Prepared by:
Jason Tanko
Chief Executive Officer
Tanko Streetlighting, Inc.
220 Bayshore Boulevard
San Francisco, CA 94124
Prepared for:
Ryan Do
Project Manager, Public Works
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
May 2022
Tanko Lighting
Copyright | All Rights Reserved
STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA
ATTACHMENT A
2 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT Table of Contents
Project Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Data Review ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Standards/Guidelines Review ......................................................................................................................................... 4 LED Streetlight Design Guidelines .................................................................................................................................... 6 Financial Analysis of LED Conversion ............................................................................................................................... 7 Funding & Incentives ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Ownership Transfer of Utility-Owned Fixtures ................................................................................................................ 9 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A – Financial Analyses & Assumptons ........................................................................................................... 12
3 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Tanko Lighting was engaged by the City of Cupertino to develop a n assessment of a potential Light Emitting Diode (LED) conversion and operational options related to the streetlight assets located within the City.
The City’s streetlight system is currently primarily comprised of Induction fixtures (IND), as well as High Pressure Sodium (HPS), LED, and Metal Halide (MH). Additionally, a small portion of the fixtures are owned by the utility company, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
The City requested a scope of work that assists in reviewing the existing streetlight data and standards, developing updated design guidelines for an LED streetlight system, and providing a financial analysis for converting the City -owned streetlights to LED.
METHODOLOGY
Tanko Lighting used the following methodology to complete this analysis:
• Existing Streetlight Data: Reviewed Cupertino’s GIS Light Poles records for a comprehensive understanding of the City’s streetlight system
• Inventory Analysis : Reviewed the City’s recent utility bills and utility inventories to determine the estimated current inventory.
• City Guidelines: Reviewed the existing Department of Public Work’s Streetlight Standard Details and Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.102: Glass and Lighting Standards to familiarize with the City’s lighting standards and protocols.
• Rate Analysis: Analyzed the current electricity rates and the potential new rates to calculate the estimated impact of converting to LED fixtures.
• LED Conversion Analysis : Developed budgetary estimates for the LED conversion based on average material costs, installation costs, and pricing in the City’s region.
• Maintenance Analysis : Estimated budget for the required maintenance services based on the nationwide industry standard of services and average pricing in the region for LED.
• Ownership Analysis: Evaluated the difference in energy and maintenance costs if the City were to purchase a subset of streetlights currently on PG&E’s LS-1 rates.
DATA REVIEW
Tanko Lighting compared the City’s existing PG&E streetlight inventory, as well as the City’s GIS Light Pol e records, with its standard list of streetlight attributes (typically collected during its streetlight field audits) to determine if any information was missing that would be critical to the subsequent stages of the project.
Based on a review of a subset of the City’s data for cobra head streetlights, Tanko Lighting concluded that the data appeared to be spatially accurate. In addition, the data appear ed to cover the entire City and include d useful fields, such as unique identification number, latitude/longitude coordinates, pole number, lamp type, wattage, fixture type, feed type, pole material, length of arm, pole base configuration, number of heads on pole, photocell or shorting cap, ownership, maintainer, and rate schedule.
However, it was also determined that, while decent, the existing data is insufficient if the City were to proceed with a comprehensive LED replacement design of the fixtures for the following reasons:
4 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT • Confirmed Quantities: Although the data appears to cover the entire City, Tanko Lighting cannot confirm with certainty the quantity of lights in the City.
• Accuracy of Existing Conditions: The existing data does not include any information on existing conditions, such as any visible issues like pole leaning, fixture damage, tree obstructions, etc. , which are critical to properly preparing for an LED conversion.
• Lack of Existing Elements Informing Design : Important fields missing in the C ity’s data that are vital to the LED replacement design process include: pole distance to street, street width, street design/configuration ( e.g., cul-de-sac, intersection, crosswalk, bridge, roundabout, etc.), arm angle, and shields.
• Verification of Pole Numbers: An LED conversion typically involves an analysis of existing pole numbers and labels to verify complete pole numbers/labels and confirm locations where numbers/labels are damaged or missing. Not only is this necessary for LED replacement design and installation implementation, but also for accurately reconciling existing data with utility records – which is a necessary part of preparing for an LED conversion.
• Decorative Fixtures: While the City’s data currently classifies decorative fixtures as “ornamental”, there are no photos, base size measurements, subclassifications ( e.g., post top or pendant), or internal clearance measurements of these existing fixtures in the City’s data. This information is necessary if decorative fixtures are included in an LED conversion because they are non-standard and typically require custom retrofits.
While the City’s existing data was useful to prepare this analysis, the collection of additional information may be necessary prior to an LED conversion.
STANDARDS/GUIDELINES REVIEW
Tanko Lighting utilizes Illuminating Engineering Society (ANSI/IES) RP8 standards when designing for roadways and rights-of- way. Additionally, Tanko Lighting utilizes Trade Manual 12-12 for direction on light level equivalencies between IND and LED fixtures, and maintains a working knowledge of all the latest publications and updates in the market. In Tanko Lighting’s experience, guidelines should either define spill light and sky glow limitations or require specific luminaire optics.
With this in mind, Tanko Lighting reviewed the City’s existing streetlight standards, including the Department of Public Work’s City of Cupertino Standard Details and the Cupertino, CA Municipal Code Chapter 19.102: Glass and Lighting Standards . Based on current industry standards and best practices , Tanko Lighting recommends the following revisions to the City’s confirmed guideline priorities and standards:
Department of Public Work’s City of Cupertino Standard and Details:
Tanko Lighting recommends revising the Cupertino Lighting Notes (page 68) to reference LEDs in lieu of IND lighting.
• The City standard should be revised from IND to LED. Typical wattages should be revised to 20W-30W (3,000 lumens) on residential roads, 40W-50W (4,000-5,000 lumens) on collector roads, and 65W-85W (8,000-9,000 lumens) on arterial roads.
• The term “cut-off” should be removed, as this is a term specific to IND or HPS lighting. Instead, the City should require all lighting to be International Dark Sky (IDA)-approved. With this edit, all new fixture installations in the City will be required to follow the industry standard for sky glow limitations.
• Whereas a typical IND fixture indiscriminately distributes light in all directions, a n LED fixture directs light spread to where it is needed most – on the roadway. Thus, Tanko Lighting recommends the following LED distribution types: Type II for residential roads, T ype III for arterial roads, and Type IV for cul-de-sacs/knuckles, with the assumption that the arm direction is perpendicular to the street.
• Streetlight arm length at a cul-de-sac should not differ from a streetlight on a standard street. The Type IV distribution, which is recommended for cu-de-sacs, emits light in a more circular pattern to match the se specific types of roadways.
5 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT While having a set standard arm length can be helpful, the streetlight head should generally be placed two feet from the face-of-curb (FOC).
Cupertino, CA Municipal Code Chapter 19.102: Glass and Lighting Standards:
The Glass and Lighting Standards of the Cupertino Municipal Code regulate design and construction of structures and accessory elements in all zoning districts to protect the natural environment, particularly enhancing bird safety and reducing light pollution.
Section 19.102.040 (Outdoor Lighting Requirements) sets submittal requirements and lighting standards for all outdoor lighting.
These standards apply generally to private development, however not necessarily to streetlighting in the public right -of-way.
However, Tanko Lighting found the following requirements to be applicable to streetlights and reflective of the current LED standard:
• Submittal Requirements: Projects subject to outdoor lighting regulations must submit the following information:
1. A site plan indicating the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures
2. A description of each lighting fixture. This description may include, but not be limited to, manufacturer’s catalog cuts and drawings (including sections if requested), lamp types, and lumen outputs.
3. For new stre etlight installations, p hotometric plans, prepared, stamped and signed by a licensed professional engineer or someone qualified in outdoor lighting, depicting the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures and building- mounted lighting fixtures and a maximum ten-foot by ten-foot grid of both the initial and maintained lighting levels on the site.
• Outdoor Lighting Standards:
1. All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded fixtures, directed downward to meet the particular need and away from adjacent properties and rights-of-way to avoid light trespass.
2. Illumination Levels
a. No exterior light, combination of exterior lights, or ac tivity shall cast light exceeding zero point one (0.1) foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property.
3. All light sources shall have a maintained correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or less.
In addition to the City’s current Outdoor Lighting Requirements listed above, Tanko Lighting recommends the following revisions to the Code to incorporate more specific standards for streetlighting in the public right-of-way:
• Update the Submittal Requirements so that streetlight installations are required to:
o Be Design Lights Consortium (DLC) listed and/or Energy Star qualified o Be International Dark Sky (IDA)-approved
o Have a dimmable driver
o Have a color rendering index of 70 or better
o Have aluminum housing
o Include a seven-pin photocell receptacle
• Update the Outdoor Lighting Standards so that streetlights have:
o Recommended Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) Rating: A luminaire is assigned a BUG rating, based on its lumen output in the various Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) zones. A BUG rating may be used to evaluate luminaire optical performance related to the potential for light trespass, sky glow, and high-angle brightness control. Tanko Lighting recommends a minimum BUG rating of B1 U0 G1 for r esidential areas, B1 U0 G2 for collector areas, and B2 U0 G2 for arterial areas.
6 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT o Lumen Standard: Tanko Lighting recommends 3,000 lumens in residential areas, 4,000-5,000 lumens in collector areas, and 8,000-9,000 lumens in arterial areas.
o Recommended Spacing: Light uniformity and coverage are the key principals when it comes to determining exact pole spacing. In general, streetlights should be spaced approximately 150-200 feet apart from each other. As stated in the Submittal Requirements, only for new streetlight installations, a photometric plan prepared by a professional engineer, or someone qualified in outdoor lighting is recommended to determine the exact spacing.
LED STREETLIGHT DESIGN GUIDELINES
When working on an LED design, Tanko Lighting uses the existing IND wattages to help guide the selection of replacement LED wattages. The goal is to avoid unnecessary lighting or light trespass into residences and keep light levels in the right-of-way consistent with existing light levels. This process yields a City-wide standard design that will create uniform and predictable light levels.
The City is comprised of numerous neighborhoods. There are a mix of residential, collector, and arterial roads – and multiple arterial roads with special lighting considerations. As such, Tanko Lighting recommends three approximate wattage levels for the LED replacement cobra head fixtures: residential (20W-30W), collector (40W-50W), and arterial (65W-85W). Please find a comparison of these recommendations with the existing IND fixtures, in Table 1, below.
Table 1
Comparison of Recommended LED Wattages with IND Wattages Street
Classification IND IND Lumens LED LED Lumens
Residential 40-55W 2200-3000 Low (20-30W) 3000
Collector 85W-100W 4800-8000 Medium (40-50W) 4000-5000
Arterial 120-150W 8500-10900 High (65-85W) 8000-9000
In Tanko Lighting’s experience, a critical initial step in proper design involves photometric analysis, which is an examination of the distribution or “spread” of light from the fixture onto the ground. Unlike IND or HPS fixtures, which indiscriminately throw light in all directions, LEDs intentionally direct the light to where it is need most – on the roadway. During a granular LED design, a consultant would not only review photometric readings, but also consider multiple attributes for each location, such as road width, crosswalks, intersections, and arm angle , before selecting a distribution type . For the City, Tanko Lighting recommends three optic types:
• Type II: Type II distribution would be used for narrower streets or those where buildings have small setbacks from the road. This reduces the chances of light trespass into residences.
• Type III: Type III distribution would be used for wide roads or large areas with isolated lights. This allows light to adequately cover traffic lanes, sidewalks, and highlight other important features in the public right-of-way.
• Type IV: Type IV distribution would be used for cul-de-sac, 45-degree intersections, or areas such as parking lots. The Type IV distribution emits light in a more circular pattern to match these types of roadways.
These wattage and distribution guidelines are general indicators of good design. However, it should be noted that a proper and comprehensive design conducted at a granular level is critical for the City to prepare for a successful LED conversion. During a granular LED design:
• A consultant works with the City to select a fixture that best meets the design criteria and the City’s preferences. Tanko Lighting is aware that the City has been installing CREE Lighting RSWS fixture s in 2700K, which complies with Tanko Lighting’s design recommendations and guidelines (e.g., correlated color temperature less than 3000K, DLC listed, and IDA approved). However, Tanko Lighting recommends the City consider additional brands and models of LED streetlights.
7 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT In Tanko Lighting’s experience, municipalities have seen the most success with such manufacturers as Cooper, Philips, GE, and AEL.
• A consultant develops specific recommendations for decorative lights, including retrofit options, that would be more cost effective and maintain existing aesthetics than full head replacements. This process would include a review of each location, wattage, style, purpose, and existing housing to select replacement options (both retrofit and full head replacement).
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF LED CONVERSION
Tanko Lighting analyzed the financial impacts of the City shifting from the status quo of its current streetlight system and proceeding with the LED conversion of its streetlights. Please find the results of this analysis in Table 2, as well as the subsequent Graphs 1, 2 and 3, below. This analysis assumes a federal inflation rate of 4% and energy cost inflation rate 1%. The analysis included the following assumptions and data points:
• The estimated cost of the City collecting the necessary data, completing a LED design, as well as procuring and implementing activities for the LED conversion of the City’s existing 2,963 City-owned IND, HPS, and MH streetlights on PG&E’s LS-2 rates.
Please see Appendix A: Financial Analysis & Assumptions for detailed results.
Please note that, in addition to the LED conversion, the City has the option of purchasing the remaining 374 streetlight fixtures currently on PG&E’s LS-1rate – please find more information on this option in the Ownership Transfer of Utility-Owned Fixtures section, below.
Table 2
Financial Analysis of LED Streetlight Conversion of the City-Owned Lights
Estimated LED
Conversion Cost
Net 20 Year Savings
(Energy + Maintenance Savings - LED
Conversion Cost)
Payback Period
$1,050,046
$1,891,098
8.02 years
8 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT
The blue bar in Graph 1 represents the existing system costs for the City-owned streetlight fixtures and the orange bar represents the energy costs for the next 20 years once all the City-owned streetlight fixtures are converted to LED. Graph 1 depicts the energy savings of the LED conversion of the City-owned streetlights.
Graph 2 represents the cumulative costs (energy, system, and maintenance) for the next 20 years for both the existing City- owned streetlighting system and fully converted City-owned streetlighting system. The intersection of the two lines represents the return on investment.
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Graph 1
LED Conversion of the City-Owned Lights
Annual Energy Costs
Existing New
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Graph 2
LED Conversion of the City-Owned Lights
Cumulative Annual Costs
Existing New
9 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT
Graph 3 represents the cumulative opportunity costs the City would incur by delaying the City-owned streetlighting system conversion to LEDs.
FUNDING & INCENTIVES
The most common incentive for municipal streetlight projects is utility -sponsored rebates. However, based on Tanko Lighting’s understanding, there are currently zero rebates available through PG&E corresponding to an LED streetlight conversion. Thus, incentives were not included in the financial analysis of the LED conversion.
There may be other , non -utiity incentives and financing available to the City for this project, including third -party private financing.
OWNERSHIP TRANSFER OF UTILITY-OWNED FIXTURES
In addition to an LED conversion of the City-owned fixtures, the City can also alter the status quo of its existing streetlight system by purchasing the remaining 374 PG&E-owned fixtures currently on LS-1 rates from PG&E and converting the remaining 5 HPS fixtures in this group to LED fixtures.
There are a variety of benefits if this City pursues this option, including:
1. Lower streetlight energy rates for the City.
2. Lower maintenance costs for the City.
3. Improved response time for repairs. Note that the most common complaint from municipalities with utility-owned systems is that maintenance response timelines are slow, and the infrastructure is not well maintained. While the utility will still play a role in the overall health of the system, the City will be able to dispatch its maintenance contractor at the pace that it determines is best to address repair issues.
4. Standardization and control of the lighting levels and coverage throughout the City’s roadways.
With this option, the City would:
• Transfer all streetlights to the LS-2 City-owned electricity rate for the streetlight system.
• Upon completion of the LED conversion of the 5 HPS streetlights, transfer to an LS-2 LED fixture electricity rate for the streetlight system. The LS-2 rate for a converted LED will be lower than that of the previous HPS streetlight.
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Month
Graph 3
LED Conversion of the City-Owned Lights
Cumulative Opportunity Costs
10 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT • Maintain the entire system via City staff or a qualified contractor.
• Explore and employ smart systems management and explore third party attachments (with possible revenue generation opportunities for the City) on the entire streetlight system.
Table 3 and Graph 4 (below) outline the estimated energy costs of the existing PG&E-owned fixtures, compared with the energy costs if these fixtures were purchased by the City and converted to an LS-2 rate. This analysis assumes a federal inflation rate of 4% and energy cost inflation rate 1%. Please see Appendix A: Financial Analysis & Assumptions for detailed results.
Table 3
Ownership Energy and Maintenance Costs/Benefits
Existing Annual
Energy and
Maintenance Cost
New Annual
Energy and
Maintenance Cost
Annual
Savings 20 Year Savings % Annual
Savings
$45,233 $16,423 $28,810 $579,606 64%
The blue bar in Chart 4 represents the existing system on the LS-1 rate, and the orange bar represents the estimated energy for the next twenty years for the 374 existing LS-1 PG&E-owned streetlights, if there were acquired by the City (transferred to the LS-2 City-owned rate), and converted to LED.
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Graph 4
Ownership Transfer of Utility-Owned Lights
Annual Energy Costs
Existing New
11 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT
Graph 5 represents the cumulative costs (energy, system, and maintenance) for the next 20 years for both the existing LS-1 PG&E-owned streetlights and the existing LS-1 PG&E-owned streetlights, if there were acquired by the City (transferred to the LS-2 City-owned rate), and converted to LED. The intersection of the two lines represents the return on investment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the assessment, Tanko Lighting offers the following recommendations:
1. Update the City’s standards and guidelines per the recommendations provided in the Standards/Guidelines Review section of this report.
2. Pursue design and implementation of an LED conversion for the City-owned streetlight fixtures. LED conversion is a cost- effective option for the City, with the potential t o save the City over the next twenty years an estimated 50% on its energy bills, or approximately $1,891,098.
3. Consider pursuing an ownership strategy to purchase the remaining streetlight fixtures currently on PG&E’s LS -1 rates, which would result in an additional $579,606 in savings over the next twenty years.
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Financial Analyses & Assumptions
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Year
Graph 5
Ownership Transfer of Utility-Owned Lights
Cumulative Annual Costs
Existing New
12 CITY OF CUPERTINO, CA | STREETLIGHT TRANSITION ASSESSMENT APPENDIX A – FINANCIAL ANALYSES & ASSUMPTONS
Assumptions
The following list of assumptions were made to determine the results for this report:
• LED conversion scope of work consists of the following tasks:
o Audit
o Data reconciliation
o LED replacement design
o Financing options
o Materials procurement
o Community outreach and notification
o Logistics management
o Installation
o Pole Labeling
o Commissioning
o Tariff change coordination
o Final reporting
• Ownership support scope of work consists of the following tasks:
o Certified appraisal
o Ownership negotiations
o Final ownership transfer support
• Materials
o Reputable fixture manufacturers and recent fixture pricing o Photocells
o Pole Tags Labels (assumes 5% of the system will require a new pole label) • Labor
o Per fixture installation rates from qualified electrical workers in the region (budgetary) o Included labor to install fixture, photocell, and any required ancillary materials • Utility
o Existing rate:
▪ PG&E LS-1 and LS-2
o Municipal owned rate:
▪ PG&E LS-2
• Quantities
o Derived from PG&E’s inventory
• Preliminary watt-for-watt design replacement of existing fixtures o 20% ballast factor applied to high intensity discharge (HID) wattages • Federal Inflation Rate: 4%
• Energy Cost Inflation Rate: 1%
o Note that this is a conservative estimate and can reach about 3% • Sales Tax Rate: 9.13%
• Estimated Acquisition Cost: $200 per fixture
• 10-year fixture manufacturer warranty on streetlight fixtures • Maintenance program costs
o $2/pole/month administrative fee for the existing LS2 system comprised of a majority of IND fixtures o $1.25/pole/month administrative fee for a converted LS2 system comprised of LED fixtures o T&M repair work (based on qualified electrical workers in the region (budgetary)) o Emergency costs assumed recuperated through insurance o Average call-out frequency, hourly pricing, and batched responses Financial Analysis
Please see subsequent pages.
Financial Analysis of the LED Conversion of City‐Owned Streetli ght System May 2022
Total Cost (City Owned LED Conversion)
20 Year Savings
Net 20 Year Savings (20 Year Savings ‐ Total Cost) $1,891,098 Payback Period (Energy Savings Only) 10.86 years
Payback Period (Energy + Maintenance Savings) 8.02 years LED Conversion Cost (estimated costs for turnkey services, including labor/materia l) $1,050,046 Year 1 Analysis Existing New Savings
Energy Usage Cost $170,371 $78,400 $91,972
Maintenance Cost $72,312 $36,156 $36,156
Total $242,683 $114,556 $128,128
20 Year Analysis Existing New Savings
Energy Cost $3,751,409 $1,726,279 $2,025,129
Maintenance Cost $2,153,312 $1,237,297 $916,015
Total $5,904,721 $2,963,576 $2,941,145
Assumptions
Quantity of Lights Included in Analysis 3,013
Quantity of Lights to be Converted 2,963
Quantity of Lights to be Audited 3,387
Tariff Rate of Old System LS2
Tariff Rate of New System LS2 ‐ Converted to LED
Project Overview
$1,050,046
Project Costs
$2,941,145
Existing New Savings Existing New Costs/Savings
1 170,371$ 78,400$ 91,972$ 72,312$ 36,156$ 36,156$ 2 172,075$ 79,184$ 92,892$ 75,204$ 37,602$ 37,602$ 3 173,796$ 79,975$ 93,821$ 78,213$ 39,106$ 39,106$ 4 175,534$ 80,775$ 94,759$ 81,341$ 40,671$ 40,671$ 5 177,289$ 81,583$ 95,706$ 84,595$ 42,297$ 42,297$ 6 179,062$ 82,399$ 96,663$ 87,979$ 43,989$ 43,989$ 7 180,853$ 83,223$ 97,630$ 91,498$ 45,749$ 45,749$ 8 182,661$ 84,055$ 98,606$ 95,158$ 47,579$ 47,579$ 9 184,488$ 84,895$ 99,592$ 98,964$ 49,482$ 49,482$ 10 186,333$ 85,744$ 100,588$ 102,923$ 51,461$ 51,461$ 11 188,196$ 86,602$ 101,594$ 107,039$ 66,900$ 40,140$ 12 190,078$ 87,468$ 102,610$ 111,321$ 69,576$ 41,745$ 13 191,979$ 88,343$ 103,636$ 115,774$ 72,359$ 43,415$ 14 193,899$ 89,226$ 104,673$ 120,405$ 75,253$ 45,152$ 15 195,838$ 90,118$ 105,719$ 125,221$ 78,263$ 46,958$ 16 197,796$ 91,019$ 106,777$ 130,230$ 81,394$ 48,836$ 17 199,774$ 91,930$ 107,844$ 135,439$ 84,649$ 50,790$ 18 201,772$ 92,849$ 108,923$ 140,857$ 88,035$ 52,821$ 19 203,789$ 93,777$ 110,012$ 146,491$ 91,557$ 54,934$ 20 205,827$ 94,715$ 111,112$ 152,350$ 95,219$ 57,131$ Total 3,751,409$ 1,726,279$ 2,025,129$ 2,153,312$ 1,237,297$ 916,015$ Year Annual Energy Costs Annual Maintenance Costs
20 Year Savings Analysis of the LED Conversion of City‐Owned Streetlight System May 2022
Financial Analysis of the Ownership Transfer of Utility‐Owned S treetlight System May 2022
Total Cost (City Owned LED Conversion)
20 Year Savings
Payback Period (Energy Savings Only) 6.6 years
Payback Period (Energy + Maintenance Savings) 7.6 years Ownership Cost (estimated cost to purchase the streetlights from the utility) $74,800 LED Conversion Cost (estimated costs for turnkey services, including labor/materia l) $151,378 Year 1 Analysis Existing New Savings
Energy Usage Cost $45,233 $11,935 $33,298
Maintenance Cost Included in current energy costs $4,488 ($4,488) Total $45,233 $16,423 $28,810
20 Year Analysis Existing New Savings
Energy Cost $995,979 $262,790 $733,190
Maintenance Cost Included in current energy costs $153,584 ($153,584) Total $995,979 $416,374 $579,606
Assumptions
Quantity of Lights Included in Analysis 374
Quantity of Lights to be Converted 5
Buyout Cost per Pole $200
Tariff Rate of Old System LS1
Tariff Rate of New System LS2
Project Overview
$226,178
Project Costs
$579,606
Existing New Savings Existing New Costs/Savings
1 45,233$ 11,935$ 33,298$ ‐$ 4,488$ (4,488)$ 2 45,685$ 12,054$ 33,631$ ‐$ 4,668$ (4,668)$ 3 46,142$ 12,175$ 33,967$ ‐$ 4,854$ (4,854)$ 4 46,603$ 12,296$ 34,307$ ‐$ 5,048$ (5,048)$ 5 47,069$ 12,419$ 34,650$ ‐$ 5,250$ (5,250)$ 6 47,540$ 12,543$ 34,997$ ‐$ 5,460$ (5,460)$ 7 48,015$ 12,669$ 35,347$ ‐$ 5,679$ (5,679)$ 8 48,496$ 12,796$ 35,700$ ‐$ 5,906$ (5,906)$ 9 48,981$ 12,924$ 36,057$ ‐$ 6,142$ (6,142)$ 10 49,470$ 13,053$ 36,418$ ‐$ 6,388$ (6,388)$ 11 49,965$ 13,183$ 36,782$ ‐$ 8,304$ (8,304)$ 12 50,465$ 13,315$ 37,150$ ‐$ 8,636$ (8,636)$ 13 50,969$ 13,448$ 37,521$ ‐$ 8,982$ (8,982)$ 14 51,479$ 13,583$ 37,896$ ‐$ 9,341$ (9,341)$ 15 51,994$ 13,719$ 38,275$ ‐$ 9,715$ (9,715)$ 16 52,514$ 13,856$ 38,658$ ‐$ 10,103$ (10,103)$ 17 53,039$ 13,994$ 39,045$ ‐$ 10,507$ (10,507)$ 18 53,569$ 14,134$ 39,435$ ‐$ 10,928$ (10,928)$ 19 54,105$ 14,276$ 39,829$ ‐$ 11,365$ (11,365)$ 20 54,646$ 14,418$ 40,228$ ‐$ 11,819$ (11,819)$ Total 995,979$ 262,790$ 733,190$ ‐$ 153,584$ (153,584)$ Year Annual Energy Costs Annual Maintenance Costs
20 Year Savings Analysis of the Ownership Transfer of Utility‐Owned Streetlight System May 2022