2017 draft fall agendasdoug humphrey, division of the state architect 10:10 a.m. break 10:25 a.m....

School Energy Coalition | 1303 J Street, Suite 520 | Sacramento, California | 916.441.3300 | www.schoolenergysolutions.org

Fall Forum September 19, 2017

Los Angeles County Office of Education |9525 Imperial Hwy. | Education Center East #300 | Downey

Agenda 8:30 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast 9:00 a.m. WELCOME Dale McCurry, Fullerton Joint Union High School District and SEC Executive Committee Member 9:10 a.m. State Agency | Energy and Water Legislation: What Happened - What Now? Anna Ferrera, SEC Executive Director 9:40 a.m. DSA Update: Energy and ZNE Issues Doug Humphrey, Division of the State Architect 10:10 a.m. BREAK 10:25 a.m. Solar, Time of Use Rates and Battery Storage

Tom Williard, Sage Renewables Margie Brown, Garden Grove Unified School District

11:00 a.m. CEC Update: New Proposition 39 Formulas and Deadlines Elizabeth Shirakh, California Energy Commission 12:00 p.m. LUNCH 12:45 p.m. Schools and State Energy Legislative Actions

Steve Veres, Office of Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León 1:05 p.m. School Case Studies Eloy Vento, Twin Rivers Unified School District Kathleen Neff, Schneider Electric Pasadena Unified School District Santa Paula Unified School District 1:45 p.m. Accounting for Prop 39 Projects in Your District’s Annual Audit Bob Nicholson, Eric Hall & Associates 2:15 p.m. Utility Programs and Proposition 39 Lisa Hannaman, Southern California Edison 2:45 p.m. Wrap Up and Adjourn

Fall ForumLos Angeles, California | September 19, 2017

List of Attendees

Nicole Amweg Vanir Construction Management, Inc.

Fred Bravo Vanir Construction Management, Inc.

Randy Britt Vanir Construction Management, Inc.

Margaret Brown Garden Grove Unified School District

Carl Burns Los Angeles County Office of Education

Tyrone Carter Indoor Environmental Services

Robert Cho PacificWest Energy Solutions, Inc.

Shawn Cun El Monte Union High School District

Natasha Davidson Schneider Electric

Calvin Davis Downey Unified School District

Kecia Davison ABM Building Solutions, LLC

Cindy DiPaola Paramount Unified School District

Wael Elatar El Monte Union High School District

Desiree Escandon Indoor Environmental Services

Anna Ferrera School Energy Coalition

Al Gancman Vector Energy Group

James Gellatly Panama-Buena Vista Union School District

Lisa Hannaman Southern California Edison

Petter Hennum Santa Ana Unified School District

Douglas Humphrey Division of the State Architect

Glenn Imke Panama-Buena Vista Union School District

Chris Jennison Perris Elementary School District

Carla Kleinjan Chino Valley Unified School District

Krista Knapp Envise

Fall ForumLos Angeles, California | September 19, 2017

List of AttendeesDaryl Koroluck Riverside Unified School District

Jennifer Lee Envise

Mary Ann Larrieu Oxnard Union High School District

Korey Lawson San Jacinto Unified School District

Christine Marez Cumming Corporation

Dale McCurry Fullerton Joint Union High School District

Gerald Mitchell Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District

Ken Mueller Riverside Unified School District

Kathleen Neff Schneider Electric

Bob Nicholson Eric Hall & Associates

Barnabas Path El Monte City Elementary School District

Chuck Pesci Hawaiian Air Corp.

Somac Roy Trane

Kosh Samuel PacificWest Energy Solutions, Inc.

Derrick Shanta Riverside Unified School District

Liz Shirakh California Energy Commission

Kent Smith Glendale Unified School District

Chad Tady SunPower Corporation

Pierre Thompson Glendale Unified School District

Genesis Vega OpTerra Energy Services

Eloy Vento Twin Rivers Unified School District

Steve Veres Office of Senate pro Tempore Kevin de León

Anthony Wayne Vector Energy Group

Jenny Whitson Vanir Construction Management, Inc.

Tom Willard Sage Renewable Energy Consulting, Inc.

Use Every Dollar of Prop 39 Funding:Final Allocations, Audits and Projected Savings: State Action

September 19, 2017

Anna Ferrera, SEC Executive Director

School Energy Coalition: Who We Are

• Better Energy and Water Use for Educational Facilities to Save Schools Money.

• We advocate for state and federal funding and technical assistance for school energy and water projects that create utility bill savings for K‐14 schools

• We create relationships with the State Legislature and Agencies to create opportunities for schools to become more energy and water efficient

• We relay timely information to our SEC Members regarding Proposition 39 Program, legislation, electricity rates and other energy and water concerns.

SEC Members Hear it First!

SEC Advocates for Prop 39 Budget Funding for School Energy Projects – Focused on K‐14

2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19Prop 39 1.0:Remain‐der TBD

K‐12 ADA Grants

$381 M $279 M $313.4M $398.8M $376.2M

Community Colleges

$47 M $37.5 M $39.6 M $49.3M $46.5M

SUCCESS! 2017‐18 State Budget Action Extends Program | Focuses Prop 39 Remainder on LEAs

• Budget Advocacy: In June 2017, the Governor signed the 2017‐18 State Budget Agreement removing the sunset on current program (funding in future years will be subject to annual state budget approval) and extending the final encumbrance date to June 30, 2019.

• Budget Trailer Bill Language (TBL) supported by SEC was approved in July 2017 that took language from Pro Tem de León’s SB 518 to address Prop 39 funding remaining "on the table" after the encumbrance deadline for K‐12 schools use: ‐$75 million for Clean Energy Buses‐$100 million for ECAA low‐ and no‐interest loans (CEC program)‐Remainder for K‐12 energy projects per application in tier groups

SEC LED THE SCHOOL EFFORT FOR PROGRAM EXTENSION

REVIEW ‐ Prop 39 Program 1.0: Eligibility for Funding

• Who: Local Education Agencies (LEA) = county offices of education, school districts, charter schools, and state special schools, are eligible for program funding on a per‐ADA basis.

• What: ALL facilities are eligible for Prop 39 program funding. Classrooms, gyms, auditoriums, MPRs, cafeterias, kitchens, pools, school office, library, media center, computer and science labs ‐ can be considered for energy efficiency measures and clean energy installations.

REVIEW ‐ Prop 39 Program 1.0: Cost‐Effectiveness in Statute and Code

SB 73 ( deLeón) – Implementing Statute

Public Resources Code Section 26206(c) states:“All (school) projects shall be cost effective: total benefits shall be greater than project costs over time.”

Section 26235(a)(3)(D) states that CEC shall establish guidelines for “methodologies for cost‐effectiveness determination.”

Savings‐to‐Investment Ratio (SIR) SIR = 1.01

*Energy savings are based on the difference between annual energy use under existing conditions and annual energy use under proposed conditions.*

Formula: NPV/(Project Installation Cost – Rebates –Other non‐repayable funds – Non‐Energy Benefits)

REVIEW ‐ Prop 39 1.o Program: EEP Approval and Payment Process

• After an EEP is approved, the CEC will notify the LEA and CDE, and post a notice of approval on CEC’s Prop 39 web page.

• Once every quarter CDE will process an apportionment for the total approved Prop 39 funds since the last payment period.

• Upon completion, the apportionment package will be submitted to the California’s State Controller’s Office, which will draw warrants for county treasurers in roughly 3‐4 weeks.

• County treasurers are requested to deposit the amount received immediately to the appropriate funds of county superintendent of schools for distribution to LEAs.

• CDE and CEC has fiscal information on their websites, including total awards, payments made, and remaining balances.

REVIEW ‐ Prop 39 1.0: NO Sole Source Process, Accountability and Reporting Highlights

• Funds must be awarded in accordance with state statutes, regulations, and Prop 39 Implementation Guidelines.

• CEC says: To ensure allocation encumbrance by NEW deadline of June 30, 2019, the last date to submit EEP is **Feb 26, 2018**

• Resources Code Sec. 26235(c) states: “….LEA shall not use a sole source process to award [Prop 39] funds ...”

• Annual Reporting –CEC online system

• Projects must be completed by June 30, 2020

• Final project completion report: Must be submitted. Due 12 monthsafter the project completion date indicated in the annual progress report. It must be submitted to the CEC no later than 3 months after an online submittal portal is made available from the CEC.

Prop 39 Program 1.0: Down the Final Stretch!

• Keep reporting in mind throughout when expending Prop 39 funds. No sole source contracting.

• Review and make use of the CEC’s online and final reporting tools. Become familiar with these tools.

• Discuss tracking savings and accountability with staff or consultant for annual and final reporting AND future projects that could be done with program extension – share with SEC!

• Watch for SEC Alerts: Be first to know when state actions are being contemplated or being taken on energy and water

State Legislative Action in the 2017‐18 Session

• SB 518 (de León) – SEC’s #1 priority. Some language was placed in Budget TBL: Remaining program funds will go to LEAs, rather than be swept, as specified. Became effective July 30, 2017.

• AB 1082 (Burke) – EV Infrastructure Program on School Sites –SEC Supports after working with author on amendments. To Governor.

• SB 100 (de León) –California to get to 100% from renewable sources by December 31, 2045.

State Legislative Action in the 2017‐18 Session

• SB 93 and SB 119 (Budget Committee) Cap and Trade Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Expenditure Plan – Energy Efficiency and Clean Buses & Fleet Vehicle funding.

• SB 5 (de León) – $4 Billion Parks and Water Bond ‐California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018.

• AB 797 (Irwin) – Extends by two years, the CSI Thermal Program of rebates to customers of IOUs to August 1, 2020.

• Regionalization ‐ Proposal to merge CA’s transmission grid with other states in the West will not advance this year. 2018?

SEC Education and Advocacy 2018: Educating State Legislature: Prop 39 2.0

• SEC Spring Forum in Sacramento only that will incorporate meetings with key legislative offices to share Prop 39 school success stories w/energy and cost savings to the state to date.

• We will seek to discuss funding for the program in future state budgets and use of program remainder and Prop 39 2.0 with state officials and Governor’s Office.

• SEC will continue building coalitions with other school groups to advocate for ongoing school energy efficiency and renewable funding. Proposition 98 concerns continue with Prop 39 funding.

• SEC will meet once in Southern California in the fall and will seek to incorporate a school site visit of energy facilities and meetings with Legislators in their local district.

Upcoming Events

• September 30, 2017: Prop 39 Annual Reports are due to CEC

• October 2017: Request for SEC Member Webinar Proposals

• January 10, 2018 ‐Governor’s 2018‐19 State Budget Proposal – Remainder funds will likely be discussed here

• February 26, 2018 – Final Deadline for EEPs to the CEC; and SEC Membership Meeting at CASH Annual Conference

• March 2018 – SEC Spring Meeting in Sacramento –Meetings with Legislators

• May 2018 – May Revision of the State Budget

• Early November 2018 – SEC Fall Meeting in Southern California

Questions?

Contact Information

Anna Ferrera

(916) [email protected]

www.schoolenergysolutions.org

15

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.

A Market in Flux Solar, Battery Storage

and Tariff Changes

SEC Fall ForumSeptember, 2017

Tom WilliardPrincipalSage Renewable Energy Consulting

Margaret BrownDirector of FacilitiesGarden Grove Unified School District

A Market in Flux: Solar, Storage and Tariffs

The Solar PV and Battery Storage Market Today• Falling project prices but…• Incentive reductions and regulatory uncertainty

Utility Tariffs• Big changes coming – that don’t help solar or storage

Project Finance Landscape• ITC sunset, irregular incentives and decreased

competition• Storage market nascence

2

Solar PV and Battery Storage Markets

Renewable energy and storage costs are declining rapidly

50% PV panel price decline 2015-2017 (GTM)

50% Li-Ion battery and BOS cost decline next 5 years (GTM)

3

Solar PV and Battery Storage Markets

As installed costs decline, so do incentives

CSI program exhausted for solar PV

SGIP program for storage oversubscribed and restarted

4

Incentives built into utility tariffs are under siege

Federal ITC stepdown coming in 2020

Source: Geli

UTILITY TARIFFS

Three big Tariff changes coming:• Shorter Summer seasons (4 months instead of 5-6)• TOU Peak Periods later in day (4-9 pm instead of 12-6

pm)• Flatter rate differentials (lower value summer peaks)

Current TOU and associated tariff change proposals do not promote battery storage

Solar and storage tariff requirements at odds• Other storage value streams need to be

enabled to promote storage with solar

CPUC is increasingly reluctant to protect solar and storage customer investments

Big Changes and Less Support for Solar and Storage Customer

5

UTILITY TARIFFS

Impact of Tariff Changes

6

UTILITY TARIFFS

Impact of Tariff Changes

• Expect reduction of solar energy value of 10-40% for many customers

• Customers that have 10-year TOU grandfathering will see losses of 5-20% in solar energy value

• Greater losses in PG&E territory, lesser in SCE and SDG&E

7

UTILITY TARIFFS

Solar Purchase projects: • with grant funding - P39• CEC 0% loans• CREBs (Clean Renewable Energy Bonds) <2% all

in

Solar PPA rates <$0.14/kWh, 0% escalator Solar + Storage

• Larger schools (typically high schools) with high demand charges, not all of energy usage offset by PV

Stand-alone Battery Storage where solar can’t be installed

8

Solar and Storage Projects can still pencil with new tariffs

SCE Solar Case StudySanta Ana Area Secondary School Project, 1.1 MW

CREBs FinancingSCE

Current RatesSCE

Proposed RatesSystem CostSystem Cost, $/WattAll‐In Cost of Financing (%/year)Lease Term (Years)Year One Savings $35,423 ($23,995)20‐year Savings (Nominal $) $2,480,309 $1,017,564

NPV Savings ‐‐ Proposed Rates $1,276,731 $395,398PPA Financing Current Rates Proposed Rates

Base PPA Price $/kWhPPA Annual Escalator (%)PPA Contract Term (Years)Year One Savings $12,539 ($46,878)20‐year Savings (Nominal $) $1,744,977 $282,23320‐year Savings, NPV (5% Discount Rate) $925,086 $43,754

17

$0.12500%

20 years

$2.95/Watt$3,245,000

1.2%

PROJECT FINANCE LANDSCAPE

30% ITC extended until the end of 2019• 3-year stepdown after 2019

Reduced Competition • SunEdison Bankruptcy• SolarCity acquisition by Tesla / M&A• International Trade Commission tariff case

9

Solar and Storage Project Finance – upward cost pressure

Interest Rate and Stock Performance• Fed rate hikes will push up borrowing cost• SolarCity, SunPower, First Solar stock

performance

PROJECT FINANCE LANDSCAPE

Market and companies not well established

• Perceived risk = storage companies must provide customer financing

• No standardized customer financings yet

SGIP incentives oversubscribed• Some fixes implemented and money

allocated, but far less than the market needs

Savings Difficult to Prove to Customers Storage-friendly utility tariffs – not yet

10

Storage Project Finance – still developing and dependent on incentives

11

Tom WilliardPrincipalO: 415.663.9914C: [email protected]

For more information:

California Energy Commission

Proposition 39 K-12 Program Update

School Energy Coalition Fall ForumSeptember 19, 2017

1


Agenda

1) Program Highlights2) Key Program Reminders3) ECAA-Ed and Bright Schools 4) Looking Ahead: New Program!5) Wrap Up

1) Prop 39 K-12 Program Resources2) Questions and Answers

2


Energy Commission’s Prop 39 web page:http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition39/index.html

Contact our Prop 39 Hotline:(855) 380-8722 (Toll-free in-state)(916) 653-0392 (Toll-line out-of-state)

Contact us by email:[email protected]

Proposition 39 K-12: Information

3


4

Program Highlights


Proposition 39 Appropriations

5

FY 2013/14

in millions

FY 2014/15

in millions

FY 2015/16

in millions

FY 2016/17

in millions

FY 2017/18

in millions

Five YearTOTAL

in millions

Prop 39 K-12 Program(CEC/CDE)

$381 $279 $313.4 $398.8 $376.2 $1.748(in billions)

Community College Districts $47 $39 $38.7 $49.3 $46.5 $220.5

ECAA – (0% loans & technical assistance)

$28 $28 $0 $0 $0 $56

CA Conservation Corps $5 $5 $5.4 $5.5 $5.7 $26.6

CA Workforce Development Board

$3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $15

TOTALS $464 $354 $360.5 $456.6 $431.4 $2.066(in billions)


Prop 39 K-12 Funding Status

6

• 1,713 Energy Expenditure Plans • 6,139 School Sites• Total Funds Requested: $1.25 billion

Applications Received

• 1,620 Energy Expenditure Plans• 5,682 School Sites• Total Funds Approved: $1.14 billion

Applications Approved

(as of 09.03.2017)


Approved EEPs

7

(as of 09.03.2017)

Total Approved:$1.14 billion


Measure Category

# of Measures

% of Measures

Total Project

Cost (in millions)

%of Total

Cost

Lighting and Lighting Controls 12,398 63% $ 578 41%

HVAC andHVAC Controls 4,998 25% $ 594 43%

Solar (PV) 449 2% $ 125 9%

All Others 2,018 10% $ 98 7%

TOTAL: 19,863 100% $ 1.4(in billions)

100%

(as of 09.03.2017)

Approved Measures

8


$86.7 millionApproved projects are estimated to save: 421 million kWh of electricity 2.5 million therms of natural gas 99,000 gallons of propane 85,000 gallons of fuel oil

Projected Annual Savings(as of 09.03.2017)

9


Funding Overview SummaryTotal $1.75 Billion

10* as of September 3, 2017, there were 93 EEPs (totaling $107 million) in review and not yet approved


Questions…About Program Highlights?

11


Current ProgramKey Things to Remember…

12


Important Deadlines

13


New EEP Final Deadline

February 26, 2018 is the last date to submit energy expenditure plans to the Energy Commission.

14


Annual Progress Report Deadline

15

Annual Progress Reports Due by: September 30, 2017


Final Project Completion Reports

16

Final Reports are due 12-15 months after Project Completion. Tip – Be Organized and Document1.Track energy usage and billing data throughout the

year.2.Track project cost. 3.Take photos now! Work in progress and project

completion. Don’t wait and go back later.


LEA Encumbrance Deadline

Final LEA Encumbrance Date is June 30, 2019

The 2017-18 Budget Act changed date from: June 30, 2018 to June 30, 2019.

17


LEA Encumbrance Deadline

Definition: An encumbrance is a commitment in the form of a purchase order or offer to buy goods or services. The encumbrance account is a budgetary account that is used to prevent overspending of an appropriation.

Source: California School Accounting Manual (CSAM), Page 210-11

18


LEA Encumbrance DeadlineCalifornia School Accounting Manual (CSAM), Procedure 210-11:http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/ac/sa/documents/csam2016complete.pdf

19


LEA Encumbrance DeadlineOr Contact:

CA Department of Education School Fiscal Services DivisionFinancial Accountability & Information [email protected](916) 322 - 1770

20


Deadlines Summary2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

September 30, 2017: Annual Progress Reports Due Date

June 30, 2019: LEA Encumbrance Deadline.

June 30 - September 30, 2021: Final Project Completion Reporting Deadline.

June 30, 2020: Project Completion Deadline.

February 26, 2018: Final EEP Submission Due Date


Procurement Reminders

22


No Sole Source

• Public Resources Code section 26235(c), states:

“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…”

23


No Sole Source• No sole source applies to all Proposition 39

funding; planning funds and energy project implementation funds.

24


No Sole Source• “The LEA shall defer to their own

procurement regulations and procedures, as long as they reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations and do not conflict with the minimum legal standards specified above.”

In other words…consult your attorney.

25


Questions…About Current Program?

26


Energy Conservation Assistance Act – Education Subaccount

(ECAA-Ed)

0% Loan Program

27


ECAA-Ed Funding

28

Monterey Peninsula USD

Over $49 Million Approved forZero Interest Loans


Funding Status(as of September 3, 2017)

29

Chico Unified School District

$3 Million Still Available (no waiting list) 0% Interest Rate Loans for Energy Projects


ECAA-Ed Resources

30

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

Loan Program Web Page

Additional Information and Application


Bright Schools ProgramProvides free technical assistance service

(energy audits valued up to $20,000) to identify energy savings opportunities

No waiting list – apply now!

31

ProposedSolarPanels(TheHuntingtonSchoolDistrict)


Questions…About ECAA-Ed or Bright Schools?

32


Looking Ahead!

33


New Proposition 39Senate Bill 110 (Chaptered July 10, 2017)

• Funds remaining after 2017-18 fiscal year continue to be available in future years for:1) First 75 million School Bus Program2) Next 100 million for ECAA-Ed loans3) Remaining Money (if any) Competitive

Prop 39 K-12 Program

34


New Proposition 39 K-12Potential Additional Funding…

Beginning with the 2018-19 fiscal year, funds may also be appropriated in the annual Budget Act or another statute for the Clean Energy Job Creation Program.

• New Prop 39 K-12 Program (89%) and• Community Colleges (11%)

35


New Proposition 39 K-12Competitive Program Requirements• Three Tier funding targets:

1) 10% for LEAs with ADA of 1 to 1000.2) 10% for LEAs with ADA of 1,001 to 2,000.3) 80% for LEAs with ADA greater than 2,000.

• Provides the Energy Commission flexibility to adjust the funding allocations (if needed).

36


New Proposition 39 K-12Competitive priority based on:1) LEAs % of students eligible for Free or

Reduced-Priced Meals2) Geographic Diversity

a. Urban, suburban and ruralb. All regions of the state

3) Workforce Needs of the areas in which the LEA is located.

37


New Proposition 39 K-12New statute requirement:

1) LEAs shall encumber grant funding withinnine months of allocation.

38


New Proposition 39 K-12Familiar requirements that continue:1) Projects shall be cost effective with total

benefits greater than cost over time (Savings to Investment Ratio).

2) All projects shall require contracts that identify project specs, cost and energy savings.

3) All projects shall be subject to audit.

39


New Proposition 39 K-12Familiar requirements that continue:4) CDE to require LEAs to return funds if not

used in accordance with statute.5) LEA authorization to collect gas/electric

information from utilities.6) Final Reporting 12-15 months after project

completion. Same information required as current program.

40


New Proposition 39 K-12Program Development Status?1) Unanswered BIG questions

a. Regulations, Guidelines, Solicitation (or comb)?b. Who distributes the funding Energy Commission or

CDE?2) Analyzing all statute requirements3) Identifying legal and policy issues4) Finalizing a work plan and program

implementation schedule41


Questions…About New Program?

42


Wrap Up

43


Program Resources

44

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

Proposition 39 K-12Web Page


Publicly Searchable Database

45

http://prop39publicsearch.energy.ca.gov/


Energy Commission’s Prop 39 web page:http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/proposition39/index.html

Contact our Prop 39 Hotline:(855) 380-8722 (Toll-free in-state)(916) 653-0392 (Toll-line out-of-state)

Contact us by email:[email protected]

Proposition 39 K-12: Information

46

Twin Rivers Unified School District: Inspiring each student to extraordinary achievement every day!

Proposition 39+Case Study

Eloy VentoGeneral Services / Facilities Planning & Efficiency

SEC Fall 2017 Forum, September 19, 2017


Agenda• District Facts• Background• Multiple Projects …

– Prop 39 Phase I– Prop 39 Phase II– Prop 39 Charter Schools– Lighting Retrofits

• Special Thanks• Questions


District Facts• 29th Largest CA School District, serving ~28,000

Students, speaking 46 languages - Nearly 2,900 Employees

• Encompasses 120 sq. miles, including …– 4 Comprehensive High Schools– 5 Middle Schools– 28 Elementary Schools

• 3 Charter Schools operating @ 7 Sites


Background

• In 2012, District purchased 34 HVAC units for Harmon Johnson ES & 37 units for Grant Union HS.

• Funding came from $230M bond measure approved by community members in 2006.

• Previous District administrators said there was no money to install the units – District paid $17K to store units since October 2012.


Background, cont’d

• Teachers & parents raised concerns about uncomfortable classrooms due to broken HVAC.

• Students returned from winter break to chilly classrooms; some using “Snuggies” & sleeping bags to stay warm.

• District took action to have all units installed before beginning of 2014-15 school year.

• District dubbed campaign “Feel the difference! Creating a new climate in our classrooms.”


Background, cont’d• District’s Facilities Planning & Efficiency position existed

for 13+ years – Beginning January 2017, position shared by Eloy Vento & Mark Giugni

• Roles & Responsibilities include …– Energy Efficiency & Conservation– Trash & Recycling, both Traditional & Organic– School Boundaries & Enrollment


Background, cont’d• Lucid BuildingOS used to track / analyze utility usage &

costs, including real-time integration …


Multiple Projects• EEP #413, Grant HS (HVAC Updates)

Completed, Final Report Approved

• Three additional Prop 39 Projects inprogress …– “Phase I” = EEPs #82 & 1239– “Phase II” = Balance of TRUSD Allocation– “Charter Schools” = 7 of 10 School’s Allocation

• Gym & Other Spaces “Lighting Retrofits” also in progress


Prop 39 Phase I• In-process of completing remaining portion of previously submitted /

approved EEPs …– EEP #82, Harmon Johnson ES – Interior & Exterior Lighting Retrofits + Controls– EEP #1239, Foothill Ranch MS & Foothill HS – Interior & Exterior Lighting

Retrofits + Controls & Pool Pump VFD

• Timeline …– Complete Statement of Work (SOW) – Need to verify “budget” covers costs*– Complete Mtg w/Greystone-West & LP Eng. to discuss Plans & Bid Docs– Oct ’17 RFP– Nov ‘17 Board Approval / NTP (Notice to Proceed)– Apr ’18 Project Complete

*CSEA MoU being discussed to allow possible use of CCC “free labor” to stretch already approved funds.


Prop 39 Phase II• In-process of developing HVAC-only EEP for …

– Norwood Jr. HS (Controls)– Highland HS (Central Plant Valving & Controls)– Foothill Ranch MS (Balance of HVAC, Lighting & Controls > EEP #1239)– Grant HS-West, Rio Terra Jr. HS & MLK Tech Academy (HVAC & Controls)– Woodlake, Northwood, Hagginwood, Strauch (Fund already completed

HVAC upgrades)

• Timeline …– In House Producing savings calcs, benchmark data & cost estimates– 1/12/18 Submit EEP


Prop 39 Charter Schools• Conducted RFQ (Request for Qualification) process to select ESCO

to develop, submit & complete EEPs for 7 Charter Schools* (11 sites) with SIR of 1.01 … – Heritage Peak Charter– Higher Learning Academy– Highlands Community Charter– Creative Connections Arts Academy ES & HS– Symthe Academy of Arts & Science, K-6 & MS– Futures High (fund already completed HVAC upgrades)– Westside Preparatory Charter, Westside, Hillsdale & Frontier Campuses

*Independent & Dependent – All District facilities.


Prop 39 Charter Schools, cont’d• Timeline …

– Completed Selected ESCO (IES partnering w/TerraVerde)– In-Process Developing EEP Development & Energy Services

Construction Contract(s)– tbd Develop SoW (ECMS by Site), inc’l Architectural,

Engineering, Procurement & Installation– 1/12/18 Submit EEPs– tbd Construction / Project Complete


Lighting Retrofits

• In-process of working w/TerraVerde to utilize previously approved budget to implement Gym, MPR & other spaces lighting retrofits for:– FC Joyce ES (Interior)– Grant HS-Main (Gym & Cafeteria)– Grant HS-West (Interior & Parking)– Foothill HS, Highland HS & Harmon Johnson ES (Gym)– Rio Linda Prep Academy & Norwood Jr. HS (Interior & Gym)– Rio Linda HS & MLK Tech Academy (Interior, Exterior & Gym)– Rio Tierra Jr. HS (Interior, Gym, Locker Room, Cafeteria & Kitchen)


Lighting Retrofits, cont’d

• Timeline (Design-Bid-Build Delivery Strategy) ...– Complete ECM Plan w/SoW– Mid-Sep / Oct ’17 Architect Conducts Design Work– Nov ’17 Bid Process (Develop/Release RFP,

Bidders’ Conference & Responses Due)– Dec ’17 Shortlist Interviews– Jan ’18 Board Approval / NTP (Notice to Proceed)– Feb ’18 GC Solicits Trade Bids– Spring / Summer ’18 Construction / Project Complete


Special Thanks• Our Hosts – School Energy Coalition (SEC)

• The California Energy Commission (CEC)

• Our Partners …– Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)– TerraVerde Renewable Partners, LLC (TVRP)– Indoor Environmental Services (IES)– Greystone-West Company– LP Consulting Engineers


Questions / Comments?• Eloy Vento – Manager, Facilities Planning & Efficiency

– 916-566-1600, x50283– [email protected]

• Mark Giugni – Manager, Facilities Planning & Efficiency– 916-566-1600, x50284– [email protected]

Proposition 39 Pasadena USD and Santa Paula USD Case Studies

Kathleen Neff ● Schneider Electric ● [email protected]

Agenda

o Prop 39 Delivery Method

o Santa Paula Unified School District

o Pasadena Unified School District

o Next Steps

Project Development

Needs Discovery

Site Audits

Design & Engineering

Comprehensive Design

Qualified sub pricing

Fixed Price Contract

Construction Management

Dedicated sub management

Full ownership of design

No change orders

Commissioning

Measurement & Verification

Focused on long-term

performance

Training / Support

Delivery Method

Santa Paula Unified School District

ADA: 5,500# of Schools: 9 P39 5-yr $: $1,411,524

District Goals

• Replace antiquated equipment

• Maximize Prop 39 allocation

• Future ready schools

• Collaborate with SPUSD’s PIO to promote positive news story

• Limited savings potential due to lack of cooling district-wide – Required District contribution to meet SIR.

• One site appeared to have a meter error. We could not claim the full savings because it was too high of a % on the baseline.

Prop 39 Challenges

Selected Energy Conservation Measures

• Gym lighting to LED

• Exterior lighting to LED

• New building automation system

• Heat pumps replaced

Goals Achieved

Pasadena Unified School District

ADA: 18,000# of Schools: 32P39 5-yr $: $4,239,034

District Goals

• Coordinate P39 projects with bond modernization & planning

• Automation / integration (Controls)

• Visual display of utilities

• Sustainability branding

• Limited savings potential due to proactive energy management efforts – Required District contribution to meet SIR.

• Significant controls scope – Had to use custom calculations in lieu of CEC Calculators.

Prop 39 Challenges

Selected Energy Conservation Measures • New chiller• Fan coil valves replaced• New RTU HVAC units• New building automation

system• Exterior lighting to LED• Interior lighting to LED

(occupancy / dimming controls)• Utility meters with energy

dashboard• Plug load management

Goals Achieved

Kathleen Neff, Schneider Electric323-203-6479

[email protected]

FALL FORUMSeptember 19, 2017

Los Angeles County Office of Education 9525 Imperial Hwy., Education Center East #300

Downey, CA

Final Project Completion Report becomes available 12 months after project is completed as identified in Annual Progress Report

E-mail sent to Authorized Representative and Project Manager identified in approved EEP

Final Project Completion Report must be submitted 3 months after becoming available

September 21, 2017

Accounting for Prop 39 Projects in Your District’s Annual Audit

4 Options for identifying savings Utility Incentive Completion Report Energy Commission Energy Savings

Calculators Report LEA’s own final energy savings report Third-party final energy savings report

September 21, 2017


Local Auditor Required Detail of expenditures Approved clean energy plan Notices of completion Final project completion report, if applicable

September 21, 2017



QUESTIONS

We provide your district team the tools, strategies, and expertise to

overcome your most pressing challenges today and create a

sustainable future for tomorrow.

Bob Nicholson | 858.414.6268 mobile | 760.602.9352 office | [email protected]

Southern California EdisonEnergy Efficiency Programs

SEC Fall ForumSeptember 19, 2017

Energy Efficiency Programs

2

Core Programs Express Solutions (Rebates) Customized Solutions (Incentives)

Savings By Design (SbD) Whole Building or Systems Approach For code governed technologies (i.e. HVAC, Lighting) incentive based on % above Title 24, min. 10% to qualify Owner Incentive up to $150,000 Design Team Incentive up to $50,000

Energy Efficiency Programs (cont.)

3

Retrocommissioning (RCx) Tuning Measures Only Focus on O&M ImprovementsM&V Required – Sample Time Varies

Lighting

4

MPOP – Midstream Point of Purchase www.sceonlineapp.com/MidstreamPOP.aspx

Title 24 Code Lighting Power Density

Easy Lighting Calculator (eLC)

5

Preferred tool for calculating lighting measuresUse the eLC v3.1 for all lighting calculations starting 2017.

The eLC v3.1 includes Interactive effects Updated LPD calculations for 2016 T24

Interior Lighting OpportunitiesEXPRESS

6

INTERIOR LINEAR FLUORESCENT FIXTURES INTERIOR BI‐LEVEL STAIRWELL/HALL/PARKING

GARAGE FLUORESCENT FIXTURE LED REFRIGERATED DISPLAY CASE RETROFIT

Exterior Lighting OpportunitiesEXPRESS

7

LED FIXTURES WITH INTEGRAL AUTONOMOUS MOTION SENSORS (IAMS)

LED STREET LIGHT FIXTURES

Customized Lighting

8

SPECIAL INTERIOR/EXTERIOR LED LIGHTING (PARKING GARAGE, POOL, UNDER CABINET, ETC.)

LINEAR FLUORESCENT/CFL RETROFITSMAJORITY OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING THAT DOES

NOT FALL UNDER EXPRESS OR MPOP LIGHTING CONTROLS ‐ EMS

HVAC OpportunitiesEXPRESS

9

COOLING TOWER FAN VSD CHILLED WATER PUMP VSD CONDENSER WATER PUMP VSD HVAC FAN VSD ECONOMIZER RETROFIT FOR RTU < 5 TONS PTAC AND PTHP ADVANCED EVAPORATIVE COOLERS

Additional OpportunitiesExpress

Plug Load Management

Network Software

Food Equipment

10

Proposition 39 Program Audit: How are Schools Doing?

byLisa Kurokawa, Audit Manager

State Controller’s Office, Division of Audit

Proposition 39 Program Audit: How are Schools Doing?

• The State Controller’s Office conducted a program audit of a sample of completed projects that were finalized by June 30, 2016.

• Our sample of completed projects included 16 local educational agencies that reported $13 million dollars in project costs.

• Our audit identified two audit issues:

• Issue #1 – Sole‐sourced project costs• Issue #2 – Projected energy savings not included in the awarded contract

Issue #1: Sole‐sourced project costs

• Public Resources Code section 26235(c) states:“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 defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 20133 of the Public Contract Code to award funds pursuant to this chapter.” (Emphasis added)

• We have interpreted the requirement to “not use a sole source process to award funds” as the necessity for a competitive process.

• Public Contract Code section 20133(c)(1) identifies “best value” as a value determined by objective criteria related to price, features, functions, and life‐cycle costs.

• We have interpreted the “best value criteria” not as an exception to the sole‐source criteria, but as guidance for selecting between contractors.

Issue #2: Projected energy savings not included in the awarded contracts

• Public Resources Code section 26206(d) states:“All projects shall require contracts that identify the project specifications, costs and projected energy savings.” (Emphasis added)

• While the projected energy savings amounts are identified in the Energy Expenditure Plans, please ensure that this amount is ALSOincluded in any Proposition 39 contracts.

Los Angeles Fall Forum

September 19, 2017

Evaluation Form

Excellent Good Fair Poor





Did the presenters address your needs? Yes No

Did you find the topics and forum to be valuable? Yes No Would you recommend this forum to your colleagues? Yes No


State Agency and Legislation Landscape

DSA Update: Energy and ZNE Issues

Solar, Time of Use Rates and Battery Storage

CEC Update: New Proposition 39 Formulas and Deadlines

Schools and State Energy Legislative Actions

School Case Studies

Accounting for Proposition 39 Projects in Your District’s Annual Audit

Utility Programs and Proposition 39

Overall Comments:



Cum

min

gC

hrist

ine

Mar

ez|

cmar

ez@

ccor

pusa

.com

| 62

6.68

8.46

3452

3 W

. 6th

Str

eet,

Suite

100

1 |

Los

Ang

eles

, Cal

iforn

ia 9

2131

Cum

min

g ap

proa

ches

ene

rgy

solu

tions

as

a co

llabo

rativ

e ef

fort

with

our

Clie

nts

to d

evel

op

inno

vativ

e pr

ogra

ms

that

sav

e th

em m

oney

, im

prov

e as

sets

, red

uce

envi

ronm

ent i

mpa

cts,

and

en

sure

s the

ir su

cces

s.

SEC t

hank

s our

sponso

rs for

the

ir com

mitm

ent to

Sch

ool E

nergy

an

d Wate

r Proj

ects

Los A

ngele

s Fall

Foru

m

Sept

embe

r 19,

201

7

Sage

Ren

ewab

les

Tom

Will

iard

| to

m@

sage

rene

w.co

m |

415

.663

.991

417

19 F

ifth

Aven

ue|

San

Raf

ael,

Cal

iforn

ia 9

4901

Sage

Ren

ewab

les i

s a C

alifo

rnia

-bas

ed r

enew

able

ene

rgy

cons

ultin

g an

d pr

ojec

t man

agem

ent

firm

that

pro

vide

s ene

rgy

expe

rtise

for p

ublic

agen

cies

. Sin

ce 2

005,

Sag

e ha

s hel

ped

mor

e th

an

60 C

alifo

rnia

scho

ols a

nd c

omm

unity

col

lege

s pla

n, im

plem

ent a

nd o

pera

te so

lar

PV, b

atte

ry

stor

age

and

effic

ienc

y pr

ojec

ts.

Sage

spec

ializ

es in

pro

ject

fina

ncin

g an

d ta

riff

risk

ana

lysis

and

pr

ovid

es e

xper

tise

in P

PA c

ontr

actin

g an

d ea

rly

buyo

uts.

Our

per

form

ance

asse

t man

agem

ent

ensu

res s

yste

ms r

un o

ptim

ally

and

max

imiz

e sa

ving

s.

SEC t

hank

s our

sponso

rs for

the

ir com

mitm

ent to

Sch

ool E

nergy

an

d Wate

r Proj

ects

Los A

ngele

s Fall

Foru

m

Sept

embe

r 19,

201

7

Schn

eid

er E

lect

ric

Kat

hlee

n N

eff|

kat

hlee

n.ne

ff@sc

hnei

der-

elec

tric

.com

| 32

3.20

3.64

7916

60 S

ceni

c Ave

nue|

Cos

ta M

esa,

Cal

iforn

ia 9

2626

Our

miss

ion

is to

hel

p K

-12

Dist

rict

s nav

igat

e th

ese

chal

leng

es to

cre

ate

bett

er an

d m

oder

nize

d le

arni

ng e

nvir

onm

ents

. We

do th

is by

par

tner

ing

clos

ely

with

dist

rict

s to

prov

ide

turn

key

infr

a-st

ruct

ure

solu

tions

that

are

fast

, dep

enda

ble

and

on b

udge

t. O

ur ta

lent

ed in

-hou

se c

apab

ilitie

s al

low

us t

o de

liver

inte

grat

ed p

roje

cts t

hat e

ncom

pass

aud

it, d

esig

n en

gine

erin

g, c

onst

ruct

ion

and

serv

ice/

mai

nten

ance

. In

addi

tion,

we

help

dist

rict

s ob

tain

and

leve

rage

mul

tiple

fund

ing

sour

ces t

o ta

ckle

miss

ion

criti

cal p

roje

cts.

Our

hol

istic

and

cre

ativ

e ap

proa

ch a

llow

s clie

nts t

o ta

ckle

som

e of

thei

r m

ost p

ress

ing

need

s. Le

t Sch

neid

er E

lect

ric

optim

ize

your

ene

rgy

spen

d!

Vect

or is

an

ener

gy e

ffici

ency

com

pany

con

cent

ratin

g on

LED

ligh

ting.

Vec

tor

offe

rs tu

rnke

y so

lutio

ns to

its

clie

nts,

esp

ecia

lly s

choo

ls ne

edin

g Pr

opos

ition

39

fund

s fo

r lig

htin

g up

grad

es.

The

sav

ings

gen

erat

ed b

y th

e lo

w o

r no

-cos

t lab

or c

ompo

nent

we

offe

r, co

mbi

ned

with

Pro

p 39

avai

labl

e fu

nds,

allo

ws y

our

dist

rict

to re

trof

it m

ore

light

s for

less

. R

etro

fittin

g m

ore

light

s tr

ansla

tes i

nto

mor

e lo

ng-t

erm

ele

ctri

city

savi

ngs f

or th

e di

stri

ct.

Vect

or E

nerg

y G

roup

Al G

ancm

an|

agan

cman

@ve

ctor

ener

gygr

oup.

com

310.

991.

2017

1733

7 Ve

ntur

a Bo

ulev

ard,

Sui

te 3

04En

cino

, Cal

iforn

ia 9

1316

2017 draft fall agendasdoug humphrey, division of the state architect 10:10 a.m. break 10:25 a.m....

Documents