Prop. 39 Project Delivery Methods 2015 Green California Schools October 29, 2015 Pasadena

Ying Wang, Okapi Architecture Inc. yingwang@okapiarchitecture.com

Samer Alzubaidi, San Bernardino City Unified Samer.Alzubaidi@sbcusd.k12.ca.us

Wael Elatar, Chief Business Officer, Barstow USD Wael_elatar@busdk12.com

Approach Survey from Districts

• Pittsburg Unified • Glendale Unified • Santa Monica – Malibu Unified • Long Beach Unified • Cupertino Union Unified • Moreno Unified • Barstow Unified • San Bernardino City Unified • Los Angeles City Unified

From one ESCO Company

• Desert Sand • Fountain Valley • Huntington Beach • Juruba USD • Manhattan Beach • Burbank USD • Nuview USD • Westminster

What is in the Survey?

• Prop. 39 funding usage? – For Prop. 39 projects – Part of modernization projects

• Which delivery method? – ESCO - – Design-Build – Design, Bid & Build – including CM at Risk

• Other thoughts

Conclusion • Most schools have more in common on the delivery method • Lighting projects

– implemented by in-house maintenance and operation folks – Auditing firm audit (design) and build

• HVAC related projects – designed and DSA approved, through A/E teams, design–bid- build

• ESCO – comprehensive package, including auditing, expenditure plan, to implementation, financing, education

Difference

• Use of planning fund – for entire school auditing – support energy manager’s position and some schools

auditing – Toward master planning ( School Assessment +), complying

with CHPS school criteria, may be ZNE

>>> Bond selling – Put planning fund into construction

• Leverage other resources – There is no free lunch?

Most Common Improvement

• No brainers – T12 to T8 – T8 to LED – Exterior lighting upgrade – HVAC constant air volume to variable volume – Standardize EMS, is included as part of HAVC

improvement

Challenges

• Swimming pool cover • Solar thermal water heater • Solar panel • EMS only improvement • Energy Manager, a long term post • Is CHPS operation report card an add-on

value? • How hard is the expenditure report to CEC?

Chicken and Egg

• For projects completed with local bond first and then comes Prop. 39 funding

• For modernization project, swapping of Prop. 39 funding and local bond, loan and incentive

• Time is of Essence - Leverage???

Acknowledgement Thank you Kevin Jenkins – Cupertino USD Virginia Hyatt – Santa Monica – Malibu USD Peter Yee – Los Angeles City USD Peter Hennum – Long Beach Schools Alan Reising – Glendale USD Jorge Mendez – Moreno Unified Alan Glass – Pittsburg Unified Shane Carlson – Opterra Energy Services

Proposition 39 for San Bernardino City USD

Approach to Prop. 39 Management

• Use existing in-house facility and M&O staff • RFP/RFQ for energy consultant to help out the

planning • RFP/RFQ for AE team to help out the planning

and execute the project • RFP/RFQ for ESCO • Hybrid

District Planning

• Benchmarking 1. Utility usage/billing data, entire District 2. Benchmarking to EUI ( energy/sf) 3. Project prioritization

Age, T1, remodeled, hours of operation, EUI, ROI, Energy Demand Reduction, etc.

4. Project sequencing EE, Clean energy

5. Auditing for ID Energy Project 6. Cost Effective Determination

Prop. 39 funding per SIR + other funding

7. Expenditure Report

Leveraging Always 1. HPI, if school qualified for OPSC funding, the consider adding HPI

criteria $ significant, especially for remodeling projects ( $ 250,000 design assistance + incentive from meeting additional credits) Needs to have new State Bond for K-12 construction

2. Utilities companies multiple programs on technical assistance, incentive and special loans

Takes effort to incorporate their requirement into project planning, however, it is worth it.

3. Prop. 39|Bright School – Technical assistance in Planning & Auditing…1st come, 1st serve. No direct charge to the school

Funding is very limited 4. Prop. 39 |California Conservation Corps – Provide Auditing and

simple EE installations, target to ADA 5000 and below For small district

Approaches to define project

• Understanding District needs o ID lowest 10% of EUI o ID schools not receive any modernization o ID age of schools o ID modernization history of school o Use handbook listed 20 ECMs as checklist o Best use utility company’s program

Phase I - Prop. 39 Work 2015 – 2016 Prop 39 submission

Lighting –

Whole school has T12 lighting, Replace with high efficiency T8 HVAC –

Central Plant too old, equipment oversize, replace entire system EMS –

Existing EMS – Honeywell not functioning any longer Insulation on Roof Attic (Alternate) Include CHPS Registration and Review Fee

Utility Support and Incentive

Fully use utility companies and other institutional resources, such as ASHRAE level 2 Audit Gas Company and Edison, Incentive and Rebate Multiple Programs

Zero Interest Rate Loan

Under Consideration

Phase II – Becoming a CHPS School 2017 Phase II

Site –

Separate water meters into irrigation and indoor use. Exterior Modernization–

Skylight such as Solatube or other high bay window, additional attic insulation Interior Minor Repair – CHPS Registration fee only 4 items – Major Mod – CHPS School

Utility Support and Incentive

Gas Company and Edison, Incentive and Rebate Multiple Programs

Zero Interest Rate Loan

Under Consideration

Barstow USD Prop 39 Districts’ Collaboration

• Districts & SB County Superintendent of Schools coordinated general discussion

• Various approaches were discussed & evaluated

• Various districts in the county discussed the option of participating in issuing one RFP for: Preparing an Energy Expenditure Plan for submittal to the California Energy Commission (CEC) to meet the Guidelines outlined in Prop 39

• SB County Superintendent of Schools agreed to do RFP on behalf of these districts to provide “Energy Planning & Auditing Services”

• Total of 16 districts joined the county schools and issued RFP in July 2014

The San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools (SUPERINTENDENT) is seeking the services of a qualified consultant (Consultant) to provide Energy Planning and Auditing Services on behalf of School Districts within San Bernardino County in connection with preparing an Energy Expenditure Plan for submittal to the California Energy Commission (CEC) to meet the Guidelines outlined in Proposition 39 - Clean Energy Jobs Act. School Districts that elect to enter into a contract to provide energy planning and auditing services will enter into separate specific contracts approved by their respective Boards of Education. School Districts may, or may not, enter into a contract with the successful Consultant. The following school districts have expressed interest in participating: 1. Adelanto Elementary School District 2. Alta Loma School District 3. Apple Valley School District 4. Baker Unified School District 5. Barstow Unified School District 6. Bear Valley Unified School District 7. Etiwanda School District 8. Helendale School District 9. Lucerne Valley School District 10. Mountain View School District 11. Oro Grande School District 12. Rim of the World School District 13. San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools 14. Trona Joint Unified School District 15. Silver Valley Unified School District 16. Upland Unified School District 17. Victor Valley Union High School District

RFP June / July 2014

Qualification & Scope

• Qualification Requirements – ASHRAE Level 2 Energy Audit & Energy efficiency – Energy audits, using total energy cost/square footage/year and annual total KBTU1 /square

footage/year – California K-12 references that can attest to the quality of the firm's past work – An established record of technical performance on similar projects in California – Established records of firm's ability to perform the work, Credentialed & trained staff

• Scope of Work

– Step 1: Electric and Gas Usage/Billing Data – Step 2: Benchmarking or Energy Rating System – Step 3: Eligible Energy Project Prioritization Considerations – Step 4: Sequencing of Facility Improvements – Step 5: Eligible Energy Measure Identification – Step 6: Cost-Effectiveness Determination – Step 7: Complete and Submit an Energy Expenditure Plan(s) – Step 8: Energy Project Tracking and Reporting

Prop 39 The Selection Process

• Selection criteria & process • Selection committee consisted of 4 districts representatives • Selection committee reviewed 13 proposals

– Cover Letter/Letter of Interest (5 points) – Background, qualifications and Experience (30 points) – Project Team (25 points) – Fee Approach (25 points) – Client References (10 points)

• Interviews

– Firms with top 4 scores were selected for interviews – Interviewer consisted of the same 4 representatives – Interviews consisted of presentation by firm followed by open form questions & answers

One firm was selected, recommended & later approved

Prop 39 After the Selection

• School districts have the option to enter into agreement with the same firm

or other firms to complete the work

• Individual districts to enter into agreement with Selected Firm (Few districts entered into agreement already. Other districts are pursuing other options)

• Conduct the audit and submit the plan

Prop 39 What is Barstow USD planning to do?

• District elected to “wait” and “see”

• Restoration of closed older school is impacting district decision

• District hired architect for the restoration project and is planning to

incorporate prop 39 funding in that project if possible

• Challenges – Existing Site Condition (Theft, vandalism & fire damages) – Change of grade span from grades 6-8 to grades K-6 – Prop 39 funds eligibility for site retro-fit (…pushing the envelope with prop 39)