proposition 39 is a catalyst · 3/27/2014 6 11 5. identify measures • energy surveys • audits...

3/27/2014

1

Proposition 39 is a Catalyst: Leverage Utility Support to Reduce Even More Energy

School Energy Coalition Energy EmporiumJoey Barr April 1st, 2014

2Agenda

Proposition 39 OverviewPrograms / ResourcesUtility Data Release FormSavings to Investment Ratio CalculationQuestions

3/27/2014

2

3What Are We Talking About?

Proposition 39• ~$500MM annually to public schools for 5 years

• Job creation, training, and workforce development• Energy efficiency retrofits and clean energy installations

• Leverage existing infrastructure and programs

4What Are We Talking About?

Proposition 39• ~$500MM annually to public schools for 5 years

• Job creation, training, and workforce development• Energy efficiency retrofits and clean energy installations

• Leverage existing infrastructure and programs

Guideline Highlights• Local Education Agencies (LEAs) receive funds

• Includes County Offices of Education, School Districts, and Charter Schools• All facilities are eligible (not just classrooms)

• LEAs must submit an Expenditure Plan to obtain funds• Funds are already allocated and will be disbursed upon CEC approval

3/27/2014

3

5Allocation Amounts

www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r14/prop39cceja13rfa.asp

Allocation Amounts• Shows what each

LEA will receive

• Based on ADA and free / reduced price meals (FRPM)

6Allocation Amounts

Charter schools receive their own funds which

are separate from County / District funds.

Total allocation and planning allocation (which

is a portion of the total)

www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r14/prop39cceja13rfa.asp

3/27/2014

4

7Process to Receive Funds

1. Utility Data

• LEA signs a utility data release form• Data will be sent annually by utility providers

2. Bench-marking

• Energy Usage Intensity• Does not have to be ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager

3.Prioritize• LEAs should prioritize which individual schools and projects are funded• 11 recommendations to consider

4. Loading Order

• Energy Efficiency• Demand Response• Clean Energy Installations


1. Utility Data


2. Bench-marking

• Energy Usage Intensity• Recommended, but does not have to be ENERGY STAR Portfolio

Manager


4. Loading Order


3/27/2014

5


1. Utility Data


2. Bench-marking


Manager


4. Loading Order



1. Utility Data


2. Bench-marking


Manager


4. Loading Order


3/27/2014

6

11

5. Identify Measures

• Energy Surveys• Audits• Data Analytics (Low / No Touch Audits)

6. Cost Effective

• Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) > 1.05• Lifetime savings / initial costs = SIR• Site level, not measure level

7. Expend-ture Plan

• Needs to be approved before funds are disbursed• Can submit plan for single or multiple years

8. Track / Report

• Annual Reports for Work in Progress• Final Reports for each expenditure plan• M&V for site level and measure-specific level

Process to Receive Funds cont.

12



6. Cost Effective

• Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) > 1.05• NPV of lifetime savings / initial costs = SIR• Site level, not measure level

7. Expend-ture Plan

• Needs to be approved before funds are disbursed• Can submit plan for single or multiple years

8. Track / Report



3/27/2014

7

13



6. Cost Effective


7. Expend-ture Plan

• Must be approved before funds are disbursed• Can submit plan for single or multiple years

8. Track / Report



14



6. Cost Effective


7. Expend-ture Plan

• Must be approved before funds are disbursed• Can submit plan for single or multiple years

8. Track / Report

• Annual Reports for Work in Progress• Final Reports for each expenditure plan


3/27/2014

8

Available Support

16

Statewide:

PG&E Government Partnerships

3/27/2014

9

17PG&E Government Partnerships

Benchmarking Energy Assessments

Direct Install Training and Education

HumboldtMarin

Monterey BaySan Mateo

Santa BarbaraSanta Clara

Sierra Nevada

18School Energy Efficiency Program

CLEAResult Program Overview

www.schoolenergyefficiency.com

Energy Analysis and Site Assessment • Tailored for each customer

Cash Rebates• Deemed rebates and custom incentives

On Bill Financing (OBF)• Unique financing option offered by PG&E

SEE Eligibility:1. Active PG&E customer2. Public K-12 School District or County Office of Education3. Must be within SEE Approved Counties / Districts4. Retrofits and RCx projects only, no new construction

3/27/2014

10

19School Energy Efficiency Program

Program Process

www.schoolenergyefficiency.com

20Energize Schools

www.energizeschools.org

3/27/2014

11

21PG&E Program and Resource Support

Engineering Assistance

Workforce Education /

Training

RCx

FinancingAccount Rep / DIY

Audits

Benchmark

Emerging Technology

Resource Guide

Large Integrated

Audits

Distributed Generation

Demand Response

Software Enabled

Programs

Project Selection Guidance

Rate Plan Analysis

Direct Install

EM&V Calculation Assistance

Post Install Reporting

Education

Incentives / Rebates

ASSESSIDENTIFY

PROJECTSPREPARE

POSTINSTALL

EXECUTE

Expenditure Plans

PG&E’s Account Representatives, Government Partnerships, &Third Party Programs can provide support throughout the process

Zero Net Energy

22PG&E Schools Website

Website Address• www.pge.com/schools

Resources• Rebates / Incentives

• Case Studies

• Tips

Proposition 39 Toolkit

• Example Resources:• Utility Data Release Forms• Presentations

3/27/2014

12

23Utility Data Release Form – Page 1

Authorization Form• Electric and natural gas

• Must provide for all applicable utility providers

• Must include all schools• Even schools that will not

receive Prop 39 funds

• Only submit once to CEC

• 2 sides to form

Timing• Requires data from past

12 months

• Authorizes access to billing data through 2023

24Utility Data Release Form – Page 2

Submission• Must be printed, signed by

LEA authorized representative, scanned, and then uploaded to CEC

• Original(s) is/are sent to respective utility providers

• Utility provider will transfer data annually to CEC on December 31st

3/27/2014

13

25Calculating SIR

Net Present Value

Net Cost of Measure

Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR)

=

26Calculating SIR

Net Present Value

Net Cost of Measure


Net Present Value

Energy Cost Savings + Maintenance Savings

=

=

Net Cost of Measure

Project Installation Cost – Rebates –Other Grants – Non-energy Benefits

=

• Discount rate = 5%• Energy cost escalation rate = 4%• Inflation rate = 2%• Non-energy Benefits = 5% x Project Installation Cost

• Maintenance Savings <= 2% of Project Installation Cost• Energy Cost Savings includes kWh, kW, and therms• Net Present Value is calculated using effective useful life

of the measure

Assumptions:

3/27/2014

14

27Calculating SIR Example 1

Net Present Value

Net Cost of Measure


=

No Utility Incentive

Net Present Value of Savings

$100.00

Utility Incentive $0.00

Net Cost of Measure

$105.00

Savings to Investment Ratio

0.95


Net Present Value

Net Cost of Measure


=

Note: Utility incentive in this example is 15% of the Cost of Measure

No Utility Incentive

With Utility Incentive

Net Present Value of Savings

Utility Incentive $0.00 $15.75

Net Cost of Measure

Savings to Investment Ratio

0.95 1.12

$100.00

$105.00

3/27/2014

15

29Next Steps for Schools

1. Understand Funding Allocation2. Build a Team of Champions in Each School / LEA3. Learn More About Available Programs and Support4. Initiate Application for Bright Schools Program and/or

California Conservation Corps5. Fill Out Utility Data Release Form6. Benchmark Schools7. Plan to Perform Audits / Energy Surveys8. Think About Hiring an Energy Manager9. Submit a Complete Expenditure Plan10.Share Feedback and Information with PG&E

30Questions?

CEC Websitewww.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition39/faq.html

CEC HotlineToll-free for those in California: 855-380-8722

PG&E Schools Websitewww.pge.com/schools

PG&E Schools [email protected]

3/27/2014

16

Appendix


Energy Costs 0.10$ kWhProject Installation Cost 105.00$ Non-energy Benefits 5.25$ Estimated Useful Life 4 yearsUtility Incentive -$ Energy Savings (annual) 250 kWhCost Savings (annual) 25.00$

InputsNo Incentive

Project Year 0 1 2 3 4Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Energy Savings 25.00$ 26.00$ 27.04$ 28.12$ Maintenance Savings 0.50$ 0.51$ 0.52$ 0.53$ Total Savings 25.50$ 26.51$ 27.56$ 28.65$

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

No IncentiveNet Present Value of Savings 95.71$ Net Cost of Measure 99.75$ Savings to Investment Ratio 0.96

SIR Calculation

3/27/2014

17


Energy Costs 0.10$ kWh 0.10$ kWhProject Installation Cost 105.00$ 105.00$ Non-energy Benefits 5.25$ 5.25$ Estimated Useful Life 4 years 4 yearsUtility Incentive -$ 15.75$ Energy Savings (annual) 250 kWh 250 kWhCost Savings (annual) 25.00$ 25.00$

InputsNo Incentive With Incentive

Project Year 0 1 2 3 4Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Energy Savings 25.00$ 26.00$ 27.04$ 28.12$ Maintenance Savings 0.50$ 0.51$ 0.52$ 0.53$ Total Savings 25.50$ 26.51$ 27.56$ 28.65$

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

No Incentive With IncentiveNet Present Value of Savings 95.71$ $95.71Net Cost of Measure 99.75$ 84.00$ Savings to Investment Ratio 0.96 1.14

SIR Calculation

34Scenario #1

LEA Has Addressed the “Low Hanging Fruit”

Scenario: An LEA has been implementing energy efficiency projects for years at a large high school campus and has addressed the “low hanging fruit”. There are few cost effective projects left and the LEA is concerned about meeting the SIR threshold. The LEA has not completed projects at other schools in the district, but worries about the time and effort needed to start from “square one” with those facilities.

Question: What options are available to the LEA and what would you recommend?

3/27/2014

18

35Scenario #2

Small LEA With Limited Resources

Scenario: A small LEA receiving minimal Prop 39 funding does not have the resources or bandwidth to work through the steps for Prop 39. The LEA has received calls from vendors, but does not know who to trust or how to prioritize which schools receive the limited funds this year when many facilities are in a state of disrepair. The LEA wants the funds, but wants to get the process over with as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Question: To whom would you refer this LEA and why? How would you recommend the LEA handle their Prop 39 planning?

36Scenario #2

Small LEA With Limited Resources

Scenario: A small LEA receiving minimal Prop 39 funding does not have the resources or bandwidth to work through the steps for Prop 39. The LEA has received calls from vendors, but does not know who to trust or how to prioritize which schools receive the limited funds this year when many facilities are in a state of disrepair. The LEA wants the funds, but wants to get the process over with as quickly and painlessly as possible.

3/27/2014

19

37Scenario #3

The SIR is Way Over 1.05

Scenario: An LEA received a quote from a contractor to retrofit all of the lighting in its 30+ buildings across the school district and the SIR is above 2.5. The quote is only for the LEA’s 2013 Prop 39 allocation (i.e. first fiscal year). The LEA perceives the high SIR as an opportunity for recognition or award.

Question: Explain the flaw in the LEA’s thinking with regard to the high SIR. What do you recommend the LEA do?

38School Energy Reports - Sample P.1

3/27/2014

20



3/27/2014

21

41Proposition 39 Funds

$381

$47

$28$5

$3

Funding Allocation ($464M)

Public K-12 Grants

CA Community CollegeGrantsECAA Revolving LoanFundCA Conservation Corps

Workforce InvestmentBoard

42Proposition 39 Funding AllocationsProposition 39 Implementation Program - Funding Allocation ($464M)

Grants $428MM

89% for K-12 Local Education Agencies (LEAs)

($381MM)

85% of funds based on prior year Ave. Daily Attendance (ADA)

($324MM)

$15K for LEAs w/ ADA<100, plus FRPM

To support deeper energy retrofit projects and ensure greater long term energy

savings and job creation, the Program:

• Allows small districts (ADA<1,000) to bundle two

years of allocations, if requested in writing to CDE

by August 1st• Requires districts w/

funding over $1MM to use 50% of their allocation on large projects (defined as

$250K or more)

Proportional award based on ADA or $50K, whichever is

greater, for LEAs w/ 100<ADA<1,000, plus FRPM

15% of funds based on prior year eligibility for

free/reduced priced meals (FRPM)

Proportional award based on ADA or $100K, whichever is

greater, for LEAs w/ 1,000<ADA<2,000, plus FRPM

Proportional award based on ADA for LEAs w/ 2,000<ADA,

plus FRPM

11% for CCs($47MM)

Community College Districts representing 112 colleges

Allocated at the discretion of the Chancellor

Financing $28MMCEC’s Energy Conservation

Assistance Account (ECAA) Program

K-14 financing and technical assistance

Financing assistance includes low or zero interest loans

Workforce Education

and Training

$5MM California Conservation Corps To perform energy surveys and other energy conservation-related activities

$3MM California Workforce Investment Board

Competitive grants for community based and other workforce training organizations preparing veterans or disadvantaged youth for employment

Sources: California State Budget: 2013-14, Senator Kevin de Leon and the California Energy Commission

proposition 39 is a catalyst · 3/27/2014 6 11 5. identify measures • energy surveys • audits...

Documents