Proposition 39 is a Catalyst:

Transcription

1 Proposition 39 is a Catalyst: Leverage Utility Support to Reduce Even More Energy School Energy Coalition Energy Emporium Joey Barr April 1st, 2014 Agenda 2 Proposition 39 Overview Programs / Resources Utility Data Release Form Savings to Investment Ratio Calculation Questions 1

2 What Are We Talking About? 3 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 What Are We Talking About? 4 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 2

3 Allocation Amounts 5 Allocation Amounts Shows what each LEA will receive Based on ADA and free / reduced price meals (FRPM) Allocation Amounts 6 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) 3

4 Process to Receive Funds 7 1. Utility Data LEA signs a utility data release form Data will be sent annually by utility providers 2. Benchmarking 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 Process to Receive Funds 8 1. Utility Data LEA signs a utility data release form Data will be sent annually by utility providers 2. Benchmarking Energy Usage Intensity Recommended, but 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 4

5 Process to Receive Funds 9 1. Utility Data LEA signs a utility data release form Data will be sent annually by utility providers 2. Benchmarking Energy Usage Intensity Recommended, but 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 Process to Receive Funds Utility Data LEA signs a utility data release form Data will be sent annually by utility providers 2. Benchmarking Energy Usage Intensity Recommended, but 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 5

6 Process to Receive Funds cont 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. Expendture 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 Identify Measures Energy Surveys Audits Data Analytics (Low / No Touch Audits) 6. Cost Effective Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) > 1.05 NPV of lifetime savings / initial costs = SIR Site level, not measure level 7. Expendture 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 6

7 Process to Receive Funds cont Identify Measures Energy Surveys Audits Data Analytics (Low / No Touch Audits) 6. Cost Effective Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) > 1.05 NPV of lifetime savings / initial costs = SIR Site level, not measure level 7. Expendture 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 M&V for site level and measure-specific level Process to Receive Funds cont Identify Measures Energy Surveys Audits Data Analytics (Low / No Touch Audits) 6. Cost Effective Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) > 1.05 NPV of lifetime savings / initial costs = SIR Site level, not measure level 7. Expendture 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 7

8 Available Support PG&E Government Partnerships 16 Statewide: 8

9 PG&E Government Partnerships 17 Benchmarking Energy Assessments Humboldt Marin Monterey Bay San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Sierra Nevada Direct Install Training and Education School Energy Efficiency Program 18 CLEAResult Program Overview 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 customer 2. Public K-12 School District or County Office of Education 3. Must be within SEE Approved Counties / Districts 4. Retrofits and RCx projects only, no new construction 9

10 School Energy Efficiency Program 19 Program Process Energize Schools

11 PG&E Program and Resource Support 21 ASSESS IDENTIFY PROJECTS PREPARE EXECUTE POST INSTALL Rate Plan Analysis Project Selection Guidance Expenditure Plans Incentives / Rebates EM&V Calculation Assistance Resource Guide Account Rep / DIY Audits Financing Direct Install Post Install Reporting Benchmark Large Integrated Audits Demand Response Workforce Education / Training Education Emerging Technology RCx Engineering Assistance Distributed Generation Software Enabled Programs Zero Net Energy PG&E s Account Representatives, Government Partnerships, & Third Party Programs can provide support throughout the process PG&E Schools Website 22 Website Address Resources Rebates / Incentives Case Studies Tips Proposition 39 Toolkit Example Resources: Utility Data Release Forms Presentations 11

12 Utility Data Release Form Page 1 23 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 Utility Data Release Form Page 2 24 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 12

13 Calculating SIR 25 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Net Present Value Net Cost of Measure Calculating SIR 26 Savings to Investment Ratio (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 Assumptions: 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 13

14 Calculating SIR Example 1 27 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Net Present Value Net Cost of Measure No Utility Incentive Net Present Value $ of Savings Utility Incentive $0.00 Net Cost of Measure Savings to Investment Ratio $ Calculating SIR Example 1 28 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Net Present Value Net Cost of Measure Net Present Value of Savings No Utility Incentive $ With Utility Incentive Utility Incentive $0.00 $15.75 Net Cost of Measure Savings to Investment Ratio $ Note: Utility incentive in this example is 15% of the Cost of Measure 14

15 Next Steps for Schools Understand Funding Allocation 2. Build a Team of Champions in Each School / LEA 3. Learn More About Available Programs and Support 4. Initiate Application for Bright Schools Program and/or California Conservation Corps 5. Fill Out Utility Data Release Form 6. Benchmark Schools 7. Plan to Perform Audits / Energy Surveys 8. Think About Hiring an Energy Manager 9. Submit a Complete Expenditure Plan 10.Share Feedback and Information with PG&E Questions? 30 CEC Website CEC Hotline Toll-free for those in California: PG&E Schools Website PG&E Schools SchoolsSupport@pge.com 15

16 Appendix Calculating SIR Example 2 32 Inputs No Incentive Energy Costs $ 0.10 kwh Project Installation Cost $ Non-energy Benefits $ 5.25 Estimated Useful Life 4 years Utility Incentive $ - Energy Savings (annual) 250 kwh Cost Savings (annual) $ Life Cycle Cost Analysis Project Year Year Energy Savings $ $ $ $ Maintenance Savings $ 0.50 $ 0.51 $ 0.52 $ 0.53 Total Savings $ $ $ $ SIR Calculation No Incentive Net Present Value of Savings $ Net Cost of Measure $ Savings to Investment Ratio

17 Calculating SIR Example 2 33 Inputs No Incentive With Incentive Energy Costs $ 0.10 kwh $ 0.10 kwh Project Installation Cost $ $ Non-energy Benefits $ 5.25 $ 5.25 Estimated Useful Life 4 years 4 years Utility Incentive $ - $ Energy Savings (annual) 250 kwh 250 kwh Cost Savings (annual) $ $ Life Cycle Cost Analysis Project Year Year Energy Savings $ $ $ $ Maintenance Savings $ 0.50 $ 0.51 $ 0.52 $ 0.53 Total Savings $ $ $ $ SIR Calculation No Incentive With Incentive Net Present Value of Savings $ $95.71 Net Cost of Measure $ $ Savings to Investment Ratio Scenario #1 34 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? 17

18 Scenario #2 35 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? Scenario #2 36 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. 18

19 Scenario #3 37 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? School Energy Reports - Sample P

20 School Energy Reports - Sample P.2 39 School Energy Reports - Sample P

21 Proposition 39 Funds 41 Funding Allocation ($464M) Public K-12 Grants $47 $28 $5 $3 CA Community College Grants ECAA Revolving Loan Fund CA Conservation Corps Workforce Investment Board $381 Proposition 39 Funding Allocations 42 Proposition 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) 15% of funds based on prior year eligibility for free/reduced priced meals (FRPM) $15K for LEAs w/ ADA<100, plus FRPM Proportional award based on ADA or $50K, whichever is greater, for LEAs w/ 100<ADA<1,000, plus 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 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) 11% for CCs ($47MM) Community College Districts representing 112 colleges Allocated at the discretion of the Chancellor Financing $28MM CEC 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 $3MM California Conservation Corps California Workforce Investment Board To perform energy surveys and other energy conservation-related activities Competitive grants for community based and other workforce training organizations preparing veterans or disadvantaged youth for employment Sources: California State Budget: , Senator Kevin de Leon and the California Energy Commission 21