 0.04 349
Total 134 10.94 31,328
Equipment Inventory - HVAC
17
Equip. Type
Gas/Elec AC
Gas/Elec AC Gas/Elec AC Condensing
unit Condensing
unit
Mfgr. Bryant Trane Trane Sanyo Goodman
Model# 580FPV06
00090 YCD180B3L0
HB YSC060A3EM
A C1822
MSG24HRNIW
Serial # 4703G505
14 74310131QD 7431020851 n/a n/a
Install Date 2003 2007 2007 2007 2012 Remaining Useful Life
9 13 13 13 18
Cooling (Tons)
5 15 5 1.5 2
Refr. R22 R22 R22 R410A R410A Gas (MBH) 90 250 80 N/A N/A
Type Elec Elec Elec Elec Elec Type Gas Gas Gas N/A N/A SEER 9 10 9 13.75 13.75 EER 7.2 8 7.2 11 11
Location Roof Roof Roof Roof Roof
Service Bank Bank Bank IT Room Counting
Room
Notes No vent on
trap Damaged fins No vent on trap
Benchmarking
18
0.0010000.0020000.0030000.0040000.0050000.0060000.0070000.0080000.0090000.00
Jan
Feb
Mar Ap
r
May Ju
n
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Monthly Total Electric Use (kWh)
0.0050000.00
100000.00150000.00200000.00250000.00300000.00350000.00400000.00
Jan
Feb
Mar Ap
r
May Ju
n
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Monthly Total Energy Use (kBtu)
Electric Use (kBtu) Natural Gas Use (kBtu)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Total Natural Gas Use (Therms)
$0.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$6,000.00$8,000.00
$10,000.00$12,000.00$14,000.00$16,000.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Total Energy Cost ($)
Electric Cost Natural Gas Cost
• Analyze 13 contiguous months of gas & electric bill data/usage
Total Energy
Bui lding Size (SF) 30,060 A
Energy Star Rating NA A
Tota l Energy Use (kBtu) 3,065,507 A
Energy Use Intens i ty (kBtu/SF) 101.98
Tota l Annual Energy Cost $142,334 A
Cost/kBtu $0.046 C
Energy Cost Intens i ty ($/SF) $4.735
Total Emissions (CO2e) TBD E
Benchmarking: Rank Facilities
19
• Rank facilities based on Energy Use Index (EUI)/ENERGY STAR score • Determine underperforming facilities
School A School B School C
School D
School E School F
School G School H School I School J School K
• Energy Survey – Basic site survey, less comprehensive than Level II energy audit – Ideally suited for “Low hanging fruit” upgrades (i.e. lighting replacement) or
facilities recently upgraded (higher ranked facilities) – CEC submittal: Can use CEC’s Energy Calculator
• ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit – More detailed and comprehensive site survey – Typically involves facilities needing more capital intensive improvements (i.e.
boiler upgrade) – Requires energy modeling – CEC submittal: Must submit calculations/energy audits. Stricter submittal
requirements
Energy Survey vs. Energy Audit
20
Space Cool5%
Vent. Fans19%
Pumps & Aux.6%Ext. Usage
9%
Misc. Equip.20%
Area Lights41%
Electric Consumption (kWh)
Energy Modeling
21
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Ther
ms/
Day
/Mon
th
Month
Actual vs DOE-2 Predicted Natural Gas ENERGY (Therms)
DHW
Fans
Pumps
Cool
Heat
Equip
Lights
Actual
• Simulates and predicts future energy consumption and cost based building/operating characteristics and Time Of Day Billing
ECM Recommendations
22
ECM Energy Efficiency ProjectDemand Savings
kWh Savings
Therm Savings
Cost Savings
Project Cost
Utility Rebate
Simple Payback SIR
kW kWh Therms $ $ $ YearsECM 1 Replace interior lighting with LED technology 13.83 33,049 (1,665.2) 4,924$ 38,713$ 4,027$ 7.0 0.65 ECM 2 Replace exterior lighting with LED technology 0.00 7,105 - 710$ 3,137$ 568$ 3.6 4.24 ECM 3 Install Occupancy Sensors 1.72 8,779 (57.6) 1,317$ 5,534$ 263$ 4.0 2.10 ECM 4 Replace old packaged/split HVAC unit with high efficiency HVAC 1.07 4,004 (45.5) 597$ 11,350$ 320$ 18.5 1.02 ECM 5 Replace old heat pump with high efficiency heat pump 0.00 88,871 - 13,242$ 130,750$ 7,110$ 9.3 1.77 ECM 6 Replace furnace with high efficiency condensing furnace 0.00 - - -$ -$ -$ - - ECM 7 Replace manual thermostat with programmable/smart thermostat -0.07 - (18.0) 18$ 100$ 15$ 4.7 2.48 ECM 8 Replace storage water heater with gas-fired tankless water heater 0.00 - (60.8) 61$ 1,575$ 61$ 24.9 1.00 ECM 9 Install smart strip/PC management to control computers/printers 0.00 7,249 (106.1) 863$ 3,525$ 705$ 3.3 1.32
Total 16.55 149,058 (1,953.2) 21,731$ 194,683$ 13,069$ 8.4 1.43
• HVAC Upgrades • Replacement • Addition of VFDs
• Lighting Upgrades • Hot Water Upgrades • Controls
• Occupancy Sensors
• Timers • Thermostats • BMS
• PC/Office Equipment Management • Vending Machine Controls • Solar Systems
NPV and SIR Calculation
23
Maintenance Savings (2%) Utility Escalation 4%*% of Project Install Cost: 2.0% Discount Rate 5%Non Energy Benefits (5%) Inflation Rate 2%*% of Project Install Cost: 5.0%
EEM1Project Install Cost $130,750 Measure Type Packaged/Split Unit Replacement kWh Savings 88,871*Includes design, site prep, equipment, and labor costs Useful Life 15 kWh Rate $0.15Rebates $7,110.0 Therms Savings 0Other Grants $0 Therms Rate $1.00Maintenance Savings (2%) $2,615
Non Energy Benefits (5%) $6,538
Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13kWh Rate 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24Therms Rate 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.22 1.27 1.32 1.37 1.42 1.48 1.54 1.60Energy SavingskWh 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871 88,871Therms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cost Savings$ kWh $13,331 $13,864 $14,418 $14,995 $15,595 $16,219 $16,868 $17,542 $18,244 $18,974 $19,733 $20,522 $21,343$ Therms $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Maintenance Savings $2,615 $2,667 $2,721 $2,775 $2,831 $2,887 $2,945 $3,004 $3,064 $3,125 $3,188 $3,251 $3,316Annual cash flow $15,946 $16,531 $17,139 $17,770 $18,426 $19,106 $19,812 $20,546 $21,308 $22,099 $22,920 $23,773 $24,659NPV $208,988
*NPV of Energy Cost + Maintenance Cost
SIR 1.78*NPV/(Project Installation Cost - Rebates - Other Grants - Non Energy Benefits)
• Investor- Owned Utility Incentives and Rebates – SCE – SoCalGas – PG&E – SDG&E – SMUD
• Municipal Incentives and Rebates – LADWP, Long Beach Gas & Oil, Riverside Public Utilities, etc.
• Renewable Energy Incentives – California Solar Initiative
• Energy Study Incentives – Bright Schools Program – California Conservation Corps
Incentives and Rebates
24
• Schools energy costs account for only 2 – 4% of expenditures, yet they impact about 16% of controllable operational costs
Utility Rebates (Example: SCE)
25
Utility Rebates
26
• Performance-Based Incentive (PBI) (Paid in cents/kWh) – Ideal for larger commercial, government & non-profit projects – Mandatory for all systems 30 kW and greater Systems less than 30kW can opt-in
to PBI – Incentive paid based on the actual energy produced by the solar system,
measured in kilowatt-hours – 60 monthly payments over five years
California Solar Initiative
27
• CEC Program that offers up to $20,000 of technical assistance to: – Provide energy audits and feasibility studies – Review existing proposals and designs – Develop equipment performance specifications – Review equipment bid specifications – Review commissioning plans
• Services provided by professional consultants
Application Procedure: • No cost to participate • Must apply – first come, first-served, funding limited
Bright Schools Program
28
• Provide Energy Opportunity Surveys, designed to meet and exceed ASHRAE Level I standards – Consistent with Step 5 of CEC’s Implementation Guidelines (Energy Project
Identification) – Appropriate for Prop 39 funded energy-efficiency projects that do not require an
ASHRAE Level II energy audit • Surveys completed by trained volunteers based on crew availability in the
regional area Application Procedure: • No cost to participate • Must apply- first come, first-served
– Priority is given to LEAs with the following: • An Average Daily Attendance of 5,000 or less • Greater percentages of Free and Reduced Priced Meals
California Conservation Corps
29
30
Project Cost-Effectiveness
Project portfolio must have Savings-to-Investment ratio ≥ 1.05 on a per site basis
Factors impacting cost effectiveness of energy improvements include:
• Age of school facilities • Recently modernized? • Hours of operation – year-round? • Energy intensity, measured by ASHRAE, CCC or software • Financial return over lifecycle of project in terms of NPV • Potential for energy demand reduction • Health and Safety improvements (non-energy benefits)
30
• Utility financial incentives may provide up to 100% for qualifying new equipment installations and retrofit costs
• Financial incentives for specialized process improvement solutions • Automated Demand Response – financial incentives to schools and
universities for temporarily reducing use upon request during periods of high-energy demand
• On-Bill Financing – utility provided interest-free financing for installing qualifying energy efficient equipment
• CEC low interest financing
Incentives Maximize Prop 39 Effectiveness
31
Leveraging with an Revolving Energy Fund
32
1. LEA Awarded Prop 39 Funding
2. LEA Implements Energy Improvements
3. LEA Applies for and Receives Utility Rebates
4. Rebates are used to start a revolving loan fund
5. Additional contributions can be made from project savings
33
Sample Revolving Energy Fund Assumptions: • $250,000 project funded by Prop 39 award • $50,000 rebates from Prop 39 project • $12,500 annual savings (5%) • 10 year useful life of project • Fund withdrawals of $20,000 in years 3 and 5,
– Annual savings of $3,000 per project (15%) – Annual repayments without interest for 10 years each – Savings in excess of repayment also deposited to fund
Sample Revolving Energy Fund
33
34
Sample Revolving Energy Fund Cash Flow
Year Rebates Savings Deposits
Draws Repayments Interest
Earning on Fund Balance
Balance
0.20% -
1 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,0002 - 12,500 - - 100 62,600 3 - 12,500 (20,000) - 125 55,225 4 - 13,500 - 2,000 110 70,836 5 - 13,500 (20,000) 2,000 142 66,477 6 - 14,500 - 4,000 133 85,110 7 - 14,500 - 4,000 170 103,780 8 - 14,500 - 4,000 208 122,488 9 - 14,500 - 4,000 245 141,233 10 - 14,500 - 4,000 282 160,016 11 - 14,500 - 4,000 320 178,836 12 - 2,000 - 4,000 358 185,193 13 - 2,000 - 4,000 370 191,564 14 - 1,000 - 2,000 383 194,947 15 - 1,000 - 2,000 390 198,337
Annual CashFlows
34
• General Obligation Bond Proceeds (taxpayer supported) • General Fund Debt (Loan/Lease/Certificates of Participation) • Assumptions for leveraging with debt:
– Energy Survey identification of $2.5 million in projects – All projects assumed to have 10 year useful life – Prop 39 annual award, 5 years at $250,00 each year = total $1.25 million – Annual savings of $12,500 per $250,000 (5%) for Prop 13 funded projects,
deposited to Revolving Energy Fund – District borrows $1.25 million as a lease in year 2 to complete additional projects – Additional savings from projects completed with borrowed funds >$30,000
• Annual Savings at 15% of project cost $187,500 • Annual Debt Service at 3.4% interest rate $155,527 • Net annual benefit of additional projects AFTER DEBT SERVICE = $31,973
Additional Leveraging Opportunities
35
Sample REF Cash Flow with Additional Debt
36
Year Rebates Draws Repayments Interest
Earning on Fund Balance
Balance
0.20%
- 1 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,0002 100,000 12,500 - - 100 162,600 3 10,000 56,973 (20,000) - 325 209,898 4 10,000 70,473 - 2,000 420 292,791 5 10,000 82,973 (20,000) 2,000 586 368,350 6 - 96,473 - 4,000 737 469,560 7 - 96,473 - 4,000 939 570,972 8 - 96,473 - 4,000 1,142 672,587 9 - 96,473 - 4,000 1,345 774,405 10 - 96,473 - 4,000 1,549 876,427 11 - 96,473 - 4,000 1,753 978,653 12 - 83,973 - 4,000 1,957 1,068,583 13 - 39,500 - 4,000 2,137 1,114,221 14 - 26,000 - 2,000 2,228 1,144,449 15 - 13,500 - 2,000 2,289 1,162,238
Savings Deposits
(net of debt service
payments)
Annual CashFlows
37
Laura Franke
Director The PFM Group [email protected]
213.415.1625
Tony Liou President
Partner Energy [email protected]
310.765.7301
Thank You
37
Top Related