Leveraging Prop 39 Awards - Green Technology · Career exploration of clean energy sector Basic...

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

http://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




East Bay Area (Richmond Works)

125 100% Enrollment, 90% (Completion) – Receive MC3 Certificate




Training Project Snapshot Regional Pilot Training

Goal Placement Goals

San Francisco (SF Conservation Corps)


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)


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)


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


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


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

http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition39/

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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Leveraging Prop 39 Awards - Green Technology · Career exploration of clean energy sector Basic...

Documents

Transcript of Leveraging Prop 39 Awards - Green Technology · Career exploration of clean energy sector Basic...