to view the packet

Riverside Fall Forum Agenda October 6, 2014

Riverside County Office of Education Conference Center 3958 12th Street, Riverside 92501

8:30 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00 a.m. What’s on the Horizon for Prop 39 Program and Funding Anna Ferrera, Executive Director

9:20 a.m. Case Study: Riverside Unified School District Mike Fitzgerald, Riverside Unified School District

Mary J. Gyll, Riverside Unified School District

10:00 a.m. Case Study: Los Angeles Unified School District Peter Yee, Los Angeles Unified School District

10:45 a.m. Case Study: Desert Sands Unified School District John David Vallesillo, Desert Sands Unified School District Larry Baebler and Jonathan Brown, OpTerra Energy Solutions

11:15 a.m. CPUC, Rates and Title 24 Report Joshua Nelson, Best Best & Krieger Dominic Cardenas and Chikezie Nzewi, Willdan Energy Solutions

12:00 p.m. Lunch – Bill McNamara, California Conservation Corp (CCC)

12:45 p.m. RFQ or RFP, Sole Source, Energy Manager Bryce Chastain, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo

Joshua Nelson, Best Best & Krieger

1:30 p.m. Solar and Proposition 39 Ted Flanigan, Climate Smart Schools Rick Brown, TerraVerde Renewable Partners

2:00 p.m. Process for Substantive Changes for Prop 39: What Does the CEC Need to Hear? SEC Survey Results & Brainstorming Anna Ferrera, Executive Director

3:00 p.m. Adjourn

Fall ForumRiverside, California | October 6, 2014

List of Attendees

Nasimul Anwar San Bernardino City USD

Omar Aoun SunEdison

Camille Asuncion Dolinka Group LLC

Larry Baebler OpTerra Energy Services

David Bennett Fullerton Jt. Un. HSD

Michael Bishop Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs (ASCIP)

Luke Boughen Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost

Jonathan Brown OpTerra Energy Services

Rick Brown TerraVerde Renewable Partners LLC

Dominic Cardenas Willdan Energy Solutions

Bryce Chastain Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo

Martin Coyne West Contra Costa USD

Lindsay Currier Riverside Co. Ofc. of Educ.

Ann Feng-Gagne Dolinka Group LLC

Anna Ferrera School Energy Coalition

Mike Fitzgerald Riverside USD

Ted Flanigan Climate Smart Schools

Kyle Frandsen Balfour Beatty Construction

Paul Gill Ruhnau Ruhnau Clarke

Errol Glenn Fontana USD

Virginia Gutierrez Hesperia USD

Fall ForumRiverside, California

October 6, 2014List of Attendees

Mary Jane Gyll Riverside USD

James Hammond Ontario-Montclair Elem. SD

Phil Hillman Ontario-Montclair Elem. SD

Martin Hom Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo

Tom Hunt Riverside USD

Mac McGinnis Maas Companies

Kathy McKee Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost

Bill McNamara Calif. Conservation Corp

Jorge Mendez Moreno Valley USD

Craig Misso Ontario-Montclair Elem. SD

Alex Murdoch Murdoch Walrath & Holmes

Joshua Nelson Best Best & Krieger LLP

Chikezie Nzewi Willdan Energy Solutions

Mike O’Brien Schneider Electric

Robin Park SunEdison

Paul Parker Corona-Norco USD

Matthew Schulenberg Apple Valley USD

Stacy Strawderman Val Verde USD

Hilda Swain Romoland SD

John-David Vallesillo Desert Sands USD

Peter Yee Los Angeles USD

10/1/2014

1

What’s on the Horizon for Prop 39 Program and FundingOctober, 2014

Who We Are

• The School Energy Coalition (SEC) is made up of school districts, county offices of education, community colleges and private sector associates who have made or are planning to make investments in school energy projects.

• Relevant State agencies also actively participate in SEC forums to discuss the impacts of energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable measures on K‐14 schools.

10/1/2014

2

Membership• Membership in the School Energy Coalition gives you access to essential and timely updates on Proposition 39, Rates, Water, Public Utilities Commission, California Department of Education, California Energy Commission, Legislation, Legislative Analyst's Office, State Budget and more.

• Participate in hearings and proceedings at these agencies in a timely way that will impact and affect statewide projects.

• Discounts on SEC workshops and webinars.

Proposition 39 Update: Original State and District Goals

• Success for the State through energy savings

• Success for districts through cost savings

• Jobs

• Savings for the lifetime of the project especially in light of anticipated electricity rate increases

• Investing a portion of the savings back into facilities and maintenance

• Changing the way we look at our school facilities going forward ‐Adding Water to SEC Agenda

10/1/2014

3

Prop 39 Second Year Update: Where are We Now?

• Preparing Energy Expenditure Plans (EEP)

• Waiting for multi‐agency approvals (CEC, CDE, DSA, and CCC) and funding

• Ensuring accountability and transparency in awarding funds (Non‐Sole Source Process)

• Leveraging and job creation

• Fiscal planning for reinvestment of savings in efficiency and green buildings

• Reviewing Proposed Substantive Changes to CEC Guidelines and participating in stakeholder process ‐ for December 10 Approval

Proposition 39: Eligibility

• Eligible Projects: Energy efficiency measures and/or clean energy installations

• Eligible Applicants: LEAs: County Offices of Education, School Districts, Charter Schools, State Special Schools and Community Colleges

• All Facilities Within the LEA: School site facilities include: classrooms, office facilities, auditoriums, multi‐purpose rooms, gymnasiums, cafeterias, kitchens, pools, and special purposes areas

6

10/1/2014

4

Prop 39 Award Allocations

Tier Levels Average Daily AttendancePrior Year

Minimum Funding Awards

Tier 1 100 or fewer $15,000 plus FRPM

Tier 2 101-1,000 Based on prior year ADA or $50,000(whichever amount is larger)

plus FRPM

Tier 3 1,001 to 1,999 Based on prior year ADA or $100,000

(whichever amount is larger)plus FRPM

Tier 4 2,000 or more Based on prior year ADAplus FRPM

7

Energy Planning Funding Portion of 2013‐14 yr funding only – Now Closed

Allowed Energy Planning Activities:

•Energy audits and energy surveys/assessments•Proposition 39 program assistance •Hiring or retaining energy manager – For years 2‐5 ‐LEAs may request up to 10 %of their annual award for this. May pool funding & share manager

•Energy‐related training for classified employees –years 2‐5 ‐may use up to 2% of annual award.

•Clarifying language that planning funds may be used in LEA first year of eligibility ‐ in proposed Guidelines.

8

10/1/2014

5

Tier 4 Awards: Large Eligible Energy Project Award Requirements

•For LEAs that receive an award of more than $1 million in any one fiscal year, not less than 50 percent of this funding must be used on large energy projects

•A large eligible energy project is defined as a group of energy efficiency measures combined for a project cost totaling more than $250,000

*The intent of the law: LEAs to implement deep retrofits at large individual school sites

9

CEC’s Funding Approval Process

All LEA’s have the same two options for EEPs:•Annual Award •Multiple‐year (bundled) EEP which can include a full five‐year program award plan. CEC will review on an annual basis – Clarifying language regarding funding for multi‐year plans in proposed language

EEP Plan Review and Approval Process at CEC•CEC will notify CDE and LEAs of approved EEPs on an ongoing basis until and unless workload dictates otherwise

10

10/1/2014

6

CEC’s Funding Approval Process

Project Sequencing: LEAs Should Consider:

• First, maximize energy efficiency

• Next, clean energy generation (e.g. solar PV panels, water heating systems, wind, biogas, combined heat & power, etc.)

• Finally, non‐renewable energy generation measures (e.g. combined heat and power project systems)

Self Certification:

Eleven factors from the statute LEAs are required to consider (age, Title 1, recent mod, year‐round operations, potential for energy demand reduction, number of jobs, etc.)

11

CEC’s Funding Approval Process: EEP

12 month Electric and Gas Usage/Billing Data

• Identify all electric, natural gas, propane, or fuel oil accounts for all its schools and facilities

• Provide a signed utility data release form allowing CEC to access past 12 month and future utility billing data through 2023

Benchmarking

• Building simulators, ASHRAE, or utility options are available and may be used

• Free tools like ENERGY STAR Portfolio Mgr or LBNL’s Energy IQ are good options

12

10/1/2014

7

CEC’s Funding Approval Process: Cost‐Effectiveness Determination

Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR)

• SIR Formula based on present value of savings divided by project installation cost, subtracting rebates and other grant fund sources. Formula and calculator in Handbook.

• Inputs such as energy and maintenance savings over installation costs – minus “non‐repayable funding sources” and other rebates. (New Appendix D)

• Energy Commission online calculator in Forms A and B must be used

• An eligible energy project must achieve a minimum SIR of 1.05 to be approved for Prop 39 award and new language says the projects may be bundled “within an LEA”

13

Energy Expenditure Plan: Essential Items – EEP Must be Complete to Submit to CEC:

•Expenditure Plan General Form A

•Expenditure Plan Project Summary Form B –One for each site (Audit and Benchmarking info to be used in Form A – should do this form first)

•Consent for utility provider to release usage data

•Energy Calculators (if applicable)

•Description of energy planning funds expended from 2013‐14 year funding only

14

CEC Funding Approval Process: EEP

10/1/2014

8

Energy Expenditure Plan: Essential Items (Cont.)

•Energy training request (optional)

•Energy manager request (optional)

•Non‐energy benefits project (adder/optional)

•Job creation benefits estimation

•Self‐Certifications of compliance with various requirements

•Leased facility certification (if applicable)

15

CEC’s Funding Approval Process: EEP

After EEP is Approved

• LEA Submits Annual Status Reports – required until an approved EEP is completed

• Final Reports –After Project is Completed

To include seven elements required by statute

(Final gross product cost, estimated amount of energy consumed and saved, number of FTEs or trainees created, time elapsed between award and project completion, energy intensity before and after project, etc.)

16

CEC Tracking and District Reporting

10/1/2014

9

Audit Guide Language: For Audit Guide 2013‐14 (EAAP Approved on 2/10/14)

• Representative sample of CA Clean Energy Jobs Act expenditures and verify they were consistent with the approved plan and the Prop 39 Program Guidelines

• Determine that the total expenditure for planning funds did not exceed the planning fund award amount

• Determine if the LEA was in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 26235(c) by verifying that a sole source process was not used to award funds. An LEA may use the Best Value criteria

• If any expenditures are found to have been made for non‐qualifying purposes or not in accordance with law, include a finding in the Findings and Recommendations section of the audit report stating the amount inappropriately expended

Additional Proposition 39 State Resources

CEC’s Energy Conservation Assistance Act – (ECAA‐Ed) Program• 0% interest rate loans for energy efficiency projects• Technical assistance for planning, energy audits and project recommendations

• 2014‐15 Budget Funding TBD: Not in Governor’s Proposal or Assembly but State Senate Sub has included $28 million

California Workforce Investment Board (WIB) Grant Program • Earn and learn job training and placement programs• Targeting disadvantaged job seekers

California Conservation Corps’ (CCC) • Conduct Energy Surveys• Implement basic energy efficiency measures

18

10/1/2014

10

Other Related School Energy Items

• Title 24 Changes to Code –Took Effect July 1, 2014 – State seeking "maximum energy savings" in existing buildings & new construction. Areas of change include building envelope and mechanical requirements, indoor and outdoor lighting and overall scope changes.

• Rates and CPUC Proceedings –Ongoing

• Water conservation issues as State seeks to address drought impacts – SEC/C.A.S.H. Workshop in Nov 2014

19

Prop0sition 39 Overview

10/1/2014

11

Contact Information

Anna Ferrera

(916) 441-3300

[email protected]

www.schoolenergysolutions.org

21

Executive Director of the School Energy Coalition.

A former appointee and Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of Energy and former staff to the California State Senate on energy issues.

1

Riverside Unified School District

Prop 39 Year 1

SEC Fall Forum

Mary Jane Gyll - Energy ManagerMike Fitzgerald - Energy Manager

Prop 39 Timeline

May 2013First draft guidelines released

Started putting together project ideas

October 2013Second draft of guidelines released

After vetting various projects found that bard unit replacement & lighting retro fit gave the quickest return on investment

2

Prop 39 Year 1 Projects

RUSD’s Bard Unit project Jan. 2014

Needed to replace old inefficient Bard units

Higher SEER rating

More efficient unit reduces KWH usage

Change out from R22 to R410A to meet EPA compliance by 2020

Improved indoor air quality

Gave a low SIR

Has a payback of 12 years

Prop 39 Year 1 Projects

RUSD’s lighting project Jan 2014

Delamp of T8 32 watt lamps with reflector kit

Reduced 64 watts per fixture

Lower initial installation cost

Give even lighting distribution District-wide

Surplus of lamp stock

Gave a high SIR

Has a payback of 2 years

3

Prop 39 Submission & Timeline February 2014Performed ASHREE level II audits for 3 sites that fit criteria

Filled out Utility data release forms for all RUSD utility accounts

Filled out Forms A & B

March 2014Submitted Energy expenditure plan

Worked with CEC project manager to reformat lighting & bard unit back up information

April 2014Approved by CEC & sent to CDE

June 2014Approved by CDE for funding

As of date RUSD has not received funding from CDE

Prop 39 Submission & Timeline

August 2014Went out to Bid for projects

Lighting project work to be done during Thanksgiving week 2014

HVAC project work to be re-bid and done during summer 2015

RUSD finance department funding projects until state back fills funds

4

Prop 39 Submission

Light

Riverside Unified School DistrictProposition 39 Lighting and HVAC Energy Efficient

ProjectYears 1-3

Portable Bard Unit Replacement

Replace (1) R22 low efficiency Bard unit with (1) R 410A high efficiency Bard unit

Energy Reduction:Daily run hours 9Number of days/year 180Total reduction of Kilowatt Hour 4261 KWHCost per Kilowatt Hour $ .18/KWHProject Cost:Labor $ 80/hr. 10 hrs. $800.00Parts $

8,405/ea. $8,405.00

Gross Cost $9,205.00RPU rebate incentive -$168.00Net Cost/Classroom $9,037.00

Annual Savings per room $767.00

Non-energy Benefits: Improve occupant comfort Improved indoor air quality may assist in the instructional process Improved acoustics may assist in the instructional process Reduce current HVAC department backlog (saves staff time) Higher efficient economizer (automatic vs. manual) Reduce KWH due to higher efficiency Reduce KW demand thereby reducing "peak demand" charges When extended use is required the extended use expense is less Avoid DSA review and related soft cost Quicker temperature recovery improves occupant comfort Stockpile R-22 refrigerant for future use (no longer manufactured)

Bard unit

Riverside Unified School District

Proposition 39 Lighting and HVAC Energy Efficient ProjectYears 1-3

(2) 32 watt lamps with reflector

Remove (2) 32 watt lamps, install socket holder with reflector kit, & clean lenses.

Energy Reduction:

24 lamps x 32 watts .768 KWH

Daily run hours 9

Number of days/year 180

Total reduction of Kilo Watt Hour 1245 KWH

Cost per Kilo Watt Hour $ .18/KWH

Project Cost:

Labor $ 46/hr. 8 hrs. $368.00Parts

$ 12/ea.12 fixtures $144.00

Gross Cost $512.00

RPU rebate incentive -$75.00

Net Cost/Classroom $437.00

Annual Savings per room $223.00

Non-energy Benefits:

Significantly improve life-cycle cost per fixture

Potential increased and consistent foot candles at the student desk top

Improved and consistent visibility may assist in the instructional process

Reduce current Electrical department backlog (saves staff time)

Reduced heat load in classrooms thereby reducing HVAC demand

Reduce slightly HVAC department backlog and equipment wear (saves staff time)

Initial custodial time savings for other school needs

Reduce KW demand thereby reducing "peak demand" charges When extended use is required the extended use expense is less

Prop 39 Submission

cc

Portable Classroom Lighting Retrofit

Ref No

Space Information Retrofit Description Annual Retrofit Savings Costs Paybacks

Site Area Fixture Type QTY Watts Hours Pre Use Factor Total KW Total KWH Post Retrofit Description QTY Watts Hours Post Total KW Total KWH Total KW Saved Total KWH Saved Cost SavingsUnit Cost To

CustomerTotal Cost Simple Payback

1 EOC Portable 1 4'x4LampF32T8 12 116 1,800 1.00 1.392 2,506 4'x2lampF32T8 12 58 1,800 0.696 1,253 0.696 1253 $ 234.5 $88.33 $ 530 2.3















































TOTALS 564 65 117763 564 33 58882 32.7 58882 11020 4152 24910 2.3

5

Prop 39

Concerns Long delay with CDE approval & funding

Large LEA’s ½ of projects must be over $250,000

Getting 1.05 SIR on each school difficult

Utility accounts for every meter was tedious due to amount of accounts RUSD has

Not enough project options on CEC calculators

Calculators provided are vague don’t have specifics

Time from approval to bid contracts caused change in project completion

discussion

9/30/2014

1

© 2014 OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES

Desert Sands USD:Strategic Approach to Energy Innovation and Sustainability

Larry Baebler 858-344-5103Jonathan Brown 626-676-8601John-David Vallesillo 760-771-8709

© 2014 OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES 2

District Goals/Needs

Replace existing air conditioning units at La Quinta High School

Minimize district contribution to install La Quinta project

Leverage Prop. 39 funds

Lower district utility expenditures

Implement pilot renewable generation project

Modernize older schools lighting systems with new LED fixtures

Improve learning environment

9/30/2014

2


Scope of Work

3

Install 153 new air conditioning units at La Quinta High School

Upgrade air conditioning controls at La Quinta High School

Install 6,700 new LED classroom lighting fixtures– Indio MS

– La Quinta MS

– Madison ES

– Monroe ES

– Truman ES

Construct new solar shade parking structures at Palm Desert HS

OpTerra energy savings guarantee

OpTerra solar maintenance


Solar Layout for Palm Desert HS

4

9/30/2014

3


Solar Layout for Palm Desert HS

5


Economics

6

5-year bridge financing for cash flow @ 1.99% interest rate

Project pays for itself in less than 6 years

District energy/generation savings in year 6 = $629K

District energy/generation savings from years 6 to 25 =

$19.5 million

District Contribution

$3MM

Energy/Generation

Savings

$2.8MM

Solar Incentives

$800K

Prop 39 Funding

$6.4MM

Estimated program cost: $13,000,000

9/30/2014

4


Environmental Benefits

7

Removes the annual equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from 435 Cars from local freeways.

Removes the annual equivalent of CO2 emissions from 284homes electricity use.

Removes the annual equivalent of Carbon sequestered by 1,694 Acres of forest.

57% of energy use at Palm Desert HS will be generated by solar

9/30/2014

1

Renewable Energy

School Energy Coalition Fall ForumOctober 6 and 7, 2014

PRESENTED BY

Joshua Nelson

Attorney

CPUC Rate Update

©2013 Best Best & Krieger LLP

Renewable Energy

Overview

• Option R (Southern California Edison)

• NEM 2.0

• SDG&E TOU Shift

9/30/2014

2

Renewable Energy

Rate Making Proceedings

• Every 3 years before CPUCPhase 1 Revenue Requirements (How much

revenue is required from ratepayers to maintain service through next 3-year rate cycle)Phase 2 Revenue Allocation and Rate Design

(How to apportion the Phase 1 revenue requirement)

Renewable Energy

Option R

• Southern California Edison solar customer tariffs

• Proposed settlement in 2013 Rate Design Window

• Expand Option R to 400 mw (from 150 mw)

9/30/2014

3

Renewable Energy

NEM 2.0

• What is NEM? Permits renewable generators to sell energy back to the

grid when it is not needed Important part of renewable energy financing / analysis

• Pre-AB 327, early adopters were entitled to NEM and other protections from IOU surcharges or discrimination Focus on roof-top solar and other smaller projects: >1

megawatt located on the customer's property

• AB 327: (1) Grandfather Period and (2) NEM 2.0

• Source: See Pub. Util. Code section 2827 et seq.

Renewable Energy

NEM 2.0

• New successor tariff must take effect before 12-31-2015

• Applies to “new” NEM customers (post 7-1-2017)

• CPUC currently developing “public tool”

• Schedule of Proceeding (R.14-07-002)

9/30/2014

4

Renewable Energy

SDG&E TOU Shift

• SDG&E has proposed modifying peak and off-peak times for customers operating under time of use (TOU) pricing. SDG&E wants to shift higher TOUrates to periods when most customers are home and using their AC, heater, TV, etc.

• The proposal will shift peak and off-peak times for TOU customers. Currently, peak times are 11 a.m.–6 p.m. The proposal shifts peak time for Summer (May-Oct) to 2 p.m.-9 p.m. and for Winter (Nov-April) to 5 p.m.-9 p.m. .

Renewable Energy

SDG&E TOU Shift

• New “semi-peak” and “super off-peak” periods. Super off-peak will be 12 a.m.-6 a.m. All other times will be semi-peak.

• SDG&E and school impact

• Schedule of proceeding (A.14-01-027)

9/30/2014

5

Renewable Energy

Thank you.

Joshua NelsonAttorneyBest Best & Krieger LLPSacramentoPhone: 916-551-2859Email: [email protected]

9/30/2014

sdfasfd 1

October, 2014 PRESENTATION

Impact of New 2013 Title‐24 StandardsOn Schools and Prop‐39

Presenters

Dominic Cardenas, Senior Program ManagerChikezie Nzewi, Engineering Manager

School Energy CoalitionFall Forums

Schools Energy Coalition – 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools| 2

Agenda

• What’s New with Title‐24 2013 for Schools

– Applicability of Title‐24 Standards

– Requirements of New Standards

– Impacts on Lighting Systems for Schools

• Case Study – Ontario Montclair School District

• Questions and Answers

9/30/2014

sdfasfd 2


What’s New with Title‐24 2013 for Schools –Applicability of Title‐24 Standards

• Previous T‐24 Standards were focused on New Construction and Extensive Renovation

• Projects needed to be significant enough to require a “Construction Permit”

• Projects focused on the “Area under modification”

• Existing controls were not affected


What’s New with Title‐24 2013 for Schools –Applicability of Title‐24 Standards

• All aspects of new 2013 T‐24 Standards applies when a project affects 10% of lighting fixtures/lamps

• Reduced from previous 2008 trigger level of 50% of lighting fixtures/lamps being upgraded

• Lighting controls are now required

What are these requirements?

9/30/2014

sdfasfd 3


What’s New with Title‐24 2013 for Schools –Requirements of Title‐24 Standards

• New LPD Requirements for – Office Buildings: from 0.85 w/sq.ft. to 0.80 w/sq.ft.

– Parking: from 0.30 w/sq.ft. to 0.2 w/sq.ft.

• New LPD Requirements for – Office Spaces: from 0.9 and 1.1 w/sq.ft. to 0.75 and 1.0 w/sq.ft.

– Classrooms: LPD requirements remain constant at 1.2 w/sq.ft.



• New Daylighting Controls – Impact Classrooms– All spaces with greater than 120 watts of installed lighting

– All spaces with natural lighting from skylights & windows

– Defines “Primary” & “Secondary” daylit areas. Primary areas must be controlled

9/30/2014

sdfasfd 4



• New Occupancy Sensing Controls– Requires Partial‐On / Partial‐Off occupancy controls

• Shut off lighting when space unoccupied

• Minimal egress lighting allowed

• Bi‐level lighting controls required for Parking Lots & Garage

• Outdoor lighting requires:– Photocell

– Motion sensors (Fixture over 24’ high)

– Scheduling controls

• Acceptance Certificate– Confirms controls for daylighting, ADR

and lighting shut off are operational



• Automatic Demand Response, ADR– New lighting systems should include connectivity and controls to enable

automatic demand response on a signal from the Utility

• Buildings > 10,000‐sq.ft. must include one of three ADR types– Centralized

– Addressable

– ADR for specific zones

9/30/2014

sdfasfd 5


Case Study – Ontario Montclair School District

• Ontario‐Montclair School District ‐ Approach– Lighting is considered as part of larger projects

– Integrating lighting controls with HVAC controls

– Evaluate Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio, SIR

– Consider LED lighting to achieve exterior lighting requirements

Questions and Answers

10/14/2014

1

Sole SourceOctober, 2014

Sole Source Language in SB 73

• (c) A community college district or LEA shall not use a sole source process to award funds pursuant to this chapter. A community college district or LEA may use the best value criteria as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 20133 of the Public Contract Code to award funds pursuant to this chapter.

10/14/2014

2

Education Audit Appeal Panel Language

• (c) Verify that the LEA was in compliance with Section 26235(c) of the Public Resources Code which states that an LEA may not use a sole source process to award funds, and that an LEA may use the best value criteria as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 20133 of the Public Contract Code.

One Federal Definition of Sole Source

•“Sole source acquisition” means a contract for the purchase of supplies or services that is entered into or proposed to be entered into by an agency after soliciting and negotiating with only one source.

Source: Federal Acquisition Regulation

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%202_1.html

10/14/2014

3

Overarching Things to Remember About Sole Source:

• Start and end with non‐Sole Source in mind

•Recent amendments to CEC Guidelines (to be approved on December 10) clarify that the “non‐sole source” process also applies to planning funds.

•Keep clear documents memorializing your process

•Consider checking with your auditor if you believe your district's selection process could be sole source

Cerritos • Fresno • Irvine • Pasadena • Riverside • Pleasanton • Sacramento • San Diego

School Energy CoalitionFall Forum 2014RFQ or RFP, Sole Source, Energy Manager

Bryce Chastain, Esq.

10/14/2014

4

What is the letter of the law?

Proposition 39 Rules

• Enabling Statutes added to the Public Resource Code under SB 73 (2013)

• Guidelines promulgated by the California Energy Commission

• Rules for procurement are ambiguous in the statutes and almost absent from the CEC Guidelines

10/14/2014

5

Prop 39 says two things about procurement

• Public Resources Code Section 26235(c): “A community college district or LEA shall not use a sole source process to award funds pursuant to this chapter.”

• Public Resources Code Section 26235(c): “A community college district or LEA may use the best value criteria as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 20133 of the Public Contract Code to award funds pursuant to this chapter”

Prop 39 statutes say three things about the resulting contracts:

• Public Resources Code Section 26206(d): “All projects shall require contracts that identify the project specifications, cost, and projected energy savings.”

• Public Resources Code Section 26206(e): “All projects shall be subject to audit.”

• Public Resources Code, Section 26240(h)(1): “The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall require local education agencies to pay back funds if they are not used in accordance with state statute or regulations….”

10/14/2014

6

What can we find in case law?

No Direct Authorities

• No California case law interpreting SB 73

• No California case law interpreting “best value” procurement under Public Contract Code section 20133

10/14/2014

7

Interpreting Statutes

• Courts interpret statutes: “to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law, looking first to the words of the statute themselves, giving them their usual, ordinary import, and according significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com.(1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1386-1387.)

Interpreting Statutes

• If “the language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation… we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part." (People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008.)

10/14/2014

8

Similar Case Law – Best Value

• The closest analogous case is Schram Const., Inc. v. Regents of the University of California (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1040

• A different “best value” statute specific to the U.C. System

• Court’s essential rule was that when a statute allows selection other than by competitive bidding, the courts will take a strict view of adherence to the stated requirements

Similar Case Law – Procurement

• City of Inglewood-Los Angeles Civic Center Authority v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861

• Rejecting use of Government Code 4526, et seq. for hiring contractors

• Court’s essential rule was that Government Code 4526, et seq. is only for hiring professional consultants, including construction managers, not contractors who have to be hired under an applicable authority

• …But we have options

10/14/2014

9

Guiding Case Law – Discretion

• Mike Moore’s 24 Hour Towing v. City of San Diego (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1294

• Held that that as long as city’s actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or without factual support, the court would not disturb the city’s rejection of a bid

• Whenever the legislative body of a public agency has or must use discretion, the Courts should not question it as long as it is not arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, contrary to established public policy, unlawful or procedurally unfair….’” …And we have flexibility

Out of School Comments

• The view of individual legislators is legally irrelevant

• The view of individual administrators is legally irrelevant

• You cannot rely on individual non-legal opinions

10/14/2014

10

So where does that leave us?

• With more questions than answers

• With risks that must be evaluated

• With having to make a judgment call

Procurement Authorities

10/14/2014

11

Professional Consultants

• Government Code Sections 53060, et seq., for procurement of special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters

• Government Code Sections 4525, et seq., for procurement of architectural, engineering or construction management services

• Both based on the qualifications of the consultant

Energy Management Consultant

• Allowed to use a certain amount of first year allocation per CEC guidelines

• May make sense to pool funds with other LEAs

10/14/2014

12

Joint Exercise of Powers

• Government Code Section 6502

• Do not need to form a JPA

• Can enter agreement for a lead agency to run procurement for a group

• Must use most restrictive method available to a member

Joint Exercise of Powers

• San Mateo County Office of Education

• Hired energy management consultant for various local districts

• Each gets the same services, but scoped to their needs and funds

10/14/2014

13

Find the Right Procurement Authority• Hard bid - Public Contract Code Section 20111

– Only for construction – not a good fit

– Lowest bidder – not a good fit

• Formal design-build - Education Code 17250.10-17250.50– Only for projects over $2,500,000 – not a good fit

– Cumbersome selection requirements – not a good fit

• Lease-leaseback - Education Code 17406– Only for construction (Education Code 17402) – not a good fit

Most Flexible

• Lease-leaseback - Education Code 17406– Only for construction (Education Code 17402)

– Only works if you have complete Field Act compliant plans

• Energy Conservation Contracting – Government Code 4217.10 – 4217.18– No built-in procurement requirements - highly flexible

– Need to address “sole source” bar within discretion

• New “best value” authority

10/14/2014

14

The “best value” method created under SB 73

• Public Resources Code Section 26235(c) allows (“may use”) a “best value” method stated in Public Contract Code Section 20133(c)(1)

• Public Contract Code Section 20133(c)(1) states: “‘Best value’ means a value determined by objective criteria related to price, features, functions, and life-cycle costs.”

So, what do we do about it?

10/14/2014

15

The Black And White

• Award cannot be on sole source basis

• Contract awarded must address project specifications, cost, and projected energy savings

Defensible

• Have a written record

• Have some evidence to support your discretion

• Show your homework

10/14/2014

16

On the Safe Side…

• Use separate procurement for each “award”

• Use contract authority matching what you’re buying

• Make each procurement process objective

Question

AnswerSession

10/14/2014

17

For questions or comments, please contact:Thank You

Patrick A. Gunn(925) 227-9200

[email protected]

Bryce Chastain(925) 699-3566

[email protected]

Renewable Energy

10/14/2014

18

Renewable Energy

School Energy Coalition

October 6 and 7, 2014

PRESENTED BY

Joshua NelsonAttorney | Best Best & Krieger LLP

Proposition 39RFP‐RFQ Process

©2014 Best Best & Krieger LLP

Renewable Energy

Incorporation of “Best Value”

• Districts may use best value to procure projects funded by Prop 39.

“Best Value” is defined as value determined by objective criteria related to price, features, functions, and life‐cycle costs.

A standard one‐step RFP or RFQ process where the consultant is selected based on best value to the district satisfies Prop 39’s procurement requirement.

10/14/2014

19

Renewable Energy

RFP‐RFQ Process

• A two‐step RFQ/RFP process is not legally required.

• Prop 39 only requires districts to abide by state and local procurement regulations and to avoid using the sole source process

• For Prop 39 funded projects, a one‐step RFP or RFQ process incorporating the “best value” criteria as the basis for selecting the consultant is in compliance with the procurement regulations under Prop 39.

Renewable Energy

Thank you for attending.

Joshua NelsonBest Best & Krieger LLP500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 551‐2859Email: [email protected]

9/26/2014

1

1

Solar & Prop 39

by Climate Smart Schools and TerraVerde Renewable Partners

October, 2014

Outline

1. The Solar PPA Computation

2. Making Solar Work on Campus

3. Tracking Clean‐Up Legislation

9/26/2014

2

Can Prop 39 Support Solar PPAs?

3

Background

• Climate Smart Schools reviewed the Final CEC Guidelines for Solar PPA for Poway Unified School District

• Could a Solar PPA be used to buoy up lower SIR values? It seemed so! Could Prop 39 funds be used to buy‐down Solar PPA rates?

• The treatment of the SIR for Solar PPAs was ambiguous, and could make or not make sense

9/26/2014

3

The Statute (PRC Section 26206)

• Total benefits over time must exceed total costs over time…– SMMUSD, $775,000 net savings over 20 years with 5% discount rate

– EcoMotion’s current project at Millbrook School in New York will create a million dollars in net benefits over 20 years and no up‐front costs

– Even PPA providers charging 18 – 25 cents/kWh can create a net benefit for an LEA through rate shifts

6

Our Recent PPA StoryMillbrook School, Millbrook NY

Initial power price = $0.085/kWhPPA price =$0.075/kWhPPA escalator = 0%

Current power price = $0.105First‐year savings = $35,000

Projected lifecycle savings = $1,000,000

9/26/2014

4

7

8

76 String Inverters

9/26/2014

5

9

In a Nutshell….

• The SIR is about savings being at least slightly greater than costs

• A well‐crafted PPA will generate net benefits for school districts

• Inherently, the SIR should be positive.

• In fact, solar PPAs could really help a site portfolio of measures – a Form B – achieve or exceed the 1.05 threshold

• But wait… that’s not the computation

10

9/26/2014

6

The Current Computation for Solar PPAs Using Prop 39 Funds

Let’s clarify the numerator and denominator…

The numerator is “unique”And that the denominator is fine

Net Present Value of LEA Cost Savings from PPA Discount

Net Present Value of LEA Electricity Cost Paid under PPA (including P39 contribution)SIR =

Digging in…

• Ted Flanigan contacts CEC hotline

• Ted Flanigan speaks with program expert at the CEC

• Expert interprets… and TF writes to verify understanding

• CEC confirms; TF writes policy brief to spread word

9/26/2014

7

“Net Present Value of LEA Cost Savings from PPA Discount.”

CEC clarified that the numerator is the “discount” one gets from a PPA... the difference between the current rate and the PPA rate.

For efficiency measures, the savings value is based solely on the avoided grid price cost.

SIR Numerator:

The Numerator: The PPA DiscountGrid Price PPA Price Discount

Scenario 1 20 12 8

Scenario 2 20 18 2

Scenario 3 20 10 10

Cents/kWh

“Net Present Value of LEA Electricity Cost paid under PPA (incl. Prop 39 contribution)”

Valid as is. This is the PPA cost to an LEA.

Examples:

13.1 cents/kWh with a 4% escalator7.5 cents/kWh with a 0% escalator

Net Present Value of LEA Cost Savings from PPA Discount

Net Present Value of LEA Electricity Cost Paid under PPA (including P39 contribution)SIR =

SIR Denominator:

9/26/2014

8

SIR Scenarios Current Methodology

Grid Price PPA Price Discount Simple SIR SIR with EB

Cents/kWh

Scenario 1 20 12 8 0.667 0.7

Scenario 2 20 18 2 0.111 0.1166667

Scenario 3 20 10 10 1 1.05

Note that the 5% Environmental Adder is applied to the Simple SIR

Getting it Right

NPV of avoided power costs over PPA costsGrid Price PPA Price Discount Simple SIR SIR with EB

Cents/kWh

Scenario 1 20 12 8 1.667 1.75Scenario 2 20 18 2 1.111 1.17

Scenario 3 20 10 10 2.000 2.1

Note that the 5% Environmental Benefit is applied to the Simple SIR

The Bottom Line

• Anything short of a 50% discount from a PPA provider falls short of the SIR threshold

•The CEC does allow for a blended rate to define the avoided cost. This too is questionable, but supports the equation for those trying to make it pencil

•Solar PPAs are being put to a test that is more rigorous than solar purchases and all efficiency projects….

9/26/2014

9

Marc Roper’s Analysis

• 50% discounts on Solar PPAs are unlikely.

• Unless bundled with other measures with high SIR Values, few LEAs will be able to use Prop 39 funds for solar projects financed solely with a PPA.

• Climate Smart Schools suggests a change to the statue and the current interpretation. The avoided cost is the savings that should be the numerator.

•We thank Marc Roper, Rick Brown and others for presenting this to Commissioner McAllister

Solar PPAs and Prop 39

9/26/2014

10

Why Solar Now?

Prop 39 funding available for purchases

PG&E Customers can still leverage solar investments with the A-6 rate tariff

Limitations by year end under discussion

Our Asset Management Service report on 73 schools

Production and Savings Targets met or exceeded

Illustrates a well designed and acquired system pays off

Interest Rates at historic lows

Reduced rates on solar PPAs and debt financing

Recent PPA price of $0.0127 CA USD, all carports, 9 sites

SCE and PGE Rates up another 5% - 10% again this year

20

9/26/2014

11

Battery Storage

Advanced Storage Solutions now commercially viable

As utilities implement “rate reform” Demand Charges will become an increasingly large portion of your bill

Prop 39 rules for how Storage System benefit due December

Storage coupled with Solar

Reduce both the Demand and Usage components of bill

Use Prop 39 cash for Storage and PPA for solar

Four current TerraVerde Projects receiving Storage Advantage

Bids support year one savings

Healthy incentives available now

21

Battery Storage Paired With Solar

Commercial electric customers (e.g., schools), typically pay for peak demand (kW) charges in addition to energy (kWh) charges. The peak demand charge is normally calculated as the highest peak demand during the monthly billings cycle based on a 15 minute sample interval.

Adding local photovoltaic generation to a commercial building reduces utility energy (kWh) charges, but often has little effect on peak demand (kW) charges. Summer peak demands often occur during the late afternoon and early evenings just when the PV generation is sharply dropping. (Note: “Summer” utility rates apply from April1-Ocotber 30)

22

For many commercial customers the peak demand part of their utility bill can be 30–40 percent of their total electric bill.

Source: “Solar White Paper: Peak Demand Reduction Using Battery Storage”, Kathleen Zipp, SolarWorld, 2/15/14

9/26/2014

12

Ted FlaniganProject Director

Climate Smart [email protected]

(949) 450‐71551000 N. Alameda St., Suite 240Los Angeles, CA 90012

23

Rick BrownPresident

TerraVerde Renewable [email protected]

(707) 953‐2885

1100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 155Larkspur, CA 94939

10/1/2014

1

Prop 39 Proposed Draft Revisions and SEC Survey ResultsOctober, 2014

New Changes to Proposition 39 Guidelines Issued September 26, 2014

• In mid‐September SEC wrote a letter to CEC in anticipation of revisions to the Prop 39 Guidelines – In your packet – feel free to use the SEC letter as a template

• The Energy Commission begins comprehensive substantive changes cycle for the Proposition 39: California Clean Energy Jobs Act ‐2015 Program Implementation Guidelines. Proposed draft revisions are now available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition39/index.html

• The CEC has invited the public to provide comments through October 27,2014, by emailing [email protected].

• In the email subject line, please indicate Prop 39 13‐CCEJA‐01.

10/1/2014

2

New Definition of Eligible Energy Projects

• CEC accepted SEC’s recommendation to expand the definition of an eligible energy project. If approved, would allow LEAs to bundle projects together from more than one school site LEA‐wide to be considered in the Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio (SIR) formula

• Will give schools a broader reach in layering projects to meet that required 1.05 minimum for the SIR

• Should also be very helpful in meeting that requirement and also in accounting for projects that may be installed LEA‐wide such as lighting

Simplification of the SIR Formula: New Appendix D (formerly Appendix E)

• CURRENT LANGUAGE: The SIR is calculated based on present value of savings divided by project installation cost subtracting project rebates and other grant fund sources

• REMOVED: (If total project installation cost are greater than the Prop 39 program award and additional financing is required, such as bond funds or private capital funds, this financing is to be considered part of the total project installation cost and is not deducted from the total project installation cost like a project rebate or other grant funding source.)

• NEW LANGUAGE: The total Prop 39 award amount is the Project Installation Cost minus rebates and other non‐repayable funds

CEC has made clear: “non‐repayable funds” includes bond funds

10/1/2014

3

Clarifies Rules About Multi‐Year (Bundled) Award EEPs

CURRENT LANGUAGE: An LEA may submit an Energy Expenditure Plan (EEP) that includes a bundled multi‐year award up to the full five‐year estimated amount

• Clarifies that because Fund revenue is appropriated annually by the Legislature, LEAs are NOT guaranteed to receive the total estimatedamount calculated in its multiple‐year award approximation.Will receive the Prop 39 program award funding annually and not one multi‐year lump sum

• The LEA’s annual Prop 39 award allocation for multi‐year plans will be distributed from the SPI every January, after award calculations are announced in November of the preceding year

• The LEA and CEC will review the multi‐year plans annually to ensure projects are on track and will adjust the plan, if necessary

Online EEP Reporting

• Annual Reports: LEAs must use online annual progress status reporting ‐ portal now available on the CEC Prop 39 webpage

• Completed Project Reports: CEC will be adding an online tracking system in partnership with the California Workforce Development Agency for reporting on all completed projects within 12‐15 months of completion

• Final Reports: CEC will be adding an online system that will require information such as final gross project cost, energy savings and intensity, jobs created, amount of time the project took to complete

10/1/2014

4

Funding Audits

• CURRENT STATUTE LANGUAGE

• Public Resources Code Section 26206(e) states, “All projects shall be subject to audit.”

• Public Resources Code, Section 26240(h)(1) states that the SPI shall require LEAs to pay back funds if they are not used in accordance with statute or regulations, if a project is torn down or remodeled, or if the property is deemed to be surplus and sold prior to the payback of the project.

Funding Audits (Cont.)

Proposed Prop 39 Audit Clarifying Language:

• LEAs can only use Prop 39 funding for the eligible energy projects approved in its EEP.

• LEAs must not sell or demolish the approved energy measure installed with Prop 39 funding prior to payback. The payback is calculated by dividing the total energy measure cost by the total annual energy savings:

Payback = Total Energy Measure Cost ($) / Annual Energy Savings ($/yr)

• The property is considered the facility or building where the energy measure is installed.

• A copy of the audit guide can be found at: http://eaap.ca.gov/audit‐guide/current‐audit‐guide‐booklet/

10/1/2014

5

Other Revisions to CEC Guidelines Schools Should Be Aware of –To Be Approved

• Interest Earned on Prop 39 Funds: Only expended on Prop 39 projects. If not expended, shall be returned to General Fund

• Removal of Appendix B on Energy Efficiency Measures & Calculators and Appendix F from Guidelines: They will be located in Prop 39 Handbook

• Format for ASHRAE Level 2 audits – Documentation required and recommended format in Handbook

• Utility Data Release Authorization Form: Must Use CEC Utility Data Release Authorization Form and not a utility form

• Reporting Job Creation Benefits: Data to be obtained by Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and with Guidance from CA Workforce Investment Board and Labor and Workforce development Agency

• Public Works Project NotificationChanged to reflect the new DIR rules and should be reported online using the PWC‐100 form

CEC Process for Comment and Approval

• The public is invited to provide comments through

October 27,2014, by emailing [email protected].

• In the email subject line, please indicate Prop 39 13‐

CCEJA‐01

• In November, a 15‐day public notice of the proposed

substantive changes will be posted.

• These substantive changes will be considered at the

Energy Commission's December 10, 2014, Business

Meeting.

10/1/2014

6

SEC Proposition 39 Survey

10/1/2014

7

10/1/2014

8

10/1/2014

9

10/1/2014

10

Q9: Filling the Gap

• Primarily through local bonds

• Coupled with State Bond Funding

• General Fund

• Financing/Loan

• Deferred Maintenance

• ECAA, CCC, Rebates, & Other Programs (QZAB)

• Not Sure

• Prop 39 Will Cover the Project (or adjust so it will)

Q 10: Summary of Guideline Experiences

• Not Started Yet or In Beginning Stages

• Confusing/Complicated Guidelines and Process

• Difficulty Reaching Required SIR Number

• Using Outside Consultants

• Process is Slow and Bureaucratic

• Already Completed Efficiency or Solar Projects

• Waiting for ECAA, CCC, and Utilities

• Need to Find Staff Time to Do

• Need to Change Master Plan

10/1/2014

11

Contact Information

Anna Ferrera

(916) 441-3300

[email protected]

www.schoolenergysolutions.org

22

Executive Director of the School Energy Coalition.

A former appointee and Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of Energy and former staff to the California State Senate on energy issues.

September 19, 2014 The Honorable Andrew McAllister Commissioner California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-29 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Commissioner McAllister: On behalf of the School Energy Coalition (SEC), an organization made up of K-12 schools, community colleges, school construction and energy consultants focused on energy efficiency and renewable generation projects for California’s students, I am writing to share our support for the Proposition 39 Program and some suggestions as you begin the process of revising the program’s Guidelines over the next few weeks. Since the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Proposition 39 Guidelines were approved in December 2013, SEC has worked to assist school districts, county offices of education and charter schools to stay up-to-date on the information changes and meeting the requirements for Energy Expenditure Plan (EEP) approval. SEC has held over nine workshops and two webinars addressing energy issues of importance to schools, most with a Proposition 39 focus. We have also surveyed our schools specifically regarding the Proposition 39 program and the challenges schools are facing in meeting the requirements for approval. Overall, schools appreciate the flexibility in the energy project funding program and appreciate that the Commission has listened to Local Education Agencies (LEA) concerns, making adjustments where needed and warranted over the past year as individual schools have moved through the approval process. As the Commission is contemplating a more whole scale review of the guidelines, we would like to offer the following input and comments to identify areas that remain of concern for your further consideration: Definition of Cost Effectiveness After gathering data and benchmarking their sites, the required Savings-to-Investment-Ratio (SIR) of 1.05 is the most challenging part of the approval process for schools. We would suggest the following:

In order to allow for the most flexibility in reaching this number, we suggest that each individual school site, be changed to LEA.

That schools may apply the SIR over multiple years if they have a multi-year plan. Please clarify how planning funds that rollover to the actual project are accounted for in the SIR.

of 3 Credit for Recent Efficiency Installations

Many schools have already been proactive on energy efficiency and have installed new lighting and sensors over the past few years. We would suggest some consideration for energy installations and savings that have occurred within the past three years prior to Guideline Approval.

In some cases LEA’s have completed extensive energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to the degree that they do not have any upgrades left to complete that would meet the SIR requirements. We suggest that there be a process identified for allowing LEA’s in this situation to fund projects of a lesser SIR than 1.05.

Solar

Schools would support more options to do solar projects with Proposition 39 funding should they choose to do this, especially when efficiency measures have been already installed.

SEC supports the solar industries’ suggestions to change the way the SIR is calculated for Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) to allow these projects to better go forward under the Proposition 39 Program.

SEC supports revisions to the solar calculator that better match industry standards for such variables as solar panel life span, inverter life span and solar panel degradation.

SEC would like the CEC to make the details of their solar SIR calculation available to LEA’s so that it can be compared to calculations completed by solar companies and consultants.

Proposition Funding Relationships between LEAs

Clarify how LEAs may show that funding has been pooled for the purposes of the Program, for example an energy manager or other planning fund uses. Is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other type of documentation required?

Existing relationships between LEAs. How might Charter Schools document compensation to school districts, or vice versa, with Prop 39 funding for energy assistance to meet program requirements?

Please clarify whether sole source language applies to work provided between COEs or Districts and charters.

There are some charter schools which do not have school facilities, but operate on-line. How are these funds to be allocated? May they be accessed by the chartering LEA?

Correlating with Other Energy Programs

Schools have other state energy programs and regulations they must comply with. It would be useful to have guidance on how schools may integrate the changes to the state’s Green Codes and Title 24 requirements for schools with Proposition 39 projects.

Due to the recent 2013 CA Energy Code incentive programs across the state are in the process of being re-calculated to align with the new code requirements. In some cases these changes in incentive calculations may have a significant impact on SIR calculations. However, the updated incentive calculations are not expected to be available until early in 2015. What will be the requirements for LEA’s to update incentive calculations in their SIR once the programs are updated?

of 3 Disapproval Process

SEC appreciates that CEC staff has stated in outreach meetings that the goal is not to disapprove proposals, but to work with LEAs to move toward approval. However, the specificity of the “Disapproval Process” has raised some concerns with our members. It appears that once you move to this correction and resubmission docket it is a very formal and bureaucratic process. Given that a plan can be returned and for resubmission, is a disapproval process even necessary?

We appreciate the ability to share our concerns with you. Please do not hesitate to contact me (916.441.3300 or [email protected]) with any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. Sincerely,

Anna Ferrera Executive Director AF:ad c: Robert B. Weisenmiller, Ph.D., Commissioner

Karen Douglas, J.D., Commissioner David Hochschild, Commissioner Janea A. Scott, Commissioner Hazel Miranda Elizabeth Shirakh Marcia Smith Rob Oglesby Grant Mack

Proposition 39 Guideline: Substantive Changes

Page | 1

Summary of Proposed Changes

Topic Guideline Revision Issue Page #

Minor word changes/edits

Revised minor wording for clarity

Provides clearer understanding.

Various

Updated Guidelines to reflect their adoption in December 19, 2013.

Changed verbs from future tense to past tense.

The Guidelines were originally written in anticipation of their adoption at the December 19, 2013 Energy Commission Business Meeting.

Various

Fiscal year 2013/14 appropriations moved. Fiscal year 2014/15 appropriations added.

Relocated the historical 2013/14 fiscal year appropriations from page 1 to Appendix A.

The new fiscal year 2014/15 will now be on page 1, but the historical appropriations information will remain in the document, under Appendix A

1 and Appendix A

California Community College Chancellor’s Office

CCCCO is exempt from the requirements of the Proposition 39 Guidelines for the five year program.

The CCCCO program will continue as a separate program.

3

Definition of Eligible Energy Project

Revised the definition of an eligible energy project. Changed from a bundled group of energy efficiency measures and/or clean energy installations in or at a school site to efficiency measures and/or clean energy installations within an LEA.

An eligible energy project must achieve a minimum savings‐to‐investment ratio (SIR) of 1.05. LEAs now can bundle energy efficiency measures and/or clean energy installations (in or at one or more school sites) within an LEA.

6, 23, 24 and

Appendix G

Schedule Added date for SSPI to begin allocationing awards for approved multiple‐year energy expenditure plans.

In the second year of the Proposition 39 program and moving forward, many LEAs will be receiving their annual allocations based on a multiple year energy expenditure plan approved in a prior fiscal year. SSPI will allocate these awards starting in January 2015 (annually).

9


Page | 2


Interest Earned on Proposition 39 Funds

Added a new subcategory within the Award Allocation section regarding interest earned.

Provides new guidelines to LEAs on how the interest earned on Proposition 39 funds can be expended.

11

Two‐year Combined Award Option

Added clarification language. LEAs in Tier 1 and Tier 2 can select this option twice during the five year Proposition 39 program.

11

Energy Planning Funds Reservation Option

Added clarification language. Provides clarification on energy planning fund eligibility for LEAs whose first year of program eligibility occurs after fiscal year 2013‐14.

11 and 12

Energy Survey and ASHRAE Level 2 Energy Audit Requirements

Added the sentence:

“Additional information on energy project supporting documentation is included in the Energy Expenditure Plan Handbook.”

In an effort to expedite the review and approval of energy expenditure plans, the Energy Expenditure Plan Handbook provides a recommended format to use when submitting energy audits as back up documentation.

22

Multiple‐year (Bundled) award energy expenditure plan

Added clarification paragraph. Provides clarification on when LEAs will receive yearly allocations approved in a multiple‐year energy expenditure plan.

25

Energy Expenditure Plan Content ‐ Utility Data Release Authorization Form

Removed option for LEA to use a utility authorization form.

LEAs must use the Energy Commission’s Utility Data Release Authorization form when consenting the LEA’s utility provider(s) to release historic and ongoing billing data to the Energy Commission.

26

Energy Project Tracking and Reporting

Added various edits and clarification language.

Provides clarification that the Energy Commission will add an online program reporting system to the Proposition 39 Web page.

30 ‐ 32

Job Creation Benefits

Added various edits and clarification language.

Provides clarification on certified payroll and LEA self‐reported employee wage records needed for reporting job creation benefits of funded projects.

33

Audit Added clarification paragraphs. Provides clarification on payback, project and property related to PRC 26240(h)(1).

Also provides web link to CDE’s current audit guide booklet.

34


Page | 3


Energy Expenditure Plan Implementation Changes

Deleted “Relocating an energy measure to a different school site. For example, retrofitting HVAC units at School A, when the energy expenditure plan indicated the HVAC units for School B.”

This will not be allowed for amendments. A new energy expenditure plan will need to be submitted to the Energy Commission if an energy measure is relocated to a different school site.

35

Contracts Added clarification language. Added clarification that the no sole source applies to all Proposition 39 program award funding, including energy planning funds.

Added Reference to PCC Section 20111.

36

Public Works Project Award Notification and Payroll Reporting

Removed original section and replaced with updated section.

Provides updated information and clarification on current Department of Industrial Relations requirements.

36‐37

Appendix B: Energy Savings Calculators

Removed original Appendix B: Energy Savings Calculators from the Guidelines.

This information is also in the Energy Expenditure Plan Handbook.

B‐1

Appendix D: Savings‐to‐investment Ratio (SIR) Calculation

Revised leveraged funding that can be subtracted from the project installation cost in the SIR calculation.

Removed “grants” and added non‐repayable funds such as bond funding, deferred maintenance, general operation budgets and other funds used to finance the project.

D‐1

Appendix F: Effective Useful Life of Energy Measures in Years

Removed from Guidelines. This information is better placed in the Energy Expenditure Plan Handbook.

F‐1

Local Education Agency Name County Code District Code School

CodeDate Submitted

Single Or Multiple Year

Number Of Schools

Planning Fund Budget

EEP Grant Amount Approved

Date Approved

Fiscal Year Report Date

Acalanes Union High School District 07 61630 0000000 07/14/2014 Multiple Year 3 $130,000.00 $897,787.00 09/10/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014

Alameda County Office of Education 01 10017 0000000 Single Year 1 $56,781.00 $84,921.00 04/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Alta Vista Elementary School District 54 71811 0000000 06/01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $204,553.00 06/27/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Anderson Union High School District 45 69856 0000000 06/25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $376,979.00 09/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Antelope Valley Union High School District 19 64246 0000000 06/27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $310,127.00 $1,144,800.00 07/11/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014Big Creek Elementary School District 10 62026 0000000 03/04/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $72,965.00 04/21/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Big Springs Union Elementary 47 70185 0000000 06/25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $58,041.80 08/13/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Blackford Elementary School 43 69393 6046510 03/01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,866.88 $174,967.52 07/29/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Bonsall Union Elementary School District 37 67975 0000000 06/12/2014 Single Year 1 $20,038.00 $86,177.00 07/08/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Campbell Union School District 43 69393 0000000 05/20/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,859.32 $186,437.28 08/21/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Capri Elementary School 43 69393 6046536 06/04/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,602.64 $120,610.56 08/07/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Castle Rock Union Elementary School District 45 69922 0000000 06/10/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15,253.00 $28,306.00 07/08/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Castlemont Elementary School 43 69393 6046544 08/18/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,709.08 $272,835.92 09/12/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Cecil Avenue Math & Science Academy 15 63404 6009351 03/17/2014 Multiple Year 1 $60,789.00 $243,156.00 06/19/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Central Unified School District 10 73965 0000000 04/24/2014 Multiple Year 19 $215,930.00 $3,379,735.35 07/01/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Central Union Elementary School District 16 63883 0000000 07/29/2014 Multiple Year 3 $0.00 $459,657.00 09/03/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Central Union High School District 13 63115 0000000 07/29/2014 Multiple Year 4 $130,000.00 $843,990.00 09/09/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Chino Valley Unified School District 36 67678 0000000 05/15/2014 Single Year 3 $335,621.00 $1,000,579.00 06/02/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014Chowchilla Elementary 20 65193 0000000 08/04/2014 Single Year 1 $9,051.00 $81,465.00 09/11/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Chowchilla Union High School District 20 65201 0000000 03/04/2014 Multiple Year 1 $9.00 $293,471.00 04/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Classical Academy 37 68098 6116776 07/10/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15,479.38 $452,665.54 09/26/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Coachella Valley Unified School District 33 73676 0000000 04/11/2014 Multiple Year 7 $0.00 $4,638,411.00 07/23/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Columbine Elementary School 54 71852 0000000 04/15/2014 Multiple Year 1 $7,000.00 $172,327.00 07/17/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Corning Union High School District 52 71506 0000000 06/19/2014 Multiple Year 1 $60,979.00 $243,916.00 09/05/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Del Vista Math & Science Academy 15 63404 6009369 03/17/2014 Multiple Year 1 $58,497.00 $233,988.00 06/19/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Delano Union Elementary School District 15 63404 0000000 03/17/2014 Multiple Year 5 $130,000.00 $1,126,891.00 06/20/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Delphic Elementary 47 70227 0000000 06/13/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $30,792.00 09/08/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Desert Sands Unified School District 33 67058 0000000 06/05/2014 Multiple Year 7 $0.00 $6,203,256.48 08/04/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Dixie Elementary 21 65318 0000000 05/14/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $91,125.78 06/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014East Oakland Leadership Academy 01 61259 0100123 05/18/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15,000.00 $132,403.00 06/24/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014East Whittier City School District 19 64485 0000000 06/18/2014 Multiple Year 15 $130,000.00 $1,944,059.06 07/17/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Escalon Unified School District 39 68502 0000000 05/07/2014 Multiple Year 1 $126,265.00 $589,225.00 08/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Escondido Charter High 37 68106 3731023 05/27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $28,758.55 $261,195.65 09/09/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Escondido Union High School District 37 68106 0000000 06/02/2014 Multiple Year 3 $105,000.00 $1,556,121.00 07/31/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Escondido Union School District 37 68098 0000000 04/30/2014 Single Year 6 $256,139.00 $597,659.00 06/05/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Esparto Unified 57 72686 0000000 07/30/2014 Multiple Year 1 $60,583.00 $325,466.00 09/08/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Eureka City Unified 12 75515 0000000 06/23/2014 Single Year 1 $130,000.00 $24,788.53 08/07/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Exploer Elementary 37 68338 6117683 04/25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $10,000.00 $169,292.13 06/19/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Forest Hill Elementary School 43 69393 6046577 03/01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,129.24 $146,141.96 07/30/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Forks of Salmon Elementary 47 70292 0000000 08/28/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15,166.00 $60,664.00 09/25/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Fountain Valley School District 30 66498 0000000 05/28/2014 Multiple Year 10 $0.00 $1,330,415.00 08/06/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Glendale Unified School District 19 64568 0000000 03/11/2014 Single Year 3 $359,088.00 $837,870.75 06/10/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Grant Elementary School District 45 70003 0000000 07/09/2014 Single Year 1 $14,927.00 $35,986.00 09/03/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Grenada Elementary School 47 70326 0000000 07/11/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $103,000.00 08/08/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Hacienda La Puente Unified School District 19 73445 0000000 04/11/2014 Multiple Year 4 $335,367.00 $5,309,541.14 06/27/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Hanford Elementary School District 16 63917 0000000 05/06/2014 Single Year 4 $130,000.00 $287,720.00 08/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Hanford Joint Union High 16 63925 0000000 04/24/2014 Single Year 3 $130,000.00 $158,248.99 08/11/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Happy Camp Union Elementary School District 47 70334 0000000 03/13/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $184,441.00 04/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Heritage K-8 37 68098 0101535 05/27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $31,460.76 $268,498.07 08/08/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Hesperia Unified School District 36 75044 0000000 04/02/2014 Multiple Year 12 $260,000.00 $4,798,481.00 07/15/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014High Tech High Media Arts 37 68338 0108787 04/25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $10,000.00 $169,292.13 06/19/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014High Tech Middle Media Arts 37 68338 0107573 04/25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $176,011.34 06/20/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014HighTech High International 37 68338 0106732 04/25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15,000.00 $246,375.00 06/23/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014HighTech Middle 37 68338 0101204 04/25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15,000.00 $246,000.00 06/23/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Imperial Unified School District 13 63164 0000000 05/06/2014 Multiple Year 6 $130,000.00 $706,425.00 07/01/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Kern County Superintendent of Schools 15 10157 0000000 06/26/2014 Single Year 5 $129,329.00 $128,647.00 08/11/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Keyes to Learning Charter School 50 71134 6113286 08/25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50,650.00 $93,464.00 09/23/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Keyes Union School District 50 71134 0000000 08/25/2014 Multiple Year 2 $62,199.00 $120,666.00 09/23/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014La Habra City School District 30 66563 0000000 08/28/2014 Multiple Year 2 $130,000.00 $496,159.00 09/08/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Lake Elementary School District 11 62596 0000000 07/21/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $149,938.00 09/24/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Lakeport Unified School District 17 64030 0000000 08/12/2014 Single Year 3 $0.00 $217,918.00 08/27/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014

Lennox SD 19 64709 0000000 07/28/2014 Multiple Year 3 $130,000.00 $1,198,672.00 08/20/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Lennox SD - LMSTA 19 64709 0100602 07/28/2014 Multiple Year 1 $57,427.00 $284,694.00 09/12/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Little Shasta Elementary School District 47 70383 0000000 07/14/2014 Multiple Year 1 $2,400.00 $27,822.00 09/05/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Lodi Unified School District 39 68585 0000000 06/04/2014 Single Year 8 $134,489.00 $1,220,921.00 09/17/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Lompoc Unified School District 42 69229 0000000 05/02/2014 Multiple Year 16 $131,500.00 $2,244,475.00 05/22/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 19 64733 0000000 06/30/2014 Single Year 2 $5,679,014.00 $4,695,861.83 08/01/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Los Olivos Elementary 42 69245 0000000 Multiple Year 1 $50,206.00 $200,824.00 08/28/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Los Olivos Elementary 42 69245 4230199 Multiple Year 1 $50,678.00 $253,398.00 08/28/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Lucerne Elementary School District 17 64048 0000000 08/27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $53,687.00 $225,689.00 09/23/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Lynwood Unified School District 19 64774 0000000 06/13/2014 Multiple Year 7 $0.00 $3,789,340.28 08/25/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Marshall Lane Elementary School 43 69393 6046619 03/18/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50,729.00 $196,475.02 07/03/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Menlo Park Elementary School District 41 68965 0000000 06/17/2014 Single Year 1 $75,000.00 $16,584.47 09/26/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Milpitas Unified School District 43 73387 0000000 07/22/2014 Single Year 2 $149,447.00 $339,686.66 08/12/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Monroe Middle School 43 69393 6046627 03/01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $7,019.04 $255,201.16 07/29/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Monterey Bay County Office of Educatio - Monterey Bay Charter 27 10272 0112177 09/24/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $97,654.56 09/26/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014

Moson-Sultana Joint Union Elementary School District 54 72009 0000000 06/01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $16,993.00 $264,796.00 07/11/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Mt. Shasta Union Elementary School District 47 70425 0000000 06/12/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $197,429.00 08/26/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Nevada County Office of Education 29 10298 0114975 08/26/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $77,940.00 09/15/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Nevada Joint Union HSD 29 66357 0000000 05/08/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $266,402.00 06/26/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014Newark Unified School District 01 61234 0000000 05/28/2014 Single Year 1 $130,000.00 $28,871.00 07/15/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Nueva Vista Language Academy 15 63404 0120139 03/17/2014 Multiple Year 1 $62,071.00 $248,284.00 06/19/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Oakley Union Elementary School District 07 61762 0000000 03/10/2014 Multiple Year 7 $0.00 $1,059,152.00 04/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Pacheco Union Elementary School District 45 70094 0000000 08/25/2014 Multiple Year 2 $54,816.00 $274,017.00 09/05/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Palmdale Elementary School District 19 64857 0000000 05/13/2014 Multiple Year 8 $215,000.00 $4,452,800.00 07/16/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Placer Hills Union Elementary 31 66886 0000000 04/07/2014 Multiple Year 2 $0.00 $115,250.00 06/04/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Placer Hills Union Elementary 31 66886 0122531 04/07/2014 Multiple Year 1 $9,593.00 $121,266.00 06/19/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Pleasant Ridge Union Elementary 29 66373 0000000 03/14/2014 Multiple Year 3 $0.00 $500,629.00 04/22/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Pleasant View Elementary 54 72058 0000000 06/05/2014 Multiple Year 1 $58,264.00 $233,056.00 08/22/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Redding Elementary School District 45 70110 0000000 06/13/2014 Multiple Year 5 $130,000.00 $679,730.00 09/12/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Reef Sunset Unified School District 16 73932 0000000 08/08/2014 Multiple Year 7 $42,250.00 $644,732.00 09/22/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Rialto Unified School District 36 67850 0000000 09/18/2014 Multiple Year 1 $390,391.00 $1,357,000.00 09/22/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Richfield Elementary School District 52 71654 0000000 03/12/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50,523.00 $101,046.00 08/15/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Richgrove Elementary 54 72082 0000000 05/21/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $121,016.00 08/29/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Riverside Unified School District 33 67215 0000000 03/24/2014 Single Year 3 $597,977.00 $1,015,136.00 04/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Rolling Hills Middle School 43 69393 6046668 03/01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,332.64 $129,455.56 08/12/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Rosemary Elementary School 43 69393 6046676 04/24/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,857.40 $142,429.60 07/29/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Roseville City Elementary 31 66910 0000000 07/25/2014 Single Year 1 $58,500.00 $245,213.78 08/29/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014Santa Ana Unified School District 30 66670 0000000 05/16/2014 Single Year 3 $819,247.00 $1,608,367.00 06/27/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Santa Rita Union Elementary 27 66191 0000000 03/25/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $115,438.00 06/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Sausalito Marin City School District 21 65474 0000000 08/21/2014 Multiple Year 2 $51,901.00 $163,152.00 09/11/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Seiad Elementary School District 47 70458 0000000 02/24/2014 Multiple Year 1 $3,590.00 $27,120.00 04/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Sherman Oaks Elementary School 43 69393 6046692 03/01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,690.12 $142,760.48 08/25/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Sherman Thomas Charter School 20 65243 0100016 07/03/2014 Multiple Year 1 $51,917.00 $97,632.00 07/11/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014SIATech 37 68452 0106120 05/16/2014 Multiple Year 1 $63,251.00 $328,357.28 09/16/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Snelling Merced Falls Union Elementary 24 65839 0000000 08/12/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50,570.00 $93,325.00 09/11/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014Snowline Joint Unified School District 36 73957 0000000 04/21/2014 Single Year 2 $130,000.00 $228,896.10 07/02/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Southern Trinity Joint Unified School District 53 73833 0000000 04/30/2014 Multiple Year 2 $6,000.00 $73,100.00 06/25/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Stellar Charter School 45 70110 6116925 08/27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50,618.00 $202,472.00 09/25/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014Stellar Secondary Charter High 45 70110 4530341 08/27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15,301.00 $61,204.00 09/25/2014 2014-15 09/29/2014Sunnyside Union Elementary 54 72181 0000000 05/15/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $76,682.00 07/15/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Temecula Preparatory 33 75192 3330917 02/19/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $50,979.00 04/17/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Temecula Valley Charter School 33 75192 6112551 02/19/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $50,783.00 04/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Terra Bella Union Elementary School District 54 72199 0000000 06/04/2014 Multiple Year 3 $64,000.00 $256,000.00 08/05/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Traver Joint Elementary 54 72223 0000000 06/26/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $198,931.00 09/18/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Village School 43 69393 0106005 08/01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6,011.40 $175,545.60 09/05/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Vista Unified School District 37 68452 0000000 06/06/2014 Multiple Year 25 $310,827.00 $4,773,805.92 07/21/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Weed Union Elementary School District 47 70482 0000000 06/19/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $100,983.00 09/04/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Williams Unified School District 06 61622 0000000 05/08/2014 Multiple Year 2 $115,457.00 $461,828.00 07/07/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Willows Unified School District 11 62661 0000000 07/09/2014 Multiple Year 2 $21,000.00 $552,070.00 08/13/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014Woodland Joint Unified 57 72710 0121749 04/28/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15,000.00 $44,822.00 06/25/2014 2013-14 09/29/2014TOTAL 322 $14,451,198.45 $82,284,123.28

Thanks our Sponsorsfor their committment to School Energy Projects

Riverside Fall ForumOctober 6, 2014

Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLPKathy McKee | [email protected] | 760.304.60001525 Faraday Avenue. | Carlsbad, California 92008

Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP represent nearly 500 of California’s educational institutions and related agencies. These institutions include school districts, community colleges, SELPAs, county offices of education and public agencies. The firm is guided by a desire to assemble the most knowledgeable and skilled attorneys in the Nation to represent our current and future clients. F3 attorneys have extensive experience in land transactions, business and facilities matters and they are recognized leaders in energy conservation and alternative energy matters.

Schneider ElectricMike O’Brien| [email protected] | 714.271.40251660 Scenic Avenue| Costa Mesa, California 92688

As a global specialist in energy management with operations in more than 100 countries, Schneider Electric offers integrated solutions across multiple market segments, including leadership positions in Utilities and Infrastructure, Industries and Machines Manufacturers, Non-Residential Buildings, Data Centers and Networks and in Residential. Focused on making energy safe, reliable, efficient, productive and green, the company’s 150,000 plus employees achieved sales of 31 billion US dollars in 2013, through an active commitment to help individuals and organizations make the most of their energy. www.schneider-electric.com/us

to view the packet

Documents