15 Estimated by PG&E and Maintenance Supervisor McKinney based on hours no longer needed due to replacement bulbs eliminating need for use while room is vacant.
16 Converted percentage into kwh
17 Multiplied kwh per month by average kwh cost
18 Estimated original bulb maintenance time per fixture multiplied by number of fixtures minus new bulb maintenance time per fixture multiplied by number of fixtures divided by difference between expected life of current bulbs and expected life of replacement bulbs
19 Added expected monthly cost savings of change in bulb wattage of replaced bulbs to date to expected monthly cost savings of additional savings from non-use while room is vacant. 20 Using Clean Air and Climate Protection software, converted monthly cost savings into eCO2 21 Added expected monthly cost savings of change in bulb wattage of total project to expected monthly cost savings of additional savings from non-use while room is vacant. 22 Using Clean Air and Climate Protection software, converted monthly cost savings into eCO2 Lighting Fixture Replacement and Aquatic Center Energy Saving Analysis Report Page A-8 of A-15
City’s total PG&E bill. With energy costs continuing to rise and the City’s desire to lead a greener Newark, this facility became the focus of potential financial savings and carbon dioxide emission reductions.
The facility includes a reception area, staff offices, restrooms, café, vending machines, and the natatorium. The current lighting system consists mainly of T8 fixtures with minimized control, contributing to a significant lighting load. The HVAC system consists of packaged roof units, an air to air heat exchanger, rooftop hot water boilers, and a CSI control system. Heating the pool requires four natural gas powered heaters. Ensuring quality water flow requires 12 electrical powered pumps, equivalent to over 115 horsepower. Two large air handlers, one which runs 24/7 and the other which runs approximately 18 hours per day, use a considerable amount of electrical power.
Through PG&E’s InterAct software, City staff has been able to review the facility’s energy usage in great detail, assisting the City in focusing its energy saving efforts.
Over $30,000 is spent annually to maintain and repair the pool’s heaters, pumps, and controls. In addition, one of the three Building Mechanics employed by the City is almost exclusively dedicated to this facility.
3.2 Energy Saving Alternatives Researched
Opportunities to increase energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions are numerous.
This section will look at the options that apply to the aquatic center and analyze the feasibility of each option based on cost, reduction potential, lifecycle impacts and site constraints. Information provided by vendors and experts is generally based on phone and email communications. Funding was not allocated for studies or other tools that could provide exact cost-benefit analyses. Two companies, PacificWest Solutions and Suntrek Industries, completed tours of the facility and collected utility information for their proposals. Numbers provided in their proposals are for illustrative purposes only.
3.2.1 Cogeneration
PacificWest Solutions23 provided recommendations to improve the Aquatic Center’s lighting, HVAC, and pool systems. Cogeneration, a way of using waste heat to generate electricity, was a top recommendation. Cogeneration requires the installation of a natural gas driven generator. In addition to reducing gas transportation, cogeneration would replace the four heating units as the pool’s water heating source.
Significant savings could be achieved through maintenance and repair reductions, in addition to both energy costs and carbon emissions reduction. A life cycle analysis of the exact CO2 savings would reveal an even greater savings in the transportation and manufacturing phases.
23 Contact information: Robert Cho, PE, CEM, CMVP, President, PacificWest Solutions, Inc., 3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-179, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762; 775-772-2123 Mobile; 916-941-8326 Office; 916-404-0392 Fax [email protected]
Lighting Fixture Replacement and Aquatic Center Energy Saving Analysis Report Page A-9 of A-15
When PacificWest Solutions’ original proposal was provided in 200724, the rebate incentive for cogeneration was much higher than it was in 200825. The City hopes that the cogeneration rebate will rise again, making this a more viable option for the City.
Cogeneration was one of several recommendations presented as a package, and therefore numbers related specifically to cogeneration are not available. The package as a whole is detailed in Section 3.3.1, including a return on investment analysis, upfront costs, ongoing costs, and projected savings. The City estimates cogeneration to cost $720,000.
3.2.2 Frequency Drive Controllers
Another top recommendation from PacificWest Solutions, which confirmed our own research, is to install variable frequency drive controllers on the pools’ 12 pumps. This would assist in managing the flow rates, with special regard to the water features.
Allowance for day and night variances would also assist in powering down the pumps, reducing the carbon emissions and energy costs. The addition of a computerized programmable logic control for the pump system would also be a beneficial feature.
The control would modulate the pump speed and provide improved control.
Frequency Drive Controllers are estimated at $60,000. Installing Frequency Drive Controllers was one of several recommendations PacificWest Solutions presented as a package, and therefore their numbers related specifically to frequency drive controllers are not available. The package as a whole is detailed in Section 3.3.1, including a return on investment analysis, upfront costs, ongoing costs, and projected savings.
3.2.3 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
While the heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) units, and lighting systems are somewhat energy efficient, PacificWest Solutions noted that improvements can be made to further reduce carbon emissions. Recommendations included recommissioning the HVAC units for optimal operation, and taking advantage of the scheduling option in the automated building system to allow staff to fine tune operations and facilitate building equipment maintenance. The HVAC system has received regular preventative maintenance and does not need recommissioning at this time, but this is recommended to occur in about 6 years.
Without a detailed evaluation of the HVAC system, a recommissioning can be estimated to cost up to $100,000. HVAC modification was one of several recommendations PacificWest Solutions presented as a package, and therefore their numbers related specifically to HVAC modification are not available. The package as a whole is detailed in Section 3.3.1, including a return on investment analysis, upfront costs, ongoing costs, and projected savings.
24 PacificWest Solutions Energy & Facility Services Preliminary Energy Services Proposal for the City of Newark, September 13, 2007
25 PacificWest Solutions Energy & Facility Services Preliminary Energy Services Proposal for the City of Newark, December 12, 2008
Lighting Fixture Replacement and Aquatic Center Energy Saving Analysis Report Page A-10 of A-15
3.2.4 Lighting Retrofit Options
PacificWest Solutions recommended changing the T8 lighting to T5. The City is concerned about the time involved in retrofitting the fixtures. A more in-depth study may reveal that the energy savings is minimal in comparison to the staff time required to complete this type of project. Another lighting recommendation included installing increased lighting controls, offering greater control of use.
The City estimates lighting upgrades to cost approximately $20,000. Lighting upgrades was one of several recommendations PacificWest Solutions presented as a package, and therefore their numbers related specifically to lighting upgrades are not available.
The package as a whole is detailed in Section 3.3.1, including a return on investment analysis, upfront costs, ongoing costs, and projected savings.
3.2.5 Solar and Wind Power
Solar and wind power are natural, renewable forms of transforming energy into electricity. The facility’s roof faces south-southeast, an ideal position to capture the sun’s energy. A large field behind the facility may also be an option for a solar farm.
Another option to consider would be construction of a carport structure in the existing parking lot with roof mounted solar panels, similar to the Alameda County Courthouse in Fremont. Solar requires a significant upfront cost, averaging a 15 year payback.
Systems may be leased or owned, and various agreements can be entered into.
Currently, the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Climate Protection Taskforce has a subcommittee exploring various financing options, including a power purchase agreement. Results are expected in 2009, and may provide the City of Newark an opportunity to significantly reduce the costs associated with solar systems.
Since sun is more prevalent than wind in terms of generating power in our region, solar power projects have been more common than wind. The City of Hayward purchased solar panels for one of its facilities. The cost was $1.8 million, half of which was paid for through a PG&E grant and half is being financed by the City of Hayward26. According to PowerLight27, the vendor that installed the solar panels for the City of Hayward, the anticipated energy savings averaged $51,400 in reduced electrical costs and over 66 tons of eCO2 annually. City of Hayward Facilities Manager Avila stated that the solar panels are generating more electricity than needed to power the facility housing the solar panels. While exact savings numbers were not available, the City of Hayward reports a positive experience with its solar project.
In addition to photovoltaic solar panels generating electricity, solar thermal systems generate heat, ideal for swimming pools. Representatives from Suntrek toured the Aquatic Center and reported several opportunities to use solar thermal to offset the City’s heating costs. Each of the three pools would require its own system, and could
26 Avila, Vic, Facilities Manager, City of Hayward, (510) 583-4820, [email protected] 27 PowerLight Solar Electric Systems, 2955 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94702, (510) 540-0550, www.powerlight.com
Lighting Fixture Replacement and Aquatic Center Energy Saving Analysis Report Page A-11 of A-15
be installed in 3-4 days. An additional system could be installed to generate heat for the domestic hot water system. The biggest hurdle is determining the best location for each system. The roof area with the greatest sun exposure is tiled with slate, which would likely be significantly damaged and troublesome for solar thermal system installation.
Other roof areas, with less sun exposure, can host a portion of the systems, but would be unable to accommodate the entire system. The City must also consider that installation in areas with minimal sun exposure would likely not produce enough electricity to be cost-effective.
Solar thermal systems have a 20 – 25 year life expectancy, and require minimal maintenance. Solar photovoltaic systems have a 30 – 40 year life expectancy, and also require minimal maintenance.
Wind power may be more difficult in the City of Newark. Until a study is conducted, it is uncertain if enough wind is generated at the site to make wind turbines effective. Also, a structural analysis would have to be completed to determine if rooftop installation of a wind turbine would be an option. Benefits of wind power are similar to solar in regards to installation, maintenance, and life expectancy. However, wind turbines viewed to date are incongruent with the Silliman Center’s architecture. Environmental concerns would also have to be addressed, such as any impact turbines may have on birds and other wildlife, if wind power is further explored. One positive is that wind turbines report a shorter payback period than solar, about three and one-half years compared to fifteen years.28
3.2.6 Geothermal
Adjacent to the Aquatic Center is the nation’s first LEED Platinum Community College, Ohlone College. One of its energy systems is geothermal which works in conjunction with an Enthalpy Wheel. Generally, geothermal has a payback period of up to nine years. The Aquatic Center’s proximity to the bay is advantageous, and perhaps like Ohlone College, the payback period could be as low as three years. Geothermal systems report a 25 to 30 year lifespan.
Geothermal works through installed coils underground, which use the Earth’s natural moderate temperature to heat and cool a facility. Geothermal systems are also capable of heating water. Systems require a small amount of electricity for its compressors and heat exchangers. Coils are filled with water or an environmentally safe antifreeze solution, with some systems built to reintroduce the water into local reservoirs29. It is estimated that 70% of the energy used is renewable.30 Also, geothermal fields produce
28 Carrington, Mark, VP Field Operations, Marquiss Wind Power, 101 Parkshore Dr., Folsom, CA 95630; (916) 932-7195, www.marquisswindpower.com
29 City of Santa Rosa, California, ci.santa-rosa.ca.us
30 http://www.geoexchange.org/goethermal/geoexchange-explained/what-is-geoexchange/html Lighting Fixture Replacement and Aquatic Center Energy Saving Analysis Report Page A-12 of A-15
a approximately one-sixth of the carbon dioxide that a relatively clean natural gas-fueled power plant produces.31
An Enthalpy Wheel can capture up to 95% of the wasted energy that is normally lost through exhaust. This recovery works with the geothermal system to moderate air temperature.
Michael Lucas, PE and Partner of Alfa Tech Cambridge Group32 led the project at Ohlone College. Mr. Lucas recommended that an Energy Modeling and Life Cycle Cost Analysis be completed for the City’s Aquatic Center in order to determine the best combination of energy systems.
3.2.7 Other Options Not Considered
The City of Lompoc, California chose to incorporate natural ventilation into their 2006 aquatic center design33. Motorized, retractable glass wall and roof panels provide natural day light and ventilation. All electrical needs and 75% of the pool heating needs will be covered through two fuel cells in a future design plan. Also, cogeneration is planned to provide additional heat. Excess power is expected to be generated, which will feed back into the city-owned electrical grid. Replacing the roof and walls at the Silliman Center is not a feasible option, as costs associated with re-constructing the facility would be prohibitive.
3.3 Energy Saving Plan
Looking at a variety of combinations of the above options is the best way to achieve a more desired carbon emissions reduction. The plan we are putting together for the aquatic center will continue to be dynamic because of the fast pace of technological changes and the lack of long-term analysis on some of the options that seem attractive right now.
The first step in the Energy Saving Plan for the Aquatic Center is to generate a thorough analysis of the potential energy efficient measures. Upon completion of the analysis, prioritizing the recommended actions and determining funding sources will be a next step. Energy efficiency measures can be implemented in phases as the money is available in the maintenance budget, or also be proposed as a future capital improvement project.
31 U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Geothermal Technologies Program:
Geothermal FAQs
32 Michael Lucas, PE, Partner, Alfa Tech Cambridge Group, 120 Montgomery Street, #715, San Francisco, CA 94101; (415) 403-3000, [email protected] 33 City of Lompoc (Calif.) Aquatic Center Aquatic Design Group. (2007, July/August) Aquatics International.
Lighting Fixture Replacement and Aquatic Center Energy Saving Analysis Report Page A-13 of A-15
3.3.1 Cost Analysis
An in-depth study of the various energy measures, such as the Energy Modeling and Life Cycle Cost Analysis recommended by Alfa Tech Cambridge Group or the Energy Study proposed by PacificWest Solutions, can cost up to $20,000. Funding opportunities to cover these costs exist. However, many require a level of commitment to recommended actions after the study is complete. Without knowing what actions may be recommended and a lack of funds appropriated in the City budget, it would be negligent to accept funding for an analysis that would require further commitment.
Examples of implementation costs were provided by a few contacts. A rough estimate of a complete geothermal system would be $800,000 to $1,000,000, according to Alfa Tech Cambridge Group,
SunTrek provided three scenarios of solar photovoltaic systems costs. To cover almost 100% of the Aquatic Center’s electric use, a solar photovoltaic system would cost $6.3 million; generate $188,785 in annual savings; and allow a $246,463 rebate. The rate of return on this project would be approximately 19 years.
SunkTrek also provided preliminary costs for solar thermal systems for the Aquatic Center pools. Based on the pools’ surface areas, local weather patterns, and other assumed factors, the estimated solar thermal system costs of each pool are:
Lazy River $ 31,884
Leisure Pool $ 39,376
Lap Pool $ 46,194
Total: $117,454
The payback period on these solar thermal systems is approximately three years.
To implement all of the measures recommended by PacificWest Solutions (cogeneration, controls optimizations, energy monitoring, HVAC upgrades and commissioning, lighting, and pool pump controls) would cost approximately $900,000; generate $161,400 in annual savings ($160,000 in energy costs, the remainder in operational costs); include a $30,000 rebate; making the payback period approximately six years. These numbers were provided for illustrative purposes only.
Grant funding, rebates, and other financial assistance will be necessary for the City of Newark to undertake any energy efficiency project at the Aquatic Center. The volatility of government support of renewable energy rebates is a concern, as projects can take several months to complete, sometimes spanning over two calendar years. However, it should be noted that Governor Schwarzenegger did sign several bills into law supporting energy efficiency, particularly with regard to solar power. The Obama administration has also promised funding for energy efficiency measures. The City is currently anticipating the release of direct funds and competitive grants through the Economic Stimulus Funding Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program.
Lighting Fixture Replacement and Aquatic Center Energy Saving Analysis Report Page A-14 of A-15
The Aquatic Center analysis and potential recommended actions may be viable projects within the scope of this funding program.
In addition to funding assistance, the options to purchase or lease potential equipment needs will be analyzed. The City will continue to follow the Joint Venture Silicon Valley Climate Protection Taskforce subcommittee on solar purchasing. It will also continue to track existing projects as they age, hoping to collect and interpret data on lease, purchase, and other financing alternatives.
Other considerations in putting together a comprehensive energy plan will include revenue generation opportunities. If excess electricity can be generated and sold back to the power grid, the City could benefit by either powering City facilities in addition to the site the source is physically located or in the form of compensation/credit from PG&E. Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed AB 2466 into law, allowing local governments to be credited with excess power generation.
Conclusion
The results of this research report are stated in the introduction. All of the described projects have resulted in current and projected energy savings, but just as important, they set an example for the community. The research paper titled Social Norms: An Underestimated and Underemployed Lever for Managing Climate Change34 discusses that people do not realize the main factor impacting their decision to act and respond to environmental issues. According to the study, people were more likely to act when they saw others acting first, and they were completely unaware of this contributing factor.
That is why it is so important that the City set an example and advertise the measures it is taking. This will have a significant impact on our community members’ decisions to take similar measures.
In any case, locating funding assistance will be a priority. Future BAAQMD grants, PG&E charitable grants, state technical assistance and low financing programs, CARB, EPA, U.S. Department of Energy, and other resources will be researched extensively.
Depending on the success of the City’s private and public grant search, the timeframe for implementing these measures is unknown. Energy savings costs achieved would be set aside to fund the Special Assistant beyond September 2009 to continue with the City’s efforts to become more energy efficient.
The City is proud of the savings it has achieved so far, and is eager to continue down a path of reducing both CO2 and costs related to energy. The City will distribute information to other recreation facility staff as a model, describing the 1.5% reduction in energy savings from the lighting retrofit projects to date. This report will also be made available to local governments to assist in their efforts of researching energy efficiency alternatives.
34 Griskevicius, Vladas, Cialdini, Robert B., and Goldstein, Noah H. (2008) , Social Norms: An Underestimated and Underemployed Lever for Managing Climate Change www.ijsc-online.org | IJSC 3 (2008): 5-13 Lighting Fixture Replacement and Aquatic Center Energy Saving Analysis Report Page A-15 of A-15
Report Prepared By:
Lenka Diaz And Susie Woodstock, PE
Special Assistant - Climate Protection Maintenance Superintendent City of Newark, California City of Newark, California
[email protected] [email protected]
510-578-4806 510-578-4804
Released: December 31, 2008
Revised: March 13, 2009
Appendix B – Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the feasibility of replacing the existing slow-fill CNG pump station to a quick-fill CNG station to accommodate changing additional vehicles in the City of Newark’s fleet from gasoline to CNG fuel. Other alternative fuels will also be included in this report. CNG is the main focus because of the proven and readily available technology, the proven overall positive effect on the environment as compared to gasoline, and availability and cost of CNG. The City already has four CNG vehicles which use the slow-fill pump station.
CNG is a non-renewable resource. The United States has about 3% of the world’s natural gas. The Natural Gas Supply Association estimates the United States untapped natural gas reserves at about 1,190 trillion cubic feet.1 Current demand shows that we
use about 1.5% of our natural gas a year,2 which allows about 60 years of natural gas use at the current rate before we would have to start importing. Therefore, most sources believe that CNG is a good immediate alternative while other technologies are developed, but should be one part of a diversified energy conservation plan.3 From this analysis, the plan for increasing the CNG capacity of the fleet is to start by replacing four maintenance vehicles in the next five years as these vehicles are listed on the Equipment Replacement List. The existing slow fill station will accommodate these vehicles. In the meantime, we will continue to pursue grants and other funding opportunities to upgrade the fill station and for replacement or additions to the fleet vehicles; most notable the City will pursue grant opportunities for an additional street sweeper that runs on CNG. We will pursue a partnership with PG&E on outreach opportunities to educate our residents on CNG technology and encourage them to consider a CNG vehicle with a fill station at their home. Unfortunately, at this time, PG&E has cut its customer transportation program due to budget reductions. Most importantly, we will monitor new technologies and update our fleet plan annually.
1. Benefits of CNG
CNG provides many benefits. CNG is cleaner burning than gasoline, CNG is cheaper the gasoline, a CNG vehicle requires less maintenance, CNG is a commonly accepted alternative to gasoline and it is a reasonable option for the general public.
CNG is cleaner burning than gasoline. Harmful emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, non-methane hydrocarbons, and CO2 are reduced by 35%, according to a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy .
4 The ongoing cost of CNG has been
significantly cheaper then gasoline. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts the price of CNG to remain similar through 2030. Gasoline prices can
1 Natural Gas Supply Association, www.naturalgas.org 2
Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from the US Government, tonto.eia.doe.gov 3 www.pickensplan.com
4 Freedom CAR & vehicle technologies program Just the Basics Natural Gas (August 2003) U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy B-1
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
dramatically fluctuate, but the EIA forecasts a continuous rise in crude oil prices.5
Retired City of Union City Public Works Superintendent Michael Klinkner shared his years of experience with CNG vehicle maintenance.6
He determined that preventative
maintenance is needed less often in a CNG vehicle, due to a cleaner motor. For example, a CNG vehicle requires an oil change every 8,000 – 10,000 miles versus every 3,000 in a gasoline vehicle. He also stated that breakdowns in CNG vehicles occur less often than their gasoline fueled counterparts.
Currently, CNG appears to be the most commonly accepted alternative to gasoline fueled vehicles. Hybrids are not considered an alternative fuel because they still run on gasoline for any travel over 25 mph. Accessibility should increase with increased demand. State and federal funding and rebate programs have and will likely continue to support CNG fueled vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers are diversifying their CNG fleet.
Locally, our neighboring cities have successfully converted a portion of their fleet to CNG, with a large part of CNG vehicles being within the maintenance division. Waste haulers, buses systems and some taxi companies have successfully converted also.
Residential CNG fuel stations can be installed in garages, carports, or outdoors7 .
These home refueling appliances (HRA) average four hours of fuel time for 50 miles of driving. PG&E will coordinate with homeowners who want a fill station. Again, CNG is not the final answer to gasoline alternative, but it is a good alternative for the next few generations of vehicle purchases. A map of CNG fueling stations that are open to the public shows there are 24 stations in the Bay Area8.
2. Existing Equipment Information
2.1 Existing City Fleet
According to the Master Equipment Replacement List, the City fleet consists of 109 vehicles. For purposes of this analysis, the City fleet can be divided into three groups:
public safety, miscellaneous, and maintenance vehicles.
There are 68 public safety vehicles. There are nine miscellaneous vehicles which consist of vans, pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles, and sedans used by Engineering, Zoning and Building Inspection, and as pool vehicles.
There are 32 Maintenance vehicles in the fleet consisting of a variety of types. There are 11 three quarter ton pickups (three of which run on CNG); one CNG Honda sedan used by maintenance staff for errands and meetings; two (2) half ton pickups; five (5) one ton pickups, and one (1) one and a quarter ton pickup; two (2) one ton vans and one (1) three quarter ton van; and a variety of specialty trucks including one (1) patch
5 December 2008, EIA Report # Report #:DOE/EIA-0383(2009) Early Release 6 Contact: Mike Klinkner, Mile High Technical Associates, Inc., 14590 Holly St, Brighton, CO 80602; (209) 839- 9673, cell (510) 453-2219
7 www.myphill.com/gaq.htm
8 http://www.altfuelprices.com/index.php
Page B-2 of B-10
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
truck, one (1) grinder truck, one (1) five yard dump truck, one (1) ten yard dump truck, one (1) tanker (water truck), one (1) loader, one (1) catch basin cleaner, and one (1) sweeper. Two sweepers are actually currently in use, however only one is approved for replacement. A second sweeper may be added to the fleet, as preventative maintenance and breakdowns would take the one and only sweeper off-line, once the current back-up fails and is not replaced.
Table 2.1 – Existing Maintenance Fleet
Type of Vehicle Quantity
Pick up 19
Van 3
Sedan 1
Misc Equipment 9
2.2 Existing CNG Filling Station
The City’s current CNG filling station is located at the Service Center. The existing CNG pumping station is a slow-fill, requiring overnight fueling. The filling station has one small compressor and three hoses with a pressure of 3,000 psi; allowing up to three vehicles to be fueled simultaneously. The station accommodates the City’s current four CNG vehicles. All four employees assigned to the CNG vehicles work at the Service Center.
There are no CNG fueling stations open to the public in the City of Newark. The nearest open to the public CNG fuel station is in the City of Union City, approximately seven miles away9
. No other public CNG filling stations are within a ten mile radius.
Local “private” fueling stations, such as Newark Unified School District10, are not suited for increased capacity to accommodate City vehicles.
2.3 Vehicle Replacement Process
The City’s vehicle replacement process provides the regulations for replacing City fleet.
The Master Equipment Replacement List assigns a life and a replacement cost to each vehicle. At the end of the assigned life, the vehicle is evaluated to determine if replacement is needed as estimated or if the vehicle can stay in use longer. Vehicles are replaced through state bid when possible; if not possible, vehicles are obtained by a competitive bid procedure. In December 2008 the only low emission vehicle on the State list is a neighborhood electric car. In 2008, the list did not include any CNG maintenance type vehicles.
3. Replacing and converting to CNG
9 www.cleancarmaps.com
10 Don Connell, Director Maintenance, Operation, Transportation, Newark Unified School District, 5715 Musick Avenue, Newark, California 94560; (510) 818-4103; [email protected] Page B-3 of B-10
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
Public safety vehicles, such as fire trucks and police patrol cars, have requirements that make CNG impractical. CNG tanks are much larger than regular gas tanks; they would take up storage space for required equipment. Fire and police personnel regularly use their vehicle storage compartments at capacity for their special equipment needs. Local cities, including Newark, are finding it very challenging incorporating public safety vehicles in alternative fuel plans.
3.1 Vehicles Viable for Replacement
Miscellaneous vehicles can be replaced with CNG vehicles as they appear on the Equipment Replacement List. All nine of these vehicles will transition to CNG.
Table 3.1.1 – Existing Miscellaneous Fleet
Vehicle Year Scheduled to be Replaced
¾ ton van 2010
SUV-4WD 2014
Sedan 2016
½ ton pickup 2017
Sedan 2017
Sedan 2017
Sedan 2018
SUV-4WD 2010
½ ton pickup 2022
Barriers to changing over the maintenance fleet are few, yet significant. The CNG tank utilizes a significant portion of bed space in maintenance trucks. This space is needed for hauling debris involved in daily maintenance duties. The maintenance field crews work either in pairs or groups of three. There are up to four crews. Each crew can be assigned one CNG truck with limited bed space and one truck with full bed space. This allows for reducing the emissions without impacting the functionality of the crews.
Table 3.1.2 – Maintenance Fleet Vehicles Replacement Schedule Type of Vehicle Quantity # CNG Years for Replacement with CNG Pick up 19 3 2009, 2012
Van 3
Sedan 1 1
Misc Equipment 9 2012, 2013
CNG vehicles with 3,000 psi are being phased out and replaced with 3,600 psi.
Therefore, we would purchase the newer psi style.
Page B-4 of B-10
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
When initially purchased, CNG vehicles have a higher cost than gasoline fueled vehicles. Currently a CNG pick up truck would cost about $10,000 more and a large piece of equipment may cost up to $16,000.11
CNG vehicle conversion kits exist, but only for a limited number of models due to the numerous environmental guidelines they must adhere to.12 Purchasing gasoline vehicles through the City process, then converting them to CNG may be a viable option.
Conversion kits are available from such sources NGV Conversion, Inc. Kits suitable for maintenance vehicles range in price from $8,000 to $20,000.13 At the time of purchasing of a new vehicle, the price of purchasing a new CNG vehicle verse purchasing a gasoline vehicle and a conversion kit will be evaluated.
Rebates, tax relief, grants, and other funding sources may assist the City in purchasing CNG vehicles. Grants may cover the difference in cost between a gasoline fueled vehicle and a CNG vehicle. Rebates change year-to-year, and can only be estimated.
In 2007, tax credits ranged from $2,000 - $32,000, depending on the type of vehicle. If grants become available, we will adjust the Equipment Replacement List to take advantage of the grants.
3.2 Fueling Station
The existing fueling station can accommodate six more vehicles. The users would have to schedule nights to fill because the existing station only has three hoses. The tank on a new vehicle would not be filled completely with the 3000psi pump. The pump would fill the tank about ¾ full.
Fueling station considerations include what size of CNG fleet we are trying to accommodate, PG&E capacity, and the costs and payback period associated with the upgrades. Depending on the upgrade selected, the Service Center site may require retrofits in order to accommodate higher gas pressure, larger equipment, and other needs.
As stated above, CNG is an interim solution. We are assigning a life expectancy of twenty years to the CNG fleet; the fueling station upgrades installed will be expected to function until 2029. This life length should allow adequate time for development and debugging of alternative technology.
The City of Union City used a four phase plan to transition from slow-fill pumps to quick fill. Through Bay Area Air Quality Management grants and City funding, the City first purchased a large compressor and nine storage vessels. Then three tanks and one dispenser were added; then three additional tanks; and finally an additional dispenser
11 NGV Conversion, Inc. 44335 Premier Plaza Dr., Suite 125, Ashburn, Va 20147; (703) 953-2380; http://ngvus.com/index.html
12 Yacobucci, Brent D., CRS Report for Congress, Natural Gas Passenger Vehicles: Availability, Cost, and Performance, Order Code RS22971, October 20, 2008
13 http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=201024,00.html Page B-5 of B-10
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
and three more tanks. The City of Union City also made upgrades to its equipment shop for safer handling of CNG vehicles during maintenance activities.
Options for upgrades to our current system include:
1. Upgrade current compressor and increase number of stations to six (6).
Approximate cost: $150,000;
2. Upgrade to sixteen (16) stations and upgrade to a large compressor.
Approximate cost: $300,000;
3. Convert a number of slow fill stations to quick fill and add storage.
Approximate cost: $900,000.14
The options are structured so they can be implemented all at once or incrementally, in the order stated. If all three options were selected for implementation at once, the equipment and costs for all three options would be added together for a total cost and equipment needs. To obtain a more detailed analysis requires a consultant’s service.
The City of Newark is considering applying for funding of this service through the California Energy Commission’s Energy Partnership Program of Technical Assistance15. This process may be a valuable resource for selecting the best option.
The CEC may also be helpful in financing implementation of a fill station upgrade.
According to PG&E, current natural gas capacity is 5 -10 psig (pound-force per square inch gauge). This natural gas pressure will accommodate increasing the compressor to accommodate a quick fill station.
Grant opportunities, rebates, and other funding sources are available. Most grants require a match of City funds. Currently no City funds are allocated for upgrading the CNG pump station. Rebates change year-to-year, and can only be estimated. Passage of AB118 provides hope for 2009 funding.
Considering a public pump may create an ongoing new revenue stream for the City.
Union City realizes $1,500 - $2,000 monthly revenue.6 The City may qualify for the federal government rebate program of $0.50 per gallon. The San Jose International Airport takes advantage of this rebate, realizing over $250,000 annually.16 The San Jose International Airport also received almost 50% of their construction costs in grant because they pledged to build a CNG pumping station that would be open to the public.
Staff costs, including time and training, were included in the cost-benefit analysis of upgrading the CNG filling station. Up to 40 minutes of Equipment Mechanic staff time per week may be spent on preventative maintenance measures, due to the upgraded equipment. Training costs can be as little as mileage and meals, if free trainings are 14 Numbers were provided for illustrative purposes only by Don Farchone, Mile High Technical Associates, Inc. 15The California Energy Commission, Energy Partnership Program, www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/partnership/index.html 16 Stoflet, Tom, Environmental Services program Manager, San Jose International Airport; (409) 501-7701, [email protected]
Page B-6 of B-10
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
available in our area at the time it is needed.17 Recordkeeping, permits, and other associated administrative costs are expected to be comparable to that of maintaining the City’s current CNG station.
A return on investment analysis reveals the most viable option for the City’s fleet is to implement Option 1 which has a pay back period of approximately ten years.18 This option allows an increase in CNG vehicles and will last the required life of twenty (20) years.
4. Public Campaign
In order to determine the best option for upgrading the City’s CNG filling station, community demand will be considered. Opening the station to the public may be a viable for collecting revenue and providing service. Residential sector demand is unknown at this time. Local private sector demand is unknown at this time.
Partnering with neighboring service organizations and private businesses may support demand for a station upgrade. NUSD currently has three (3) CNG busses, and has no plans to increase its fleet. Its filling station has been recommended for an upgrade. A collaborative effort may be possible. Other potential partners, such as AC Transit, Waste Management, and Ohlone College, have either no intent in increasing their CNG fleet and/or maintain their own facilities to accommodate their filling needs.
Future contracts can be reviewed to require natural gas vehicles while providing the City service. For example, when the City’s contract with Waste Management expires (2012 – 2015, depending on extension options), the City will consider requiring trash haulers within City limits to be fueled with natural gas (CNG or LNG)19. Currently Waste Management has contracts with three cities requiring LNG haulers.
With government operations comprising only .9% of the total City’s emissions, a public campaign effort must be launched. The City must lead by example, then call on its residents and business community to make any significant emission reductions. After publishing articles in the City newsletter and on the City website about climate change, reducing carbon emissions, and fuel conservation, the City plans to take its education campaign to the next level.
Visiting residents and businesses at their homeowner association, service club, and chamber meetings to deliver the carbon reduction message will be the next step. We hope to partner with organizations such as PG&E to continue to educate and encourage the community to adopt practices and make purchases that reduce carbon emissions. 17 Natural Gas Vehicle Institute, www.ngvi.com; Natural Gas Fueling Station Operation & Maintenance Certification Course, NGV Driver and mechanic Safety Training, and NGV Fuel Storage Cylinder Inspection Training provided at no cost through PG&E contract with NCVi 18 Cost of Option 1 divided by the difference between the annual average vehicle mileage of a maintenance pick-up truck multiplied by the average gasoline per gallon cost and the annual average vehicle mileage of a maintenance pick-up truck multiplied by the average natural gas per gallon cost , multiplied by the number of vehicles 19 Per Assistant City Manager Dennis Jones, City of Newark, 35501 Newark Boulevard, Newark, CA 94560; (510) 578-4204, [email protected]
Page B-7 of B-10
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
We will also continue our information campaign in our quarterly newsletter and on our website.
5. Other Alternative Fuels
Other alternative fuels are liquified natural gas (LNG), electricity, hydrogen and biofuel.
In consideration of other alternative fuels, it is important to have knowledge of the environmental lifecycle of the fuel. That is, GHG emissions that occur when the fuel is used, is only the end part of that fuel’s environmental lifecycle.20 Emissions also occur, and must be attributed to, the fuel’s journey to its destination. Transportation, distribution, and in the case of electric vehicles, battery creation and recycling must all be counted toward the final emissions factor labeled for the various alternative fuels.
Many local organizations support alternative fuels, such as Silicon Valley Clean Cities Coalition.21 Both private and public sector individuals and agencies participate in this group, encouraging conversion to alternative fuels wherever possible.
LNG is as environmentally friendly as CNG and requires a smaller tank then CNG. LNG occupies about 1/600th of the space of CNG.4 Drawbacks include that the cost is higher due to the lack of research (“newness”); and accessibility is low, therefore LNG is largely imported, increasing the lifecycle footprint. This option may become more viable in the near future as research continues, particularly in hopes to lightening the fuel tanks to further increase engine efficiency. Locally, Waste Management, the City’s garbage service vendor, is in the process of building a recovery system from the methane gas at its Altamont landfill and converting it into LNG.22 Waste Management hopes to fuel its LNG fleet of trash haulers (currently at 35 or 14% of its fleet) through this method.
It is difficult to prove that the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) has a positive impact on the environment for several reasons.23 The environmental benefits of a PHEV largely depend on the specific power plant fuel source used to power the battery charging station and most vehicles would plug in overnight when electricity is produced by emission producing methods. The battery itself also has an environment impact.
Many can now be recycled, and better technology hopes to provide a longer lasting battery in future vehicles. Plug-in Bay Area is a local group promoting PHEVs24. This type of vehicle will become more and more attractive as PG&E increases their renewable energy production and the battery and engine technology continues to improve. We will evaluate vehicles such as the Chevy Volt which will be release in 2010.25 The City will also continue to follow projects in progress such as those in 20 Delucchi, Mark A., Overview of the Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM) August 2002; Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616; [email protected] 21 Silicon Valley Clean Cities Coalition, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy; www.svcleancities.org 22 Angell, Bob, Waste Management; (510) 613-2833; [email protected] 23 Summary Report Discussion Meeting on Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, August 2006; and Sustainable Research: New research – Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles:
Implications for policy, April 5, 2008, http://sustainableresearch.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-research-life-cycleassessment-of.html 24 Van Horn, Jodie, Coordinator, Plug-In Bay Area; [email protected] 25 www.chevrolet.com
Page B-8 of B-10
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
Vacaville26 and San Jose27. The City of Vacaville weathered several ups and downs as it rolled out its electric vehicle program. The City of San Jose is expecting five curbside electric vehicle charging stations to be completed by the end of 2008. Drivers can access the stations through a pre-paid plan.
The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle is virtually pollution free.28 However, accessibility is so low and cost so high, that this alternative cannot be considered at this time. Public bus transportation service in the City is provided by AC Transit, which is hailed worldwide for its comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell demonstration program. AC Transit runs three zero-emission hybrid-electric, hydrogen fuel cell busses, and has its own on-site hydrogen production and fueling station.29
Hybrids and Bio-diesel fuels were not included in this report, as research indicates that there is a net zero environmental positive impact in comparison to unleaded and diesel gasoline fueled vehicles.
Other Alameda County cities have committed to greening their fleet with CNG vehicles as well. Both Fremont30 and Union City6 have converted several vehicles to CNG, including sweepers, busses, and sedans. Both cities also have a combination Fast/Slow fill CNG fueling station.
Conclusion
Diversification is an essential aspect of a plan to “green” our fleet because there is not one method that we can apply to the whole fleet to change over to low emission vehicles. At this time most public safety vehicles cannot accommodate the tank for CNG operation.
After reviewing the various lower emission vehicles and CNG filling station options, the following plan will be presented to the City Council as the recommended plan:
• Replace vehicles with CNG as they require replacement per the Equipment Replacement List.
• Begin an information campaign to show Newark citizen’s the City’s CNG vehicles and what CNG options are available to them.
• In the 2010-2012 fiscal cycle submit a capital improvement project request that will propose to upgrade the current CNG station with an improved compressor and additional stations.
• Continue to follow the progress of LNG and Plug-in research 26 Fleet Maintenance, Welcome to Voltageville, October 2008, p. 6 - 11 27 CNN.com/technology; 2008, The Associated Press; http://cnn.hu/2008/TECH/10/20/electric.cars.ap/index.html 28 California energy Commission, Transportation Energy, A Student’s Guide to Alternative Fuel Vehicles, 2006; http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/transportation/hydrogen.html 29 www.2transit.org/environment/hyroad_main.wu 30 Collins, Mark P., Fleet Equipment Supervisor, City of Fremont, 42551 Osgood Road, Fremont, CA 94539; (510) 979-5739; [email protected]
Page B-9 of B-10
Change Fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Report
• Continue to reevaluate the use of CNG to determine if a fast-fill station is necessary. If so, propose a capital improvement project that details a project to install the quick-fill station and funds the conversion of the remaining maintenance fleet.
The plan may change to accommodate grant opportunities and new technologies.
Report Prepared By:
Lenka Diaz And Susie Woodstock, PE
Special Assistant - Climate Protection Maintenance Superintendent City of Newark, California City of Newark, California
[email protected] [email protected]
510-578-4806 510-578-4804
Released: December 31, 2008
Page B-10 of B-10
Syserco/ IES Team Energy Efficiency Audit—SAFAC i
Comprehensive Energy Analysis and
Strategic Plan: Silliman Activity and
Family Aquatic Center
November 17, 2009
Mailing Address:
Syserco, Inc.
44244 Fremont Blvd.
Fremont, CA 94538
Quality Assurance Check by:
Brett Illers, CEM
Date: 11/18/2009 Final.
Copyright © 2009 Information & Energy Services Inc... All rights reserved.
Neither Syserco, Inc., nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, or process disclosed in this document, or represents that its use will not infringe upon any privately-owned rights, including but not limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights.
Prepared By: Joe Longfield
Appendix C
Syserco/ IES Team Energy Efficiency Audit—SAFAC ii
Lenka Diaz
Special Assistant
Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center
6800 Mowry Ave.
Newark, CA 94560-4954
Dear Lenka,
Enclosed please find the results of the Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Strategic Plan (CEASP) performed by the Syserco and IES team for the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center (SAFAC). This CEASP provides a road map for the Activity Center to generate approximately $123,089 in energy cost avoidance and power generation cost offsets. In addition to the savings resulting from the recommendations, PG&E offers a rebate and incentive program that will help offset the cost of the implementing the various projects. In all, nineteen energy conservation and renewable energy projects were evaluated, with fourteen being recommended in this report.
The recommendations include the following:
• In total, twelve (12) Energy Conservation and two (2) Renewable Generation Measures are recommended in this CEASP.
• The budget to implement all Energy Conservation Measures including solar thermal is approximately $658,665 and will provide a simple payback of 7.29 years. • The budget to implement Solar PV is approximately $1,121,000 and will provide a simple payback of approximately fifteen (15) years.
• If all measures are implemented, the City could reduce its CO2 emissions by over 1,300,000 lbs per year.
The Syserco/IES Team look forward to discussing in detail the report and its associated recommendations. Table 1.1 in the executive summary provides post implementation reduction in electricity and gas usage and the corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions. A financial summary of the recommendations is represented in table 1.2. Should the City elect to implement some or all of the recommendations, the Syserco/ IES Team offer turnkey support for the implementation of the project(s) as well as performing ongoing services including Measurement and Verification after the project is complete.
I am available to discuss any aspect of this CEASP, as well as the details of PG&E’s energy efficiency programs. Thank you for selecting the Syserco/ IES Team! We look forward to helping you implement the recommendations of this CEASP.
Sincerely,
Joe Longfield
General Manager
Syserco, Inc.
Appendix C
Syserco/ IES Team Energy Efficiency Audit—SAFAC iii
Contents
1 Executive Summary ...............................................................................................1 2 Facility Overview ...................................................................................................5 General information .....................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Lighting ........................................................................................................5
2.1.2 HVAC ..........................................................................................................6
2.1.3 Other mechanical .........................................................................................7
2.1.4 Current system issues ...................................................................................8 3 Site Energy Usage ..................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Utility Rate ...................................................................................................9
3.1.2 Utility Use profile ......................................................................................11
3.1.3 Electric use .................................................................................................12
3.1.4 Natural Gas ................................................................................................13 4 Energy Conservation Opportunities ..................................................................14 Energy Conservation Measures: renewable energy measures ...................................................15
4.1.1 ECM 1 Solar Photo Voltaic Electricity ......................................................15
4.1.2 ECM 2 Solar Thermal Water Heating .......................................................18 Energy Conservation Measures: Lighting Retrofits ..................................................................22
4.1.3 ECM 3 Replace Natatorium Rail Lighting ................................................22
4.1.4 ECM 4 Retrofit Parking Pole Fixtures .......................................................23
4.1.5 ECM 5 Replace and Retrofit Wall Mounted HID Fixtures .......................24 Energy Conservation Measures: Lighting Controls ...................................................................25
4.1.6 ECM 6 Install Ambient Lighting Sensors on Selected Fixtures ................25
4.1.7 ECM 7 Install Ambient Light Control Natatorium Rail/Catwalk Fixtures26
4.1.8 ECM 8 Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS ..................27 Energy Conservation Measures: Controls Measures .................................................................28
4.1.9 ECM 9 Raise Gymnasium Cooling Set-Point ............................................28
4.1.10 ECM 10 Establish Peak Limiting Program for Specified HVAC Units ....29
4.1.11 ECM 11 Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Areas ....30
4.1.12 ECM 12 Install Controls on Facility’s Pool Boiler Plant ..........................31 energy conservation measures: mechanical upgrades ...............................................................32
4.1.13 ECM 13 Install VFD System on Pool Filtration Pumps ............................32
4.1.14 ECM 14 Replace Gym with AAON Units Digital Scroll Compressors ....34 5 Other Considerations...........................................................................................36 Measures not Viable ..................................................................................................................36
5.1.1 Geothermal Heating/ Cooling ....................................................................36
5.1.2 Wind Power ...............................................................................................36
5.1.3 Domestic Solar Hot Water .........................................................................38
5.1.4 Domestic Hot Water Plant Controls ..........................................................38
5.1.5 Cogeneration ..............................................................................................38 6 City of Newark Strategic Implementation Plan ................................................39 Basis of Recommendations ........................................................................................................39 Appendix C
Syserco/ IES Team Energy Efficiency Audit—SAFAC iv
6.1.1 Project Funding ..........................................................................................40
6.1.2 Recommendation #1 Align Financial Vehicle and City Energy Goals .....42
6.1.3 Recommendation #2 Install Solar PV for Renewable Generation .............44
6.1.4 Recommendation #3 Install Solar Thermal to preheat pool water ............50
6.1.5 Recommendation #4 Install VFD Motors on pool filtration pumps ..........51
6.1.6 Recommendation #5 Install Lighting retrofits ...........................................52
6.1.7 Recommendation #6 Install Controls on pool boiler plant ........................53
6.1.8 Recommendation #7 Install Energy Management Control upgrades ........53
6.1.9 Recommendation #8 Replace Gymnasium Units ......................................54
6.1.10 Next Steps ..................................................................................................55 7 Appendices Appendix 1 .......................................................................................56
7.1.1 Attachments & Supporting data .................................................................56
7.1.2 Terminology kW, kWh, MW .....................................................................57
7.1.3 Methodology ..............................................................................................57
7.1.4 Budgeting & Incentives .............................................................................66
7.1.5 Financing Vehicles.....................................................................................66
7.1.6 Project Implementation Plan ......................................................................71 Appendix C
1 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
1 Executive Summary
Introduction
The City of Newark published a request for proposal (RFP) dated April 24th, 2009 for a comprehensive Energy Analysis and Strategic Plan for the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center. The Syserco/IES team responded and was selected to do the analysis and to include a plan to implement recommendations if so desired by the City.
Over the past ninety (90) days our team has conducted complete site surveys, compiled historical energy usage data, and cataloged all energy consuming equipment. The goal of this CEASP was to identify ways in which the City could:
• cost effectively improve its overall energy efficiency • reduce its carbon footprint
• potentially self generate energy using renewable technologies Interviews were conducted with City personnel to understand facility use, goals and any known comfort and equipment issues. Further, the sites major gas and electric consuming equipment were analyzed to determine a set of possible energy conservation measures. Fourteen energy conservation measures were identified and made final consideration as part of this CEASP.
Other considerations that were not in the final consideration were placed in the appendix for reference.
This Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Strategic Plan (CEASP) provide the City with recommendations, plans and budgets to implement energy conservation measures. This CEASP is presented to the City as two analyses:
• A series of energy conservation measures that could be implemented individually or as a project
• The opportunity to implement a renewable solar photo voltaic system as a separate project
This approach of keeping the analysis separate provides greater visibility to the City as they consider the recommendations.
Funding of projects is key to a successful Strategic Plan. This CEASP introduces funding vehicles for the City that provide cash flow neutral, self-funding approaches to implementing a majority of the recommendations. In essence, the energy cost avoidance produced from the energy conservation measures pays for the installation over the financing period. This offers the city the opportunity to take advantage of the historically low cost of money available in the marketplace from State and Federal sources to implement these measures.
Appendix C
2 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
The City’s current plan is to use the CEASP to apply for grants as they become available or implement measures with Captial funding as it is available.
Current Status
For the twelve month period beginning January 2008 the SAFAC spent $190,615 on electricity and $98,968 on natural gas for a total of $289,583. This equated to an average cost of $5.26/square foot; $3.46/square foot for electricity use and $1.80/square foot for natural gas use (figures rounded to nearest cent). Analysis of Utility bills estimates that 60% of the cities’ utility spending is for the SAFAC.
Results
Through the CEASP process we have identified annual energy cost avoidance and offset opportunities of approximately 543,000 kilowatt hours, 57,000 therms and $87,268 dollars. The recommendations in this CEASP include upgrades to the lighting, lighting controls, expansion of the energy management system, mechanical upgrades and renewable energy measures. This CEASP provides a complete explanation of each identified energy conservation measure (ECM) including the projected cost to complete, energy cost avoidance, carbon reduction, simple payback and any resulting rebates or incentives.
The tables below illustrate the impact of the energy conservation measures by ranking them by both annual CO2 reduction and by shortest simple payback.
Table 1.1: Summary of Energy Conservation / Generation Measures ranked by CO2 reduction ECM # Demand Response Measures
Estimated
kWh
Reduction
Estimated
Therms
Reduction
Estimated
CO2
Reduction
2 Add Thermal Solar Collectors to Preheat Pool Hot Water - 54,645 602,184 1 Install Solar Photo Voltaic Panel for Renew able Generation 278,311 - 345,136 3 Replace Natatorium Rail Lighting 54,750 - 67,972
4 Retrofit HID Parking Lot Lighting 50,135 - 62,243
13 Add VFDs to Pool Filtration Pumps 47,676 - 59,190
7 Install Ambient Light Controller on the Natatorium Rail and Catw alk Fixtures 40,715 - 50,548
12 Install Controls on Pool Boiler Plant - 2,791 30,753 8 Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS 23,400 - 29,051 14 Replace Gymnasium Units w ith AAON Units Containing Digital Scroll Compressors 15,999 362 23,848
6 Install Ambient Lighting Sensors on Selected Fixtures 14,894 - 18,491 5 Replace and Retrofit Wall Mounted HID Fixtures 9,353 - 11,612 11 Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Areas 5,088 - 6,316 9 Use Existing EMS to Reduce HVAC Load in the Gymnasium 2,040 - 2,533 10 Use Existing EMS to Reduce Peak HVAC Load During Summer Months 1,529 - 1,898 Total 543,890 57,797 1,311,775
Appendix C
3 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table 1.2: Summary of Energy Conservation / Ranked by Shortest Simple Payback Notes:
1. Simple payback is less incentives e.g. (cost-incentives) / (annual $ savings)
2. Solar cost offset escalates on an annual basis
3. Totals do not include solar PV values due to the difference in financial models
4. Solar PV simple payback analysis is based upon ground mount installation with CREB’s financing model which includes utility rate escalation, installation charges, finance costs, maintenance, insurance and rebates applied
5. ECM #7 is not a stand-alone item and must be combined with ECM #3
6. ECM #9 payback is based upon implementing ECM #14. ECM #9 can be a stand alone measure.
7. Rebates apply to ECM’s 1,3-7,11,13,14.
Conclusion
The City of Newark has an excellent opportunity to drive additional energy costs out of the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center. The existing control infrastructure in place provides the appropriate platform to execute many of the energy conservation measures considered in this CEASP.
Syserco has included as part of this document a sample project implementation plan that would be utilized to build this project with the City.
ECM # Demand Response Measures
Total
energy
cost
avoidance
Implementation
Cost
Simple
Payback
(rebates
Applied)
7 Install Ambient Light Controller on the Natatorium Rail and Catw alk Fixtures $ 4,967 $ 8,062 0.65
10 Use Existing EMS to Reduce Peak HVAC Load During Summer Months $ 396 $ 875 2.21 4 Retrofit HID Parking Lot Lighting $ 4,168 $ 14,783 2.70 6 Install Ambient Lighting Sensors on Selected Fixtures $ 1,817 $ 7,482 3.14 9 Use Existing EMS to Reduce HVAC Load in the Gymnasium $ 249 $ 875 3.51 12 Install Controls on Pool Boiler Plant $ 3,237 $ 12,860 3.97 11 Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Areas $ 621 $ 3,180 4.46 13 Add VFDs to Pool Filtration Pumps $ 3,964 $ 23,704 5.02 2 Add Thermal Solar Collectors to Preheat Pool Hot Water $ 54,645 $ 377,994 6.92 5 Replace and Retrofit Wall Mounted HID Fixtures $ 1,377 $ 10,770 7.35 3 Replace Natatorium Rail Lighting $ 7,508 $ 69,925 8.61 1 Install Solar Photo Voltaic Panel for Renew able Generation escalating 1,121,000 $ 14.50 8 Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS $ 1,945 $ 30,993 15.93 14 Replace Gymnasium Units w ith AAON Units Containing Digital Scroll Compressors $ 2,374 $ 97,162 39.84
Total $ 87,268 $ 658,665 7.29
Appendix C
4 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table 1.3: Process Participants
Name Role Organization
Susie Woodstock, P.E. Maint. Superintendent City of Newark, Ca.
Lenka Diaz Special Assistant City of Newark, Ca.
Victoria Hernandez Finance City of Newark, Ca.
Robert McKinney Maintenance Supervisor City of Newark, Ca.
Peter Beireis Sr. Recreation Supervisor City of Newark, Ca.
Joe Longfield General Manager Syserco Energy Services
Mike Hill Project Manager Syserco Energy Services
Brad Leonard System Technician Syserco Energy Services
Brett Illers, C.E.M. Lead Auditor IES, Inc.
James Bottomley Engineering IES, Inc.
Mike Rogers, P.E., C.E.M. Reviewing Engineer IES, Inc.
Bob Hopper Consultant ClearPeak Advisors
Appendix C
5 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
2 Facility Overview
GENERAL INFORMATION
The SAFAC is a multi-use recreation center owned and operated by the City of Newark. Phase 1 of this facility was opened in 2001. It consisted of a large two court gymnasium, locker room, teen center, meeting space, large pre-school, exercise and dance studio. Phase 2 was opened in 2004 and consists of an additional locker room facility and large aquatic center which includes 3 large pools and a spa. The facility hours of operation are seasonal, but are operated year round with core hours from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm Monday through Friday and until 7:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday.
A facility that provides as many services as the SAFAC consists of many various energy consuming systems. In the following pages this CEASP will outline some of these major systems in order to give a basis for our energy conservation recommendations later in the report.
2.1.1 Lighting
The facility is illuminated by a number of compact fluorescent and linear fluorescent fixtures with several high intensity discharge lamps (HID) in the natatorium, gymnasium and parking lot. The building was designed to collect as much natural light as possible through skylights and clear story windows. However, the current lighting system does not take advantage of this light. This is most notable in the Natatorium as over one hundred and
forty-five compact fluorescent fixtures (each with four 45W PL compact florescent lamps) are directed upwards to
skylights and an off-white ceiling (fig. 2.1). This system when enabled consumes over 26 kW of electricity while only putting out an average of 18 foot candles on the pool deck.
On three separate visits to the Natatorium we noticed all of the lights were being enabled. Although the lighting in this area is tied to a control panel it is not used to control the lighting nor are any ambient sensors controlling the system in an effort to take advantage of the ample amounts of daylight in this area. This is similar to many other areas of the facility where day-lighting could be used in place of the fluorescent lighting system but the proper controls are not in place.
City Staff has done an excellent job of eliminating some of the unnecessary lighting in the facility. The best example of this is in the large gymnasium where the City has removed almost all of the 250-watt metal halide fixtures and replaced them with T5 fluorescent fixtures.
Figure 2.1: Silliman Natatorium Lighting
Appendix C
6 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
The new lighting system produces a much better light and has probably reduced the lighting electrical use in this area by 50%. Additionally, this lighting system requires no “warm up” time so it can easily be paired with lighting controls. It should also be noted that several 250-watt metal halide wall wash sconces were also permanently powered off with no loss of lighting in the gymnasium.
2.1.2 HVAC
Except for the Natatorium, the entire facility is
mechanically cooled by rooftop gas electric package units.
In total there are (17) units providing 105 tons of cooling to the facility. On the Phase 1 side all the units are Carrier HJD style units while on the Phase 2 side units are a mix of AAON and Carrier. According to the plans all units had an efficiency of 11 or 12 SEER when installed.
Overall the Package units appeared to be in good
condition. The Gymnasium units are beginning to show
signs of wear on the coils.
The Natatorium is not mechanically cooled instead the area is served by two large air handlers that have 350,000 Btu furnaces for heating and controlling humidity and an indirect-direct evaporative cooling system. This was a very wise choice by the designers of the aquatic center since mechanical cooling for this area would have been unnecessary and extremely expensive to operate.
All of the large air conditioning units are controlled by an Alerton® Energy Management System (EMS). The system is used to schedule the runtimes of the equipment and set the temperatures for the areas they serve. Upon close inspection it was noted that most of the facility (including the gym) are cooled between 69° and 72°. While this is fine for smaller areas, larger areas like the gymnasium are very hard to keep to these low temperatures which cause the units to work harder than necessary to maintain these temperatures. This could account for the premature wear found on the gymnasium units.
Overall the facility staff seems to keep the facility well controlled. Common areas are scheduled to run while open but individual rooms are put on a specific schedule while in use; however, during several of our site walks we did notice a number of rooms such as the dance studio and meeting room running while unoccupied. The EMS is also used to program the large air handler units on the natatorium; currently the maintenance staff at the SAFAC has been very diligent in shutting off one of the two big air handlers at night in an effort to save energy and reduce wear on the large units.
Figure 2.2: Gymnasium Unit Coils
Appendix C
7 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
2.1.3 Other mechanical
Pool Boilers
All four pools for the SAFAC have their own boiler dedicated to them. Temperatures for the pools range from 81º to 84º with the spa temperature set to 103º (see Table 2.1 below for details). These boilers are enabled around the clock and do not contain any nighttime setback features or time clock controls. We estimate that up to 65% of the facility’s gas use is from the pool boiler plant.
Table 2.1: Pool Boiler Size and Temperature
Pool Served Boiler Size (Btu) Temperature Observed
Lap Pool 750,000 81º
Leisure Pool 1,260,000 84º
Lazy River 990,000 81º
Spa 150,000 103º
Domestic Hot Water Heaters
The SAFAC has two separate domestic hot water plants for the facility. The first phase consists of two 199,000 Btu rapid recovery hot water heaters that supply all the hot water for the Phase 1 bathrooms and locker facilities. This hot water heater is enabled around the clock and is only controlled by the tanks temperature. The second hot water plant consist of two 200,000 Btu boilers mounted on the roof that supply two hot water tanks below. This system supplies all the Phase 2 area bathrooms and locker room facilities. Like the first plant this domestic hot water system is enabled year round and is only controlled by the tanks internal temperature.
Pool Pumps
As with any pool facility one of the largest and most constant loads is the pumping and filtering of water. The SAFAC has twelve (12) separate pumps to run all of the pools filtration and water features. The breakdown of their sizes and use is illustrated in the Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2: SAFAC Pool Pump Breakdown
Pool Use Size Enabled
Lap Pool Filtration 7.5 Hp 24 / 7
Lazy River Current Pump 10 Hp On Demand
Current Pump 10 Hp On Demand
Current Pump 10 Hp On Demand
Water Features 7.5 Hp On Demand
Filtration 10 Hp 24 / 7
Water Slide 15 HP On Demand
Water Slide 15 HP On Demand
Leisure Pool Water Features 7.5 Hp On Demand
Filtration Pumps 10 Hp 24 / 7
Spa Filtration Pumps 7.5 Hp 24 / 7
Booster Pump 10 Hp On Demand
Appendix C
8 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
In our site walks it appears that pool staff does a good job of running the water feature pumps only when the public require them. We never saw these pumps running when the site was not in use. The filtration pumps are constant speed and are always running in order to provide filtration to the pools. The 24 hour pool pumping is noticeable when watching the interval data of the facility. Interval data is illustrated on chart 3.1.
2.1.4 Current system issues
The SAFAC truly is a state of the art recreation center, however many of its systems where designed without a focus on energy conservation and / or energy conservation measures were downgraded based on construction cost overruns. Through good facility management the staff at the SAFAC has been able to do the best they can to keep the energy cost in check; however, the SAFAC accounts for two-thirds of the City of Newark’s energy consumption according to utility analysis. The next section of this CEASP analyzes the facility’s energy use to better illustrate how and when the facility can develop ways to curtail usage through conservation measures.
Appendix C
9 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
3 Site Energy Usage
3.1.1 Utility Rate
The SAFAC is served by a one electric and one gas meter. Currently the center is on an E-19 rate which has both a demand and time of use component where the cost of power changes with the time of day and year. This is important to note because this means that the savings associated with different energy conservation measures considered in the CEASP will vary based on when and how much energy the measure conserves. Details on how each energy conservation measure savings were calculated are located in section 7.1.3- methodology.
In Table 3.1 below is the most current rate schedule for the E-19 rate supplied by PG&E. The areas in gray denote the rate that the SAFAC is currently paying.
Table 3.1: E-19 Electrical Rate Breakdown
Electricity is more expensive during the summer season when the demand is highest.
PG&E defines summer and winter season as outlined below.
The current rate the SAFAC is on is well suited for its current use. However, if the city were to install renewable solar electric generation at this facility and it were enough to significantly reduce the peak hour load of the facility then a time-of-use rate, such as an A-6 rate, should be evaluated.
Season
Time-ofUse
Period
Time-ofUse
Period
"Average"
Total Rate1/
(per kWh)
Total Energy Charge
(per kWh)
Demand Charge
(per kW)
Max. Peak $13.51 $12.29 $9.90 Peak $0.15553 $0.15606 $0.11536 Secondary $0.13732
Part Peak $3.07 $2.79 $2.24 Part Peak $0.10556 $0.10407 $0.09153 Maximum $7.70 $6.66 $4.68 Off Peak $0.08506 $0.08154 $0.07728 Primary $0.13214
Part Peak $1.04 $0.78 $0.00 Part Peak $0.09348 $0.08882 $0.08288 Maximum $7.70 $6.66 $4.68 Off Peak $0.08189 $0.07737 $0.07304 Transmission $0.13523
Summer
Winter
Summer Season (May-October):
Peak Hours: 12:00 noon to 6:00 pm, Monday-Friday (except holidays) Partial-Peak Hours: 8:30 am to 12:00 noon AND 6:00 pm to 9:30 pm, Monday-Friday (except holidays) Off-Peak Hours: 9:30 pm to 8:30 am, Monday-Friday; All day Saturday, Sunday and holidays Winter Season (November-April):
Partial-Peak Hours: 8:30 am to 9:30 pm, Monday-Friday (except holidays) Off-Peak Hours: 9:30 pm to 8:30 am, Monday-Friday (except holidays); All day Saturday, Sunday and holidays Appendix C
10 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table 3.2: Breakdown of Monthly Utility Costs
The average cost of a kWh for the SAFAC was 12.2¢ and the average cost for a therm of gas was $1.16.
Averages are helpful as a point of reference, but each energy conservation measure considered as part of this report could have different savings associated based on when, what type and how much energy is conserved.
Although the average cost of a therm was $1.16 for the study period, natural gas rates continue to decline and $1.00 per therm was used as a baseline when energy conservation measure savings were calculated.
Appendix C
11 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
3.1.2 Utility Use profile
The average demand for the SAFAC fluctuates between 155 kW and 215 kW depending on the time of year, with the higher demands occurring during the summer months. Chart 3.1 below shows the fluctuation in demand throughout the day.
Chart 3.1 Load Profile Graph
The data in Chart 3.1 above was taken for the days of Tuesday, June 2nd and Wednesday, June 3rd 2009. Through extensive analysis we have found that this load profile is typical regardless of the time of year it is taken. The facility’s base load never goes below 90 kW due to the filtration pumping, emergency lighting and ventilation of the natatorium.
Typically the SAFAC reaches its max peak in the early afternoon and continues until closing around 9:30pm. What this CEASP found interesting is the facility’s energy use ramps up again around 10:30pm and remains at a higher level until around 4:00am. We feel that this second peak is due to custodial staff turning on all of the lighting and possibly some HVAC during the night and leaving it on until they leave.
Appendix C
12 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
3.1.3 Electric use
Throughout the year the SAFAC energy use fluctuates slightly with the highest use in the summer months. Unfortunately, this is also the period when energy costs are at their highest.
Chart 3.2 below was constructed from utility billing information and illustrates how the electricity use fluctuates for the SAFAC throughout the year, along with the cost of energy throughout the year.
Chart 3.2 Electric Use vs. Cost
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Cost ($)
Usage (kWh)
SAFAC: Electric Usage vs Electric Cost
kWh $
Appendix C
13 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
3.1.4 Natural Gas
Natural Gas use for the facility varies greatly with the majority of gas being used during the winter months. The summertime gas use for the facility represents mostly heating water either for the pool or domestic use. Chart 3.3 below was constructed from utility billing information and illustrates the yearly gas use for the facility along with the cost of natural gas during those times.
Chart 3.3 Natural Gas Use vs. Cost
Through various site walks and an extensive review of the utility use for the SAFAC our team has a better understanding of how, where and when the facility uses energy. With this information this CEASP has been able to better develop Energy Conservation Measures for the center which will help to reduce energy use especially during times of high energy costs. $-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Cost ($)
Usage (therms)
SAFAC: Natural Gas Usage vs Gas Cost
Therms $
Appendix C
14 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
4 Energy Conservation Opportunities
Through the analysis of the current facility this CEASP has identified multiple Energy Conservation Measures to reduce the SAFAC energy consumption and carbon footprint. In this CEASP we looked at all reasonable energy retrofits and generation strategies that could be applied to the facility; some were very promising while others were less so. We have analyzed each of these measures in the anticipation that the city will implement some of them. The analysis is written in a way that city personnel can pick and choose the measures in the report to custom tailor a program that best meets their current needs and requirements.
The following energy conservation measures are split into five different categories. They are Renewable Energy Systems, Lighting Retrofits, Lighting Controls, Control Measures and Mechanical Upgrades.
Section 5 of this report is devoted to energy conservation measures that were not viable and the reasons which are explained in that section.
Table 4.1 below gives a detailed overview of all energy conservation measures along with energy cost avoidance and CO2 reduction if the measure were implemented.
Table 4.1 Summary of Energy Conservation Measures Studied- Annual Savings ECM # Demand Response Measures
Estimated
kWh
Reduction
Estimated
Therms
Reduction
Estimated
CO2
Reduction
1 Install Solar Photo Voltaic Panel for Renew able Generation 278,311 - 345,136 2 Add Thermal Solar Collectors to Preheat Pool Hot Water - 54,645 602,184 3 Replace Natatorium Rail Lighting 54,750 - 67,972
4 Retrofit HID Parking Lot Lighting 50,135 - 62,243
5 Replace and Retrofit Wall Mounted HID Fixtures 9,353 - 11,612 6 Install Ambient Lighting Sensors on Selected Fixtures 14,894 - 18,491 7 Install Ambient Light Controller on the Natatorium Rail and Catw alk Fixtures 40,715 - 50,548
8 Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS 23,400 - 29,051 9 Use Existing EMS to Reduce HVAC Load in the Gymnasium 2,040 - 2,533 10 Use Existing EMS to Reduce Peak HVAC Load During Summer Months 1,529 - 1,898 11 Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Areas 5,088 - 6,316 12 Install Controls on Pool Boiler Plant - 2,791 30,753 13 Add VFDs to Pool Filtration Pumps 47,676 - 59,190
14 Replace Gymnasium Units w ith AAON Units Containing Digital Scroll Compressors 15,999 362 23,848
Total 543,890 57,797 1,311,775
Appendix C
15 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES: RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES
4.1.1 ECM 1 Solar Photo Voltaic Electricity
When evaluating sites at the City for Solar Photo Voltaic this CEASP looked at many options and took into account many factors. Due to the high cost and long-term life of Photo Voltaic (PV) one must look at the following criteria when selecting a site:
• Utility Support- Ensure facility is in a utility that allows net metering and has access to renewable incentives. PG&E, under the A6 rate, allows for you to “credit” excess kWh production to your account and use the credit when you produce less kWh. For systems designed to provide 80-100% of kWh use this is critical. PG&E offers incentives based on the size of system, product selection, orientation (efficiency), production capabilities and timing. Incentives paid for solar PV installations have declined as the volume of installed base has increased. • System Sizing- Right size the amount of PV on a building. Ideally Solar PV would be able to provide 60-80% of the facility kWh requirements. This average ensures the facility receives enough solar power to provide an impact on your monthly electricity bill while reducing CO2. Sizing also has an impact on how you purchase your system. Small systems are less likely to be able to be purchased through some financing vehicles.
• Access- Install PV in an out of the way location that is hard to access by vandals or thieves. Although panels are well constructed, they are not impervious to vandals.
Solar panels are ideally located in areas that are not easily accessible to the public. • Space- Solar PV systems can vary greatly in size based on the kWh production capability and the efficiency of the equipment installed. Ideally, the space would be open, not cluttered with HVAC units. The space must be free of shading from trees and other obstructions to provide direct sunlight into the solar panels. • Orientation- Roofs must also have correct orientation to provide the most cost effective installations. South facing orientations are best for solar PV collection. • Aesthetics- Facility owners must decide how the appearance of Solar PV will impact the facility. Installation techniques, metal fabrication and design have helped solar PV become more aesthetically acceptable in recent years.
Appendix C
16 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Three possible sites were considered for the installation of a Solar Photo Voltaic system:
A. The parking lot north of the SAFAC. This location has enough physical space for the solar array with a workable orientation to the sun, but has added cost of labor and materials to install across a completed parking lot and far from utility connection points.
The construction of a metal parking structures will also add considerable expense to the project. Orientation is gained by having the roof with a pitch to enhance efficiency.
Vandalism and car damage could be a risk to the carports as well as graffiti. This approach does have the added benefit of providing covered parking to guests.
B. The dirt field area east of the center. This area could be fenced off and the solar array installed within a protective barrier. The field is in close proximity to electrical connections, has sizing flexibility, access and orientation. The dirt field does pose a risk for vandalism and may not be aesthetically pleasing. After discussion with City Staff this site may require a modification to the Newark Sportsfield Park Master Plan for this area.
C. The roof of the aquatic center. The roof is challenging because of the orientation of available roof areas and the construction of the roof tiles being slate and very fragile. A large roof mounted installation would require the removal of slate tiles and the installation of composite type roofing. Any replacement roofing inherently includes concerns of structural integrity and leakage. Removal and replacement of roofing is also a considerable additional expense. The roof provides
acceptable access and orientation but has limited space available. The roof has approximately 4000 square feet of flat potentially usable area (no slate tile removal or reroofing) that could accommodate a smaller solar PV system.
Outside of the boundaries of this analysis the City could also consider that AB 2466, codified as Section 2830 of the Public Utilities Code, was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in September 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2009. The law allows a local government to install renewable generation of up to 1 MW at one location within its geographic boundary and generate credits that can be used to offset charges at one or more other locations within the same geographic boundary. If the City has a more practical installation location it may prove to provide the same benefit at a lower cost to install and faster payback. Rebate eligibility for this approach has not yet been decided by the CPUC.
Figure 4.1 Parking Structure
Cross Section view of
installation for Solar PV
Appendix C
17 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.2 SAFAC Solar PV installation parking structure for illustrative purposes only.
View - north parking lot carports- Red line is where trenching would occur for installation.
The budget for this retrofit would be $1,121,000 for a ground mount installation behind the SAFAC, with a simple payback in 14.5 years. The budget for a parking structure style retrofit is $1,483,000 (as illustrated above) with a simple payback of 18.5 years. The budget for a smaller kWh capacity roof mount installation (based on available surface area) is $401,000 with a simple payback of 23.5 years. Paybacks are calculated on the City paying for installation from Capital budgets, estimated rebates are used to discount the cost and assume an annual 5.89% utility escalation rate.
Table 4.2 Summary of Solar PV
ECM #1A, 1B Serves
Estimated
kWh
Generated
Estimated benefit
of kWh Generated
year one
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs per
year)
20% of use 278,000 $ 34,982 345,136
Reduction/Savings 278,000 $ 34,982 345,136
Add Solar Photo Voltaic Parking Structure or Field Analysis Annual
Appendix C
18 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
4.1.2 ECM 2 Solar Thermal Water Heating
In an effort to reduce costs and still maintain year round comfort of the pools, this CEASP evaluated an open loop solar hot water system to supplement heating pool water for all three large pools. The Spa was not evaluated due to its small size which would increase the payback of the entire system.
Utility support, system sizing, access, space, orientation and aesthetics are all considered for solar thermal as they were for solar PV.
• Utility Support- Ideally, the utility would provide incentives for solar thermal installations. Currently, no PG&E incentives are available for solar thermal projects. • System Sizing- Right size the amount of solar thermal. Ideally you would provide 100% of your pool heating needs during optimal summer months. Capacity beyond this provides more heating than needed and is wasted.
• Access- Install solar thermal in an out of the way location that is hard to access by vandals. Solar thermal is not as “interesting” to vandalize and has no resell value. Solar thermal material is ideally located in areas that are not easily accessible to the public. • Space- Solar thermal systems can vary greatly in size based on the therm production capability and the efficiency of the equipment installed. For the three pools evaluated, approximately 8000 square feet of space is needed. Location is also critical. Locations far from the pool require extensive plumbing and additional cost. The space must be free of shading from trees and other obstructions to provide direct sunlight into the solar material. Long, straight areas for installation are ideal. • Orientation- Roofs must also have correct orientation to provide the most cost effective installations. South facing orientations are best for solar thermal, but orientation is less critical to solar thermal than solar PV collection.
ECM #1C Serves
Estimated
kWh
Generated
Estimated benefit
of kWh Generated
year one
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs per
year)
4% of use 60,000 $ 7,550 74,490
Reduction/Savings 60,000 $ 7,550 74,490
Add Solar Photo Voltaic Roof Mount Analysis
Annual
Appendix C
19 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.3 SAFAC Roof limited space
• Aesthetics- Facility owners must decide how the appearance of solar thermal will impact the facility. Installation techniques, metal fabrication and design have helped solar thermal PV become more aesthetically acceptable in recent years.
The solar hot water system would be
challenging to install on the facility’s roof due to
the delicate nature of the slate tiles and the lack
of available roof area with the correct
orientation. Figure 4.3 shows where 6500
square feet of roof space is available with 8000
square feet required.
This will leave the City with three options;
install a smaller roof mount installation, install a
ground mount installation in the dirt field behind the
SAFAC, or construct a carport parking structure to
mount the solar thermal installation.
Three possible sites were considered for the installation of a Solar Thermal system:
A. The parking lot east of the SAFAC. This location has enough physical space for the solar array with a workable orientation to the sun, but has added cost of labor and materials to install across a completed parking lot. The construction of a metal parking structures will also add considerable expense to the project. Trees removal would be required along the back of the SAFAC. Vandalism and car damage could be a risk to the carports as well as graffiti. This approach does have the added benefit of providing covered parking to guests.
B. The dirt field area east of the center. This area could be fenced off and the solar thermal installed within a protective barrier. The field is in close proximity to plumbing connections, has sizing flexibility, access and orientation. The dirt field does pose a risk for vandalism and may not be aesthetically pleasing. After discussion with City Staff this site may require a modification to the Newark Sportsfield Park Master Plan for this area.
C. The roof of the aquatic center. The roof is challenging because of the orientation of available roof areas and the construction of the roof tiles being slate and very fragile. A large roof mounted installation would require the removal of slate tiles and the installation of composite type roofing. Any replacement roofing inherently includes concerns of structural integrity and leakage. Removal and replacement of roofing is also a considerable additional expense. The roof provides acceptable access and orientation but has limited space available. The roof has approximately 6500 square feet of potentially usable area that could accommodate solar thermal for two of the three pools.
Appendix C
20 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.4 Solar Thermal Installation (typical)
The solar thermal hot water plant would provide all of the pool heating in the summer months and a portion of the necessary pool heating during the winter months. The city will not only see savings in the reduced amount of natural gas used to heat the pool but will also see savings in the reduced maintenance and increased life of the boiler system.
In discussion with the city, the best locations for a parking structure installation would have to be a location behind the building (see Figure
4.5). This location also is in close proximity to
the pools mechanical room so long complex
trench runs would not be necessary. Drawbacks
to the parking structure scenario are the
increased cost and trees along the back of the
building would need to be removed to prevent
shading of the array.
The budget for this retrofit based on a parking structure mount would be $377,994 and would save the facility $54,645 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 6.92 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings. The budget for a roof top installation was limited to the Lap Pool and Lazy River Pool based on the available 6000 square feet of correctly oriented roof. The budget for the roof installation is $273,936 and would save the facility $36,317 per year in energy costs with a simple payback of 7.5 years.
A savings breakdown for this measure is provided in Table 4.3 below:
Table 4.3: solar thermal savings large pools
ECM #2A, 2B, 2C Serves
Estimated Gas
Therm Savings
(84% boiler
efficiency)
Estimated
therm cost
savings
Estimated
CO2
reduction
(lbs per year)
Lap Pool 21,734 $ 21,734 239,510
Lazy River Pool 14,583 $ 14,583 160,708
excluded in 2C Leisure Pool 18,327 $ 18,327 201,966
Reduction/Savings 54,645 $ 54,645 602,184
Add Thermal Solar Collectors to Preheat Pool Hot Water Analysis Annual
Appendix C
21 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.5 SAFAC Solar Thermal installation locations shown in blue illustrate where Car port installations could be located.
Appendix C
22 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES: LIGHTING RETROFITS
In this CEASP lighting retrofits is an umbrella term that includes the replacement of inefficient lighting systems with more efficient ones and the retrofitting of current fixtures to make them more efficient. In all instances the light levels produced by the newer systems will equal or be better than the systems they replace.
4.1.3 ECM 3 Replace Natatorium Rail Lighting
As illustrated in the lighting section below the Natatorium rail fixtures consume very large amounts of energy yet produce very little light. The system was designed to utilize up lighting to illuminate the Natatorium. While up lighting has its benefits, it is misapplied in this application. Not only does this system have a high lumen-to-watt ratio (inefficient) but since it uses compact fluorescents it has a much shorter life when compared to linear style fluorescents.
Initially this CEASP looked at ways to modify or control the current fixtures in order to gain efficiency, however the custom nature of the fixture did not allow many options in order to modify it. Therefore, we chose to evaluate replacing the existing rails with new fixtures suspended in a similar fashion.
We determined that if we removed the current fixture and replaced it with a linear T5 fixture utilizing three tubes (see figure 4.6) we could replace the existing fixtures and reduce the fixtures by half. The energy consumption would be reduced by over 50%. In addition, the lamps in this new fixture are rated for 20,000 hours (as opposed to 10,000 hours of the current system) and would not need to be replaced as often producing operational savings for the City. Light levels in the Natatorium would increase with the new fixtures which would allow for more lights to be turned off during the day.
The budget for this retrofit would be $69,925 and would save the facility $7,508 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 8.61 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Table 4.4 Savings Analysis for Natatorium Rail Lighting
ECM #3 Fixture
Wattage
Fixture Count Estimated
Hours Used
Estimated
kWh
Estimated
kWh cost
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs)
Current 180 88 5,355 84,823 $ 11,632 105,308
Proposed 108 52 5,355 30,074 $ 4,124 37,336
Reduction/Savings 72 36 - 54,750 $ 7,508 67,971
Replace Natatorium Rail Light Savings Analysis
Annual
Figure 4.6: Proposed Natatorium Fixture
Appendix C
23 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.7: Outdoor parking lights
4.1.4 ECM 4 Retrofit Parking Pole Fixtures
Currently the SAFAC has (59) 250 watt pole fixtures (see figure 4.7) and (39) 150 watt small pole fixtures. These poles utilize metal Halide bulbs which were considered state of the art when the facility was constructed. In recent years compact fluorescent lamps have improved to a point where they can be used as suitable replacements for metal halide and other HID lighting sources.
For the pole style fixtures in the parking lot we evaluated them to be retrofit to a 48 and 96 watt compact fluorescent system. The new system will maintain light levels (currently measured between at .3 and 1.4 foot-candles) in the parking lot but will do so at almost half the wattage of the current fixture.
The budget for this retrofit would be $14,783 and would save the facility $4,168 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 2.7 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Table 4.5 Exterior Lightng Retrofit Savings Summay
ECM #4
Fixture
Wattage
Fixture
Count
Estimated
Hours
Used
Estimated
kWh
Estimated
kWh cost
Estimated CO2 reduction
(lbs)
Current 280 59 4,015 66,328 $ 5,514 82,346
118 39 4,015 18,477 $ 1,536 22,939
Proposed 110 59 4,015 26,057 $ 2,166 32,350
55 39 4,015 8,612 $ 716 10,692
Reduction/Savings 233 - - 50,135 $ 4,168 62,243
Retrofit HID Parking Lot Lighting Analysis
Annual
Appendix C
24 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
4.1.5 ECM 5 Replace and Retrofit Wall Mounted HID Fixtures The exterior of the SAFAC has several different lighting fixtures. However, two fixtures make up the bulk of the wall mounted exterior lighting: “house style” fixture and an Up/Down style fixture (see Figure 4.8 and 4.9 below).
Figure 4.8: 50W HID
Both of these fixtures utilize metal halide lighting which can be replaced by compact fluorescents. The “house style” wall wash fixture could be replaced with a similar fixture that utilizes a 26 watt CFL which would reduce the fixture wattage by half while maintaining current light levels (measured at 1.7 foot-candles). The up/down style fixture would be retrofit to a 39 watt compact fluorescent which would replace the existing 100 watt metal halide.
The budget for this retrofit would be $10,770 and would save the facility $1,377 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 7.35 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Table 4.6 Exterior Lighting Retrofit Savings Summay
ECM #5
Fixture
Wattage
Fixture
Count
Estimated
Hours Used
Estimated
kWh
Estimated
kWh cost
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs per year)
Current 118 31 3,213 11,753 $ 1,730 14,591
59 14 3,213 2,654 $ 391 3,295
Proposed 39 31 3,213 3,885 $ 572 4,823
26 14 3,213 1,170 $ 172 1,452
Reduction/Savings 112 - - 9,353 $ 1,377 11,612
Retrofit Wallmounted HID Fixtures Analysis
Annual
Figure 4.9: 100W Up / Down Fixture
Appendix C
25 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES: LIGHTING CONTROLS
During our analysis of the SAFAC our staff noticed a number of areas that could be illuminated with ambient lighting or where excessive after hours runtime of the lighting was occurring. In order to reduce the energy consumption of the facility we developed a number of lighting control options to take advantage of the natural light as well as reduce after-hours runtime of the lighting. The following ECM’s are meant to address these issues.
4.1.6 ECM 6 Install Ambient Lighting Sensors on Selected Fixtures The SAFAC was designed with many skylights and luminous ceilings to take advantage of natural lighting. Unfortunately, its lighting system was not designed with controls to take advantage of this. In some areas like the gymnasium atrium site staff has done an excellent job of turning off fixtures they do not need. Several areas were noted by our staff that could be shut off during daylight hours.
In order to do this effectively the lighting circuit should have an ambient sensor installed on it that would turn off the lights whenever sufficient natural light was present. These sensors work off the existing fixture voltage and can be adjusted for various light levels.
Table 4.7 below defines the areas proposed and the wattage of the fixtures reduced along with the foot candle readings after lights have been turned off.
Table 4.7 Ambient Fixture Installation
Fixture Location # Fixtures
Affected
Total Wattage Reduced Remaining Foot
Candles
Locker Room Hallway Wall Wash 9 351 37
Gymnasium Lighting 8 2560 34
Aquatic Center Cove Fixtures 22 2304 73
All the remaining light levels exceed illumination standards for the areas they serve. This CEASP estimates that the yearly hours of operation for most of these fixtures would drop from 5,355 to 2,499 resulting in a savings of 14,895 kWh.
The budget for this retrofit would be $7,482 and would save the facility $1,817 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 3.14 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Appendix C
26 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table 4.8 Ambient Light Sensor Savings Summary
4.1.7 ECM 7 Install Ambient Light Control Natatorium Rail/Catwalk Fixtures
As was mentioned in the facility’s overview the Natatoriums lighting is not very efficient on a cost per lumen basis. However, if the rail fixtures were to be replaced as outlined in ECM 3 much of the lighting could be turned off during the day. A lighting sensor would be installed in the Natatorium that would be tied to the existing Alerton EMS which would allow for the sensor to be adjusted to different light levels and even overridden when needed by facility staff.
Lighting levels could be reduced on all of the Catwalk lighting and perhaps as much as 50% of the new rail lighting while maintaining sufficient light. This retrofit would save approximately 40,715 kWh.
The budget for this retrofit would be $8,062 and would save the facility $4,967 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of .65 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Due to the existing poor light levels in the Natatorium (see lighting section 2.1.1) ambient light control would require implementing ECM 3, Natatorium Rail Lighting before implementing this ECM.
This payback is based on implementing ECM 3, Natatorium Rail Lighting.
Table 4.9 Natatorium Ambient Controller Savings Summary ECM #6
Fixture
Count
Fixture
Wattage Pre-hours Post-hours
Estimated
kWh
savings
Estimated kWh
cost savings
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs per year)
Cove 8' fixt 17 117 5,355 2,499 5,681 $ 693 7,052
Cove 4' fixt 1 59 5,355 2,499 169 $ 21 209
Cove 6' fixt 2 85 5,355 2,499 486 $ 59 603
Cove 3' fixt 2 43 5,355 2,499 246 $ 30 305
Gym 320-Watt PL 26 320 4,284 1,428 7,311 $ 892 9,077
Locker Rm Wall Wash 13 39 5,355 2,499 1,002 $ 122 1,245 Reduction/Savings 17,136 14,894 $ 1,817 18,491
Install Ambient Light Controller on Selected Fixtures Analysis Annual
ECM #7 Fixture Count Fixture
Wattage
Pre-hours Post-hours
Estimated
kWh
savings
Estimated
kWh cost
savings
Estimated
CO2 reduction
(lbs per year)
Catwalk 180W Fixt 48 180 5,355 2,499 24,676 $ 3,010 30,635 Catwalk 180W Fixt 14 180 8,760 8,760 - $ - -
Natatorium FT-50 x 4 (NEW 52 108 5,355 2,499 16,039 $ 1,957 19,913 Reduction/Savings 5,712 40,715 $ 4,967 50,548
Install Ambient Light Controller on Natatorium Rail and Catwalks Analysis Annual
Appendix C
27 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
4.1.8 ECM 8 Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS As was noted in the utility analysis section of this CEASP, it appears that custodial staff is turning on a majority of the lighting when they come in to clean the facility. In order to reduce this “nighttime peak” and the cost it creates we have developed a way to use the existing EMS and GE lighting panel to control excessive after hour runtime.
The current Alerton System has a module that will allow it to integrate with the existing GE lighting panel which would allow more comprehensive scheduling of all the lighting utilizing the Alerton system. The new systems control could work as follows:
• 10 pm all lighting except emergency fixtures are turned off • all light switches are programmed as bypass timers during after hours With this approach when cleaning staff is working in the facility the light switches would turn on the lights in occupied rooms for a fixed period which could be programmed to only run, for example, 45 minutes, then turn off. This would allow enough time for them to clean the room but limits the amount of time the fixtures are on. The bypass time on each area could be programmed via the Alerton EMS and allow for custom time limits to be set.
The CEASP estimates that this measure will save the facility 23,400 kWh annually.
The budget for this upgrade includes multiple GE lighting panel upgrade boards, interface modules, interface software and programming.
The budget for this retrofit would be $30,993 and would save the facility $1,945 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 15.93 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Table 4.10 After Hours lighting Control Savings Summary The SAFAC could consider an alternate approach to this energy conservation measure. SAFAC could build into the janitorial contract a behavioral agreement. The agreement would require the janitorial crew to use only the lights required for cleaning and then require them to be shut off. An “allowance” for after hours lighting kWh could be established and if the night usage is greater than the allowance the contract would allow for a back-charge. This would allow the SAFAC to recoup the additional costs incurred for unnecessary night lighting.
ECM #8
Fixture
Count Hours Saved
Estimated
kWh
savings
Estimated
kWh cost
savings
Estimated
CO2
reduction
(lbs per
year)
excess load All 780 23,400 $ 1,945 29,051
Reduction/Savings 780 23,400 $ 1,945 29,051
Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS Analysis Annual
Appendix C
28 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.10: Alerton Thermostat
The lighting back-charge agreement may prove to be difficult to enforce because there is no technical way to sub-meter (measure) the lighting use after hours without additional hardware.
This additional hardware required is at a greater cost than approach above that automates it.
The City would be left with a more subjective observation and manual trend-log based approach to document abuses by the cleaning crew after hours and the associated back charge calculations.
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES: CONTROLS MEASURES
Currently the SAFAC has an Alerton energy management system to control all of the HVAC at the facility. The measures in this section look at strategies to better control the HVAC in the building through the current system as well as expanding the system to control other pieces of equipment in the facility.
4.1.9 ECM 9 Raise Gymnasium Cooling Set-Point
As illustrated in Table 4.11 and 4.12 below, electrical savings can be realized by adjusting the temperature set-point of the two HVAC units that serve the Gymnasium using the existing EMS to increase the set-point by four degrees.
Two tables are presented below, Table 4.11 shows savings for this measure under the assumption that ECM #14 has been adopted and the two Gymnasium HVAC units have been replaced with new AAON units. Table 4.12 shows the savings for this measure with the building as is, with the existing Carrier HVAC units.
The current space temperature set-point is 72F; the existing EMS would be programmed with a new set-point of 76F. This 4 degree F increase would be a step toward a more energy efficient facility’s management plan, and would allow the facility to save money every month on their energy costs. The higher set point does have a risk of a decrease in guest satisfaction.
This CEASP estimates that this measure will produce a savings of 2,040 kWh per year if the Gymnasium HVAC unit replacement (ECM #13) has taken place, or 3,640 kWh with the existing units still in place. The kWh savings are higher on the existing equipment because it is less energy efficient and consumes more energy to operate than the new equipment in ECM #13.
The budget for this retrofit would be approximately $875 with either the existing or replacement units. This measure is estimated to save the facility $249 per year with the AAON replacement units or $444 per year with the existing units, based on the blended average electric rate and would pay for itself within 3.5 years with the new unit or 1.95 years with existing equipment. Simple paybacks are longer when based on the newer equipment due to higher efficiency. No material is required for this ECM and could be executed by trained City staff.
Appendix C
29 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table 4.11 Gymnasium Set-Point Savings Analysis w/ New Gym Units Table 4.12 Gymnasium Set-Point Savings Analysis w/ Existing Gym Units
4.1.10 ECM 10 Establish Peak Limiting Program for Specified HVAC Units Currently at the SAFAC much of the HVAC units are set to cool between 68 and 72 degrees while occupied. The U.S. Department of Energy Recommends 78 degrees as an acceptable cooling set point. While we feel 78 degrees may be too high, we believe the current set points are set too low especially during peak hour (12:00 pm – 6:00 pm) in the summer when energy costs are at a premium.
We have developed a program for the energy management system that would increase the temperatures on the largest HVAC units up to 75 degrees F during peak hours in the months of May through October when electricity is at a premium. Our experience at other locations where we have done similar strategies is that most occupants hardly notice the increase in temperature. This would be a very low cost measure for the city since the SAFAC already has an energy management system installed.
Table 4.13 below illustrates the units selected as well as the savings from this measure.
The budget for this retrofit would be $875 and would save the facility $396 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 2.21 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings. No material is required for this ECM and could be executed by trained City staff.
ECM #9A Serves
Estimated
Annual
Operating
Hours
Temp
Increase
Base kW Estimated kWh
savings
Estimated kWh
cost savings
Estimated CO2 reduction
(lbs per year)
AAON RM-013 Gymnasium 4,368 4 2.3 1,020 $ 125 1,266
AAON RM-013 Gymnasium 4,368 4 2.3 1,020 $ 125 1,266
Reduction/Savings - 2,040 $ 249 2,533
Use Existing EMS to Reduce HVAC load in Gymnasium using new AAON units Analysis Annual
ECM #9B Serves
Estimated
Annual
Operating
Hours
Temp
Increase
Base kW Estimated
kWh savings
Estimated kWh
cost savings
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs per
year)
Carrier: 48HJF-014Gymnasium 4,368 4 4.2 1,820 $ 222 2,260 Carrier: 48HJF-014Gymnasium 4,368 4 4.2 1,820 $ 222 2,260 Reduction/Savings - 3,640 $ 444 4,519
Use Existing EMS to Reduce HVAC load in Gymnasium using existing HVAC units Analysis Annual
Appendix C
30 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table 4.13 Peak Demand Limiting Program Savings Summary
4.1.11 ECM 11 Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Areas As illustrated in Table 4.14 below, electrical savings can be realized by controlling the temperature set-point of the two HVAC units that serve the Meeting Room and the Dance Studio. This can be accomplished by using occupancy sensors combined with the existing Energy Management System (EMS) to increase the set-point by a few degrees when the room is unoccupied.
Occupancy Sensors sense when a room has been occupied and activate for a programmable time period the EMS system to allow for heating and cooling. The system would lower the temperature to the current set-point after the room has been occupied for 5 minutes.
The HVAC unit that serves the Meeting Room is a 5-ton Carrier 48HJD-006. The EMS will be programmed to raise this unit’s set-point from the current 72 F to the new set-point of 78 F when the room is unoccupied.
The HVAC unit that serves the Dance Studio is a 7.5-ton Carrier 48HJD-008. The EMS will be programmed to raise this unit’s set-point from the current 69 F to the new set-point of 78 F when the room is unoccupied. This higher set point requires less cooling and saves energy when unoccupied.
The staff makes efforts to schedule the room temperature control to align with planned meetings. This ECM is an added layer of protection for SAFAC to accommodate last minute schedule changes and prevent cooling / heating of unoccupied rooms.
This CEASP estimates that for approximately 1,820 hours per year in the Meeting Room and 910 hours per year in the Dance Studio the temperature can be set to an energy efficient 78 F. This ECM #10 Serves
Estimated
Annual
Operating
Hours
Temp
Increase
Base kW Estimated
kWh savings
Estimated kWh
cost savings
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs per
year)
Carrier: 48HJD-014 Atrium 780 3 5.47 320 83 397
Carrier: 48HJD-008 Teen Center 780 4 2.86 223 58 277
Carrier: 48HJD-008 Teen Center 780 4 2.86 223 58 277
Carrier: 48HJD-004 Activity Room 780 4 1.13 88 23 109
Carrier: 48HJD-009 Exercise Room 780 2 3.08 120 31 149
AAON: RK-10-2 Pool Entry 780 3 3.75 219 57 272
AAON: RK-03 Entry Offices 780 3 1.12 65 17 81
AAON: RK-03 Offices 780 3 1.12 65 17 81
AAON: RK-04 Lockers 780 3 1.49 87 23 108
AAON: RK-05 Lockers 780 2 1.88 73 19 91
AAON: RK-02 Lifeguard
Room
780 3 0.76 45 12 55
Reduction/Savings - 1,529 $ 396 1,898
Use Existing EMS to Reduce Peak HVAC load during summer months Analysis Annual
Appendix C
31 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.11: pool boiler
measure will save both electrical consumption and demand charges, while using occupancy sensors to minimize impact on guest usage of the facility.
We estimate that this measure will produce a savings of 5,088 kWh per year.
Budget calculations for this ECM include Occupancy Sensor purchase and installation, connection to existing EMS system and EMS programming.
The budget for this retrofit would be $3,180 and would save the facility $621 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 4.46 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Table 4.14 HVAC occupancy Controllers Savings Summary
4.1.12 ECM 12 Install Controls on Facility’s Pool Boiler Plant As illustrated in Table 4.15 below, significant natural gas savings can be realized by controlling the runtime of the boilers serving the various swimming pools. The boilers currently run 24 hours a day, every day. The boilers can be optimized to only maintain the water temperature to the current set-point between 80 and 84 degrees F during the hours when the pool is in use.
This CEASP has determined that the pool boilers can be
disabled between the hours of 9:00 P.M. and 4:30 A.M.
seven days a week. During these 7.5 hours per day the water temperature would be allowed to drift, and at 4:30 A.M. the boilers would be re-enabled to bring the water up to its normal set-point. We expect increased natural gas consumption between 4:30 A.M. and approximately 6:00 A.M. while the pool is being brought back up to temperature, however the savings generated from not heating the pool at night will be greater than this increase. Natural gas consumption can be reduced with no impact on guest comfort, simply by not heating the water when the pools are closed. Because the interior temperature of the Natatorium is maintained through the night, minimum heat loss off the surface of the pool water is expected and pool temperatures are estimated to drop around 4 degrees.
We estimate that this measure will produce a savings of 5% of the previous natural gas consumption level, or 2,791 therms per year.
Annual
ECM #11 Serves Temperature
Increase Base kW
Estimated
Annual
Unoccupied
Hours
Estimated
kWh
savings
Estimated kWh
cost savings
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs per
year)
Carrier: 48HJD-006 Meeting Room 6 1.4 1,820 2,482 $ 303 3,081 Carrier: 48HJD-008 Dance Studio 9 2.0 1,274 2,606 $ 318 3,235 Reduction/Savings - 5,088 $ 621 6,316
Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Areas Analysis Appendix C
32 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
The budget for this retrofit would be $12,860 and would save the facility $3,237 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 3.97 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Table 4.15 Place Boilers on EMS
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES: MECHANICAL UPGRADES
4.1.13 ECM 13 Install VFD System on Pool Filtration Pumps Significant electrical savings can be realized by controlling the speed of the filtration pumps serving the swimming pools. The systems currently run 24 hours a day, every day at full speed.
The pumps can be optimized to reduce the flow rate to the rate needed to fulfill health code requirements (table 4.16) for minimum turnover rates for the pools during the hours when the pool is not in use. During hours that the pool is open the filtration pumps will be run at full speed as they are now.
This CEASP has determined that the filtration pumps can be run at a reduced level for eight hours each night during the week and on weekends can run at a reduced level for ten hours per night. As we show in Table 4.16 below, the reduced flow rate is based on the minimum rate needed to satisfy the turnover requirement for each pool.
ECM #12 Serves Pre hours Post hours
Estimated therm
savings
Estimated
therm cost
savings
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs
per year)
Boiler Lap Pool 8,760 6,023 700 $ 812 7,718
Boiler Lazy River 8,760 6,023 808 $ 937 8,905
Boiler Activity
Pool 8,760 6,023 1,067 $ 1,237 11,755
Boiler Spa 8,760 6,023 215 $ 250 2,375
Reduction/Savings 10,950 2,791 $ 3,237 30,753
Install Controls on Pool Boiler Plant Analysis
Annual
Appendix C
33 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.12 – Variable
Frequency Drive (VFD)
Table 4.16 Minimum Filtration Requirements
This measure will require the installation of a variable frequency drive (VFD) on each pump listed in Table 4.17. These three VFDs represent the major cost associated with this measure, and are required in order to control the speed of the pumps. Other costs associated with this measure will be connecting the new VFDs to the EMS so that they can be scheduled to automatically change their speed at the pre-determined times. Electrical consumption can be reduced while satisfying health code requirements at all times by reducing the speed of the filtration pumps when the pools are closed. The VFD motors would need to be installed outside of the pool filtration area, most likely in the adjoining electrical room.
We estimate that this measure will produce a savings of 24% of the previous consumption level, or 47,676 kWh per year.
Budget calculations for this ECM included three Variable Frequency Drives, enclosures, installation in adjoining electrical room, conduit, wiring, connection to existing EMS system and programming of existing EMS system.
The budget for this retrofit would be $23,704 and would save the facility $3,964 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 5 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
Appendix C
34 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 4.13 – Carrier Coil Deterioration
Table 4.17 VFD System for Pool Boilers Savings Summary
4.1.14 ECM 14 Replace Gym with AAON Units Digital Scroll Compressors As illustrated in Table 4.18 on the following page, electrical savings can be realized by replacing the two package units that serve the Gymnasium with variable capacity units. This CEASP has determined that by using units with variable capacity compressors and fans in this application electrical savings will be realized, especially when the units are running under low load conditions.
The existing Carrier model 48HJF-014, 12½ ton package
units have badly corroded condenser coils. An
example of the damage is shown in Figure 4.13. The
existing units were installed in 2001 and have an
expected service life between 8 and 15 years. Despite
this, this measure needs to be considered in the near
future because the Carrier units are showing significant signs of wear. Corroded condenser coils mean that the
air conditioner cannot perform as efficiently as it did when it was new, and these units are not only corroded
but have damage that will increase with time,
eventually forcing a maintenance related replacement to become necessary.
In addition to deferred maintenance savings, replacement with variable capacity units such as the AAON 16.7 SEER package units being evaluated will save money every month by virtue of their improved efficiency. Most air conditioning systems are not under maximum load all the time. This is true for the Gymnasium at the SAFAC which has intermittent use by guests.
Variable capacity units which have high efficiency even at low load can take advantage of situations such as this where a space has fluctuating HVAC demand. The replacement units will be ½ ton larger than the existing units because this is the most closely matched unit available.
Despite providing a total of one extra ton of cooling at maximum output when called upon, the new units will be less expensive to operate every day.
Annual
ECM #13 Serves kW Pre kW Post
Estimated
Annual Hours
Estimated kWh
savings
Estimated kWh
cost savings
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs per
year)
Lap Pool Pump 6.32 2.98 8,760 10,433 $ 867 12,953
Lazy River Pump 8.43 2.46 8,760 18,622 $ 1,548 23,119
Activity Pool Pump 8.43 2.46 8,760 18,622 $ 1,548 23,119 Reduction/Savings 23.2 7.9 - 47,676 $ 3,964 59,190
Install VFD's to Pool Filtration Pumps Analysis
Appendix C
35 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
It has been our experiences that on average commercial grade package units will last 15 years.
However, many factors can lengthen or shorten this lifespan of these units. For example longer duty cycles, or closer proximity to salt water can shorten the lifespan of a unit (this is the case with the gymnasium equipment). The opposite is true to lengthen the lifecycle of a unit. There are literally hundreds of factors that play into the lifecycle of a unit. Our best approach is to continually monitor each unit through regular maintenance and replace once major repairs become more frequent or within 15 years whichever comes first.
The City maintenance staff maintains a building mechanical equipment replacement list for the aquatic center and has a planned replacement year of 2011 for these two HVAC units.
Costs associated with this measure include the cost of the replacement units and curb adapters, installation labor cost, the disposal fees for the existing units, and the cost to integrate the new units with the EMS. In addition to electrical savings, natural gas savings will be realized during the winter months when the package units are used to heat the space.
As shown in Table 4.18, the replacement units are estimated to have a 2% higher Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) than the existing units. Table 4.19 shows the combined electric and natural gas savings for the measure.
Electrical and natural gas consumption can be reduced while improving guest comfort at all times by replacing the Gymnasium HVAC units with new high efficiency variable capacity units.
We estimate that this measure will produce an electric consumption savings of 47% of the previous consumption level, or 15,999 kWh per year. We estimate a natural gas savings of 362 therms per year.
The budget for this retrofit would be $97,162 and would save the facility $2,373 per year in energy costs, which has a simple payback of 39.9 years without consideration of deferred maintenance savings.
This CEASP has determined that this measure would be eligible for $2,601 in incentives from PG&E, which are included in the payback calculation.
Table 4.18 Gymnasium Package Unit Replacement Savings Summary ECM #14 Serves
Estimated
Operating
Hours
Estimated
kWh savings
Estimated
Therm Saving
Estimated
therm/kWh cost
savings
Estimated CO2
reduction (lbs
per year)
Carrier: 48HJF-014 Gymnasium 4,368 7,999 181 $ 1,187 11,924 Carrier: 48HJF-014 Gymnasium 4,368 7,999 181 $ 1,187 11,924 Reduction/Savings - 15,999 362 $ 2,374 23,848
Replace Gymnasium HVAC units with AAON units with Digital Scrool Compressors Analysis Annual
Appendix C
36 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
5 Other Considerations
MEASURES NOT VIABLE
This section outlines those ECM’s that were considered for the report but did not make the final report either due to a poor payback or other measures providing a better solution. While they did not meet the criteria for this CEASP, they could be considered by the City in modernization or new construction projects.
5.1.1 Geothermal Heating/ Cooling
Geothermal heating and cooling uses the Earth’s natural heat to provide conditioning for a building- typically via a heat pump. Geothermal heat pumps are very efficient and buildings that are conditioned by them often times have lower operating costs than those that are conditioned by more conventional methods. The major drawback is the large upfront cost and the availability of space to put the necessary in ground wells or coils.
The SAFAC is located in close proximity to two sports fields that could be a potential location to install coil type geothermal wells. Coil type wells are shallower but require more land to be excavated in order to place the coil fields. Deep well geothermal consists of large deep wells and does not require near the land but would not be a good fit at this site because of the close proximity to the bay and potential for groundwater intrusion.
Geothermal installations are better suited for new construction where they can be planned into the overall building design and equipment. In a retrofit application such as the SAFAC, the conventional air conditioning would still be needed in order to supplement the geothermal heat pumps on extreme days. The SAFAC would be required to retrofit the existing conventional air conditioning equipment at a cost estimated around $1.4 million.
The cost to excavate the land along with the cost of the existing system retrofit would push this measure well outside reasonable payback criteria. Geothermal would have an estimated payback beyond its’ useful life and therefore not considered.
Geothermal is a good idea if you are constructing a new facility with enough free land around it in where you can place the wells or fields. For a retrofit of an existing building the cost of the installation does not cover the benefit received in energy savings. Therefore, geothermal was not considered a feasible option at SAFAC.
5.1.2 Wind Power
Wind turbines are probably the most cost effective means of generating renewable power. The one drawback is that they are unpredictable in areas that do not have consistent high velocity wind patterns.
Appendix C
37 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Figure 5.1 – DOE wind resource map
The Department of Energy's Wind Program and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) published a wind resource map for the state of California. This resource map shows wind speed estimates at 50 meters above the ground and depicts the resource that could be used for utility-scale wind development. Future plans are to provide wind speed estimates at 30 meters, which are useful for identifying small wind turbine opportunities.
As a renewable resource, wind is classified according to wind power classes, which are based on typical wind speeds. These classes range from Class 1 (the lowest) to Class 7 (the highest). In general, at 50 meters, wind power Class 4 or higher can be useful for generating wind power with large turbines.
The California Wind Resource Map (Source US Department of Energy) show below identifies Newark in Class 1 or Class 2 which is poor or marginal wind availability.
Appendix C
38 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Although it is located in an area with wind, it is not of the velocity and predictability that is needed for wind turbines to be cost effective. Other means such as solar PV are better options for the SAFAC if they are looking to install some form of renewable energy.
5.1.3 Domestic Solar Hot Water
Initially in this proposal Solar Hot Water was considered to supplement the existing domestic hot water boilers located on the roof. The proposed plan was to install a closed loop glycol system on the existing flat portion of the roof.
Closed loop systems use a heat-transfer fluid to collect heat and a heat exchanger to transfer the heat to domestic water. Active closed loop systems use electric pumps, valves, and controllers to circulate the heat-transfer fluid, usually a glycol-water antifreeze mixture, through the collectors.
A closed loop is important to utilize when drinking water is involved to ensure contaminants do not enter the through the solar thermal system.
However after initial budget estimates of $220,000 and a 25 year simple payback it provided an extremely low return on investment.
5.1.4 Domestic Hot Water Plant Controls
Along with solar thermal for the domestic hot water we looked at placing the current plant on the EMS to shut it down at night. The budget to do this would have been approximately $7,200. However, the measure only saved the facility $388 per year yielding an 18.5 year simple payback. Due to the low return on investment this ECM was removed from the overall recommendations.
5.1.5 Cogeneration
A few years ago and under different criteria the SAFAC would have been an ideal location to install a small 80 to 150 kW cogeneration unit. The unit could have provided enough power to trim a significant portion of the facility’s base load and much of the waste heat could have been used to supplement the current pool heaters. However, the rebates that once made cogeneration an attractive option are not available. Additionally, small system cogeneration is not as reliable as once thought. If a cogeneration system is down for a few hours during peak time the savings for the month could be completely forfeited. Cogeneration also puts the burden of purchasing fuel (natural gas) at a competitive rate on the owner.
Based on fuel cost and ongoing maintenance expense of the cogeneration system better options exist in the form of solar hot water systems to heat the pools and PV systems to supply power to the facility that contain no moving parts, have no fuel procurement issues, provide more reliable power and provide more carbon offsets than cogeneration does. With this in mind cogeneration does not appear to be a feasible option for the SAFAC.
Appendix C
39 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
6 City of Newark Strategic Implementation Plan
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
This Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Strategic Plan provides the following recommendations as outlined in this section. The basis for the recommendations is based on four criteria:
1. Total energy reduction the Solar Electric measure produces as a standalone measure
2. Overall energy reduction ranking of all other measures (excluding Solar Electric)
3. Most energy reducing for the cost (simple payback) of all other measures (excluding Solar Electric) to provide a guide for the City to follow as they identify funding sources.
4. Ability of energy conservation measures to self fund and provide cash flow neutral or better results for the City.
Because of the magnitude of the solar electric energy conservation measure in comparison to all other measures, it is separated to provide visibility and not mask the benefit of the other recommendations.
Table 6.1 provides a perspective on the recommendations on how impactful the recommendations would be to the overall annual energy cost avoidance and corresponding savings.
Table 6.1 ranked by annual energy cost avoidance
ECM # Demand Response Measures
Estimated
CO2
Reduction
Total
energy
cost
avoidance
Implementation
Cost
Estimated
Rebate
Simple
Payback
(rebates
Applied)
2 Add Thermal Solar Collectors to Preheat Pool Hot Water 602,184 $ 54,645 $ 377,994 $ - 6.92 1 Install Solar Photo Voltaic Panel for Renew able Generation 345,136 escalating 1,121,000 $ $ 357,024 14.50 3 Replace Natatorium Rail Lighting 67,972 $ 7,508 $ 69,925 $ 5,264 8.61 7 Install Ambient Light Controller on the Natatorium Rail and Catw alk Fixtures 50,548 $ 4,967 $ 8,062 $ 4,846 0.65
4 Retrofit HID Parking Lot Lighting 62,243 $ 4,168 $ 14,783 $ 3,509 2.70 13 Add VFDs to Pool Filtration Pumps 59,190 $ 3,964 $ 23,704 $ 3,814 5.02 12 Install Controls on Pool Boiler Plant 30,753 $ 3,237 $ 12,860 $ - 3.97 14 Replace Gymnasium Units w ith AAON Units Containing Digital Scroll Compressors 23,848 $ 2,374 $ 97,162 $ 2,601 39.84
8 Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS 29,051 $ 1,945 $ 30,993 $ - 15.93 6 Install Ambient Lighting Sensors on Selected Fixtures 18,491 $ 1,817 $ 7,482 $ 1,773 3.14 5 Replace and Retrofit Wall Mounted HID Fixtures 11,612 $ 1,377 $ 10,770 $ 655 7.35 11 Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Areas 6,316 $ 621 $ 3,180 $ 407 4.46 10 Use Existing EMS to Reduce Peak HVAC Load During Summer Months 1,898 $ 396 $ 875 $ - 2.21 9 Use Existing EMS to Reduce HVAC Load in the Gymnasium 2,533 $ 249 $ 875 $ - 3.51 Total 1,311,775 $ 87,268 $ 1,779,665 $ 379,893 7.29
Appendix C
40 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
A second table 6.2 is provided to show a summary of these same recommendations based on energy cost avoidance to cost (simple payback). This provides a perspective on the recommendations on how impactful the recommendations would be to the operating and / or capital budgets:
Table 6.2 Simple Payback
All projects that have a eleven (11) year simple payback or less are recommended as part of this plan based on their ability to be financed and implemented on a cash flow neutral or better position.
Additionally, the replacement of the Gymnasium AC Units are included in this recommendation based on the expected remaining limited life of these units, detailed out in recommendation #8.
6.1.1 Project Funding
Critical to any implementation plan is the availability of funding. There is a variety of ways to fund these energy conservation measures. We have focused on the financing approaches we feel are most suitable for the City.
The City has been active in pursuing Federal and State grants for projects and grants may supplement a portion of these projects. In addition, some operating and capital budgets may be identified that could be utilized to implement several of these energy conservation measures.
Typically the City has waited for capital and operating budgets to be available to implement projects. However, many other cities municipal energy projects are funded through financing vehicles such as Municipal Leases and/or Power Purchase Agreements. In addition to these traditional funding methods, the California Energy Commission is currently offering on a first come, first serve basis a low interest rate loan (3%) for up to $3 Million dollar projects to ECM # Demand Response Measures
Estimated
CO2
Reduction
Total
energy
cost
avoidance
Implementation
Cost
Estimated
Rebate
Simple
Payback
(rebates
Applied)
7 Install Ambient Light Controller on the Natatorium Rail and Catw alk Fixtures 50,548 $ 4,967 $ 8,062 $ 4,846 0.65
10 Use Existing EMS to Reduce Peak HVAC Load During Summer Months 1,898 $ 396 $ 875 $ - 2.21 4 Retrofit HID Parking Lot Lighting 62,243 $ 4,168 $ 14,783 $ 3,509 2.70 6 Install Ambient Lighting Sensors on Selected Fixtures 18,491 $ 1,817 $ 7,482 $ 1,773 3.14 9 Use Existing EMS to Reduce HVAC Load in the Gymnasium 2,533 $ 249 $ 875 $ - 3.51 12 Install Controls on Pool Boiler Plant 30,753 $ 3,237 $ 12,860 $ - 3.97 11 Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Areas 6,316 $ 621 $ 3,180 $ 407 4.46 13 Add VFDs to Pool Filtration Pumps 59,190 $ 3,964 $ 23,704 $ 3,814 5.02 2 Add Thermal Solar Collectors to Preheat Pool Hot Water 602,184 $ 54,645 $ 377,994 $ - 6.92 5 Replace and Retrofit Wall Mounted HID Fixtures 11,612 $ 1,377 $ 10,770 $ 655 7.35 3 Replace Natatorium Rail Lighting 67,972 $ 7,508 $ 69,925 $ 5,264 8.61 1 Install Solar Photo Voltaic Panel for Renew able Generation 345,136 escalating 1,121,000 $ $ 357,024 14.50 8 Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS 29,051 $ 1,945 $ 30,993 $ - 15.93 14 Replace Gymnasium Units w ith AAON Units Containing Digital Scroll Compressors 23,848 $ 2,374 $ 97,162 $ 2,601 39.84
Total 1,311,775 $ 87,268 $ 1,779,665 $ 379,893 7.29
Appendix C
41 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
implement energy savings projects for cities. Clean Renewable Energy Bonds could also be considered.
Renewable energy opportunities for Public entities used to be thought of as only small scale or demonstration level projects. However, over the past few years with the evolution of Power Purchase Agreements and Municipal Leases, larger renewable energy ventures such as Solar Photo Voltaic and Wind Generation have become viable options for Cities and other public entities.
The information describing how a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), Municipal Lease, California Energy Commission Energy Efficiency Financing and Clean Energy Renewable Bonds (CREB) operate as well as some of the benefits and drawbacks of entering into these agreements can be found in the appendices section 7.15.
Table 6.3 Summary of the four financing approaches:
Financing Type CEC Low Interest
Loan
Municipal Lease Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA)
Clean Renewable
Energy Bonds
(CREBs)
Description Loan provided by
CEC for qualifying
projects
Loan provided by
bank for qualifying
projects
Purchase of power
generated by system
owned by third
party
Federally backed
bond underwritten
by bank for
qualifying projects
Qualified Projects Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency
and Solar
Solar Solar
Minimum Term
(years)
10 5 15 10
Maximum Term
(years)
15 20 25 15
Interest Rate 3.0-3.5% 5.5-7.0% NA Effective Rate of ~
1%
End of Term Options City owns
equipment
City owns
equipment
City buys equipment
at fair market value
City owns
equipment
Incentives Kept by City Kept by City Kept by system
owner
Kept by City
Insurance Provided by City Provided by City Provided by system owner
Provided by City
Tax Credits Lost Lost Monetized by
system owner
Lost
Operations and
Maintenance
City’s responsibility
after warranty
period
City’s responsibility
after warranty
period
System owner’s
responsibility
City’s responsibility
after warranty
period
Financing is an important component of the strategic plan. Knowing what size project, term, rate and availability is critical to a successful project.
Appendix C
42 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
6.1.2 Recommendation #1 Align Financial Vehicle and City Energy Goals A brief workshop was conducted on July 28th, 2009 with City representatives Susie Woodstock and Victoria Hernandez. The purpose of the workshop was to review the four financing vehicles outlined in this study and to answer questions on the alternative financing options.
A successful project will require the City to determine which energy conservation measures they both highly value and can financially justify. The determination of which energy conservation measures are valued must be aligned with the financing vehicles available. This alignment must then be tested against the requirements of the financing vehicle to confirm the project is eligible for the program.
Critical to the approach is that the implementation costs to the City are “cash flow neutral” where the energy savings, operational savings, tax credits and utility rebates are at least equal to the finance payment on a yearly basis. This self funding approach makes energy projects highly desirable.
Based on the identified energy projects, we believe the most suitable financing vehicles are for the City to utilize the CEC low interest loan for the energy conservation measures and to utilize the CREB for the solar renewable energy implementation.
The CEC low interest loan will provide the City a self funding cash flow neutral project for the thirteen recommended energy conservation measures (all but solar PV).
The CREB will not be cash flow neutral each year but contributes a substantial savings over a twenty-five year period for the ground mount solar renewable energy measure.
The next step is for the City to determine their energy goals and how to align them with their finances.
Self Funding
Cash Flow Neutral Approach
Financing
Energy
Energy
Operations
Operations
Cost Before Retrofit Cost After Retrofit
Cash flow neutral
equipment upgrades
Savings
Appendix C
43 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
The City historically has created capital and operating budgets to address facility retrofits.
However, energy conservation retrofits have a unique quality where the savings they produce can pay for the upgrades through this self funding cash flow neutral model.
In working with SAFAC and City maintenance staff the following scenario would typically be the approach for a retrofit of an end of life piece of equipment- (2) AC rooftop units for the Gymnasium:
1. Determine end of life for equipment of rooftop AC units based on equipment age, reliability, maintenance record, field experience
2. Request capital budget dollars for replacement of units, looking for an improvement in energy efficiency over existing unit if possible and affordable
3. Once capital budget is approved, schedule replacement The results of this will be a request to replace the two gymnasium AC units in the year 2011 at a budget of $97,162. Based on the delay of the replacement, it is expected that the city will pay $2200 a year on 3rd party maintenance on those same AC units until replaced. These two gymnasium AC units have a life cycle remaining of approximately two years.
Beyond capital budgeting is the existing operating budget of SAFAC. The SAFAC spends from $15,000 to $20,000 a year in lighting replacement / bulb replacement. $10,000 is a rough estimate of how much of that lighting is spent on bulb replacement for the lighting that would be retrofitted as part of this plan. That bulb replacement operating cost would be relieved for two years based on new fixtures and bulbs being installed as part of the portfolio of ECM’s recommended as part of the CEASP.
Taking just these two examples, the City could realize real cash flow (incentives from implementing the measures) and real operating and capital budget relief of over $145,000 over the next two years if they executed a self funding* cash flow neutral approach versus their historical approach of capital and operational budgeting. The table below illustrates these savings:
Measure Year Real Cash Flow Budget Relief Running Total Rebates ECM's- portfolio except solar pv 1 $ 23,677 $ - $ 23,677 3rd party HVAC repair savings Gym Units 1 $ - $ 2,200 $ 25,877 Lighting replacement budget relief (bulbs) 1 $ - $ 10,000 $ 35,877 Total Year 1 Budget $ 35,877
Rebates 2 $ - $ - $ -
(2) AC units replacement Gymnasium 2 $ - $ 97,162 $ 97,162 3rd Party HVAC repair savings Gym Units 2 $ - $ 2,200 $ 99,362 Lighting replacement budget relief (bulbs) 2 $ - $ 10,000 $ 109,362 Total Year 2 Budget $ 109,362
Total year 1 and 2 year Budget impact $ 23,677 $ 121,562 $ 145,239 Appendix C
44 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
*payments to finance company are no greater than the calculated savings generated from implementing the measures
6.1.3 Recommendation #2 Install Solar PV for Renewable Generation The project with the largest energy conservation and CO2 reduction impact is the Solar Photo Voltaic renewable energy installation. The project provides 278,311 kWh of energy reduction, 345,523 lbs of CO2 reduction which is the equivalent of planting over 1,000 trees. For the ground mount and parking cover designs the city has at minimum three methods to procure the funding necessary to implement this energy conservation measure by way of a Municipal Lease, Power Purchase Agreement or Clean Renewable Energy Bond.
The big decision for the City is to evaluate if they can accept the risk of vandalism of the solar PV system if it were either ground mount with protective fencing or parking cover design.
These two designs have the better simple paybacks and are stronger economic choices.
Although the roof mount is ideal from a protection perspective, this design has significant disadvantages:
1. The available roof space is limited so the solar PV would only serve a small amount of electrical usage.
2. The simple payback is beyond the available financing terms with all except PPA financing, and the kWh output of the roof installation is too small for a PPA to consider.
This would require the city to provide capital to implement the project with this design.
The City could also consider if there is an alternate City owned, long term location for a Solar PV program that would provide a safe and more economical installation. The CPUC has not yet ruled on whether a local government participating in the 2466 program can also receive rebates which would most likely offset the economic benefit of an alternate site.
This CEASP recommends option 1b below, and that the most suitable financing vehicle for the City to utilize is the CREB for the solar renewable energy implementation.
This recommendation is contingent on the ability to get the cost of the electricity from the Solar PV renewable source at or below the cost they currently project to pay to the Utility. Moving the solar installation to the dirt field is outlined in option 1b below. This option may require the City to modify the Newark Sportsfield Park Master Plan.
The financial models to implement this measure are shown in the table below. The budgets per year take into consideration the installation, cost to maintain, the cost of money to finance, and warranty (PPA only) to ensure the installation has a life cycle of 25 years.
Appendix C
45 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
The CREB financing option captures the utility rebates for the first five years, making the payment less for the city during that period. Years 6 through 15 are higher payments. The system debt is then satisfied and the savings are significant over years 16 through 25. The CREB does not allow for the payments to be evened out on an annual basis, therefore this is not cash flow neutral each year. If the City can manage this cash flow model yearly then the overall savings are in excess of $600,000 over the twenty-five year period.
Option 1b Solar ground mounted behind SAFAC:
Year
Base -
Projected
PG&E PPA Option
CREBs
Option
Municipal
Lease Option
1 $34,982 $56,495 $19,956 $28,876
2 $36,765 $58,454 $20,588 $29,509
3 $38,638 $60,481 $21,219 $30,139
4 $40,607 $62,579 $21,847 $30,767
5 $42,676 $64,749 $22,473 $31,393
6 $44,851 $66,995 $92,904 $101,825
7 $47,137 $69,318 $93,028 $101,948
8 $49,539 $71,722 $93,153 $102,074
9 $52,063 $74,209 $93,280 $102,201
10 $54,716 $76,783 $93,409 $102,330
11 $57,504 $79,446 $93,650 $102,571
12 $60,435 $82,201 $93,783 $102,703
13 $63,514 $85,052 $93,917 $102,838
14 $66,751 $88,002 $94,054 $102,975
15 $70,152 $91,054 $94,193 $103,114
16 $73,727 $94,212 $3,176 $103,255
17 $77,484 $97,479 $3,320 $103,399
18 $81,433 $100,860 $3,465 $103,544
19 $85,582 $104,358 $3,613 $3,613
20 $89,943 $115,596 $3,763 $3,763
21 $94,527 $119,605 $3,916 $3,916
22 $99,344 $123,754 $4,071 $4,071
23 $104,406 $128,803 $4,229 $4,229
24 $109,726 $132,631 $4,389 $4,389
25 $115,318 $136,573 $4,572 $4,572
Total $1,691,821 $2,241,410 $1,079,968 $1,514,017
Total Cost to City (Ground Mounted)
Appendix C
46 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Appendix C
47 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Under the current design and location outlined in option 1a below, the cost of the Solar Photo Voltaic is higher than the current Utility cost. For the solar project to be fiscally viable, the city must either consider the alternate location in the dirt field behind the SAFAC to place the solar or acquire a down-payment in the form of a grant or other means to buy down the cost of option 1a.
Option 1a Solar built with Parking Structure:
Year
Base -
Projected
PG&E PPA Option
CREBs
Option
Municipal
Lease Option
1 $34,982 $67,626 $38,654 $47,040
2 $36,765 $69,636 $39,286 $47,672
3 $38,638 $71,706 $39,917 $48,302
4 $40,607 $73,837 $40,545 $48,931
5 $42,676 $76,031 $41,171 $49,556
6 $44,851 $78,291 $111,603 $119,988
7 $47,137 $80,617 $111,726 $120,112
8 $49,539 $83,013 $111,851 $120,237
9 $52,063 $85,480 $111,978 $120,364
10 $54,716 $88,021 $112,107 $120,493
11 $57,504 $90,636 $112,371 $120,754
12 $60,435 $93,330 $112,503 $120,887
13 $63,514 $96,104 $112,638 $121,021
14 $66,751 $98,960 $112,775 $121,158
15 $70,152 $101,901 $112,914 $121,297
16 $73,727 $104,929 $3,199 $121,438
17 $77,484 $108,047 $3,342 $121,582
18 $81,433 $111,258 $3,488 $121,727
19 $85,582 $114,565 $3,633 $3,633
20 $89,943 $117,970 $3,783 $3,783
21 $94,527 $121,476 $3,936 $3,936
22 $99,344 $125,086 $4,091 $4,091
23 $104,406 $128,803 $4,249 $4,249
24 $109,726 $132,631 $4,409 $4,409
25 $115,318 $136,573 $4,572 $4,572
Total $1,691,821 $2,456,526 $1,360,742 $1,841,233
Total Cost to City (Parking Cover)
Appendix C
48 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Appendix C
49 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Under the current design and location outlined in option 1c below, the City would be required to supply their own capital to implement the project.
Option 1c Solar roof mount:
Both option 1a & 1b budgets include installation, finance costs, maintenance (PPA only), insurance, rebates and / or tax credits applied.
Option 1c budgets include installation and rebates applied. The city would be required to supply the capital to implement the project.
$ 401,000
utility avoided
@ 5.89%
annual
escalation
rebate running balance
1 $ 7,045 $ 61,672 $ 332,283
2 $ 7,460 $ - $ 324,823
3 $ 7,900 $ - $ 316,923
4 $ 8,365 $ - $ 308,558
5 $ 8,858 $ - $ 299,701
6 $ 9,379 $ 290,321
7 $ 9,932 $ 280,390
8 $ 10,517 $ 269,873
9 $ 11,136 $ 258,737
10 $ 11,792 $ 246,945
11 $ 12,487 $ 234,458
12 $ 13,222 $ 221,236
13 $ 14,001 $ 207,235
14 $ 14,825 $ 192,410
15 $ 15,699 $ 176,711
16 $ 16,623 $ 160,088
17 $ 17,602 $ 142,485
18 $ 18,639 $ 123,846
19 $ 19,737 $ 104,109
20 $ 20,900 $ 83,209
21 $ 22,131 $ 61,078
22 $ 23,434 $ 37,644
23 $ 24,814 $ 12,830
24 $ 26,276 $ (13,446)
25 $ 27,824 $ (41,270)
Totals $ 215,482 $ 61,672
Year
starting balance
Appendix C
50 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Simple paybacks with utility escalation but without the cost of money are calculated as follows:
Table 6.4 Solar PV simple payback calculations
The Utility rate structure, after evaluation, should remain at E19 and not move to an A6.
This recommendation references ECM # 1.
6.1.4 Recommendation #3 Install Solar Thermal to preheat pool water This recommendation is based on the solar thermal installation being constructed with a parking structure behind the SAFAC. The budget allows for 8000 square feet of solar thermal collection on approximately a 9000 square foot parking structure.
This energy conservation measure has both a high energy and CO2 saving potential, but also an attractive financial payback of less than 7 years.
Table 6.5 Thermal Solar Pool Heaters Savings Summary Parking Structure design If the City evaluates the installation of the solar thermal system on a parking structure as high risk because of the concern with either Vandalism and / or maintenance of the parking ECM #1A
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated Incentives /
(Incentive paid over
five years based on
production)
Payback with
rebate (years)-
no kWh rate
escalation
considered
Payback with
Rebate (years)-
kWh rate
escalation
considered
Budget/Payback $ 840,741 $ 280,247 1,120,988$ $ 34,982 32.0 $ 357,024 21.8 14.50 Add Solar Photo Voltaic Ground Mount Payback Calculation ECM #1B
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated Incentives /
(Incentive paid over
five years based on
production)
Payback with
rebate (years)-
no kWh rate
escalation
considered
Payback with
Rebate (years)-
kWh rate
escalation
considered
Budget/Payback $ 1,112,250 $ 370,750 1,483,000$ $ 34,982 42.4 $ 357,024 32.2 18.50 Add Solar Photo Voltaic Parking Structure Payback Calculation ECM #1C
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated Incentives /
(Incentive paid over
five years based on
production)
Payback with
rebate (years)-
no kWh rate
escalation
considered
Payback with
Rebate (years)-
kWh rate
escalation
considered
Budget/Payback $ 300,750 $ 100,250 $ 401,000 $ 7,045 56.9 $ 60,700 48.3 23.50 Add Solar Photo Voltaic Roof Mount Payback Calculation
ECM #2A Budget Project
Equipment
Budget Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated One
time estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback with
rebate (years)
Budget/Payback $ 130,000 $ 247,994 $ 377,994 $ 54,645 6.9 $ - 6.9 Add Thermal Solar Collectors to Preheat Pools (on parking structure) Payback Calculation Appendix C
51 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
structure they could choose to install a large enough system (6000 square feet) to heat the lap pool and lazy river pool on the roof. The budget for this approach includes the removal and saving (as possible) of 6000 square feet of slate tile, installation of asphalt shingle roofing including self adhering underlayment. This design is subject to structural integrity/structural compliance and has no budget dollars planned for structural modification.
The energy conservation measure still delivers high energy and CO2 savings potential and has a
7.5 year payback.
Table 6.6 Thermal Solar Pool Heaters Savings Summary Roof Mount design The most suitable financing vehicle for the City to utilize is the CEC low interest loan for this energy conservation measure. The CEC low interest loan will provide the City a self funding cash flow neutral project for this recommendation.
If the city were to consider placing the solar thermal array on the dirt lot area of the property the cost to implement the project and corresponding savings would be minimal. The savings of no parking structure are largely offset by the concrete and metal fabrication work required for the dirt field installation.
This recommendation references ECM#2.
6.1.5 Recommendation #4 Install VFD Motors on pool filtration pumps This energy conservation measure of installing Variable Frequency Drive Motors on the pool filtration pumps has both a high energy and CO2 saving potential, but also an attractive financial payback of 5 years. This budgeted amount will ensure the pool filtration requirements will be met and the additional life you will get from the equipment with reduced run hours will be an additional benefit.
Table 6.7 VFD Pool Pump Savings Summary
The most suitable financing vehicle for the City to utilize is the CEC low interest loan for this energy conservation measure. The CEC low interest loan will provide the City a self funding cash flow neutral project for this recommendation. This recommendation references ECM #13.
ECM #2B Budget Project
Equipment
Budget Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated One
time estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback with
rebate (years)
Budget/Payback $ 97,000 $ 176,936 $ 273,936 $ 36,317 7.5 $ - 7.5 Add Thermal Solar Collectors to Preheat Pools (2 pools roof installation) Payback Calculation ECM #13 Budget Project
Equipment
Budget Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual Savings
Simple Payback
(years)
Estimated One
time estimated
Rebate / Incentive
Payback with
rebate (years)
Budget/Payback $ 9,400 $ 14,304 $ 23,704 $ 3,964 6.0 $ 3,814 5.0 Install VFD's to Pool Filtration Payback Calculation
Appendix C
52 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
6.1.6 Recommendation #5 Install Lighting retrofits
Incentives / rebates for lighting retrofits for Cities are currently enhanced and the additional incentive rate should be captured by the city while available. This budget allows for the implementation of energy conservation measures 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of this analysis. The lighting retrofits, when combined together provide for 193,247 kWh of energy and 239,916 pounds of CO2 reduction and have a financial payback of less than 6 years.
Lighting retrofits are highly visible to the public as well as lighting schedules and this retrofit provides very visible energy savings as well as an attractive overall financial payback.
Table 6.8 Lighting Measures Saving Summary
ECM #3
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 41,955 $ 27,970 $ 69,925 $ 7,508 9.3 $ 5,264 8.6 Replace Natatorium Rail Light Payback Calculations
ECM #4
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 7,400 $ 7,383 $ 14,783 $ 4,168 3.5 $ 3,509 2.7 Retrofit HID Parking Lot Lighting Payback Calculations
ECM #5
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 6,462 $ 4,308 $ 10,770 $ 1,377 7.8 $ 655 7.3 Retrofit Wallmounted HID Payback Calculations
ECM #6
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 2,619 $ 4,863 $ 7,482 $ 1,817 4.1 $ 1,773 3.1 Install Ambient Light Controller on Selected Fixtures Payback Calculations ECM #7
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 4,162 $ 3,900 $ 8,062 $ 4,967 1.6 $ 4,846 0.6 Install Ambient Light Controller on Natatorium Rail and Catwalks Payback Calculations Appendix C
53 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
If the City determines they are able to control after hour lighting use by behavior changes to the after-hours cleaning crew then they should not proceed with ECM #8.
The most suitable financing vehicle for the City to utilize is the CEC low interest loan for this energy conservation measure. The CEC low interest loan will provide the City a self funding cash flow neutral project for this recommendation.
6.1.7 Recommendation #6 Install Controls on pool boiler plant The simple payback of this project of 3.97 years makes this energy conservation project a high priority. In addition to the energy cost avoidance, this measure will also potentially increase the life of the boiler equipment by reducing the run hours dramatically on an annual basis.
Table 6.9 Pool Boiler Controls Saving Summary
The most suitable financing vehicle for the City to utilize is the CEC low interest loan for this energy conservation measure. The CEC low interest loan will provide the City a self funding cash flow neutral project for this recommendation.
6.1.8 Recommendation #7 Install Energy Management Control upgrades This combines the recommendations of reducing HVAC use in the gymnasium (ECM9), peak HVAC during summer months (ECM 10) and in selective areas by occupancy (ECM11). Together they provide energy cost avoidance of $ 1,266 per year. The overall costs to implement these projects are minimal and may be able to be funded by way of existing operational budgets. The simple payback of 3.57 years makes them desirable projects to implement.
ECM #8
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 17,046 $ 13,947 $ 30,993 $ 1,945 15.9 - 15.9 Control After Hours Lighting Through Current EMS Payback Calculations ECM #12
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 8,260 $ 4,600 $ 12,860 $ 3,237 4.0 $ - 4.0 Install Controls on Pool Boiler Plant Payback Calculation Appendix C
54 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table 6.10 Demand Response Measure Savings Summary
The most suitable financing vehicle for the City to utilize is the CEC low interest loan for this energy conservation measure. The CEC low interest loan will provide the City a self funding cash flow neutral project for this recommendation.
6.1.9 Recommendation #8 Replace Gymnasium Units
This recommendation is an accelerated replacement within 2 years. Based on the life-cycle analysis of the existing units, the ideal timeframe to budget and replace the units would be in approximately 2011.
The gymnasium HVAC units were well maintained, however they have begun to show considerable coil deterioration. This is largely attributed to two factors: the long duty cycle placed on the units by trying to maintain 72° in the large gymnasium and the close proximity of the units to the corrosive salt water of The Bay. Together these two factors have greatly reduced the life of these units. The replacement units specified in the report not only have a higher efficiency but they also are equipped with a special coating to help delay corrosion due to salt water.
The following table shows the electricity and natural gas savings of the proposed unit.
ECM #9A
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ - $ 875 $ 875 $ 249 3.5 $ - 3.5
Use Existing EMS to Reduce HVAC load in Gymnasium using new AAON units Payback Calculations ECM #10
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ - $ 875 $ 875 $ 396 2.2 $ - 2.2
Use Existing EMS to Reduce Peak HVAC load during summer months Payback Calculation ECM #11
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 1,272 $ 1,908 $ 3,180 $ 621 5.1 $ 407 4.5 Install Occupancy Controllers for HVAC in Specified Payback Calculation Appendix C
55 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table 6.11 AAON Package unit Replacement Electrical Savings Summary The energy cost avoidance and simple payback calculations on these units do not support a replacement at this time. The units are recommended for replacement based on near end of life status. If added to the portfolio of other measures this ECM can be financed through the CEC low interest loan program and will provide the City a self funding cash flow neutral project with this recommendation.
6.1.10 Next Steps
The City of Newark has an excellent opportunity to reduce carbon emissions and drive additional energy costs out of the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center.
The next steps for the City are:
• Determine their energy goals
• Determine their financial approach (budgeting vs. financed) • Determine their best financial vehicle (if financed)
• Select the best portfolio of ECM’s to align with their budgets / finances Syserco will support the City to build the appropriate portfolio of energy conservation measures to align with the City’s financial plan.
ECM #14
Budget
Project
Equipment
Budget
Project
Installation
Total Project
Budget
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Simple
Payback
(years)
Estimated
One time
estimated
Rebate /
Incentive
Payback
with rebate
(years)
Budget/Payback $ 54,000 $ 43,162 $ 97,162 $ 2,374 40.9 $ 2,601 39.8 Replace Gymnasium HVAC units with AAON units with Digital Scrool Compressors Payback Calculation Appendix C
56 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
7 Appendices Appendix 1
7.1.1 Attachments & Supporting data
Energy is delivered to the SAFAC as electricity and as natural gas. Some measures in this report recommend ways to conserve natural gas resources. These measures save money, conserve an important natural resource, and also help to offset the release of carbon into the atmosphere.
When natural gas is used (combusted) carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere at a rate of 11.02 pounds per thermi.
Conserving natural gas and electricity are both important ways that the SAFAC can reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. Implementing all the measures in this report will offset 1,190,841 pounds of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere each year.
The calculation to estimate this is provided by the EPA and states that the portion of the natural gas that is made of carbon is completely oxidized into CO2ii. The average heat content of natural gas is 0.1 mmbtu per thermiii. The average carbon coefficient of natural gas is 14.74 kg per million btuiv. The amount of CO2 released per therm that is consumed is calculated according to the EPA formula by multiplying: (heat content X carbon coefficient X fraction oxidized X molecular weight ratio of carbon dioxide to carbon (44/12)).
To calculate the amount of carbon dioxide release that is offset by each measure we first must know how much carbon is released for every kWh of electricity that is generated. The electric power that is used by the SAFAC in Newark California is generated from a variety of sources. In northern California, the power provided by PG&E is generated from a mix of hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, nuclear sources as well as coal and natural gas fired power plants.
When coal and natural gas are burned carbon is released into the atmosphere; this total amount of carbon released is divided by the total amount of electricity generated by all sources to find the average amount of carbon released per kWh generated. For every kWh of electricity not used by the SAFAC, one kWh of electricity does not need to be generated. By not generating one kWh of electricity 1.2415 pounds of CO2 that would have otherwise been released is offsetv
.
Citations
i. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www/epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/refs.html Retrieved 7-17- 2009
ii. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
iii. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts 1990-2005. Conversion Factors to Energy Units (Heat Equivalents) Heat Contents and Carbon Content Coefficients of Various Fuel Types.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.. USEPA #430-R-07-002 (PDF). iv. Ibid.
v. California Center for Sustainable Energy. http://energycenter.org/ Retrieved 7-17-2009 Appendix C
57 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
7.1.2 Terminology kW, kWh, MW
Terms to understand
Kilowatt (kW): A unit of measure for the amount of electricity needed to operate given equipment. One kW equals 1000 watts.
Kilowatt-hour (kWh): The most commonly used unit of measure indicating the amount of electricity consumed over time. It means one kilowatt of electricity supplied for one hour.
Megawatt (MW): Equals 1,000 kW or 1,000,000 watts. According to the California Independent System Operator, one megawatt of utility supplied power is enough electrical capacity to power 750 average homes.
7.1.3 Methodology
The following is a description of how the Energy Conservation Measure calculations were performed, including example equations. The average cost of a kWh for the SAFAC was 12.2¢ and the average cost for a therm of gas was $1.16.
Averages are helpful as a point of reference, but each energy conservation measure considered as part of this report could have different savings associated based on when and how much energy is conserved.
Although the average cost of a therm was $1.16 for the study period, natural gas rates continue to decline (as illustrated in table 3.3) and $1.00 per therm was used as a baseline when energy conservation measure savings were calculated. This more conservative approach allows for savings greater than what was calculated in this report.
ECM #1
Energy Conservation Measure #1 is installing Solar Photo Voltaic to generate electricity. The calculation is done by using Utility offered web based tools to estimate the kWh production based on site location, product, design and orientation to the sun.
The following two pages utilize the California Solar Initiative incentive tool to estimate kWh production and rebates based on customer type, system size, orientation, product, design and location. The pages show the kWh production and rebates for the parking structure / field solar PV installation and the roof installation.
Appendix C
Save as a PDF
Incentive Calculator - Current Standard PV
Proposed
Site Specifications:
Project Name CONewark
ZIP Code 94560
City Newark
Utility PG&E
Customer Type Government/Non-Profit
Incentive Type PBI
PV System Specifications:
PV Module Sharp:ND-U230C1
230.0W STC, 198.0W PTC
Number of Modules 868
Mounting Method >1" to 3" average standoff
DC Rating (kW STC) 199.6400
DC Rating (kW PTC) 171.8640
Inverter SatCon Technology:PVS-100 (480 V)
Number of Inverters 2
Inverter Efficiency (%) 96.00 %
Shading Minimal Shading
Array Tilt (degrees) 10
Array Azimuth (degrees) 200
Results
Annual kWh 274,634
Summer Months May-October
Summer kWh 172,734
CEC-AC Rating 164.989 kW
Capacity Factor1 19.002%
Prevailing Capacity Factor2 20.000%
Design Factor3 95.010%
Eligible Annual kWh4 274,634
Incentive Rate $0.26/kWh
Incentive5 $357,024
Report Generated on 10/12/2009 4:15:31 PM
The CSI-EPBB calculator is a tool available to the public and participants of the CSI program, whose sole purpose is to determine the EPBB Design Factor and calculate an appropriate incentive level based on a reasonable expectation of performance for an individual system. The results of the calculator should not be interpreted as a guarantee of system performance. Actual performance of an installed PV system is based on numerous factors, and may differ with the results summarized in the CSI-EPBB calculator. For this reason, contractors, participating customers, and other interested parties should only utilize the calculator to determine an appropriate incentive when applying to the CSI incentive program. Additional uses for the calculator other than its intended purpose as stated above are not endorsed or encouraged.
Notes:
1. Capacity Factor: This is the estimated annual output of the proposed system divided by 8760 times the CEC-AC rating.
2. Prevailing Capacity Factor: This is 18% during incentive steps 2 and 3 and 20% during incentive steps 4 through 10.
3. Design Factor: This is the ratio of the Capacity Factor and the Prevailing Capacity Factor.
4. Eligible Annual kWh: For systems greater than 1MW (CEC-AC Rating), this is the prorated estimated annual output of the proposed system.
5. Incentive: This is the estimated total incentive for the proposed system, and is calculated as the estimated eligible annual output times the incentive rate times 5 years. The incentive paid will be based on the actual production of the installed system.
Please be aware that the final CSI incentive rate that is reserved for you will be determined by your CSI Program Administrator at the time your reservation request (RR) application is approved, and may be lower than the current incentive rate shown in the CSI Statewide Trigger Point Tracker. Please note that final incentive amounts are subject to change based upon the configuration of the as-built system. (Per the CSI Handbook, no projects or applications are reserved CSI funding until all required information has been submitted and approved in writing by the Program Administrator.)
6. As of 8/10/07, the CSI-EPBB calculator performs rounding as follows:
¡ Estimated kWh production is rounded to the kWh
¡ CEC-AC rating is rounded to the watt
¡ Capacity factor is rounded to 5 significant digits
¡ Design factor is rounded to 5 significant digits
E-mail [email protected] with questions or comments. © 2007-2009 California Solar Initiative Program Administrators Appendix C
Save as a PDF
Incentive Calculator - Current Standard PV
Proposed Reference
Site Specifications:
Project Name Silliman Roof Mount PV
ZIP Code 94560 92867
City Newark Orange
Utility PG&E
Customer Type Government/Non-Profit
Incentive Type EPBB
PV System Specifications:
PV Module SunPower:PL-SUNP-SPR-310
310.0W STC, 285.3W PTC, 282.9W PTCadj
1 Number of Modules 135
Mounting Method >1" to 3" average standoff
DC Rating (kW STC) 41.8500
DC Rating (kW PTC) 38.5155
Inverter Ballard Power Systems:EPC-PV-480-30kW
Number of Inverters 2
Inverter Efficiency (%) 93.00 %
Shading Minimal Shading Minimal Shading
Array Tilt (degrees) 5
Array Azimuth (degrees) 200
Optimal Tilt (proposed azimuth) 23
Optimal Tilt (facing South) 21 17
Results
Annual kWh 55,085 (a)
at optimal tilt 60,311 (b)
facing south at optimal tilt 60,093 (c) 61,659 (d)
Summer Months May-October May-October
Summer kWh 35,379 (e)
at optimal tilt 36,743 (f)
facing south at optimal tilt 36,593 (g) 35,724 (h)
CEC-AC Rating 35.819 kW
Design Correction2 96.288%
Geographic Correction3 97.460%
Installation Correction4 99.174%
Design Factor5 93.067%
CSI Rating6 33.336 kW
Incentive Rate $1.85/Watt
Incentive7 $61,672
Report Generated on 10/21/2009 11:23:18 AM
The CSI-EPBB calculator is a tool available to the public and participants of the CSI program, whose sole purpose is to determine the EPBB Design Factor and calculate an appropriate incentive level based on a reasonable expectation of performance for an individual system. The results of the calculator should not be interpreted as a guarantee of system performance. Actual performance of an installed PV system is based on numerous factors, and may differ with the results summarized in the CSI-EPBB calculator. For this reason, contractors, participating customers, and other interested parties should only utilize the calculator to determine an appropriate incentive when applying to the CSI incentive program. Additional uses for the calculator other than its intended purpose as stated above are not endorsed or encouraged.
Notes:
1. PTCadj: The adjusted PTC rating is calculated based on the installation method and panel specifications. See the User Guide Appendix A for details on the adjusted PTC calculation.
2. Design Correction: This is the ratio of the summer output of the proposed system (e) and the summer output of the summer optimal system at the proposed location (f).
3. Geographic Correction: This is the ratio of the annual output of the summer optimal south facing system at the proposed location (c) and the annual output of the summer optimal south facing system at the reference location (d).
4. Installation Correction: This is the ratio of the adjusted PTC rating and the unadjusted PTC rating.
5. Design Factor: This is the product of the Design Correction, Geographic Correction, and Installation Correction.
6. CSI Rating: This is the product of the Design Factor and the CEC-AC Rating.
7. Incentive: This is the total incentive for the proposed system. It is the product of the CSI Rating and the Incentive Rate.
Please be aware that the final CSI incentive rate that is reserved for you will be determined by your CSI Program Administrator at the time your reservation request (RR) application is approved, and may be lower than the current incentive rate shown in the CSI Statewide Trigger Point Tracker. Please note that final incentive amounts are subject to change based upon the configuration of the as-built system. (Per the CSI Handbook, no projects or applications are reserved CSI funding until all required information has been submitted and approved in writing by the Program Administrator.)
8. As of 6/20/08, the CSI-EPBB calculator performs rounding as follows:
¡ Estimated kWh production is rounded to the kWh
¡ CEC-AC rating is rounded to the watt
¡ CSI rating is rounded to the watt
¡ Design factor is rounded to 5 significant digits
¡ Incentive is rounded to the dollar
E-mail [email protected] with questions or comments. © 2007-2009 California Solar Initiative Program Administrators Appendix C
60 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
ECM #2
Energy Conservation Measure #2 saves energy by installing solar water heating panels above the parking lot. The panes are estimated to produce 45,902 therms of heat energy. This is calculated to offset 54, 645 therms of natural gas consumption each year.
N. Gas Reduction:
Where: Panel Therms/Year = Panel Heat in Therms per Year 84% = Estimated boiler efficiency
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 11.02 pounds of Scope I (direct) CO2 emissions are avoided for every Therm of natural gas not used. Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ECM #3
Energy Conservation Measure #3 saves energy by replacing the Natatorium Rail Lighting with more efficient fixtures. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kW Savings:
Where: WattPre = the watts that each existing fixture consumes QtyPre = the number of existing fixtures currently needed WattPost = the watts that each replacement fixture consumes QtyPost = the number of replacement fixtures that will be needed kWh Savings:
5,355 ℎ
Where: Natatorium lights are energized for 5,355 hours per year, which is derived from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM, 357 days per yr.
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #4
Energy Conservation Measure #4 saves energy by replacing the Parking Lot Lighting with more efficient fixtures. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kW Savings:
Where: WattPre = the watts that each existing fixture consumes QtyPre = the number of existing fixtures currently needed WattPost = the watts that each replacement fixture consumes QtyPost = the number of replacement fixtures that will be needed kWh Savings:
4,015 ℎ
Where: Parking lot lights are conservatively estimated to be energized for 4,015 hours per year, which is 11 hours per day, 365 days per yr.
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
Appendix C
61 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
ECM #5
Energy Conservation Measure #5 saves energy by replacing the Natatorium Wall-Mounted HID Lighting with more efficient fixtures. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kW Savings:
Where: WattPre = the watts that each existing fixture consumes QtyPre = the number of existing fixtures currently needed WattPost = the watts that each replacement fixture consumes QtyPost = the number of replacement fixtures that will be needed kWh Savings:
3,213 ℎ
Where: Natatorium lights are energized for 3,213 hours per year, which is 9 hours per day, 357 days per yr.
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #6
Energy Conservation Measure #6 saves energy by installing ambient lighting sensors on selected fixtures. Ambient lighting sensors save energy by reducing the number of hours that the lighting system is energized. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kWh Savings:
Where: Watt = the watts that each existing fixture consumes Qty = the number of existing fixtures currently used
HoursPre = The hours in one year that the fixtures are currently used, for the locker room wall wash fixtures this is 5,355 hours per year, which is derived from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM, 357 days per yr. For the Gymnasium this is 4,284 hours per year, which is derived from 12 hours per day, 357 days per yr.
HoursPost = The hours in one year that the fixtures are estimated to be used when ambient lighting sensors are installed. An estimated average of 8 hours per day will be dropped off runtime. More in summer, less in winter
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #7
Energy Conservation Measure #7 saves energy by installing ambient lighting sensors on selected Natatorium Rail and Catwalk Fixtures. Ambient lighting sensors save energy by reducing the number of hours that the lighting system is energized. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kWh Savings:
Where: Watt = the watts that each existing fixture consumes Qty = the number of existing fixtures currently used
HoursPre = The hours in one year that the fixtures are currently used, this is 5,355 hours per year, which is derived from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM, 357 days per yr.
Appendix C
62 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
HoursPost = The hours in one year that the fixtures are estimated to be used when ambient lighting sensors are installed. An estimated average of 8 hours per day will be dropped off runtime. More in summer, less in winter
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #8
Energy Conservation Measure #8 saves energy by controlling the afterhours runtime of the lighting systems using the existing Energy Management System (EMS). An estimated 30 kW can be saved for 3 hours per day, 5 days per week. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kWh Savings:
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #9A
Energy Conservation Measure #9A saves energy by using the existing EMS to reduce the HVAC load in the Gymnasium. Adjusting the HVAC space temperature set point reduces the load on the mechanical equipment by 2.5% per degree. Measure 7A assumes that the replacement of the two (2) Carrier units has already taken place. This measure refers to the gymnasium HVAC units, two (2) AAON model number RM-013 package units with 13 tons of cooling capacity each. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kW Savings:
Where: 25% = Estimated Load Factor / Duty Cycle
∆T = the temperature adjustment in °F
SEER = Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio. Manufacturer’s ARI rating used. kWh Savings:
Where: Units are estimated to be enabled 4,368 hours per year, which is 12 hrs per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per yr.
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #9B
Energy Conservation Measure #9B saves energy by using the existing EMS to reduce the HVAC load in the Gymnasium. Adjusting the HVAC space temperature set point reduces the load on the mechanical equipment by 2.5% per degree. Measure 7B assumes that the replacement of the two (2) Carrier units has NOT taken place. This measure refers to the gymnasium HVAC units, two (2) Carrier model number 48HJF-014 package units with 12.5 tons of cooling capacity each.
The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kW Savings:
Where: 25% = Estimated Load Factor / Duty Cycle
∆T = the temperature adjustment in °F
SEER = Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio. IES estimated the SEER based on manufacturer’s ARI rating and the condition of the units.
Appendix C
63 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
kWh Savings:
Where: Units are estimated to be enabled 4,368 hours per year, which is 12 hrs per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per yr.
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #10
Energy Conservation Measure #10 saves energy by using the existing EMS to reduce the HVAC peak load in the summer. Adjusting the HVAC space temperature set point reduces the load on the mechanical equipment by 2.5% per degree. Measure 8 will only taken place 6 hours a day, on weekdays for 26 week each summer and will reduce peak electric demand. This measure refers to 11 package units with a combined 66 tons of cooling capacity. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kW Savings/unit:
Where: 35% = Estimated Load Factor / Duty Cycle
∆T = the temperature adjustment in °F
EER = Energy Efficiency Ratio. Manufacturer’s ARI rating used. kW Savings:
kWh Savings:
Where: Measure to be in effect 780 hours per year, which is 6 hrs per day, 5 days per week, and 26 weeks per y (Summer).
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #11
Energy Conservation Measure #11 saves energy by using occupancy sensors to reduce the HVAC load in the Meeting Room and Dance Studio. When the room is in an un-occupied state the space temperature set point will be adjusted. Adjusting the HVAC space temperature set point reduces the load on the mechanical equipment by 2.5% per degree. Measure 9 is estimated to occur for a total of 5 hours a day in the Meeting Room, and 3.5 hours a day in the dance studio, both rooms 7 days a week for 52 week each year. This measure refers to two (2) package units with a combined 12.5 tons of cooling capacity. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kW Savings/unit:
Where: 25% = Estimated Load Factor / Duty Cycle
∆T = the temperature adjustment in °F
. SEER =Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio. Manufacturer’s ARI rating used. kW Savings:
kWh Savings:
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #12
Appendix C
64 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Energy Conservation Measure #12 saves energy by installing controls on pool boiler plant. The boiler plant will be shut down for 7.5 hours each night; this is estimated to produce a 5% savings.
N. Gas Reduction/unit:
Where: HeatIN = Heating Capacity in Therms
LF/DF% = Estimated Load Factor / Duty Cycle
82% = Estimated boiler efficiency
HoursPre = The hours in one year that the boilers are currently used, this is 8,760 hours per year, the maximum which is 24 hours a day, 365 days per yr.
N. Gas Reduction:
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 11.02 pounds of Scope I (direct) CO2 emissions are avoided for every Therm of natural gas not used. Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ECM #13
Energy Conservation Measure #13 saves energy by installing variable frequency drives on four (4) pool filtration pumps. Energy would be saved by running the pumps at a reduced speed during off hours. The recommended reduced speed set point for each pump is the minimum speed required to keep the required turnover rate for each pool. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
kWh Savings/unit:
Where: hp = The horsepower of the pump motor
88.5% = Efficiency of pump motors are estimated to be no better than 88.5%
2.5 = Affinity Law pump constant
HoursPre = The hours in one year that the pumps are currently used, this is 8,760 hours per year, the maximum which is 24 hours a day, 365 days per yr.
HoursLow = The hours in one year that the measure will be enacted.
SpeedLow = The minimum recommended speed, as % of full speed. kWh Savings:
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM #14
Energy Conservation Measure #14 saves energy by replacing the two (2) Carrier 48HJF-014 rooftop package units with two (2) AAON RM-013 rooftop package units with variable capacity scroll compressors. The new HVAC units will be more efficient, especially as partial load conditions. The cooling capacity will be increased from 25 tons to 26 tons and less energy will be consumed. The equations used to calculate these savings are shown below:
N. Gas Reduction:
Appendix C
65 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Where: HeatPre = Existing Heating Capacity in Therms
HeatPost = Replacement Heating Capacity in Therms
10% = Estimated Heating Mode Load Factor / Duty Cycle
AFUEPre = Existing Annual Fuel Use Efficiency, in %
AFUEPost = Replacement Annual Fuel Use Efficiency, in % Hours = The hours in one year that the units are currently enabled, this is 4,368 hours per year, which is 12 hours a day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year. kWh Savings:
×12
Where: TonsPre = Existing Cooling Capacity in Tons
TonsPost = Replacement Cooling Capacity in Tons
25% = Estimated Cooling Mode Load Factor / Duty Cycle % SEERPre = Existing unit Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio. IES estimated the SEER based on manufacturer’s ARI rating and the condition of the units.
SEERPost = Replacement unit Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio. Manufacturer’s ARI rating used.
Hours = The hours in one year that the units are currently enabled, this is 4,368 hours per year, which is 12 hours a day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year.
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 11.02 pounds of Scope I (direct) CO2 emissions are avoided for every Therm of natural gas not used. Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
ECM # NOT CONSIDERED
This Energy Conservation Measure saves energy by installing controls on the domestic hot water system. The system will be shut down each night when the facility is closed; this is estimated to produce a 2% natural gas savings from the two natural gas boilers as well as an electrical savings from the ½ horsepower circulation pump.
N. Gas Reduction:
Where: HeatIN = Heating Capacity in Therms
30% = Estimated Load Factor / Duty Cycle
82% = Estimated boiler efficiency
HoursPre = The hours in one year that the boilers are currently used, this is 8,760 hours per year, the maximum which is 24 hours a day, 365 days per yr.
kWh Savings:
Where: hp = The horsepower of the pump motor
80% = Estimated Load Factor / Duty Cycle
88.5% = Efficiency of circulation pump motor estimated to be no better than 88.5% HoursPre = The hours in one year that the boilers are currently used, this is 8,760 hours per year, the maximum which is 24 hours a day, 365 days per yr.
. HoursPost = The hours in one year that the pump will be enabled after controls have been installed.
CO2 Reduction:
Where: 11.02 pounds of Scope I (direct) CO2 emissions are avoided for every Therm of natural gas not used. Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1.2415 pounds of Scope II (indirect) CO2 emissions are avoided for every kWh saved. Source:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE)
Appendix C
66 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
7.1.4 Budgeting & Incentives
Pricing budgets are valid for 60 days.
Incentives are provided by the Utility and can be increased, decreased or eliminated until reserved.
7.1.5 Financing Vehicles
Power Purchase Agreement Explained (for Solar Electric Installations) Before Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) existed for solar power generation, cities looking to install solar or wind generation either had to put large sums of money up front to buy and install the equipment or go out and find alternate funding, often times in the form of municipal leases. When one considers the cost of a small scale 150 kW solar array is around one (1) million dollars the amount a city would have to finance for a medium to large system would be several million dollars. In addition, all of the maintenance for the generation equipment would have to be paid for by the city over the life of the generation asset. Considering all of this, few cities installed larger solar generation systems over the last decade.
A PPA differs from leases and direct purchases in that the city does not have to purchase the systems, but rather buys the power generated by the system. In a PPA, a PPA provider contracts with a developer to install the generation asset on city property. All rebates are assigned to the PPA provider by the city and the PPA provider is eligible for federal tax credits.
The PPA provider and the city agree upon a cost per kWh for all electricity produced from the solar array for a fixed term (typically 20 to 25 years). This cost is typically at or below the cost of electricity from the utility based on historical pricing and escalation and the price escalates at a predetermined rate for the term of the contract. During the term of the contract, the PPA provider would maintain the system, and be responsible for any equipment replacement at no additional cost to the city. At the end of the term, the city can typically choose one of the following options:
1. Purchase the generation asset at fair market value from the PPA provider
2. Extend the contract with developer for a period of 1 to 5 or more years
3. Have the generation asset removed at the PPA provider’s expense If the city chooses to purchase the generation asset, the fair market value is typically a fraction of the original installation cost and may be a sound investment. This is because solar arrays typically have a 25 year warranty and have an estimated lifespan of 40+ years. The primary benefit of the PPA is that it allows the city to purchase a small to medium size portion of its power at a predetermined cost for a period of time, avoiding electric market fluctuations.
Appendix C
67 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
There are some drawbacks to this model, most notably the unknown final cost of the generation asset at the end of the term. Following are the pros and cons of the PPA system vs. direct buy:
Pros:
• The City gets renewable generation without upfront cost and does not impact its borrowing ability.
• The City is able to purchase power at a predetermined rate for the term of the contract • The City is able to take indirect advantage of federal and state tax credits through the private PPA provider
• The City has no maintenance cost for the generation asset for the term of the contract • The City can purchase a larger system than they would through traditional methods Cons:
• The City does not know the purchase option price at the end of the term as it is based on fair market value
• If utility escalation rates fall short of projections, the City may spend more for renewable generation than they would have buying electricity from the utility • Smaller projects <200,000 kWh are not attractive to PPA providers and would be cost prohibitive.
Municipal Lease Explained (For Solar and other energy conservation measures) The primary means of financing energy efficiency projects in the public sector is through a municipal lease purchase agreement executed in tandem with an energy savings performance contract (ESPC).
An ESPC enables a public entity to pay for energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy installation by setting aside dollars in its utility budget to allow for program costs. When properly structured, this financing mechanism draws on the dollars to be saved for future utility bills to pay for new, energy efficient equipment today, and annual savings are typically guaranteed by the service provider.
Annual payments are structured to match the energy savings cash flow of the energy project in order to maintain a “budget neutral” program for the public entity. Interest rates are lower than those on a taxable commercial lease purchase agreement because the Appendix C
68 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
interest paid is exempt from federal income. In addition, a tax-exempt lease/purchase agreement does not constitute a long-term debt obligation because of the nonappropriation language included in the agreement.
Key Elements
• Security is in the installed equipment, not a building or other real property • Payments are subject to annual appropriation by the public agency • Interest income is exempt from federal income tax (state tax varies by state) • Is not tied to tax revenue and does not require voter approval • Requires an escrow account be funded to enable service provider to draw payments during installation
Rates and Terms
Rates are priced off of 10 year Treasury Notes and currently range between 4.25% and 7% based on term, credit and other considerations and rates are higher than a GO Bond and Revenue Bond. Terms range from 7-20 years and most terms are 10-12 years and are limited by either state or federal laws (e.g., HUD financing can extend to 20 years, DOD and DOE can extend to 25 years, state of Massachusetts is up to 10 years if efficiency only, 25 years if cogeneration is included.)
Project Size and Scope
Projects will range from $1 million to $25 million with an average project size of approximately $2.5 million. Project scope of work includes controls, lighting, heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) and in some cases, photovoltaic system installation.
California Energy Commission Low interest rate loans Explained (For Solar and other energy conservation measures- 11 year simple payback limitation) Eligible Projects
You can purchase and install any commercially-available energy efficiency equipment with proven energy and/or capacity savings. Examples of qualified projects:
• Lighting
• Motors and pumps
• Heating and air conditioning systems
• Automated energy management systems and controls
• Cogeneration equipment
• Light emitting diode traffic signal modules
Appendix C
69 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
• Renewable energy systems
• Thermal energy storage systems
Projects already funded with an existing loan or already installed are ineligible.
Loans for energy audits and feasibility studies may be considered. Call for information regarding eligibility.
Your application must be on file before you can start your project, and only project-related costs that are invoiced and paid for after Energy Commission approval may be included in the loan request. Applicants assume all financial risk should the Commission disapprove the application or if all loan documents are not executed. If the loan is disapproved for any reason, the Energy Commission is not responsible for reimbursement of any costs.
Existing buildings or other energy using facilities are eligible. Some new buildings and facilities may also be eligible.
Loans can finance up to 100 percent of the project costs.
This solicitation is open continuously with no published final filing date. Applications for funding will be accepted on a first come, first served basis, reviewed by a technical committee, and awarded based on project merit. The Energy Commission reserves the right to close the solicitation period at any time.
Energy efficiency projects must be technically and economically feasible. Loans must be repaid from savings within 15 years, including principal and interest. This results in an approximate 11 year simple payback.
The interest rate is a fixed 3 percent for the term of the loan.
Loan Security Requirements are simple. A promissory note, a loan agreement between you and the Energy Commission, and a Tax Certificate are all that is required to secure the loan.
Funds are available on a reimbursement basis. For each reimbursement request, receipts and invoices for incurred expenses must be submitted along with payment verification by your organization.
Simple Amount of Loan ($)
Payback (yrs) = ____________________
Anticipated Annual Energy
Cost Savings ($/yr)
Appendix C
70 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
The final 10 percent of the funds will be retained until the project is completed. Interest is charged on the unpaid principal computed from the date of each disbursement to the borrower.
The repayment schedule is based on the estimated annual projected energy cost savings from the aggregated project(s), using energy costs and operating schedules at the time of loan approval. In some cases, the loan repayment schedule can be extended up to 15 years.
Applicants will be billed twice a year after the projects are completed.
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) (For Solar Electric Installations) Clean renewable energy bonds (CREBs) may be used by certain entities -- primarily in the public sector -- to finance renewable energy projects. The list of qualifying technologies is generally the same as that used for the federal renewable energy production tax credit (PTC). CREBs may be issued by electric cooperatives, government entities (states, cities, counties, territories, Indian tribal governments or any political subdivision thereof), and by certain lenders. CREBs are issued -- theoretically -- with a 0%-3% interest rate. The borrower pays back only the principal of the bond, and the bondholder receives federal tax credits in lieu of the traditional bond interest.
The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (Div. A, Sec. 107) allocated $800 million for new Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs). In February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Div. B, Sec. 1111) allocated an additional $1.6 billion for new CREBs, for a total new CREB allocation of $2.4 billion. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 also extended the deadline for previously reserved allocations ("old CREBs") until December 31, 2009, and addressed several provisions in the existing law that previously limited the usefulness of the program for some projects.
In April 2009 the IRS issued Notice 2009-33 soliciting applications for the new CREB allocation and providing interim guidance on certain program rules and changes from prior CREB allocations. The expiration date for new CREB applications under this solicitation is August 4, 2009. Further guidance on CREBs is available in IRS Notices 2006-7 and 2007-26 to the extent that the program rules were not modified by 2008 and 2009 legislation.
Participation in the program is limited by the volume of bonds allocated by Congress for the program. Participants must first apply to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a CREBs allocation, and then issue the bonds within a specified time period. The new CREBs allocation totaling $2.4 billion does not have a defined expiration date under the law; however, the recent IRS solicitation for new applications requires the bonds to be issued within 3 years after the applicant receives notification of an approved allocation.
Appendix C
71 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
7.1.6 Project Implementation Plan
Project
Implementation
Plan
Silliman Activity and Family
Aquatic Center
Newark, Ca.
June, 2009
Revision: 02
Appendix C
72 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Table of Contents
1. Approval Sheet
2. Document Purpose
3. Statement of Work
3.1. Description of Work
3.2. Project Specifics
3.3. Project Documents
4. System Overview
5. Project Organization
5.1. Organizational Chart
5.2. Project Team
5.3. Roles and Responsibilities
5.4. Staffing and Resources
6. Project Execution
6.1. Project Planning and Scheduling
6.1.1. Kickoff Meeting
6.1.2. Schedule
6.1.3. Revisions to Schedule
6.1.4. Progress Measurement and Tracking
6.2. Disaster Recovery
6.3. Technical Execution
6.4. Engineering Design Phase
6.5. Engineering Design Phase Deliverables
6.6. Application Software Design Phase
6.6.1. General Approach
6.6.2. Control Code Development
6.6.3. Test Procedure Development
6.6.4. Application Software Design Phase Deliverables
6.7. Construction / Installation Phase
6.8. Start-up Commissioning Phase
6.8.1. Start-up Commissioning
6.8.2. Start-up Commissioning Phase Deliverable
6.9. City of Newark Personnel Training
6.10. Turnover Documentation
7. Quality Plan
7.1. General
7.2. System Design and Software Development
8. Project Revisions
1. Approval Sheet
This sheet is provided for information only. The Approval by Customer Representative is optional unless specifically required by project requirements:
Appendix C
73 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Name &
Function Approval Status Signature Date
Syserco’s Project Manager:
Mike Hill Submit for Approval --------------------------- Customer’s
Representative:
Lenka Diaz
Approved as
Submitted
Approved as Noted
Revise & Re-submit
---------------------------
Appendix C
74 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
2. Document Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide the City of Newark, Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center project team a comprehensive description of Syserco’s standard execution plan. This plan contains an overview of the system and its architecture, a concise description the project team and its roles and responsibilities and a detailed narrative of Syserco’s execution plan of the engineering, installation and start-up and commissioning phases.
Syserco’s project manager, Mike Hill has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the project execution plan is developed and maintained. Other team members such as Syserco’s engineering manager and lead technician may have assigned responsibilities relative to, or for portions of this plan. Maintaining this plan will be done as necessary or as mandated by project documents.
Once the project is fully engineered, identified and agreed to by the customer, Syserco will design, install, provide project management, subcontract, coordinate incentives, financing and ensure the energy projects are completed on time and on budget. Syserco utilizes Project Implementation plans that are co-authored with the input of the customer so that disruptions to occupied building operations are minimized.
Appendix C
75 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Statement of Work
The project execution plan provides guidance to the implementation of the SAFAC project.
3.1 Description of Work
Provide turnkey implementation of Energy Conservation Measures selected by the City of Newark for the Silliman Activity and Family Aquatic Center on time and on budget. Measures may include lighting retrofit and integration, control measures, mechanical upgrades, renewable energy and other miscellaneous measures.
Coordination work with local utilities to ensure incentives are captured with the projects.
3.2 Project Specifics
Provide a design/build energy management system that achieves the functionality specified in the Comprehensive Energy Report and agreed to by the City of Newark
Provide turnkey implementation of energy conservation measures accepted and agreed to by the City of Newark
Provide subcontractor management
Organize and execute project Commissioning
Conduct Customer training
Coordinate incentive utilities
Coordinate with financing, if applicable
Coordinate with power purchase agreement partners, if applicable
3.3 Project Documents
The following project documents were the source of the above scope of work:
Comprehensive Energy Analysis Report by Syserco and IES, Inc. Drawings supplied by the City of Newark
Rate and use information provided by Utility and the City of Newark Appendix C
76 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
4. System Overview
The system will be developed from the following Energy Conservation Measures as selected and agreed upon by the City of Newark for the SAFAC:
Appendix C
77 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
5. Project Organization
5.1 Organizational Chart
5.2 Project Team
Mike Hill [Project Manager]: 10 years of industry experience managing large complex projects including Pharmaceutical and Biotech manufacturing facilities.
Brett Illers [Certified Energy Manager]: 10+ years of industry experience in energy conservation measure identification, analysis and design.
Sumner Peery [engineering Manager]: 17 years of industry experience engineering controls systems and managing design teams.
Brad Leonard [Lead Programmer]: 17 years of industry experience programming and commissioning controls systems including large and complex facilities.
Silliman Project Team
Mike Rogers
PE & CEM
Mike Hill
Project Manager
Brett Illers
CEM
Jennifer Rose
Service Manager
Service Technical
Manager
Service
Technicians
Lead Applications
Engineer
Subcontractors
Service Account
Engineer
Joe Longfield
General Manager
Energy Services
Analysis / Design Implement Service
Sumner Peery
Controls Eng
Manager
Appendix C
78 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
5.3 Roles and Responsibilities
The project will be executed from Syserco’s Fremont office. The project team introduced in the previous section of this document will represent the core team executing this project. The roles and responsibilities of the core team include the following:
Project Manager: The Project Manager is responsible for the overall execution of the scope of work and is Syserco’s point of contact with the SAFAC project team.
Additional responsibilities include:
Responsible for overall customer satisfaction
Responsible for delivering the project on time and budget Manages the contract and work scope
Manages the Energy Management System EMS Construction Schedule to ensure deadlines are met and reports any deviations to the SAFAC project team Responsible for work quality and workmanship
Acts as the primary interface between SAFAC project team and Syserco’s Coordinates and manages Syserco’s field work and labor Attends jobsite meetings
Acts as the safety officer on site
Coordinates and schedules customer training
Ensures the PEP is read and understood by Syserco’s project team Engineering Manager: The Engineering Manager is responsible for the overall engineering design of the project and in delivering a system in accordance with the scope of work. Additional responsibilities include:
Manages the engineering design process including submittals Conducts peer reviews on engineering submittals including point to point drawings, PID Diagrams, Sequence of Operations and other engineering deliverables
Conducts peer reviews on applications programs and graphic screens Acts as the technical expert in the field of controls and electro-mechanical systems Acts as the technical consultant to the project team and helps resolve field technical challenges
Reports to the project manager
Lead Programmer: The Lead Programmer is responsible for software development of all application specific software. Additional responsibilities include:
Develops application programming for all systems in scope Develops graphic screens
Appendix C
79 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Coordinate with the engineering team and reviews engineering submittals for accuracy
Oversees the start-up and commissioning of the controls system Works with the engineering manager in developing start-up and commissioning sheets specific to the system
5.4 Staffing and Resources
All of the proposed individuals on this project have gone through the Alerton training courses relative to product, engineering and programming as well as other industry related trainings depending on their role and function. Some of these classes include:
Visio Programming
Alerton Training
Project Management
Quality Management System
Good Engineering and Documentation Practices
Appendix C
80 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
6. Project Execution
Project Management
This section describes the Project Management Methodology and Controls to be used by Syserco on the City of Newark Project:
6.1 Project Planning and Scheduling
6.1.1 Kickoff Meeting
A Kickoff Meeting will be held after award of contract. The purpose of the meeting is to introduce the Syserco Project team to the City of Newark and to define certain roles and responsibilities between Syserco and the City. In addition, and due to the retrofit nature of the project, Syserco realizes the importance of coordinating work in occupied spaces as well as shutdown of equipments and therefore, will use this meeting to go over the proposed construction schedule for this project.
6.1.2 Schedule
Syserco will prepare a detailed project schedule, plan and schedule all trades, manage subcontracts, identify all major tasks based on milestones needed for the successful execution of this project. Syserco’s schedule will include all related tasks required for the timely completion of this Project. All project related activities have been divided into small phases which are as follows:
• Engineering Design
• Programming development
• Graphics development
• Financing alignment
• Installation
• Subcontract management
• Procurement of materials
• Start-up and Commissioning
• Final Punch list / Project closeout
• Customer Training
Appendix C
81 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
6.1.3 Revisions to Schedule
If necessary, Syserco’s Project Manager will inform the City of Newark of any schedule changes in order to ensure that coordination is done properly with minimum interruptions. All or any changes to the schedule will be reviewed proactively with the City prior to making the change.
6.1.4 Progress Measurement and Tracking
Syserco will coordinate the execution of the project through scheduled meetings between Syserco’s Project Manager and the City of Newark Project team. Such meetings would review project progress and address any issues such as pending RFIs, anticipated schedule changes, schedule coordination, etc. Meeting notes will be maintained to document action items and followups by Syserco.
6.2 Disaster Recovery
Syserco’s Project personnel will perform daily backups of project design data, application software and other computer-generated programs. This will be done to ensure that loss of data will be fully recoverable.
6.3 Technical Execution
This section is intended to describe the execution of the technical scope of the work of this project. It outlines the planned engineering flow along with all phases and the deliverables at the end of each phase. The technical execution consists of the following four phases:
• Engineering Design
• Application Software Design
• Construction / Installation
• Start-up and Commissioning
The Systems will be designed and developed as outlined in the project specifics (Section
3.2). The experienced project team will provide leadership for the engineering design and development effort and will meet on regular basis to review design-related issues and set strategies and milestones for the phase being executed.
In order to ensure quality throughout the technical execution of the project, the project team will be utilizing Syserco’s existing and proven practices to support the execution of the project.
6.4 Engineering Design Phase
Appendix C
82 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
The Engineering Design Phase includes all design activities directed towards:
• Selecting and specifying hardware
• Developing field wiring and panel layouts
• Assigning required I/O and developing I/O Controllers • Controlling change and source document tracking of all documentation.
During the Engineering Phase, the Syserco Engineering team, along with the Project Manager, will meet on an as needed basis to discuss Engineering progress, RFI disposition and status, including engineering design and other related issues.
6.5 Engineering Design Phase Deliverables
Syserco will provide the following engineering design documents as deliverables at the end of this phase:
• Hardware Equipment List
• Points List
• EMS Architecture Block Diagram
• I/O Controllers Detail Drawings
• Field Interface Panel Details
• Sequences of Operations
• Syserco’s Standard Commissioning Procedures
• Product submittals from any applicable subcontractors
6.6 Application Software Design Phase
The documents generated during the Engineering Design Phase form the source documents for this phase.
6.6.1 General Approach
Syserco’s Project Manager will oversee the work performed by the project team. This will ensure that documentation, development, and testing activities adhere to the guidelines of Syserco’s Standard SOPs as well as standards and procedures that may be specifically developed by Syserco and approved by the City of Newark.
6.6.2 Control Code Development
All application specific programs associated with this project shall be developed as outlined in Syserco’s standards. In addition to the above referenced standards, the project team will utilize Syserco SOPs and any other necessary documents from this project.
Appendix C
83 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
The software development will consist of the following activity sequence:
1) The Project Manager assigns the software development work to the Lead Construction Programmer. (LCP)
2) The LCP select the programming modules from Syserco’s Software library and links them together.
3) The LCP tests and debugs the program until it satisfies the sequence of operations being programmed.
4) The LCP submits code to the Engineering Supervisor who does a Peer Review.
5) If all tests and reviews pass, the code is then submitted for archival into the project software library.
6) If a test fails, the LCP review the cause of the failure and corrective action will be taken to address any failed items. 7) Re-testing will be performed as determined by the LCP.
In addition to the above Peer Review, Syserco will review each project deliverable before submitting for approval. Reviews consist of checking submittal documents against Project Documents (in this case, as-builts) and against Syserco’s Approved Engineering Submittals. Reviews will be performed by Syserco personnel other than the person who completed the deliverable document.
6.6.3 Test Procedures Development
Syserco will be utilizing its standard testing procedures for the complete point to point start-up. Test procedures developed will be for functional and structural testing of the sequences of Operations as detailed in Start-up and Commissioning Phase section of this document.
A hard copy of the appropriate test procedure will be issued to the Lead Technician who will use this copy to record the test results and submit the completed copy to the Project Manager.
This Library will be maintained by the Lead Construction Programmer, Lead Design Engineer and the Project Manager.
6.6.4 Application Software Design Phase Deliverables
Syserco will provide the following Application Software documents as deliverables at the end of this phase:
Appendix C
84 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
• Copies of all programs
• Names of all new Graphics Screens
6.7 Construction / Installation Phase
During this phase, Syserco’s electricians and subcontractors will engage in the field installation of instruments, motors, mechanical equipment, renewable, panels and controllers. Daily activities will be coordinated by the General Foreman and the Project Manager.
6.8 Start-up and Commissioning Phase
After the installation of each of the four areas is complete and point to point checkout testing of the field instruments and I/O has commenced, Syserco Technician and Electrician will perform the final quality check by reviewing connections and terminations to field devices. The results will be noted on the drawings.
In addition, activities in this phase will be directed towards ensuring that Syserco’ installed EMS functions as outlined in the sequence of operations. Also, during this phase, all field checkouts are executed per Syserco’s standard commissioning procedures.
6.8.1 Start-up and Commissioning
The standard procedures will be provided to the City of Newark for their records.
6.8.2 Start-up and Commissioning Phase Deliverables
Syserco will provide the following commissioning documents as deliverables at the end of this phase:
• Test Forms/Reports
• Graphics Screens
6.9 City of Newark Personnel Training
Upon completion of the commissioning phase, Syserco will coordinate City personnel with training as outlined in proposal. The training will be specific to the installed energy conservation measures at the City of Newark SAFAC Retrofit Project.
6.10 Turnover Documentation
Appendix C
85 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
In addition to the deliverables from the Engineering Design Phase, Application Software Design Phase and Start-up and Commissioning Phase, Syserco’ Turnover Package will include hard as well as soft copies (as applicable) for the following:
• Panel Location As-Builts
• I/O Controllers As Builts
• As-Builts Sequences of Operations
• Copies of Program Code
• Operations and Maintenance Manuals
A sample project implementation plan is shown below. Syserco aligns project milestones and resources to ensure the project implementation is done without disruption to the customers business.
Appendix C
86 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
Appendix C
87 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
7. Quality Plan
7.1 General
To ensure final quality product, Syserco follows Good Engineering Practices and ensures that its Engineers and Technicians are trained and up to date with technology. The team members will attend a project orientation during which the project standards will be shared and discussed. Similar meetings during the project life cycle will be held regularly to ensure that all team members are aware of and adhere to these standards during project execution. While the Project Manager has the direct responsibility for Quality Assurance, the core project team members shall comprise the Quality Assurance team. The QA team shall ensure suitable quality standards are maintained and that appropriate documentation is prepared to map the completed ECM’s to the City of Newark Sequences of Operations.
7.2 System Design and Software Development
Every software developer shall undergo a project orientation during which the Lead Construction Programmer will review project standards which includes the programming methodologies including naming conventions, test methodology etc. adopted for the project.
The Project Manager will assign appropriate peer reviewers to provide technical review and debugging of written and/or configured deliverables. The peer review activities will include the following:
• Verifying the technical approach.
• Document that proper and appropriate procedures are followed. • Provide a technical evaluation that the work product achieves the desired intent.
• Verify that the work product is complete and that all documentation (printouts, hard copies of code, etc.) is attached.
The person performing the peer review tasks will have the required experience to perform peer reviews as the project team member who performed the work being reviewed. The Project Manager will sign completion records. Software will be submitted for testing only after the Project Manager for the project signs it as complete. Application software, which has undergone successful testing, shall be archived and access to it will be controlled by the Lead. All software in this category includes application specific programs, graphic screens, etc.
Appendix C
88 Syserco/ IES, Inc. CEASP— SAFAC
8. Revision History
This document has been revised as follows:
Revision # Date Sections Revised Reasons for Changes
0 06/30/09 Submitted with Energy
Analysis
Not Applicable
END OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
i
Environmental Protection Agency. http://www/epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/refs.html Retrieved 7-17-2009 ii 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
iii Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts 1990-2005. Conversion Factors to Energy Units (Heat Equivalents) Heat Contents and Carbon Content Coefficients of Various Fuel Types. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.. USEPA #430-R-07-002 (PDF). iv Ibid.
v California Center for Sustainable Energy. http://energycenter.org/ Retrieved 7-17-2009 Appendix C
Appendix D
Page D-1
City of Newark
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
2005 Community Emissions Inventory
&
2005 Municipal Operations Emissions Inventory
August 2008
Page D-2
Credits and Acknowledgements
This Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory was completed through the generous support of many individuals and organizations. The staff at the City of Newark has been most helpful in gathering core data and doing subsequent analysis. Particular thanks go to Susie Woodstock, Maintenance Superintendent at the City of Newark.
ICLEI would also like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations for their contributions:
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Stopwaste.org) Debra Kaufman, Senior Program Manager
Meghan Starkey, Senior Program Manager
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Amir Fanai, Principal Air Quality Engineer
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Harold Brazil, Air Quality Associate
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
Gary Cook, California Director
Alden Feldon, California Manager
Brooke Lee, Program Officer
Jonathan Strunin, Program Officer
Wesley Look, Program Associate
Jonathan Knauer, Program Associate
Ayrin Zahner, Former Program Associate
Jennifer Holzer, Former Program Associate
Palak Joshi, Former Program Associate
This inventory report was prepared by Brooke Lee, Palak Joshi, Ayrin Zahner, Jonathan Strunin, and Wesley Look of ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability U.S.A. The authors gratefully acknowledge the dedication of staff of the City of Newark, who provided much of the insight and local information necessary for the completion of this report.
With generous support from Stopwaste.org
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-3 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Introduction and History ........................................................................................... 4
1.2. Climate Change Background ................................................................................... 4
1.3. ICLEI Membership and the Five Milestones........................................................... 5
1.4. Sustainability and Climate Change Mitigation Activities in Newark.................. 5
2. City of Newark 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ..................................... 6
2.1. Methods....................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1. CACP Software..................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2. Creating the Inventory ....................................................................................... 6
2.2. Inventory Results ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1. Community Emissions Inventory ..................................................................... 7
2.2.2. Community Emissions Forecast …………………………………………………………. 9
2.2.3. Government Operations Emissions Inventory ……………………………………. 11
2.2.4. Government Operations Emissions Forecast …………………………………….. 14
3. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................16
4. Appendices .......................................................................................................................17
4.1. Appendix A: Forecast Data from ABAG’s Projections 2005 .............................17
4.2. Appendix B: Emissions Factors Used in the Alameda County Climate Protection Partnership............................................................................................18
4.3. Appendix C: Waste Calculation Methodology .....................................................19
4.4. Appendix D: Detailed CACP Report: Government Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005..................................................................................... (attached)
4.5. Appendix E: Detailed CACP Report: Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005............................................................................................................ (attached) 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-4
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction and History
In 2007, Newark Mayor David W. Smith signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, thereby committing the City to taking action for climate protection. The City has also joined all of the other local governments in Alameda County in committing to becoming a member of ICLEI and participating in the Alameda County Climate Protection Project. The project was launched by ICLEI in partnership with StopWaste.Org and the Alameda County Conference of Mayors.
Through these actions, the City of Newark recognized that “climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of global warming pollution.” Through energy efficiency in its facilities and vehicle fleet, clean alternative energy sources, waste reduction efforts, land use and transportation planning, and other activities, the City of Newark can achieve multiple benefits, including lower energy bills, improved air quality, economic development, expanded transit options, waste reduction and a better quality of life throughout the community.
This greenhouse gas emissions inventory represents completion of the first step in Newark’s climate protection process. As advised by ICLEI, it is essential to first quantify recent-year emissions to establish:
1) a baseline, against which to measure future progress, and 2) an understanding of where the highest percentages of emissions are coming from, and, therefore, where the greatest opportunities for emissions reductions are. Presented here are estimates of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 resulting from the community as a whole, and from City government operations.
1.2. Climate Change Background
A balance of naturally occurring gases dispersed in the atmosphere determines the Earth’s climate by trapping solar radiation. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Modern human activity, most notably the burning of fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation, introduces large amounts of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Collectively, these gases intensify the natural greenhouse effect, causing global average surface temperature to rise, which is in turn expected to affect global climate patterns.
Overwhelming evidence suggests that human activities are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, causing a rise in global average surface temperature and consequent climate change. In response to the threat of climate change, communities worldwide are voluntarily reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, an international effort to coordinate mandated reductions, went into effect in February 2005 with 161 countries participating. The United States is one of three industrialized countries that chose not to sign the Protocol.
In the face of federal inaction, many communities in the United States are taking responsibility for addressing climate change at the local level. The community of Newark might very well be impacted by resultant changes in the height, salinity and behavior of the San Francisco Bay, or by any of the other predicted results of changing temperatures such as: an increase in wild fires, the development of drought as a result of reduced snow pack in the Sierras, the spread of vector-borne diseases, and a general disruption of ecosystems, habitats and agricultural activities.
Although one jurisdiction alone cannot independently resolve the issue of climate change, local governments together can make a powerful cumulative impact. This is the impetus of the Alameda County Climate Protection Project.
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-5
1.3. ICLEI Membership and the Five Milestones
By adopting a resolution committing the City to climate protection, Newark has joined an international movement of local governments. More than 800 local governments, including over 450 in the United States, are members of ICLEI. Currently, 120 of ICLEI USA members are located in the State of California – approximately 80 of which are located in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to Newark, all 14 Alameda municipalities and the County are ICLEI members, and are working to advance through ICLEI’s Five Milestone Process.
The Five Milestone Process provides a framework for local communities to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Milestones are as follows:
(1) Conduct an inventory of local greenhouse gas emissions; (2) Establish a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target; (3) Develop a climate action plan for achieving the emissions reduction target; (4) Implement the climate action plan; and,
(5) Re-inventory emissions to monitor and report on progress.
This report represents the completion of the first CCP milestone, and provides a foundation for future work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Newark.
1.4. Sustainability and Climate Change Mitigation Activities in Newark <Instruction to jurisdiction: Enter climate protection activities here. Table of contents update may be necessary. >
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-6
2. City of Newark 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
2.1. Methods
ICLEI assists local governments in systematically tracking energy and waste related activities within their jurisdiction, and in calculating the relative quantities of greenhouse gases produced by each activity and sector. The greenhouse gas inventory protocol involves performing two assessments: 1) a communitywide assessment, and 2) a separate inventory of municipal facilities and activities. The municipal inventory is a subset of the community inventory.
Once completed, these inventories provide the basis for policy development, progress measurement, emissions forecasting, and the establishment of an informed emissions reduction target.
2.1.1. CACP Software
To facilitate community efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ICLEI developed the Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software in partnership with the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA), the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO)1 , and
Torrie Smith Associates. This software calculates emissions resulting from energy consumption and waste generation. The CACP software determines emissions using specific factors (or coefficients) according to the type of fuel used. CACP aggregates and reports the three main greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, and N2O) in terms of equivalent carbon dioxide units, or CO2e. Converting all emissions to equivalent carbon dioxide units allows for the consideration of different greenhouse gases in comparable terms. For example, methane (CH4) is twenty-one times more powerful than carbon dioxide on a per weight basis in its capacity to trap heat in the atmosphere. The CACP software converts one metric ton of methane emissions to 21 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.2 The CACP software is also capable
of reporting input and output data in several formats, including detailed, aggregate, source-based and time-series reports.
The emissions coefficients and quantification methods employed by the CACP software are consistent with national and international inventory standards established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines for the Preparation of National Inventories) and the U.S.
Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Guidelines (EIA form1605).
The CACP software has been and continues to be used by over 400 U.S. cities, towns and counties to quantify their greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is worth noting that, although the software provides Newark with a sophisticated and useful tool, calculating emissions from energy use with precision is difficult. The model depends upon numerous assumptions, and it is limited by the quantity and quality of available data. With this in mind, it is useful to think of any specific number generated by the model as an approximation of reality, rather than an exact value. It should also be understood by policy makers, staff, and the public that the final total may change as new data, emissions coefficient sets, and better estimation methods become available.
2.1.2. Creating the Inventory
The greenhouse gas emissions inventory consists of two distinct components: one for the Newark community as a whole defined by its geographic borders, and the second for emissions resulting from the City of Newark’s municipal operations. The municipal inventory is effectively a subset of the community-scale inventory (the two are not mutually exclusive). This allows the municipal government, which has formally committed to reducing emissions, to track its individual facilities and vehicles and to
1 Now the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA). 2 The potency of a given gas in heating the atmosphere is defined as its Global Warming Potential, or GWP. For more information on GWP see: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 2, Section 2.10. 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-7
evaluate the effectiveness of its emissions reduction efforts at a more detailed level. At the same time, the community-scale analysis provides a performance baseline against which the Newark community can build policies and demonstrate progress.
Creating this emissions inventory required the collection of information from a variety of sources, including the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Stopwaste.org, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), CalTrans, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
2.2. Inventory Results
2.2.1. Community Emissions Inventory
There are numerous items that can be included in a community scale emissions inventory. This inventory includes emissions sources from the following sectors:
• Residential
• Commercial / Industrial
• Transportation
• Waste
Emissions by Sector
The community of Newark emitted
approximately 433,857 metric tons of
CO2e in the year 2005. As visible in
Figure 1 and Table 1 below, the
transportation sector (44.4%) and the
commercial / industrial sector (40.4%)
were the largest emitters of greenhouse
gases in 2005. Emissions from the
residential sector produced 10.9% of
total emissions, and the remaining 4.3%
was the result of emissions from waste
sent to landfill.
Table 1 – Community GHG Emissions by Sector (metric tons CO2e) Community Emissions by
Sector Residential Commercial / Industrial Transportation Waste TOTAL CO2e (metric tons) 47,313 175,096 192,841 18,607 433,857 Percentage of Total CO2e 10.9% 40.4% 44.4% 4.3% 100%
MMBtu 821,208 3,037,836 2,602,723 0 6,461,767
Figure 1 – Community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by Sector Community Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by
Sector (2005)
Residential
10.9%
Waste
4.3%
Commercial /
Industrial
40.4%
Transportation
44.4%
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-8
Transportation
As with other San Francisco Bay area cities, travel by motorized vehicle constitutes the greatest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions in Newark. As Table 1 and Figure 1 show, nearly 45 percent of community emissions (192,841 metric tons) came from the transportation sector in 2005. These emissions are the result of travel on local city roads and state highways – this analysis does not include emissions from passenger or freight rail operating within the jurisdictional boundaries of Newark.
Table 2 and Figure 2 divide emissions from the
transportation sector into two primary sources:
local roads and state highways. In 2005, MTC
estimated that 158.17 million vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) occurred on local Newark roads, emitting
approximately 87,601 metric tons of CO2e, or
45.4% transportation sector emissions. The 190.01
million vehicle miles traveled along state highways
in the city accounted for 105,240 metric tons of
CO2e, or 54.6% of total emissions from the
transportation sector.
Please see the appendices for more detail on
methods and emissions factors used in calculating
emissions from the transportation sector.
Table 2 – Transportation GHG Emissions by Road Type
Transportation Road Type
Emissions Sources Local Roads State Highways TOTAL
CO2e (metric tons) 87,601 105,240 192,841
Percentage of Total CO2e 45.4% 54.6% 100%
Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 158,165,450 190,013,890 348,179,340 The Built Environment (Residential, Commercial, Industrial) In 2005, 51.3 % of total community wide emissions
came from the built environment, which is
comprised of the residential, commercial and
industrial sectors. These sectors consumed about
390.3 million kWh of electricity and 25.3 million
therms of natural gas. Within this report the
commercial and industrial sectors have been
combined due to a mandatory aggregating of
commercial and industrial data by PG&E.3
The Newark community receives the majority of its
electricity from Pacific Gas & Electric Company
(PG&E). 4 The 2005 emission coefficients for
electricity provided by PG&E are included in the
notes in Appendix B. The types of power sources
3 CPUC 15/15 Rule.
4 There is potential that large electricity buyers in Newark hold Direct Access accounts with other electricity providers, however these data were not obtained for this report, due to state privacy rules and other constraints.
Figure 2 – Community GHG Emissions by Road Type
Community Transportation GHG
Emissions by Road Type (2005)
State
Highw ays
54.6%
Local
Roads
45.4%
Figure 3 – Built Environment Emissions
Community GHG Emissions from
The Built Environment (2005)
Residential
21.3%
Commercial
/ Industrial
78.7%
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-9
that make up a utility’s electricity generation mix have a significant impact on a city’s greenhouse gas emissions. A coal fired power plant, for example, releases 1.3 metric tons of CO2e per megawatt-hour of electricity generated versus 0.7 metric tons for gas turbines and 0 metric tons for renewable sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power.
Nearly 80 percent of Newark’s emissions from the built environment in 2005 came from the commercial/industrial sector (see Figure 3). All of the emissions that are being calculated from the built environment are the result of local natural gas consumption and local consumption of electricity that is being generated outside of Newark.
Residential
In 2005, Newark’s 44,4005
residents consumed approximately 82.7 million kWh of electricity, or 6,174 kWh per household; and approximately 5.4 million therms of natural gas, or 403 therms per household6 .
This consumption resulted in a release of 47,313 metric tons of CO2e, or approximately 3.5 metric tons CO2e per household.7
Major residential energy uses include refrigeration, lighting and water heating.
Commercial/Industrial
In 2005, Newark’s commercial/industrial sector (stationary sources only) consumed 307.7 million kWh of electricity and 19.9 million therms of natural gas. This consumption resulted in a release of 175,096 metric tons of CO2e into the atmosphere.
Waste
In 2005, Newark sent approximately 57,633 short tons of solid waste, and 12,016 short tons of alternative daily cover (ADC)8
to landfill, resulting in a total of 18,607 metric tons of CO2e.
Emissions from the waste sector are an estimate of methane (CH4) generation that will result from the anaerobic decomposition of waste sent to landfill in the base year (2005). It is important to note that only a small percentage of these emissions are generated in the base year. The majority of waste emissions will occur over the 100+ year timeframe in which the waste generated in 2005 will gradually decompose. This “frontloading” of future emissions allows for simplified accounting and accurate comparison of the emissions impacts of waste disposed in each year9
.
ICLEI attained Newark’s municipal solid waste (MSW) and alternative daily cover (ADC) tonnage figures from the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s (CIWMB) online Disposal Reporting System (DRS)10. In order to determine the specific composition of Newark’s municipal solid waste stream, ICLEI utilized the 2000 Alameda County Waste Characterization Study. The characterization of ADC tonnage was provided by the CIWMB via the DRS.
5 Populations and household estimates are from ABAG’s Projections 2005. 6 Ibid.
7 This estimate was calculated using 2005 electricity and natural gas consumption data provided by PG&E, and only includes consumption through residential buildings. Data on residential equipment usage, such as lawnmowers or on-site electricity generation, is not included in this inventory. Data on resident travel outside of Newark (such as train or air travel) or upstream emissions associated with goods consumption are also not included. GHG emissions associated with residential transportation and residential waste generation are included separately in the Transportation and Waste Sector emissions totals. 8 The California Integrated Waste Management Board defines ADC as “Alternative cover material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging.”
9 As the emissions reductions associated with decreasing the amount of waste being landfilled are real and there are usually few external variables that change those emissions levels later, this front-loading is considered to be an accurate practice for counting and reporting emissions that will be generated over time. 10 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGCentral/drs/reports/ 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-10
Another important variable in the waste sector calculation is the methane recovery factor. Following the recommendation of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, adhering to US EPA standards11, and keeping with general IPCC guidelines to err towards conservative estimation, ICLEI has adopted 60% as the methane recovery factor used in these calculations.
The CACP model does not capture the emissions reductions in “upstream” energy use from recycling (or any other emissions reduction practice) in the inventory. However, it should be noted that recycling and composting programs can have significant additional impact on GHG emissions, as manufacturing products with recycled materials avoids emissions from the energy that would have been used during extraction, transporting and processing of virgin materials.
Table 3 – Community Waste Composition and GHG Emissions by Waste Type12 Waste Type Paper
Products
Food
Waste Plant Debris Wood/ Textiles
All Other
Waste TOTAL
CO2e (metric tons) 9,883 2,962 2,497 3,265 0 18,607
Percentage of Total CO2e 53.1% 15.9% 13.4% 17.5% 0.0% 100% Percent of Total Tonnage
Disposed 22.1% 11.7% 6.9% 25.8% 33.5% 100%
2.2.2. Community Emissions Forecast
Under a business-as-usual scenario, the
City of Newark’s emissions will grow
over the next decade and a half by
approximately 18.6%, from 433,857 to
514,459 metric tons CO2e. To illustrate
the potential emissions growth, ICLEI
conducted an emissions forecast for
the year 2020 based on projected
trends in energy use, driving habits,
job growth, and population growth.
Figure 4 and Table 4 (below) show the
results of the forecast. A variety of
different reports and projections were
used to create the emissions forecast.
Residential Forecast Methodology
For the residential sector, ICLEI
calculated the compounded annual
population growth rate13 between 2005
and 2020, using population projections
from ABAG’s Projections 2005. This
growth rate (0.659%) was used to estimate average annual compound growth in energy demand. ABAG estimates that the Newark population was 44,400 in 2005, and will be 49,000 in 2020.
11 AP 42, section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste, 2.4-6, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html 12 Waste characterization study conducted by Stopwaste.org for the year 2000. 13 Compounded annual growth rate= ((2020 population/2005 population)^(1/15))-1 Figure 4 – Community GHG Emissions Forecast
Emissions Forecast for 2020
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2005 CO2e
Emissions
(metric tons)
2020 CO2e
Emissions
(metric tons)
Metric Tons CO2e
Waste
Transportation
Commercial /
Industrial
Residential
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-11
Commercial / Industrial Forecast Methodology
Analysis contained within “California Energy Demand 2008-2018: Staff Revised Forecast14,” a report by the California Energy Commission (CEC), shows that commercial floor space and the number of jobs have closely tracked the growth in energy use in the commercial sector. Using job growth projections for the City of Newark from ABAG’s Projections 2005, it was calculated that the compounded annual growth in energy use in the commercial sector between 2005 and 2020 will be 0.901%.15 Transportation Forecast Methodology
For the transportation sector, projected growth in energy demand was obtained from the CEC 2008 energy demand forecast referenced above. The recently passed federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards and the State of California’s pending tailpipe emission standards could significantly reduce the demand for transportation fuel in Newark. An analysis of potential fuel savings from these measures at a scale that would be useful for the purpose of this report has not been conducted, nor would such an analysis produce a true business-as-usual estimation. Regardless of future changes in the composition of vehicles on the road as a result of state or federal rulemaking, emissions from the transportation sector will continue to be largely determined by growth in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT). In “Transportation Energy Forecasts for the 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report” 16 the CEC projects that on-road VMT will increase at an annual rate of 1.509% per year through 2020. This is the number that was used to estimate emission growth in the transportation sector for the Newark forecast.
Waste Forecast Methodology
As with the residential sector, the primary determinate for growth in emissions in the waste sector is population. Therefore, the compounded annual population growth rate for 2005 to 2020, which is
0.659%17 (as calculated from ABAG population projections), was used to estimate future emissions in the waste sector.
Table 4 – Community Emissions Growth Projections by Sector 2005 Community Emissions
Growth Forecast by Sector
2005 CO2e
Emissions
(metric tons)
2020 CO2e
Emissions
(metric tons)
Annual
Growth
Rate
Percent Change
from 2005 to
2020
Residential 47,313 52,215 0.659% 10.4%
Commercial / Industrial 175,096 200,310 0.901% 14.4%
Transportation 192,841 241,399 1.509% 25.2%
Waste 18,607 20,535 0.659% 10.4%
TOTAL 433,857 514,459 -- 18.6%
14 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-015/CEC-200-2007-015-SF2.PDF 15 See Appendix A for more detail on ABAG projections. 16 Report available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-009/CEC-600-2007-009-SF.PDF.
Compounded Annual growth rate for 2005-2020 is calculated from Table 4 on page 12. In light of recent fuel cost increases, the calculation assumes high fuel cost scenario.
17 Ibid
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-12
Figure 5 – Government GHG Emissions by Sector
2.2.3. Government Operations Emissions Inventory
The sources of emissions that are being counted in the Government Inventory are facilities and equipment owned and operated by the City. The Government Operations Inventory includes sources from the following sectors:
• Buildings
• Vehicle Fleet
• Public Lighting
• Water Pumping and Irrigation
• Solid Waste
Emissions by Sector
In 2005, the City of Newark’s municipal
operations emitted approximately 3,881 metric
tons of CO2e. As visible in Table 5 and Figure
5, electricity & natural gas consumed by City
buildings, and fuel consumed by City fleet and
contracted vehicles caused the greatest amount
of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 – together
these two sources generated approximately 75
percent of all municipal emissions. The
remainder of municipal emissions came from
waste generated by City facilities (16.6%), and
from electricity consumed by City-owned streetlights (7.3%) and water distribution infrastructure (0.8%).
Energy Related Costs
In addition to generating estimates on emissions per government operation, ICLEI has calculated the approximate cost of energy consumption in the various government operations. Costs associated with the use of transportation fuels in the City fleet are estimates calculated using annual average fuel prices1819, and cost records provided by Waste Management (WM) -- the company responsible for hauling waste for the City of Newark. Costs associated with solid waste only include fuel use in WM trucks.
During 2005, Newark spent approximately $715,289 on PG&E electricity and natural gas to power its buildings, public lighting and water management infrastructure. Estimated costs from diesel and gasoline use in the municipal fleet (including WM vehicles) were $202,896 and $121,221 respectively. In total, it is estimated that the City of Newark, including WM fuel consumption, spent just over 1 million dollars on energy in 200520. Beyond curtailing harmful greenhouse gases, any future reductions in municipal energy use will also decrease these costs.
Table 5 – Government GHG Emissions by Sector
Government
Emissions 2005 Buildings
Vehicle
Fleet
Public
lighting Water Waste TOTAL
CO2e (metric tons) 1,650 1,274 283 31 643 3,881
Percentage of Total
CO2e 42.5% 32.8% 7.3% 0.8% 16.6% 100.0%
MMBtu 27,547 16,300 4,313 468 - 48,628
Cost ($) $545,296 $324,116 $150,835 $19,158 - $1,055,126
18 Regional Bay Area 2005 gasoline prices: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/stats/gasprice.htm 19 Statewide 2005 diesel prices: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/transportation/ 20 This total includes $181,876 of total 2005 fuel costs associated with vehicle operation by Waste Management, the contractor responsible for hauling Newark’s solid waste. These costs are included in the fleet cost total, however they are not direct costs seen by the City.
Government Operations GHG Emissions by
Sector (2005)
Vehicle Fleet
32.8%
Buildings
42.5%
Water 0.8%
Public
Lighting
7.3%
Waste
16.6%
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-13
Facilities / Municipal Buildings
In 2005, Newark’s municipal buildings and other facilities consumed approximately 4.3 million kWh of electricity and 128 thousand therms of natural gas, which together resulted in a release of 1,650 metric tons of CO2e emissions into the atmosphere.
As stated above, and as visible in Figure 5, buildings and facilities generated 42.5 percent of total municipal emissions in 2005. Table 6 and Figure 6 portray emissions by facility. 70.1 percent of 2005 emissions from City buildings came from the Swimming and Recreation Center (a total of 1,157 metric tons of CO2e). The next highest percentage (12.8%) came from City Hall Buildings. Cumulatively, the City spent approximately $545,296 on electricity and natural gas to power City facilities in 2005.
Table 6– GHG Emissions from Municipal Facilities
Facility
CO2e
(metric
tons)
Percentage
of Total
CO2e
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(therms)
Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu) Cost ($)
Swimming and
Recreation Center 1,157 70.1% 2,837,120 97,714 19,454 $314,849 City Hall Buildings 212 12.8% 652,400 12,265 3,454 $101,753 Newark Recreation
Facilities 87 5.3% 264,451 5,315 1,435 $39,092
Fire Administration
and Stations 67 4.1% 150,466 6,227 1,137 $26,450
Maintenance Yard 45 2.7% 123,420 3,237 745 $21,125
Miscellaneous
Remainder 82 5.0% 304,431 2,835 1,322 $42,027
TOTAL 1,650 100% 4,332,288 127,593 27,547 $545,296
Figure 6 – GHG Emissions from Municipal Facilities
2005 GHG Emissions from Municipal Facilities
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Swimming and
Recreation
Center
City Hall
Buildings
Newark
Recreation
Facilities
Fire
Administration
and Stations
Maintenance
Yard
Miscellaneous
Remainder
Metric tons CO2e
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-14
Figure 7 – GHG Emissions from City Fleet Vehicles City Vehicle Fleet As visible in Figure 7, the fleet of Cityowned and contracted vehicles was the second largest source of municipal
emissions in 2005, producing
approximately 32.8% of total municipal
emissions.
The City’s vehicle fleet and contracted
waste hauling vehicles consumed
approximately 48,036 gallons of gasoline
and 84,149 gallons of diesel in 2005,
emitting approximately 1,274 metric tons
of CO2e. It is important to note that the
municipal fleet category in this report
includes all vehicles owned and operated
by the City of Newark, plus vehicles
contracted from Waste Management -- the
company responsible for hauling solid
waste throughout the City of Newark. As
portrayed in Figure 7 and Table 7, the
greatest percentage of fleet emissions (57.3%) indeed came from gasoline and diesel consumption in vehicles operated by Waste Management. These data were included in this report under the understanding that waste hauling is a core municipal function, and that the City has the power to influence the operations of the companies that it contracts with.
Table 7 – 2005 City Vehicle Fleet Emissions and Fuel Consumption Department
CO2e
(metric
tons)
Percentage
of Total
CO2e
Gasoline
Consumption
(gal)
Diesel
Consumption
(gal)
Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu) Cost ($)
Waste Management 730 57.3% 3,035 73,058 9,295 $181,876
Patrol 209 16.4% 21,478 0 2,698 $54,125
Street Maintenance 78 6.1% 2,072 6,075 1,001 $21,016
Parks Maintenance 64 5.0% 5,161 1,452 825 $16,782
Fire Department 59 4.6% 2,544 3,564 755 $15,677
All Other Departments 134 10.5% 13,746 0 1,726 $34,640
TOTAL 1,274 100% 48,036 84,149 16,300 $324,11621
Public Lighting
In 2005, municipal streetlights and traffic signals consumed 1.3 million kWh of electricity, which produced 283 metric tons of CO2e, or 7.3% of total municipal emissions. The City spent an estimated $150,835 on electricity to power its lighting and signal infrastructure in 2005.
21 Total cost figure includes estimated fuel expenses accrued by Waste Management for hauling Newark solid waste. Excluding these expenses, the City paid approximately $142,240 for fuel consumed by the City fleet in 2005.
Fleet GHG Emissions by Department (2005)
Patrol 16.4%
Waste
Management
57.3%
Parks
Maintenance
5.0% Street
Maintenance
6.1%
Fire
Department
4.6%
All Other
Departments
10.5%
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-15
Water/Sewage
The City of Newark is responsible for operating and maintaining infrastructure for the processing and distribution of water.22 In 2005, water distribution consumed 137,340 kWh of electricity, which resulted in a release of 31 metric tons of CO2e. Table 8 breaks down energy use and emissions from the water sector by type of operation. Water management facilities accounted for approximately 0.8% of total municipal emissions – the smallest contributor to City emissions.
Table 8 – Water/Sewage GHG Emissions and Energy Use
Technology Type
CO2e
(metric tons)
Percent CO2e of
Total Fleet
Emissions
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Energy
Equivalent
(MMBtu) Cost ($)
Water Pumps 23 74.2% 102,937 351 $12,406.00
Irrigation /
Sprinkler Systems
8 25.8%
34,403
117
$6,752.00
TOTAL 31 100% 137,340 468 $19,158
Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by City-owned facilities and infrastructure produced an estimated 16.6% (Figure 5) of the total emissions from government operations. As in the community analysis (see pp. 8-9), these emissions are an estimate of future methane generation over the full, multi-year decomposition period of the waste generated in the year 2005.
In 2005, City facilities sent approximately 2,042 short tons of solid waste to landfill, resulting in a total of 643 metric tons of CO2e.
In the absence of a centralized disposal record like the CIWMB Disposal Reporting System, waste generation figures from government operations, as well as the characterization of government waste, were estimated by Newark staff. Additionally, the final emissions number generated by the CACP software used the 60% methane recovery factor discussed above.
2.2.4. Government Operations Emissions Forecast
While the community emissions growth forecast is based upon known per capita energy consumption, workforce expansion, and population growth projections, the forecast of growth within municipal operations is based upon the expansion of City services or infrastructure. It was not within the scope of this project to estimate growth of City infrastructure or services, and, therefore, the government operations emissions forecast is not included. ICLEI advises that the City conduct such a forecast to be included in this report at a later date, and to inform the process of selecting an emission reduction target for City operations.
22 Newark’s infrastructure is comprised mainly of pumps and irrigation equipment. 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-16
3. Conclusion
In passing a resolution to endorse the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, the City of Newark made a formal commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. This report lays the groundwork for those efforts by estimating baseline emission levels against which future progress can be demonstrated.
This analysis found that the Newark community as a whole was responsible for emitting 433,857 metric tons of CO2e in the base year 2005, with the transportation and commercial/industrial sectors contributing the most (approximately 75% cumulatively) to this total. The City of Newark’s own municipal operations were responsible for 3,881 metric tons of CO2e in the year 2005, with the greatest percentage of emissions coming from municipal buildings and the City vehicle fleet.
In addition to establishing the baseline for tracking progress over time, this report serves to identify the major sources of Newark’s emissions, and therefore the greatest opportunities for emission reductions. In this regard, the emissions inventory ought to inform the areas of focus within the Newark Climate Action Plan.
Following the ICLEI methodology, we also recommend that the City of Newark utilize the inventory to begin to consider potential greenhouse gas reduction targets for the community and for municipal operations.
As Newark moves forward with considering emission reduction targets and works to create the Climate Action Plan, the City should identify and quantify the emission reduction benefits of projects that have already been implemented since 2005, as well as the emissions reduction benefits of proposed future measures. The benefits of both existing and proposed strategies can be tallied against the baseline established in this report to determine the appropriate set of actions that will deliver the City to its chosen emissions reduction goal.
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-17
4. Appendices
4.1. Appendix A: Forecast Data from ABAG’s Projections 2005 Forecast Table 1 – ABAG Projections on Job Growth in Newark
TOTAL JOBS
JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
ALAMEDA 27,380 27,960 34,750 37,990 41,080
ALBANY 5,190 4,940 5,560 5,650 5,670
BERKELEY 78,320 76,890 79,080 80,580 81,690
DUBLIN 16,540 19,950 24,770 29,170 32,030
EMERYVILLE 19,860 20,140 21,460 21,750 21,900
FREMONT 104,830 96,530 105,060 119,360 136,770
HAYWARD 76,320 73,670 80,030 84,330 88,790
LIVERMORE 32,820 33,660 40,420 46,170 55,070
NEWARK 21,420 21,180 23,310 23,810 24,230
OAKLAND 199,470 207,100 223,490 235,030 250,260
PIEDMONT 2,120 2,120 2,140 2,160 2,190
PLEASANTON 58,670 58,670 66,050 72,020 73,410
SAN LEANDRO 44,370 42,790 44,840 50,460 54,380
UNION CITY 19,310 19,920 24,000 29,010 34,900
UNINCORPORATED 43,540 41,980 43,880 47,480 50,940
Forecast Table 2 – ABAG Projections on Population Growth in Newark
TOTAL POPULATION
JURISDICTIONAL
BOUNDARY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
ALAMEDA 72,259 75,400 77,600 79,900 82,300
ALBANY 16,444 16,800 17,200 17,400 17,800
BERKELEY 102,743 105,300 107,200 109,500 111,900
DUBLIN 29,973 40,700 50,000 57,000 63,800
EMERYVILLE 6,882 8,000 8,800 9,300 9,900
FREMONT 203,413 211,100 217,300 226,900 236,900
HAYWARD 140,030 146,300 151,400 156,600 160,300
LIVERMORE 73,345 78,000 84,300 90,200 96,300
NEWARK 42,471 44,400 46,000 47,400 49,000
OAKLAND 399,484 414,100 430,900 447,200 464,000
PIEDMONT 10,952 11,100 11,200 11,200 11,200
PLEASANTON 63,654 68,200 72,600 76,500 80,400
SAN LEANDRO 79,452 82,400 84,300 87,500 90,800
UNION CITY 66,869 71,400 75,100 78,600 82,600
UNINCORPORATED 135,770 143,900 150,600 153,600 157,300
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-18
4.2. Appendix B: Emissions Factors Used in the Alameda County Climate Protection Partnership
PG&E Emission Factors:
Emission
Source
GH
G
Emission
Factor Emission Factor Source
CO2
0.489155
lbs/kwh (for
2004 and 2005),
0.6246947
lbs/kWh for
2003
The certified CO2 emission factor for delivered electricity is publicly available at http://www.climateregistry.org/CarrotDocs/19/2005/2005_PUP_Report_V2_Rev1_ PGE_rev2_Dec_1.xls PG&E
Electricity
CO2e
0.492859
lbs/kwh PG&E-this factor includes release of CH4 and N2O CO2
343.3 short
tons/GWh
CH4
0.035 short
tons/GWh
Default
Direct
Access
Electricity N20 0.027 short
tons/GWh
ICLEI/Tellus Institute (2005 Region 13 - Western Systems Coordinating Council/CNV Average Grid Electricity Coefficients)
CO2
53.05 kg/MMBtu
PG&E/CCAR. Emission factors are derived from: California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-1999 (November 2002); and Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000 (2001), Table B1, page 140.
CH4
0.0059
kg/MMBtu
Natural
Gas
N20 0.001 kg/MMbtu
CCAR. Emission factors are derived from: U.S. EPA, “Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000” (2002), Table C-2, page C-2.
EPA obtained original emission factors from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual (1996), Tables 1-15 through 1-19, pages 1.53-1.57.
Alameda County Transportation Sector Emission Factors:
CH4 Rates
(grams/mile)
N2O Rates
(grams/mile) VMT Mix CO2 Rates- (grams/gallon)
Fuel
Efficiency
(miles/gallon)
Gas Diesel Gas Diesel
Gas
(Passenger
Vehicles)
Diesel
(Heavy
Trucks) Gas Diesel Gas Diesel
0.062 0.042 0.070 0.050 92.8% 7.2% 8,599 10,092 19.1 6.4 Provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District EMFAC Model Alameda County Waste Sector Emission Factors:
Waste Type
Methane Emissions
(tonne/tonne of waste
disposed)
Sequestration
(tonne/tonne of waste disposed)
Paper Products 2.138262868 0
Food Waste 1.210337473 0
Plant Debris .685857901 0
Wood/Textiles .605168736 0
All Other Waste 0 0
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, City of Newark Page D-19
Methane recovery factor of 60% derived from the US EPA AP 42 Emissions Factors report (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html).
4.3. Appendix C: Waste Calculation Methodology
Emissions Calculation Methods
CO2e emissions from waste and ADC disposal were calculated using the methane commitment method in the CACP software, which uses a version of the EPA WARM model. This model has the following general formula:
CO2e = Wt * (1-R)A
Where:
Wt is the quantify of waste type ‘t’,
R is the methane recovery factor,
A is the CO2e emissions of methane per metric ton of waste at the disposal site (the methane factor)
While the WARM model often calculates upstream emissions, as well as carbon sequestration in the landfill, these dimensions of the model were omitted for this particular study for two reasons:
1) This inventory functions on a end-use analysis, rather than a life-cycle analysis, which would calculate upstream emissions), and
2) This inventory solely identifies emissions sources, and no potential sequestration ‘sinks’.
4.4. Appendix D: Detailed CACP Report: Government Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 (attached)*
4.5. Appendix E: Detailed CACP Report: Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005 (attached)*
*Note: Due to numerical rounding, there are slight discrepancies in the CACP report data that have been corrected for this narrative inventory report. As such, you may notice slight differences between the numbers in this inventory report and the numbers in the CACP reports.
Appendix E
Page E-1 of E-3
City of Newark MEMO
DATE: June 15, 2009
TO: Susie Woodstock, Maintenance Superintendent
FROM: Robert McKinney, Maintenance Supervisor
SUBJECT: Energy upgrade of Community Center HVAC
The Community Center HVAC system is over forty years old and is need of a complete upgrade.
The goal of this memo is to plan and identify funding to up-grade the complete HVAC system at Community Center with a cost effective, low energy and manageable system.
The existing system is a complex system with a chiller, condenser, boiler, various pumps, control valves, fan coils, piping and antiquated controls. The water piping and control wiring run in the entire building with controls, duct sensors, return air sensors, thermostats and time clocks located through out the building. There is no way to access much of the water piping or control wiring with out cutting into walls and ceilings. Over the years the system has been modified various times and some of the controls have not functioned for many years. The system currently will not work in automatic and requires shifting from heating to cooling manually. Because of the type of construction of the building and the mild climate in Newark we have been able to maintain a reasonable comfort level for customers and staff but at a cost of using more energy and maintenance staff time than acceptable. There have been numerous maintenance issues with leaks in the piping, valves and fan coils over the last several years and will only increase with age. The way the system is currently designed there is no way to replace all the components cost effectively or reduce the demand for energy usage.
Over the past several years we have been concerned that the chiller and main condenser, the largest (single- cost) components in the system, will fail before we get the replacement scheduled. The in-kind replacement of these two components would not decrease energy usage nor would it eliminate the other issues through out the building.
We have come to the conclusion that energy efficient package units should replace the chiller/boiler system; considering the energy usage, the cost of upgrading the entire system and the usage of the building.
The entire building is rarely used at the same time. Most of the time the office spaces, reception and pre schools will be in use but not the meeting room, lounge, social hall or patio room.
Page E-2 of E-3
After evaluating the building, I recommend that we install package units throughout the building.
This will allow us to install the new equipment over a period of time and better fund the projects by spreading the projects over several years of the equipment replacement budget. It will also minimize the disruption of use of the building. By installing as many as twelve different package units we should be able to reduce the energy usage substantially because if a space is not being used the zone(s) (rooms) could be programmed off.
The phasing is being proposed due to funding limitations. Multiple phases could be completed at the same time or partial phases could be completed at one time. If funding came available, the preferred method would be to install all the package units at once.
Attached is a set of plans showing the possible zones that could accomplish the phased installation.
Phase I - Recommend we start with the Social Hall and Patio Room (this would include the lounge area). These are the largest rooms at Community Center and are used for the larger meetings and rental functions. Engineers estimate for this phase would be approximately $250,000.
Phase II - This would include two units, one unit for the Front Office spaces, Supply Room and Break Room. One unit for Reception Area and part of the Main Lobby. Engineers estimate for this phase is approximately $150,000.
Phase III - This would include two units, one unit for the remaining Office Spaces and Women's Room. One unit for the part of the Main Lobby. Engineers estimate for the phase is approximately $125,000.
Phase IV - Arts and Crafts Room and Meeting Room #1. This would include two units. One for the Meeting Room and one for the Arts & Crafts Room. Engineers estimate for this phase is approximately $125,000.
Phase V - Kitchen, Janitor's Storage, Men's Room and part of the Long Hallway. Engineers estimate for this phase is approximately $125,000.
Phase VI - Upper Pre School room. Engineers estimate for this phase is approximately $50,000.
Recommendations are all based on my initial evaluation and the use and layout of the building.
All phases as stated are subject to change with a more in depth review of structural availability of space, electrical and gas supply.
It should be noted that major energy reduction will not be achieved until the main components of the system, chiller, condenser, pumps and main air handler, are taken out of service.
The existing HVAC system may fail at any time. I recommend we act on this phased installation plan before the system fails.
Page E-3 of E-3
January 2010 Addendum:
Phase I has been funded by ARRA EECBG. The units are scheduled for installation in 2010.
Due to budget reductions, the majority of the Community Center is being taken out of use. The Social Hall and Patio rooms will still be used for rentals.
We will continue to pursue funding options for installation of the other phases as the closure is assumed to be temporary.
Item F. 2.
DATE 12/14/2023
TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM Cathreene Ingham-Watters, Human Resources Director SUBJECT Adopt a resolution to approve an exception to the 180-Day waiting period for post-retirement employment and approve an employment agreement with Gina Anderson to serve as Interim Police Chief pursuant to Government Code sections 7522.56 and 21221(h) SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Police Chief Gina Anderson will retire on December 29, 2023. The City will be opening a recruitment for a successor Police Chief. Chief Anderson is available for post-retirement employment as Interim Police Chief while a recruitment for Police Chief takes place. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve an employment agreement and exception to the 180-day waiting period for post-retirement employment for Gina Anderson to serve as Interim Police Chief, pursuant to Government Code sections 7522.56 and 21221(h).
BACKGROUND
Police Chief Gina Anderson recently announced her retirement from the City of Newark effective December 29, 2023. In response to Chief Anderson's decision to retire, the City solicited proposals from three recruiting firms to lead a recruitment for the City's next Police Chief. Based on availability, cost, and expertise, staff selected and entered into an agreement with Peckham & McKenney as the recruiting firm. Kim Petersen, Fremont's former Chief of Police, will lead the recruitment. Staff anticipate that the recruitment will take approximately four months with the final pre-employment process and hire of the new Police Chief occurring in spring 2024.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Under Government Code section 21221(h), California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) benefit recipients can work up to 960 hours per fiscal year as an interim serving in a vacant position during recruitment for a permanent appointment if the position is deemed by City Council to require specialized skills. The City must be engaged in a recruitment at the time of the interim appointment and a retired annuitant can only serve in this capacity once. The Police Chief must meet requirements set by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), stay abreast of legal changes and best practices in law enforcement, and is responsible for all police-related services expected to foster a safe community for all in Newark.
Generally, benefit recipients must wait 180 days before they are eligible for post-retirement employment. However, Government Code section 7522.56 provides an exception to the 180-day waiting period if the City Council certifies the nature of the employment and that the appointment is necessary to fill a critically-needed position before 180 days have passed. The City Council approval must occur at a public meeting and cannot be a consent calendar item.
The Police Chief is a critical position that provides broad policy direction for the activities of the Police Department; advises the City Manager on matters pertaining to departmental programs and law enforcement; and participates as a member of the City's Executive Team in the consideration of general City policies, programs, and concerns.
Rehiring Chief Anderson for an interim period allows the City to continue to effectively provide public safety services to the community by filling a critically needed position.
As Interim Police Chief, Gina Anderson can continue to provide strategic leadership, oversight, and direction through the Police Department leadership team and throughout the Police Department. This will allow the Police Department leadership team to continue to function with minimal or no disruption.
Post-retirement employment is also a cost savings to the City, as hiring an external Interim Police Chief would include costs beyond a base hourly rate, which is all Chief Anderson is eligible to earn as a retired annuitant. An employment agreement between the City and Gina Anderson has been drafted in accordance with Government Code and is attached for the City Council's consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is sufficient budget in FY 2024 to rehire Chief Anderson as a retired annuitant Interim Police Chief. Government code does not allow Chief Anderson to receive specialty pays and benefits associated with her current position, resulting in cost savings for the City.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Prepared by - Cathreene Ingham-Watters, Human Resources Director Reviewed by - Lenka Hovorka, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by - Krysten Lee, Finance Director
Reviewed by - Kristopher J. Kokotaylo, City Attorney
Approved by - David J. Benoun, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution Interim Police Chief
Interim Police Chief Employment Agreement
Exhibit A - Police Chief Job Description
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWARK APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO THE
180-DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR POST-RETIREMENT
EMPLOYMENT FOR GINA ANDERSON TO SERVE AS
INTERIM POLICE CHIEF PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 AND
21221(H)
WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56 of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, the City Council of the City of Newark (“City Council”) must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since their retirement date; and
WHEREAS, Gina Anderson, CalPERS ID [insert], will retire from the City of Newark in the position of Police Chief, effective December 29, 2023; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is December 29, 2023 plus 180 days, without this certification resolution; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180 day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement incentive; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark, the City of Newark, and Gina Anderson certify that Gina Anderson has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newark authorizes the appointment of Gina Anderson as an interim appointment retired annuitant to the vacant position of Police Chief for the City of Newark under Government Code section 21221(h), effective December 29, 2023; and
WHEREAS, an appointment under Government Code section 21221(h) requires the retiree is appointed into the interim appointment during recruitment for a permanent appointment; and
WHEREAS, this Government Code section 21221(h) appointment shall only be made once and for a limited duration; and
WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Gina Anderson and the City of Newark has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and
Resolution No. Page No. 2
WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar; and WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year for all CalPERS employers; and
WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 to equal the hourly rate; and WHEREAS, the maximum monthly base salary for this position is $23,475.22 and the hourly equivalent is $135.43, and the minimum base salary for this position is $19,562.69 and the hourly equivalent is $112.86; and
WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Gina Anderson will be $135.43; and WHEREAS, Gina Anderson has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of Newark hereby certifies the nature of the employment of Gina Anderson as described herein and detailed in the attached employment agreement and that this appointment is necessary to continue the critically needed and specialized-skilled position of Interim Police Chief by December 29, 2023 because the position is needed to provide broad policy direction for the activities of the Police Department; advise the City Manager on matters pertaining to departmental programs and law enforcement; and participate as a member of the City's Executive Team in the consideration of general City policies, programs, and concerns.
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF NEWARK AND GINA ANDERSON
TO SERVE AS RETIRED ANNUITANT INTERIM POLICE CHIEF
This Employment Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this 14th day of December 2023, by and between the City of Newark ("City") and Gina Anderson ("Gina Anderson" or "Annuitant") collectively referred to as "Parties".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City requires an individual with the knowledge, skills and abilities to serve as Interim Police Chief while the City engages in recruitment to serve as Police Chief; and WHEREAS, Annuitant, by virtue of having previously served as the City's Police Chief, is uniquely qualified and has the requisite specialized skills, training and experience to serve as Interim Police Chief; and WHEREAS, the City desires to employ the specialized services of Annuitant as Interim Police Chief for the City in consideration of and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Annuitant desires to accept temporary employment as Interim Police Chief in consideration of and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, under Government Code section 21221(h), California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) retirees with specialized skills may perform work of a limited duration without reinstating into CalPERS; and
WHEREAS retired annuitants hired pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h) may work no more than 960 hours per fiscal year where the retiree has specialized skills needed to perform work of a limited duration; and
WHEREAS, the City desires by this Agreement to set forth the terms and conditions of Annuitant's duties and services as Interim Police Chief.
AGREEMENT
The Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICE. Annuitant shall perform her duties to the best of her ability in accordance with the highest professional and ethical standards. Annuitant shall comply with the City's rules and regulations, and they shall obey the laws of the State of California and the United States of America as they apply to the performance of her duties.
2 TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from December 29, 2023 until ended by the City.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall become effective after:
i. This Agreement is approved and executed by Annuitant; and ii. This Agreement is approved and executed by the City Manager.