Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
31. Siemens detailed energy audit
OFRCE OF THE CITY MANAGER Environmental Affairs Division CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ~~ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-;3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPERTlNQ GREEN Program Agenda Item No. 3~ SUMMARY Meeting Date: November 30, 2009 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Accept City Of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit frcm Siemens and consider authorizing the City Manager to solicit requests for proposals for an energy savings performance contract. BACKGROUND Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant: Overview In February 2009, the United States Congress funded the Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The purpose of the Block Grant program is to assist eligible entities in reducing fossil fuel emissions, reducing total energy use and improving energy efficiency. Block Grant reporting guidelines are included in this report (Attachment A) as is the initi~il Block Grant project list {Attachment B}. Of the $3.2 billion allocated to the Block Grant program, Congress designated $2.6 billion for 2800 fornlula grants to eligible states, U.S. territories, load governments and Indian tribes. Based on population, Cupertino received $526,200 through its formula grant allocation. Following approval by City Council on June 16, 2009, the City submitted ail application to the Department of Energy detailing a plan for the use of its formula grant funds and received notice of its full award on August 14~', 2009. Included in the application, was the city's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which described how Block Grant funds will be used, leveraged, sustained, and accounted for within the project timeline {Attachment C). The city's strategy proposed two partnerships: (1) an Energy Service Company, Siemens, to conduct a detailed energy audit and implement facility improvement measures throughout the city and (2) Acterra to continue to ofi-er its Green@Home residential audit, retrofit and training program within our community. Combined„ these two projects achieve the city's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy goals includin;;: • Reduce energy/water consumption and utilities {electricity, gas, water) expenditure by 15%; • Eliminate 702,2121bs C02 per year; • Increase comfort levels and improve the wor~ing environment; and Improve exterior lighting and safety. The contribution to an energy conservation project from federal stimulus funds is anticipated to be approximately $430,000, with the remaining $96,200 allocated to internal administrative and project management costs. In its application to the Department of Energy the city proposed an approximate 31-1 project leverage of $Z.SM including staffing and a California Energy Commission low-interest loan to support the implementation of facility improvement measures. Performance Contracting Overview Over the past decade, Cupertino has implemented many energy conservation and cost-saving measures, allowing the city to maintain its level of energy con~.umption, despite a growth in staffing and increase in facility hours, as illustrated by the facility energy consumption graphics provided in the attached detailed energy audit (Attachment D). In an effort to identify conservation opportunities throughout the city, while establishing a process to achieve burgeoning regulatory requirements established by AB32, a summary of which is also attached, (Attachment E) staff has explored using energy service companies in conjunction with an energy savings performance contract. A performance contract uses future energy savings t~ finance installation ofenergy-saving improvements to city facilities. This approach has been used successfully by hundreds of local government agencies across the United States to implement energy and cost-saving projects that otherwise would require use of capital improvement funds. Funding for energy service agreements is specifically identified and supported in the Energy F;fficiency and Conservation Block Grant program. Examples of facility improvements enabled by performance contracting include street lighting, chiller and boiler replacements, irrigation control and fixture replacements, and installation of solar facilities. Performance contracting bundles these energy conservation, water conservation, and renewable energy generation components together into a comprehensive "clean energy" project that can be quantified, financed and implemented as an integrated program.. with a reasonable pay-back duration. Additional information on performance contracting is provided in Attachment F. Project Motivation: Energy Service Agreement The City of Cupertino has recognized that climate change can have potentially disruptive effects to Cupertino's residents and businesses. Local governments can dramatically reduce the emissions from their government operations by such measures as increasing energy efficiency in facilities and vehicle fleets, utilizing renewable energy sources, sustainable purchasing, waste reduction, and supporting alternative modes of transportation for employees. The co-benefits of these measures may include reduced energy usage, improved air quality, and more efficient government operations. By taking the lead in reducing its own impacts on the environment, the city can encourage residents and businesses to do the same. The energy service agreement under consideration would enable the city to directly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions from the primary stationary sources over which the city has direct operational control including government-operated facilities and streetlights (Figure 1). Furthermore, the proposed performance contract will enable precious capital funds to be preserved for other high- priority but non-energy-related projects. The facility improvement measures proposed for the project take into account the profile of the city's current (and to some extent future) utility expenditures. Together, they provide a solution that reduces utility expenditures and hedges against utility rate increases. Buildinss and Fac~ities 39% "chicle Fleet l 6%n VV \'\.11IllILlll Generated Solid _ Water/Sewaee Waste - Transport 4% 0. i% _ ...,... ~.ehtin~ ] 8%n Figure 1: ICLEI Municipal GHG Inventory, City of Cupertino Project Update Through a competitive RFP process, a team comprised of members from Environmental Affairs Division and Public Works Department recommended Siemens as its partner to conduct a detailed energy audit and develop an energy savings performance contract based on the findings of the audit. Upon approval of the performance contracting approach in June of 2009, by City Council, staff subnutte~d the application for the Block Grant. Following its subnussion, the City Manager entered into a Letter of Intent with Siemens, which described the scope and parameters of the audit at a cost of $74,400. Cupertino currently spends $1.2 Million per year on utilities including electricity, gas and water. Allocating ~% of this aiuzual cost to evaluate facility upgrades allowed staff, led by Siemens, to design facility energy, water and cost savings measures and create greenhouse gas reductions benchmarks required by AB32. Furthermore, the cost of the DEA will be absorbed by the very first year of savings introduced by the performance contract, as a preliminary study estimated that tlu•ough improvements, retrofits, or upgrades that Cupertino may be able to save $194,000 per year, or 159c of utility costs. Review of Proposed Project Phases 1. Detailed Energy Audit Phase: Complete A detailed energy study was necessary to provide the City with a final proposal for capital improvements resulting in energy and resource savings for the City's facilities and systems. Staff and Siemens met to deternune the scope of the Detailed Energy Audit to analyze the following energy conservation, water conservation and renewable energy Generation measures: Location: Facility Impro~~ement Measure: City Hall Quinlan Coin- munity Center Corp Yard Sports Center Senior Center Monte Vista Rec Center Black- berry Farm Pool Interior LiQhtinQ X X x x x X Exterior LiQhtinQ X x x x x X EnerQ MQmt S stem X x x x x X Premium Efficienc Motors X x Solar PV X x x X Solar Thermal X x x x x Irrigation -- cit -wide -- Street & Park LiQhtinQ -- cit -wide -- 2. Implementation Phase: Proposed: February 2010 -January 2011 If Council supports the energy services company proposal, this phase will allow sufficient time for development of the project implementation proposal., developing the financing package, and negotiating the contract, construction could begin b}~ January 2010. The duration of the implementation phase will be based upon the facilit~~ improvement measures ultimately selected by the City Council for implementation, but one year is typical. Implementing these projects within this proposed consolidated one-year period will enable the city to recognize savings immediately. This varies greatly to a more traditional capital improvement program, where the infrastructure improvements, and subsequent savings, are phased in over a longer timefratne. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program requires funds to be expended within three years of issuance. 3. Guarantee Phase: Proposed: July 2010 Specifications for the Guarantee Phase will be developed jointly by the energy services company and city staff. Monitoring and verification are typically .Focused on the first several years after implementation, but may range from no monitoring and verification activities at all, to activities that extend for the entire duration of the project financing. Monitoring and verification activities should, at a nunimum, cover the block grant award period to e_lsure that all reporting requirements are satisfied. DETAILED ENERGY AUDIT FINDINGS Based on the report to Council and Letter of Intent authorized by the City Council on June 16, 2009, Siemens undertook a detailed evaluation of seven of~ the city's facilities, citywide irrigation and street lighting, as well as opportunities for renewable energy generation, as depicted in the table above. Siemens investigated characteristics of the city's enf;rgy and water consumption using a combination of methodologies including data logging of electrical circuits, utility bill analysis, site and building plan analysis, equipment and fixture inventory development, calculations and other technical analyses, staff interviews, etc. These activities involved frequent site visits and close coordination with staff. Findings of the Detailed Energy Audit are summari~;ed below. Utility Costs Siemens found that the city spends $1.2 million annually on electrical, gas and water utility bills. Of that total, 4390 is spent on water for domestic and landscaping purposes, 3390 is accounted for by electrical consumption by city facilities, and 1990 is spent on streetlights. This breakdown is shown in Figure 2. v Annual Utility Cost (2008) Electricity, Gas, Water $1.2 million - - ;.,. A~Fi~ Electrical-utree~ ,. Lights a 19% [See Detail in Fig. ~ ,e N 4% [See Detail in Fig. ZI ~., ~.: ~~~Y Cal Water 9% Detail in Fig 2] Figure 2: City of Cupertino's Annual Utility Cost (based on 2008 data) for electrical, gas, and water is X1.2 million. Of that total, 43% is spent on water for domestic and landscaping purposes. 33% is accounted for by electrical consumption of city facilities, and 19% is spent on streetlights. Facility improvements that reduce consumption of utilities can save the city significant resources and GHG emissions. Electrical- Irrigation 1% Electrical-Traffic Signals 2% gas Z% ' Electrical-Facilities 3 3 ~o _~ [See Detail in Fig. 3] The figures below describe usage for city buildings over the course of 12 months (September 2008 through August 2009). Tlie city building that has the greatest electrical dollars per square ($/ft'), is City Hall (Table 1). Although Quinlan Community Center has a large annual utility expenditure, the overall electrical enemy usage index is much lower than City Hall or the Corporation Yard. This can be attributed to Quinlan's large square footage. The Corporation Yard has a high electrical spend and gas spend per square foot. Conversely, this is also attributed to the small building and office space that makes up the city facility. Table 1: Existing Electrical Summary Al] Electrical Utility Rate Area Existing Density Existing $/l:Wh kWh/ft' $/ft' Site Name (sf) kW (Watts/sf) kWh City Hall ~ 23.040 114 4.95 539,520 0.1405 23.4 3.29 Corp Yard ~ 7,500 0 -- 171,970 0.1604 22.9 3.68 Quinlan ~ 28,695 130 4.53 483,600 0.1473 16.9 2.48 Sports Center ~ 20,808 1 30 6.25 404.320 0.1530 19.4 2.97 Senior Center 15,900 ~ 68 4.28 167.520 0.1664 10.5 ] .75 Totals 95,943 ilia S.OOh 1,766,930 0.1535 18.4 2.83 °Corp. Yard excluded from Electrical Density average hCorp. Yard excluded from kW average `Average utility rate at ~0.153i2/}:Wh Table 2: Existing Natural G as Summary i~Tatural Gas Utility Rate Area Existing Density Gas Cost $ $/Thenn Therms/fr' $/fr' Site Name (sf) Thea~ns (Therms/sf) City Hall 23,040 6,060 0.26 7,870 1.32 0.342 0.34 Corp Yard ~ 7,500 11,811 1.57 15.056 1.44 2.007 2.01 Quinlan f 28,695 20,530 0.72 26, l 29 ] .29 0.91 l 0.91 Sports Center ! 20.808 7,078 0.34 9.166 l .39 0.441 0.44 Senior Center f 15,900 5,110 0.32 6,460 1.41 0.406 0.41 Totals j 95,943 50,589 0.53 64,681 1.37 0.674 0.92 Figure 3: Annual Gas Usage per Sq. Foot Btu per Square Foot Index (12 Months through September 2D09( Monta Vista Recreational - 13.5 Center i City Hall _ 24.3 All Commercial ~ ze.o m Senior Center - 27.8 U ~ Sports Center - 3a.e Quinlan Community Center ~2s Health Care (Typ.) _ __ _~ 75.5 Corp. Yard 7s.t o.o zs.o sa.o ~s.o 1oo.D Btu per Square Foot Figure 4: Annual Electric Usage per Sq. Foot kWh per Square Foot Index (12 Months -hrough September 2D09) Monta Vista Recreational Center Senior Center Corp. Yard m All Commercial m Quinlan Community Center Health Care (Typ.) Sports Center Community Hall City Hall kWh per Square Foot 22'9 23.1 30.0 Regarding water consumption, the city spends $539,000 annually (based on 2008 figures] on San Jose Water and California Water Company bills. About 9~% of the consumption is for irrigation purposes, including watering of parks, facility landscaping, and medians. Figure 5 shows a breakdown of «~ater consumption. ~SanJose Water(Irrigation) ~ San Jose Water (Domestic/Unknown) Ca I Water (Irrigation ) ~ Cal Water (Domestic/Unknown) Water Consumption (2008) $539,000 Figure 5: Water Consumption accounts for $539,000 annually, 95% of which is for irrigation purposes. 74° 0 21 Siemens' review of electricity and natural gas consumption of the city's buildings and facilities yielded that Quinlan Community Center, City Hall, and the Sports Center were found to be the three facilities with the greatest consumption. This finding is consistent with ICLEI's previous findings regarding GHG emissions. A breakdown of electricity and natural gas costs for Buildings and Facilities is shown in Figure 6. Electricity and Natural Gas Costs (2008) Buildings and Facilities $350,000 Corp. Yard 12% ti Sports Center 19'~ iorCenter 9% Community Hail 6% 1 .....~ ,.:-P- ,.. ' Quinlan Community City Hall 23°/ Center 2G% Monta Vista Park 5% Figure 6: Electricity Cost ia~ ?008 for tlTe city-'s bu~ildin~s ai~.d facili.tr.es totaled $30,000, i~~ith 68% of t1~.at a.ccoun-ted for by rlvee facilities: Ouii~lan Coiazrnurzin~ Center, Ci.tl' Hall, anal the Spo~2s Center. The majority of streetlight cost was found to be associated with city-owned streetlights. About $206,000 is spent annually on electricity for city-owned streetlights, based on the most recent data collected from September 2008 through August 2009. Streetlight electricity costs are illustrated in Figure 7. Streetlight Electricity Cost* $251,000 ~~~(.. . PGE-owned 18% -~'~ 1 >=t ~ r ~.~ ~~~~ ~~'. .~ City-owned 82% most recent 12 months Figure 7: Electricity Cost ~Sn-eetligla.t costs,for tJ~e cit~• totaled $251,000 fi-a~~ Seytenaber 2008 flu-ough August 2009, ia~irlt 82% of that accoui~-ted for czr)~-o~~a~.ed streetlights. Recommended Facility Impro~~ement Measures lil looking at the city's utility expenditures as a whole, the greatest potential for cost and energy savings «~ere found in the highest expenditure areas: in-igation, electricity for buildings and facilities, and electricity for streetlights. During the course of the detailed study, Siemens found that the city had already implemented energy, water, and cost-saving facility improvement measures including lighting upgrades, motor replacements, and plumbing fixture replacements. y ~ y The energy audit also found additional opportunities to improve energy and water efficiency including upgrading building (interior and exterior) lighting and controls, street lialitina, park lighting?, irrigation improvements, implementation of an Energy Management System (EMS}, as well as other Facility Improvement Measures (FIMs). Opportunities for solar photovoltaic electricity generation were also identified. PROJPCT OPTIONS _--_ __ __ The city refined DIJA recommendations to create two project concept options, Option A and Option B. Each option outlines a proposed "bundle" of Facility linprovement Measures (FIMS). Option A Cost: $3.6 nullion financed: $3.2 million finance Period: 10 years Interest Rate: 4.17% (assumes 10 year financing period) Green House Gas Electric Savin s Gas S avin s Water S evin a Yr. 1 Rebates Pro"act Coata Buildin or Facilit Descri lion Reduction (Ibs COsI kWh S therms S CCF S S S ©uinlan Community Center Interior/ Ealerior Lighting Upgrades 29,989 57,230 $8,430 53,6$0 $39,637 City Wide SUee[ Lighting -Induction 452,58G 853,713 5105.373 544,841 $2,856,137 Three Oaks Park Parking Lot! Pa0rway Lighting 2,812 5,367 $761 3336 512 000 'v ariau Park Perking Loii Pathway Lighung ;1,091 S,91U $838 _-~~ _--- -- -- 5370 , $13,277 Monte Vista Park Parkin Lot / Patlrw Li h6n 5 628 10 740 51 523 5672 $24 180 Sommerset Park Parking Lot J Pathway lighting 1,689 3,223 $457 S2D2 $7,248 McClellan Ranch Park Parking Lot! Pathway Lighting 1,408 2,687 $381 5168 Sfi,04D Creekside Park Parking Lot! Pathway lighting 13,300 23,361 53,599 51.569 539,621 Ci Wide Irri ation 5096 of Ci - 44 103 $100 998 S49 000 $602 877 Cfty Wide Plug Load Contrallers 23,817 45,452 ;5,386 53,000 528,420 City Wide Netvrork Pourer Management 22,553 43,060 56,050 534,475 o a s b, , , ,b Option B Cost: $4.8 million Financed: $4.4 million Finance Period: 13 years Interest Rate: 4.4% Green House Gas Electric Savin s Gas S evin s Water Savin s Yr. 7 Rebates Pro"ect Costs 8uildin or Fncilit Descri flop Reduction (Ibs COzI kWh S therms S CCF 3 S S Ci Hnll Interior/ Exlerlor Li htin U rades 21 963 41 915 55.889 S9 ;72 $103 824 Corp Yard Interior /Exterior Lighting Upgrades 10,924 20 848 53.344 43 535 559 920 Quinlan Contmunily Center Interiorf ExteriorLighting Upgrades 29,989 57,230 58.430 53,65p $39,637 Senior Center Interior! Exterior Lighting Upgrades 4,094 7,813 51,300 4735 541,928 City Wide Street Lighting -Induction 452,586 863,713 $126,537 $49.106 $2,768,581 Three Oaks Park Varian Park Monts Vista Park Sommerset Park Parking Lot f Pathway lighting Parking Lot! Pathway lighting Parkin Lot 1 Palhw Li htin Parking Lot! Pathway Lighting 2,812 3,1197 5 628 1,689 5,367 5,910 10 740 3,223 $761 5838 S t 523 $457 4336 5370 5672 3202 $12,080 $13,277 524 160 $7,248 McClellan Ranch Park Creekside Park City flail CIl Wide Parking Lot /Pathway Li hting Parking Lot l Pathway Lighting Solar PV Ini anon 75%ofCi 1,408 13,300 67,900 _ 2,687 25,381 129,580 $381 $3,599 518,206 7 263 IDE 279 5168 51,589 $33691 $79.000 56,040 $39,621 $880,630 $859 345 City Wide _ Netv~ork Power Management 22.563 43.060 S6 050 c~..,~ City Wide Piug Load Controllers 23,817 45,452 56,386 S3,D00 $29,960 Totals: 661,770 1.262,919 163.701 - - 47,283 108,279 '479.326 4,921.926 Each of the possible options is self-funding, meaning the project pays for itself out of the energy alld water (utility cost) savings. In addition, the energy ~;ervices company takes on the performance risk of the project by guaranteeing these savings. The comfany also takes on the construction risk of the project by providing a guaranteed maximum price, with no change orders, for the construction/ implementation of each option. In contrast to a traditional public works capital improvement project, the energy services company takes the risk, not the (~ity, thus protecting the city from underachievement of promised savings as well as from cost overruns due to change orders. The two forms of guarantee, utility savings and guaranteed maximum price, enable the project package to be financed as a whole, thus preserving the city's capital resources for other important projects. These options are turnkey projects the energy services company manages all aspects of construction/ implementation and even completes the paperwork for energy rebates and incentives and works with the utility companies to ensure rebates critical to the anticipated project cash flows are indeed received by the city. FISCAL IMPACT Any future reductions in municipal energy consumption will have the potential to reduce these costs, either in total, or as a proportion of the City's ongoing operating expenses enabling the City of Cupertino to reallocate limited funds toward other municipal services. Each option is a "bundle'' of improvements. "Bunc.ling" is critical to the energy services performance contracting concept because shorter pay-back FIMs, like water conservation, are leveraged to enable inclusion of longer pay-back improvements like soiar photovoltaics. All improvements contribute to energy and water savings. ' Staff recon~rnends the issuance of a request for prop~~sals to obtain energy services under authority of the State of California Government Code 421 7.10 et seq. These statutory provisions encourage public agencies to develop energy conservation, cogeneration and alternative energy supply sources at public facilities in order to implement the policy of the State of California as set forth in Public Resources Code 25008 "...to promote all feasible means of energy and water conservation and all feasible uses of alternative energy and water supply sources." Sectio:1421 7.18 of the Government Code states that "the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to provide the greatest possible flexibility to public agencies in structuring agreements entered into hereunder so that the economic benefits may be maximized and financing and other costs associated with the design and construction of alternative energy projects may be minimized., ." Staff researched other jurisdictions and found the application of Government Code Section 4217 had produced successful results in achieving energy efficiency improvements which otherwise would not be implemented due to fiscal constraints. Each of these options is self-funding, meaning the project pays for itself, in whole or major part, out of the energy and water savings. The energy servicea company takes on the performance risk of the project by guaranteeing these savings. The company also takes on the construction risk of the project by providing a guaranteed maximum price (GMP), with no change orders, for the construction implementation of each option. In contrast to a traditional public works capital improvement project, energy services company takes the risk, not the City, thus protecting the City from cost overruns due to change orders. The advantage to this financing option is that the two types of guarantee (utility savings and guaranteed maximum price) enable the project package to be financed as a whole, thus protecting the city's capital resources for other important projects. The disz.dvantage is that the program requires a type of financing for which the city will pay a premium in order to realize energy savings. Like all financing, this would involve the leveraging of city resources. Annual debt payments of up to $340,000 for 10 years would need to be budgeted, with some, but not all of it, covered by the energy cost savings, unless otherwise addressed in the energy savings agreement, financing agreement and performance gL~arantee. The actual amount of savings will depend on many variables. The City does not normally finance capital projects of this dollar amount. Increasing Utility Costs The recently completed ICLEI GHG Inventory for 2005 notes that "beyond reducing greenhouse gases, any future reductions in municipal energy consumption will have the potential to reduce these costs, enabling the City of Cupertino to reallocate limited funds toward other municipal services or future climate protection activities." Upon review of utility budget and expenditure data for FY06 - FY10, it appears that this opportunity may be quite great. In fact, staff found that every year expenditures exceeded budget projections, as is depicted in Table 3. In FY09 expenditures exceeded budget estimates by nearly $65,000, indicating that utility rates and/or consumption is increasing at a higher rate that that predicted by staff (Figure 8). In just four years, the city's utility budget has increased $302,000 and expenditures have increased by nearly $200,000. On average, utility expenditures rose 10% for the fiscal years reviewed by staff, which is a much higher increase than is commonly assumed (5%) for utility expenses for a given year if consumption/rates remain, consistent. Table 3 Utility Budget Expenditure Balance 9~Spend Electricity $575,500.00 $588,806.45 -$13,306.45 102.3% FY06 Gas $57,800.00 $57,582.78 $217.22 99.6% Water $370,300.00 $362,766.84 $7,533.16 98.0% Total $1,003,600.00 $1,009,156.07 -$5,556.07 100.6% Electricity $626,500.00 $610,416.06 $16,083.94 97.4% FY07 Gas $53,400.00 $51,480.89 $1,919.11 96.4% Water $396,300.00 $425,113.83 -$28,813.83 107.3% Total $1,076,200.00 $1,087,010.78 -$10,810.78 101.0% Electricity $669,500.00 $621,882.41 $47,617.59 92.9% FY08 Gas $62,400.00 $73,824.68 -$11,424.68 118.3% Water $410,600.00 $471,752.61 -$61,152.61 114.9% Total $1,142,500.00 $1,167,459.70 -$24,959.70 102.2% Electricity $656,500.00 $691,293.00 -$34,793.00 105.3% FY09 Gas $65,400.00 $72,954.32 -$7,554.32 111.6% Water $418,600.00 $441,245.13 -$22,645.13 105.4% Total $1,140,500.00 $1,205,492.45 -$64,992.45 105.7% Electricity $728,200.00 Gas $83,800.00 FY10 Water $494, 200.00 Total $1,306,200.00 Figure 8: City of Cupertino FY 06 - FY10 Utility (Electric, Water, Gas) Budget vs. Expenditure $1,325,000 $1,25,000 $1,225,000 ~ $1,175,000 0 u $1,125,000 $1,075,000 $1,025,000 >975,000 FT'06 -- E~:penciture $1,009,15h ~I --Bud^et $1,003,600 Time (Year) FYO ~ F`'OS FY'09 FY10 $_,087,011 $1,167,460 $1,205,492 $_,076,200 $1,142,500 $1,140,50C $1,306,200 All estimates anticipate Cupertino's utility costs will continue to rise in the future. PG&E has applied to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) fora 6% to 7% rate increase for 2010. San Jose Water has applied to the CPUC for a water rate increase of 18.4% for 2010, 6.5% for 2011, and 8.1% for 2012 for the «~ater it delivers to the Cite of Cupertino and surrounding communities. The graph below shows the various rate schedules offered by PG&E over the past 12 years. Figure 9: Trend of Primary PG&E Commercial Blended Rates Trend of Pr'[mary B4errded Rates 5o.2oe 50.160 50.160 50.140 50.120 x 50.100 in 50.080 50.060 50.040 50.020 50.000 ~~ O~O~ 000~`O~` OaO~`ORO~`O~O~0~0~00 00 00 00 0~' O~ O~ 01 O~O~Og0~000~'g~~ ~.~~~~ O~\~O~~~O \~O \~O~~ryO ~,ti0 \~O ~~" 9~~0~~~0 ~~O~~ry ~~tiO~~ti O~`LO, ~`LO,~~'L g~~0~.~~0^~~o,~RO \~O ~~0.~~`~' g~~O \~O ~~5 '~`1~ g ~\ <~~3 ~`O ~~rL O~~ ~~~'~0~~~ ~~~`1~~ `1~~ h~ °'~0,~`l`~ `L~~ `SAO C~~ g~0'.`l~~`l~~ O~~'~'1~~ `1~~' h~~ °'~~~`b~~ `1~~ °'~pq Q O ~. ~' 3' R' A' h' S h' C~ C~ 0' ~o" O '1 '1 ~ ~' °~' O O O 0~0 ,~O 00 00 00 00` 00 OA OA Oh 00 00 00 Oh 00 00 00 00 00 r10 00 00 00 00 00 O°~ 00 00 ~\`L ~ ~ ~ ~ -,~:1 -Ao" Al D` -AiDTOU` -Eto, - E2G ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Local governments play a fundamental role in addressing climate change through their actions at both the community and government operations levels. While local governments cannot mitigate the problems of climate change by themselves, their- policies and actions can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a range of sources a~zd can prepare their communities for the potential impacts of climate change. Within the context of government operations, local governments have direct control over their emissions-generating activities. They can reduce energy consumption in buildings and facilities, reduce fuel consumption by fleet vehicles and equipment, reduce the amount of government-generated solid waste that is sent to a landfill, and increase the amount of energy that is obtained through alternative energy sources. Energy savings projections from the highlighted facility improvement measures range from 1,062,763 kwh/yr (Option A) to 1,262,919 kwh/yr (Option B), ~~ffering 556,8881bs COQ/yr (Option A) to 661,700 lbs COQ/yr (Option B). This is equivalent to plantin€; approximately 600,000 treed or taking 110,000 cars off the road2. Furthermore, water savings from the proposed project are estimated to range between 44,103 CCF/yr (Option A) to 47,283 CCF/yr (Option B), or nearly 33M gallons. These savings could offer enough water to provide for the ~~nnual demand of over 1125 households.3 To understand the city's greenhouse gas emissions savings, it is important to understand the sources of our energy supplied by PG&E. While PG&E has a lcigher percentage of renewable energy in its portfolio than most utilities, much energy generated still comes from burning fossil fuels. By reducing energy consumption, fewer fossil fuels are consumed which means less harmful emissions. Commercial buildings generate 18% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. (Source: www.ener~~star.Qov). By implementing the proposed energy projects, the city will save significant amounts of electricity and natural gas and significantly reduce its climate footprint. In 2008, with the assistance of ICLEI, the city undertook a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for Cupertino local government operations (published April, 2009) which found almost 2400 metric tons of C02e emitted in 2005 (baseline year). The stud}~ found that 39% percent of the city's emissions result from Buildings and Facilities, with half that amount coming from City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, and the Sports Center combined. 18% of enussions result from Public Lighting. Based on these findings, ICLEI recommended tha~= the city focus on the following relevant tasks in order to significantly reduce emissions from its govc;rnment operations: • Conduct an energy audit of City buildings and improve energy efficiency of HVAC systems, lighting, appliances, water systems and general operations • Investigate energy conservation strategies for ~~ity buildings, such as reducing time of use, installing occupancy sensors, establishing a li€;hts-out-at night policy, installing water conservation equipment, adjusting thermostats to decrease cooling and/or heating loads. USDA Forest Service, Accessed November 14, 2009: http~//www fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/products/qsw cufr684 TreesAndGHG.gdf US Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed November ~16, 2009: httg~//www epa qov/OMS/climate/420f05004.htm s American Water Works Association, Accessed November 1<3, 2009: http~//v~ww drinktap orq/consumerdnn/Default.asgx?tabid=85 • Consider installing renewable energy technologies, such as: solar electric, solar hot water, wind or micro-hydro (only after energy efficiency improvements have been made) • Replace streetlights and traffic signals with more energy efficient LED models In addressing these ICLEI recommendations, the project will have a positive impact on the City's environment and environmental commitments including: • AB 32 -Global Warming Solutions Act of 2036 (AB 32), which requires agencies to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 20.0 • AB 1881 -Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, which requires the metering and installation of water savings devices to achieve specific consumption thresholds • Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement, whicr: urges governments at all levels to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse. gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7% reduction-from 19901evels by 2012. • Bay Area Climate Compact, which sets the foll~~wing targets for signatories: o From a 2008 baseli~ie, increase by 30% the use of renewable sources for electrical energy by the e~id of 2013 and by 50% by the ena' of 2018; o Through consewa.tion a~ul energy ej~cic~~icy, reduce electrical energy usage ifi buildi~igs from a 2008 baseline by are average of 10% by the en.d of 2013 acid by I S% by tlZe erzd of 2018; o Fro~~2 a 2008 baseli~rze, decrease community water- co~tisumpti.on by IS% by the erzd of 2013 and 20% by tlae erzd of 2018 and in.creas~~ hater recyclifig rates by 10% by the e~ul of 2013 alzd 1 S% by t12e end of 2018. Of course, local government, by itself, cannot fully a3dress all of the challenges posed by climate change. Government must act in coordination with, end provide incentives to, the public to fully mitigate the risks posed and to promote programs and individual behaviors that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The design of these programs will follow staff completion of the city's community wide Qreenhouse gas emissions inventory, expected by the end of the year. RECOMMENDED ACTION Accept City Of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit from Siemens and authorize the City Manager to solicit requests for proposals for an energy savings performance contract. CONSEQUENCES OF NO ACTION Following approval by the City Council on June 19, 2009, the City of Cupertino applied for, and received, Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant funding in order to pursue an energy service agreement and other energy saving programs in the amount of $526,000. A decision not to pursue an energy savings performance contract would require the renegotiation of the ternis of the grant. Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~ ~, l ~ ' ~ . (~- ~~ u Cpl _ s"r~'I Rick Kitson avid W. Knapp Public and Environmental Affairs Director ~ity Manager Erin Cooke Environmental Affairs Coordinator `~~ C.~ C~ ~,c F:alph Qualls Public Works Director ~~.1-' David Woo Finance Director Attachments: A -EECBG Program Guidelines, Measurement and F:eporting B -Initial EECBG Project List C -Cupertino Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, as submitted to DOE D -Detailed Energy Audit Summary E - AB32 Summary F -Energy Savings Performance Contract Summary November 30, 2009 Page 19 Attachment A EECBG PROGRAM GUIDELINES, MEASUREP/IENT & REPORTING Source: US Department of Energy (www.eecbg.en~ergy.gov) 1. Program Guidelines DOE has developed the following core principles to guide entities during the program and project planning process: • Prioritize energy efficiency and conservation first as the cheapest, cleanest, and fastest ways to meet energy demand. • To maximize benefits over the longest possible terms, entities should look for ways to link their energy efficiency efforts to long-term priorities (especially community economic development, community stabilization and poverty reduction efi'orts). • Invest funds in programs and projects that create and/or retain jobs and stimulate the economy while meeting long term energy goals. • Target programs and projects that will provide substantial, sustainable and measurable energy savings, job creation and economic stimulus effects. • Give priority to programs and projects that levera;~e federal funds with other public and private resources, including coordinated efforts involving other Federal programs targeting community development funded through the Recovery Act such as the Community Development Block Grant program, HOME, and job training programs. • To the extent possible, develop programs and strategies that will continue beyond the funding period. • Ensure oversight, transparency, and accountabilit~~ for all program activities. • Enact policies that transform markets, increase investments, and support program goals. • Develop comprehensive plans that benchmark current performance and set aggressive goals. 2. Measurement and Reporting DOE seeks to ensure oversight, transparency, and accountability is maintained for all program activities. To achieve these goals, the City must be able to demonstrate and report on the following five metrics for selected projects: • Jobs created and/or retained • Energy saved • Renewable energy generated • Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduced • Cost savings In addition, following approval of its application the I~ity will be required to provide detailed reports on its progress according to the following schedule: • Quarterly -financial and ARRA performance progress reports • Annually -DOE performance progress report • At project completion -financial and property certification reports November 30, 2009 INITIAL EECBG PROJECT LIST Page 20 Attachment B As part of an internal benchmarking exercise, the Er-vironmental Affairs Division inventoried existing environmental programs and services through interviews of program managers and department heads, a listing of which now appears on the city's green website (www.cupertino.org/green). Through this process, staff also identified programmatic gaps t:1at have now shaped the city's scope of future environmental priorities, which has become the focus of the city's internal green team agenda. This list provided below offered staff a launching point to analyze projects eligible for EECBG funding. Energy Conservation Measures -Detailed Energ3~ Audit Energy Conservation Measure is a term widely used '.o represent any energy efficiency project that will reduce energy expenditures. Specific applications identified for Cupertino facilities could include the installation facility improvement measures such as energy management systems, window film or PC power management software. Initial analysis indicates that certain upgrades, including the replacement of pump and fan motors, temperature control systems, andlor lighting systems will allow the City to maintain energy efficient building systems that optin•uze occupant comfort in a time when financial resources are limited. To evaluate and select the appropriate mix of energy conservation measures for Cupertino facilities, staff recommends working in partnership with a qualified firm to conduct a Detailed Energy Audit. Cost Estimate: $74,40() Energy Savings Potential: Not applicable Photovoltaic System Staff, Council Members and Commissioners have expressed interest in installing a photovoltaic system on city facility rooftops, in designated ground areas, ,end on parking lot strictures to further demonstrate Cupertino's con~unitment to environmental initiatives. In addition to helping the city to reduce power consumption from the utility grid during times of peak demand, a highly visible solar project can reduce greenhouse gases associated with facility operations, enabling the city to achieve AB32 targets. Though solar companies have offered simple recommendations on select city facilities, a comprehensive solar audit should be conducted to assess the city's solar assets. Exploring the city's potential to benefit from the "aggregate net metering" approach, recently enabled by AB2466, will be an important component of the solar audit. Audit Cost Estimate: proposed as part of DEA Solar Project Cost Estimate: $ Range of $250,000 to $3,500,000 Energy Savings Potential: $10,000 to $140,000 Streetlight Retrofit Through its 2005 municipal-wide greenhouse gas en:ussions inventory, recently completed with ICLEI USA, the city identified that street lighting accounted for 41% of its total electricity consumed and 39% of its total cost of operations. As such, street lighting has become a primary focus for efficiency upgrades as current equipment, namely the city's high pressure sodium lamps, reaches the end of its useful life. November 30, 2009 Page 21 This level of consumption is not unique to Cupertino; studies estimate that electricity used for municipal public lighting represents between 25% anti 70% of any individual local government's energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, over the past five years extensive pressure from government and the private sector has driven efficiency in public lighting, resulting in the creation of new technologies able to reduce current energy consumption from street lighting by around 50%. To identify and select the most appropriate lighting technology and establish the ideal mix of technology controls, Cupertino should work with an energy expert to inventory existing streetlights and analyze/select optimal streetlight technologies to guide future retrofit activities. .Audit Cost Estimate: proposed as part of DEA Retrofit Project Cost Estimate: $2,800,000 Energy Savings Potential: 880,000 kwh/`Tr (44%) and $100,000 plus operational savings Irrigation Upgrades Though existing water conservation measures allow city to achieve reductions required by the Water District during times of drought, upgrades to irrigatio ~ infrastructure will allow the city to more effectively manage water resources to reduce costs, n_aximize infiltration, provide retention and slow runoff. h-rigation systems can provide remote control capability and improved irrigation management to ultimately save water, while improving the appearance of public areas. The City of Cupertino would like to further evaluate water savings potentials through irrigation improvements for its parks and golf course, as well a~; the sports fields it maintains on behalf of local area school districts, through a detailed irrigation audit. This audit would evaluate systems such as weather smart automated irrigation controls, which use weather factors such as soil infiltration and rainfall intensity which are compared to determine the exact effect weather has on irrigation needs. This type of system will allow the right amount of water used to irrigate the parks and fields, and eliminates the risk of property damage caused by water. y Audit Cost Estimate: proposed as part of DEA Irrigation Project Cost Estimate: $200,000 Energy Savings Potential: $42,500/yr Acterra Green @Home Green@Home trains volunteers to install energy-saving devices and perform home energy audits for Cupertino residents. The program also builds community awareness of climate change by giving yard signs to participants and working with neighborhood groups to publicize the program and the need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Each participating Household receives free energy-saving devices and achieves measurable results. Funds are used to pay the salary of Acterra staff to train and coordinate the volunteers and provide supplies for the residents. Thy 2009 goal is to serve 150 Cupertino households, averaging 5/week after sufficient volunteers are trained. The purpose of Acterra's Green@Home program is to assist residents in reducing their home energy use, thus decreasing the city's C02 emissions. utilizing volunteers to offer home energy audits, Green@Home reinforces the need for citizen involvement in reducing the burning of fossil fuels and builds a sense of community among Cupertino residents. By involving neighborhood associations and November 30, 2009 Page 22 offering a colorful "We're Green@Home" yard sign to participating residents, the program raises awareness of the need for conservation and establishe:s a new norm of civic-minded behavior. The cost to continue this project is projected to be at least $24,000 and is currently included in the Environmental Affairs Division 2009 Budget. Staff proposes expansion through a competitive California Energy Commission grant. Cost Estimate:.$24,000 + Energy Savings PotentiaUhousehold: $400/yr Green Building Ordinance Development of a green building policy to establish l;reen building standards for municipal facilities, residential homes and commercial and institutional buildings was recently added as the top priority of the Planning Commission's 2009 Work Plan. Utilizing grant funds for some, or all, of this project would free up staff and CIP funds for other projects. However, the grant metrics required to demonstrate energy efficiency and greenhouse gas savings cannot be easily tracked for this project. As such, Cupertino will continue participation in the Sarita Clara County Cities Association's Green Building Collaborative, tasked to develop and recommend a green building standard and policy framework for cities, and design an implementation strategy for the proposed policy outcome. Administrative funds allocated through the EECBG program will help offset the staff costs required to fully develop and implement this program and associated education and outreach activities. Cost Estimate: u~iknown Energy Savings Potential: unknown Community GHG Inventory The Environmental Affairs Division has acquired from ICLEI the tools required to conduct a community-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventor,. Staff anticipates initiating this analysis in July, working in collaboration with volunteers from the Krsch Center at De Anza College. It is expected that administrative funds acquired through the EECBG allocation will support project management costs for this project. This inventory will scaffold the: launch of the city's Green Ribbon Task Force, expected to begin in fall 2009, to draft Cupertino's citywide sustainability plan. To support this stakeholder working group, the city will investigate alternative grant funding resources available for climate change and sustainability planning through agencies such as the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These grant opportunities are more appropriately suited for benchmarking qualitative outreach goals versus demonstrating quantitative utility gains from efficiency measures. GHG Inventory Cost Estimate: $15,000 (based o~z municipal inventory costs) Energy Savings Potential: Not applicable Caltrain/VTA Eco-Pass Subsidy This program could supply City employees with up to $100 per month in commuter checks toward the purchase of a monthly train or bus pass. This employee benefit was eliminated in recent years due to a lack of participation. However, following a recent employee commute survey administered by the Environmental Affairs Division in collaboration with ICLEI, the city documented employee interest to once again offer this benefit. While this project could demonstrate energy and greenhouse gas savings, City staff would need sufficient time to develop an alternative commutes program for employees in order to deternune the most appropriate and beneficial use of funds. This is proposed as an activity for the next fiscal year, to also include research for alternative funding mechanisms. Adnnistrative November 30, 2009 Page 23 funding provided through EECBG funds will potenti~illy support this research and program development. Cost Estimate: $180,000 (for I50 employees) Energy Savings Potential: Not yet analyzed November 30, 2009 Page 24 Attachment C CITY OF CUPERTINO ENERGY EFFICIENCY & CONSERVATION STRATEGY As detailed in DOE's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant announcement, all applicants must submit an Energy Efficiency and Conservation ;strategy (EEGs) in the template outlined below: 1. Describe your gover~iment's proposed Energy Efficiency and Conservatio~z Strategy. Provide a concise summary of your measureable goals and objectives, which should be aligned with the defined purposes and eligible activities of the EECBG Program. These goals and objectives should be comprehensive and maximize be~zefits community-wide. Provide a schedule or timetable for major milestones. If your government has a~z existing energy, climate, or other related strategy please describe how these strategies relate to each o Fher. DOE EECBG formula funds will provide the financial means for Cupertino to move beyond its current greenhouse gas emissions benchmarking phase to prioritize projects that provide substantial, sustainable, and measurable energy savings. Cupertino's strategy focuses on the following EECBG project activities: (2) "Technical Consultant Services'' (3) "Residential and Commercial Building Energy Audits" (5) "Energy Efficiency Retrofits" (12) "Traffic Signals and Street Lighting" and (13) "Renewable Energy Technologies on Government Buildings" as described by the EECBG Program funding opportunity announcement. Specifically, Cupertino seeks to (1) initiate a partnership with Siemens to conduct a Detailed Energy Audit (DEA) and develop an Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) and (2) expand its Acterra Green@l~ome residential audit and retrofit program. Cupertino's current environmental goals are built upon (1) The Environmental Resources/Sustainability element (Chapter 5) of Cupertino's 2000 General Pla~i (2) the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement signed in 2008 and (3) Municipal Greenhouse Gas Inventory to be completed by ICLEI by July 2009. EECBG goals are consistent with the vision of these policy frameworks focused on establishing and prioritizing emissions reductions actions at the municipal level. A city-wide ICLEI- based greenhouse gas emissions inventory, followed by a stakeholder-led Environmental Stewardship Council scheduled to launch this fall, will expand the scope of these priorities to residents, business, and academic members of our community. Siemens will assist the city to implement the following scope of work (described in further detail in the Activity Form, page 1): Phase I: Detailed Energy Audit July 2009 -October 2009 Phase II: Implementation November 2009 -November 2010 Phase III: Monitoring & Verification Phase Ongoing Phase IV: Lead-by-Example, Residential and Commercial Sector Outreach Phase Ongoing Implementing these phases will allow the city to achieve the following goals, all consistent with the programs listed above: 1. Retrofitting Activities: Reduce energy and wa~~er consumption and utilities (electricity, gas, water) expenditure by 15%; Elinunate 702,212 lbs C02, Increase comfort levels and improve the working environment, Improve exterior lighting and safety 2. Replicability: Benchmark basic technologies best practices to develop fact sheets and training materials for various sectors November 30, 2009 Page 25 Community Awareness: use success to motivate environmentally-positive behavior change through outreach -Green@Home Achieving these goals will allow the city to not only seduce emissions associated with municipal facilities, save taxpayer dollars, address workforce development, and support the local economy, but also "lead by example" when reaching out to the community through its existing home energy audit and retrofit program, managed by local area nonprofit Actena. The City seeks EECBG funds to expand this Green@Home program through the services listed on Activity Form, page 2. Utilizing social marketing and community outreach, Green@Home net only installs specific energy-saving devices, but it educates residents about the importance of conservation and creates the motivation to encourage residents to take further action on their own. 2. Describe your government's proposed itnplemetttatiott plan for the use of EECBG Program funds to assist you in achievi~tg the goals and objectives outli~ted itt the strategy describe i~t question #l. Your description should include a summary of the ccctivities submitted on your activity worksheets, and how each activity supports one or more of your st~•ategy's goals/objectives. Cupertino's EECBG program will be managed by the city's Environmental Affairs Division, within the Office of the City Manager, in coordination with our Public Works Department. Program staff will work inside the City Manager's Office to bring envir~enmental awareness across departments divides and engage staff, students and residents in activities spearheaded by the city to achieve greenhouse gas reductions and resource conservation goals. The Environmental Affairs Coordinator will be responsible for managing all phases of the city's energy efficiency and conservation program (A) implemented through its performance contract, in addition to Acten~a's residential Green@Home audit and retrofit program (B), both described below: A. Municipal Detailed Energy Audit and Perfornta~tce Contract -Partnership with Siemens Building Technologies, Ltc. Phase I: Preliminary Study Complete Working with Siemens, the city of Cupertino recentl:~ completed a preliminary study of city-owned facilities and city-owned/ maintained grounds. The findings from Cupertino's preliminary study serve as the basis of our EECS and EECBG budget. Phase II: Detailed Energy Audit July 2009 -October 2009 Conducting a Detailed Energy Audit will confirm initial findings of the prelinnary study including capital improvements resulting in energy and resource savings for facilities and systems. Study results of will be shared with DOE and Cupertino's City Co~~ncil. Phase III: Implementation November 2009- November 2010 lii addition to the implementation of facility improvement measures (anticipated for January 2010), this phase will include the design of a project management schedule, development of financing package, identification of rebates/other financial incentives. Implementing these energy and water conservation neasures, as well as investment in and generation of renewable energy, will demonstrate immediate progress on reducing GHGs relative to the ICLEI baseline currently being established. November 30, 2009 Page 26 Phase IV: Monitoring and Verification Ongoing M&V activities will be designed to quantify actual energy and water conservation savings (which may exceed the guaranteed savings) as well as associated GHG emissions reductions. These reductions contribute to meeting the quantitative reduction goals stated in the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement signed by Cupertino's mayor. Phase V: Lead-by-Example, Residential and Commercial Sector Outreach Phase Ongoing A key component of Cupertino's overall EECBG approach will be education and outreach to give residents and business leaders within our community a greater understanding of how important it is to reduce energy and water consumption and how simple measures can help facilitate these goals. This program creates an opportunity for the city to "walk the talk" when promoting commercial and residential auditing/retrofitting programs available w:.thin Cupertino through its very own case study to implement conservation measures that lower utility costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality. B. Horne Energy Audit, Retrofit, and Cornrnunity Awareness Program - Pmtraers)zip with Acterra Green@Home Phase I: Train Volunteers September 2009 -October 2009 EECBG funds will allow Acterra and the city to conduct at least two more two-part volunteer training classes in Cupertino with a goal of training at least 20 more Cupertino residents to perform energy- savings retrofits and develop personalized energy plans. Phase II: Conduct Energy Audits, Perform Retroi_its and Develop Energy Savings Plans November 2009 -September 2010 Trained HouseCall volunteers will visit at least 200 (:upertino homes to conduct a free basic home energy audit using an extensively researched checklist and implement free energy-saving devices to achieve measurable results. Residents also work with the volunteers to create a personalized Energy Savings Plan that lists each of the HouseCall upgradfa and makes specific energy-saving suggestions, which residents agree to implement on their own. Residents also receive acity-provided folder containing materials referencing city/ocal environmental services such as hazardous waste collection, electronics recycling, etc. Phase III: Design and Implement Conununity Avg areness Program December 2009 -ongoing Acterra will work with the City of Cupertino staff, local media, neighborhood associations and other community organizations to publicize the program tlu-oughout the year (likely through PSAs on Cupertino's City Channel, articles in the City Scene, etc.) and offer recognition to volunteers and participating residents. Green@Home will work with city staff, con-imunity organizations and local businesses to offer at least two educational workshops for residents. One will focus on basic do-it- yourself (DIY) home energy efficiency techniques and the other on assessing whether a home is suitable for PV solar installation. Phase IV: Monitoring and Reporting September 2009 -ongoing Acterra will keep statistics and issue quarterly updates on the number of HouseCalls performed and the amount of C02 savings achieved at each residence. Acterra will make follow-up calls to residents to November 30, 2009 Page 27 determine progress on conservation recommendations and written commitments made at each HouseCall. Data from these surveys will be provided to the city. 3. Describe Izow your government is taking into accou~zt the proposed implementatio~z plans and activities for use of fu~zds by adjacent u~zits of local gover~zme~zt that are gra~zt recipie~zts u~zder the Program (respo~zse not mandatory for Indian Tribes). Cupertino's Environmental Affairs Division, responsible for overseeing the city's EECBG program activities in collaboration with the city's internal green team, will continue to coordinate with neighboring local governments and regional organiz~.tions through an effort led by local area nonprofit Joint Venture Silicon Valley. This group was convened in May of 2009 to coordinate EECBG projects among cities in Santa Clara County and activities related to EECBG funding such as outreach, training, project protocols, and monitoring procedures to provide a consistent, and where possible unified, approach to implement best practices throughout in the region. The group is also carefully considering pursuit of otr_er competitive funding opportunities through the review and design of policy-related energy, climate change, and conservation projects relevant to the region. The group expects to continue its dialog at a meeting scheduled for early July, following individual city member's EECBG proposal submissions. In addition, the city will continue to track the progress of Santa Clara County cities to implement EECBG funds through its active participation in Joint Venture Silicon Valley's Climate Protection Task Force and Climate Prosperity Council, Santa Clara County Cities Association's Green Building Collaborative, Sustainable Silicon Valley's Green Team Leaders, Bay Area Green Business Program, West Valley Green Leaf and many other locaUregiorah environmental working groups. These meetings serve as a forum for information-sharing among citie:s environmentallsustainability-focused staff and it is certain that EECBG progress reports will be incorporated into the meeting's existing formal, and informal, conversations. 4. Describe how your government will coordinate arzd share informatio~z with the state i~t which you are located regarding activities car~zed out with grant funds to maximize energy efficiency and conservation benefits (respo~zse ~zot ~na~zdato~y for Indian T~zbes). The City of Cupertino has contacted the California F;nergy Commission (CEC) to discuss its Energy Efficiency Financing Program, which provides financing for schools, hospitals and local governments through low-interest loans for feasibility studies and the installation of energy-saving measures. With CEC approval, the city could use this financing mechanism for its EECBG program, as -Cupertino's proposed EECBG program activities fit squarely within CEC's criteria outlined for this program including (1) projects eligible for funding (streetlights, HVAC, lighting) (2) an estimated total project cost under $3 million and (3) an approximate 10-ye~~r simple payback period. In addition to state partnerships for project financin~_, the city will enable representatives within our local government to share their new expertise in managing and implementing efficiency projects with local businesses, organizations and residents througa workshops and outreach programs targeting these sectors of the community. In an effort to contribute to the body of collective knowledge among local and state agency officiates in this area, the city will also post its quarterly reports on its website (www.cupertino.org/green), share tips through its monthly newsletter, and involve DeAnza College November 30, 2009 Page 28 students through an internship program focused on this initiative. Communicating our program results and best practices within our community and to the state will add to the collective body of knowledge and create real world case studies that benchmark sig:lificant achievements in energy measures and savings. Lastly, in the future, the City of Cupertino may wish to present the results of its program to representatives of other California cities/ local governments in such forums as League of California Cities conferences. Presenting at such a conference would allow the city to not only share its own actions to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas enssions but also exchange information and explore opportunities to strategically combine resources with other leading environmental cities to advance regional conservation goals. 5. Describe how this plan has been designed to e~tsure that it sustains benefits beyo~td the EECBG fu~tding period. As outlined in our EECS, the City of Cupertino will rise stimulus dollars as a vehicle to create new and/or expand existing programs to provide a greater level of public service to our community and ensure that environmental benefits will outlive this economic stimulus. Specific goals of our EECBG program that will contribute to sustained benefits incude (1) energy, water and greenhouse gas reductions, (2) financial savings and reinvestment in conservation technologies and services (3) program replicability and (4) stakeholder collaboration to build community awareness. These goals provide the foundation for municipal AND residential energy audit and retrofit programs and ongoing monitoring will validate and confirm our programs' success. In addition, energy conservation measures will continue throughout their lifetime to provide cost and energy savings and emissions reductions to our city. Cupertino's municipal performance contract project will track the number and type of building retrofits and all associated energy savings. Energy savings will be tracked on afacility-by-facility basis ;end then aggregated to estimate overall programmatic benefits to the city. Between the Monitoring and Verification program, and efforts of city staff, the equipment installed will be maintained and re-commissioned as necessary to ensure continued savings. In addition, one of the proposed facility improvement measures is installation of an Energy Management System which will aid in optim .zing energy performance of the city's main facilities. Furthermore, a performance contract implements facility improvement measures whereby benefits must be sustained far beyond the EECBG funding period in order for the business case to work. As a parameter of Cupertino's Detailed Energy Audit provided by the City Manager, project financing will be proposed for 10 years. The proposal will be based on the presumption that the facility improvement measures will be financed with a capital lease program (or other financing mechanism) based primarily on energy and resource savings realized from the proposed improvements, as well as some additional infusion of grant or capital funds. Upon full repayment of the lease and end of its contract with Siemens, those energy savings will continue to be reinvested energy-related programs and services in accordance with established procedures and requiren-ents. November 30, 2009 Page 29 6. The President has made it clear t)zat every taxpayer dollar spent on our eco~aomic recovery must be subject to unprecedented levels of transparency and accountability. Describe the auditing or morzitoring procedures currently in place or that will be in place (by what date), to ensure funds are used for authorized purposes and every step is taken to prevent i~astmzces of fraud, waste, error, acid abuse. The Environmental Affairs Division will work with Siemens to implement efficiency improvements and monitor energy, water and greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the life of the project. Measurement and verification will be achieved through aSiemens-led process built upon the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), DOE/FEMP Measurement and Verification Guidelines for Federa] Energy Projects, and the California Energy Commission's (CEC) guidelines. Using this framework will ensure that energy, water and greenhouse gas emssions targets are achieved through an open and transparent process consistent with DOE's EECBG reporting requirements. Progress will be communicated to staff through updates at green team meetings and shared with community members on our website (www.cupertino.org/green) and with regional municipal partners at events hosted by local nonprofit Joint Venture Silicon Valley (described above in response to question 3). In addition, the Environmental Affairs Division will be developing a quarterly online newsletter and plans to update the public as to the status of its EECBG projects through this communications vehicle. Lastly, it is the city's intent to launch an community stakeholder-based Environmental Stewardship Council in early fall and will plan to offer EECBG updates at these public meetings. Program funds allocated to the city and financing f'or the city's performance contract will be managed by the city's finance department. The city's finance department is experienced with administering federal grant monies and stands well poised to accf:pt, track and allocate funds in a manner consistent with federal requirements. November 30, 2009 DETAILED ENERGY AUDIT Page 30 Attachment D (This Page Intentionally Blank) City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Letter of Transmittal 25821 Industrial Boulevard Suite 300 Hayward, CA 94545 November 11, 2009 Dave Knapp City Manager City of Cupertino, CA 95014 Mr. Knapp: I am pleased to submit the completed report, "City of Cupertino Clean Energy Project: Detailed Energy Audit" report. This report represents a critical step in our Energy Performance Contracting Services partnership with the City. It summarizes Siemens' research efforts and recommendations resulting from our detailed energy audit of seven city facilities as well as city- wide irrigation, street lighting, and park lighting. Siemens found that the City of Cupertino already/ had implemented in previous years many "low hanging fruit" energy, water, and cost savings facility improvement measures including lighting upgrades, motor replacements, and plumbing fixture replacements. City leadership and staff alike should be recognized for their progressive mindset and pro-active upgrades that have already saved the city's taxpayers significant resources. Siemens also found opportunities to create significant energy and water savings with the implementation of facilities and infrastructure imi~rovements. Based on these calculated savings, we developed three project options (Base, Stretch, and Stretch Plus) for which we would commit to both guaranteed savings as well as a Guaranteed Maximum Price (no change orders) for their construction/implementation. Detailed cash flows as well as a preliminary proposal for financing are also included. In parallel and subsequent to the final completion of this report, and in collaboration with City of Cupertino executive staff, Siemens is finalizing ~~ Report Addendum to the Detailed Energy Audit. The Report Addendum will be similar in f~~rmat and content to the current Executive Summary and Project Overview Section, however it refines the initial recommendations to create the Option A and Option B project options for inclusion in the November 2009 staff report for City Council. Cash flow analysis and i~inancing options for Option A and Option B will also be provided. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or for additional information. Sincerely, Kelly Fergusson (510) 861-2168 Kelly. Fergusson@Siemens.com City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ................................................................................................ LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ V LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................:.......... VI GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................... VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. VIII 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 1 Project Motivation ........................................................................................................ 1 Detailed Energy Study Overview ................................................................................. 1 Recommended Facility Improvement Me<<sures (FIMs) ............................................. 6 Performance Contract Project Options ....................................................................... 6 Project Options -Savings and Costs ......................................................................... 9 Comparability to Other Projects in the United States ...............................................13 Environmental Impact .................................................................................................14 SIEMENS Performance Contract Service~ :.................................................................15 2.0 GENERAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION .......... ...............................................................17 3.0 FACILITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES (f=IMS) .........................................................19 3.1 Interior Lighting Upgrade and Occupancy Sensors ........................................... 19 3.2 Street Lighting Upgrade ....................................................................................... 23 3.3 Park Lighting Upgrade ......................................................................................... 32 3.4 Solar Thermal Hot Water ....................,................................................................. 35 3.5 Photovoltaic System ............................................................................................ 36 3.6 Water Conservation ............................,................................................................. 40 3.7 Energy Management System .............,,................................................................. 46 3.8 Plug Load Controller ..........................,,................................................................. 46 4.0 OTHER OBSERVATIONS .........................,,.................................................................48 4.1 Premium Efficiency Motors ................,,.................................................................48 4.2 Boilers Always On ..............................,..................................................................48 4.3 Utility Rate Analysis ...........................,,.................................................................48 5.0 MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION ....,, .................................................................50 6.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .............................,..................................................................54 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS.........,, .................................................................63 8.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FLOW CHAR'T ...............................................................65 City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 9.0 APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................67 Appendix A: Utility Rates Schedules .........................................................................69 Appendix B: Utility Data Analysis ..............................................................................71 Appendix C: Lighting Cut Sheets ............................................................................... 75 Appendix D: Street Lighting Cut Sheets .................................................................... 77 Appendix E: Park Lighting Cut Sheets ...................................................................... 79 Appendix F: Solar Water Heating Cut She~ets ............................................................ 81 Appendix G: Solar Photovoltaic Cut Shee~ts .............................................................. 83 Appendix H: Water Conservation Cut ShE:ets ........................................................... 85 Appendix I: Plug Load Controller Cut ShE~ets ........................................................... 87 Appendix J: Streetlight Demo Feedback ................................................................... 89 Appendix K: Report Addendum (November 2009) .................................................... 91 iv City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit List of Tables TABLE 1: PERFORMANCE CONTRACT OPTIONS ................................................................................................................7 TABLE 2: PERFORMANCE CONTRACT PROJECT OPTIONS SUMMARY .................................................................................... 12 TABLE 3: NUMBER OF SIEMENS PC PROJECTS GREATER THAN $1M, 1998-2008 ............................................................... 13 TABLE 4: EXISTING ELECTRICAL SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 5: EXISTING NATURAL GAS SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 17 TABLE 6: EXISTING LIGHTING SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 7: OCCUPANCY SENSOR POTENTIAL SAVINGS ........................................................................................................ 21 TABLE 8: PROPOSED LIGHTING SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 9: EXISTING CITY OWNED STREET LIGHTING SUMMARY ~ANNUAL~ ............................................................................ 23 TABLE 10: EXISTING PGgeE OWNED STREET LIGHTING SUMMARY ~/~NNUAL~ ...................................................................... 25 TABLE 11: EXISTING STREET LIGHTING LAMP TYPES VS. RATE SCHEC~ULES ............................................................................ 25 TABLE 12: EXISTING STREET LIGHTING LAMP DESCRIPTION AND COSTS ............................................................................... 26 TABLE 13: PROPOSED INDUCTION STREET LIGHTING EQUIVALENTS p,ND COSTS .................................................................... 27 TABLE 14: PROPOSED LED STREET LIGHTING EQUIVALENTS AND COSTS .............................................................................. 27 TABLE 15: STREET LIGHTING LEVELS PRE AND POST ........................................................................................................ 30 TABLE 16: MATERIAL SAVINGS FOR HID LAMPS ............................................................................................................. 31 TABLE 17: SUMMARY OF EXISTING PARK LIGHTS ............................................................................................................ 33 TABLE 18: MATERIAL SAVINGS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMPS .............................................................................................. 34 TABLE 19: ANNUAL GAS USAGE AT CITY FACILITIES (OCTOBER 200!3 -SEPTEMBER 2009 ..................................................... 35 TABLE 20: SUMMARY OF EXISTING ELECTRICAL USAGE AT CITY FACILITIES* ......................................................................... 36 TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PV SITES ............................................................................................................... 37 TABLE 22: SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CSI~S PBI AND EPBB REBATES .................................................................................. 38 TABLE 23: SUMMARY OF EXISTING WATER CONSUMPTION .............................................................................................. 40 TABLE 24: SUMMARY OF EXISTING WATER CONSUMPTION AT CUPERTINO PARKS ................................................................ 41 TABLE 25: SUMMARY OF EXISTING WATER CONSUMPTION AT ATHLETIC FIELDS ................................................................... 42 TABLE 26: ANNUAL SAVINGS FROM SPECIFYING NEMA PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTORS ....................................................... 48 TABLE 27: GAS USAGE, COST, AND COST PER THERM AT SIX FACILII"IE5 .............................................................................. 73 V City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit List of Figures FIGURE 1: CITY OF CUPERTINO~S ANNUAL UTILITY COST .....................................................................................................2 FIGURE 2: WATER CONSUMPTION ............................................................................................................................... ..3 FIGURE 3: ELECTRICITY COST ...................................................................................................................................... ..4 FIGURE 4: ELECTRICITY COST ...................................................................................................................................... ..5 FIGURE 5: BASE PROJECT ANNUAL SAVINGS .................................................................................................................. ..9 FIGURE 6: BASE PROJECT COST ................................................................................................................................... ..9 FIGURE 7: STRETCH PROJECT ANNUAL SAVINGS ............................................................................................................. lO FIGURE 8: STRETCH PROJECT COST .............................................................................................................................. lO FIGURE 9: STRETCH PLUS PROJECT ANNUALSAVINGS ...................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 10: STRETCH PLUS PROJECT COST ..................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 11: ANNUAL GAS USAGE PER SQUARE FOOT INDEX .............................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 12: ANNUAL ELECTRIC USAGE PER SQUARE FOOT INDEX ....................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 13: INDIRECT LIGHTING IN CITY HALL LOBBY ....................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 14: MOCK FIXTURE PROJECTXX~XX~09 ............................................................................................................. Z3 FIGURE 15: BASIC DIAGRAM DEMO. FIXTURE LOCATIONS ................................................................................................ 29 FIGURE 16: TYPICAL LUMINAIRES AT EXISTING PARKS ...................................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 17: SAMPLE CERAMIC BARREL TILE ................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 18: CALIFORNIA SOLAR INITIATIVE STATEWIDE TRIGGER POIIVTTRACKER .................................................................. 38 FIGURE 19: MEMORIAL PARK WATER FOUNTAIN, TURF AND FIELDS .................................................................................. 40 FIGURE 20: PLUG LOAD CONTROLLER ........................................................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 21: PLUG LOAD CONTROLLER THEORY OF OPERTION ............................................................................................ 46 FIGURE 22: CONTRACT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FLOWCHART ........................................................................................... 65 FIGURE 23: TREND OF PRIMARY PG&E COMMERCIAL BLENDED RAl E5 .............................................................................. 73 FIGURE 24: TREND AND FORECAST OF PG&E SMALL COMMERCIAL t~AS RATES ................................................................... 74 VI City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Glossary ABAG Association of Bay Area Governrnents Btus British thermal unit Cal Water California Water Service Company CCF One Hundred Cubic Feet CO2 Carbon Dioxide CSI California Solar Initiative ECM Energy Conservation Measure EPBB Expected Perfiormance Based Buy Down -Photovoltaic Systems ' smaller than 50 kW are eligible for this CSI rebate. FIM Facility Improvement Measure GHG Green House Gas HID High Intensity Discharge HPS High Pressure Sodium Induction A type of street lighting that transfers power from the utility line voltage to the street lamp using electro-magnetic fields instead of conventional hard-wired electrical connections kW kilowatt kWp~ kilowatt (DC) -Overall PV panel size based on manufacturer's panel size specifications kWh kilowatt-hour LED Light Emitting Diode LS-1 PG&E's Utility-owned street light tariff LS-2 PG&E's Customer-owned street light tariff PBI Performance Based Incentive - ~~II PV systems greater than 50 kW PG8~E Pacific Gas and Electric PV Photovoltaic technology related to the application of silicon based solar cells which converts the sun's current energy to usable electricity SJW San Jose Water Service Compar~y Tax Exempt Municipal Lease [See Appendix L] Therm A unit of heat equal to 100,000 British thermal units vi i City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Executive Summary Siemens is pleased to present the City of Cupertino with the results of our Detailed Energy Audit study in this report. In this critical step of ~~ur Energy Performance Contract Services, we audited seven city facilities as well as irrigation, street lighting, and park lighting. Siemens found that the City of Cupertino already had implemented in previous years many "low hanging fruit" energy, water, and cost savings facility improvement measures including lighting upgrades, motor replacements, and plumbing fixture replacements. City leadership and staff alike should be recognized for theiir progressive mindset and pro-active upgrades that have already saved the city's taxpayers significant resources. Siemens also found a number of additional opp~~rtunities to improve energy and water efficiency including upgrading building (interior ~~nd exterior) lighting and controls, street lighting, park lighting, irrigation improvements, implementation of an Energy Management System (EMS), as well as other Facility Improvement Measures (FIMs). Opportunities for solar photovoltaic electricity generation were also identified. We identified three project options to reduce energy and water consumption and corresponding utility costs: Base, Stretch, and Stretch Plus (:63.5, $6.7, and $7.2 million respectively). The latter two options allow for solar photovoltaic renewable energy generation. These options are presented in summary format on page 7. Each option is a "bundle" of FIMs. "Bundling" is critical to the Energy Services Performance Contracting concept because shorter pay-back FIMs are leveraged to enable inclusion of longer pay-back FIMs. All FIMs contribute to energy/water savings. Each of these options is self-funding, meaning the project pays for itself out of the energy and water savings. Siemens takes on the performa~~ce risk of the project by guaranteeing these savings. Siemens takes on the construction rink of the project by providing a Guaranteed Maximum Price, with no change orders, for the construction/implementation of each option. In contrast to a traditional public works capital improvement project, Siemens takes the risk, not the City, thus ensuring the project is a sound irniestment. These options are turnkey projects, meaning Siemens manages all aspects of construction/ implementation, leaving city staff members free to fulfill their day-to-day responsibilities serving the public. Siemens even completes the papenNOrk for energy rebates and incentives and works with the utility companies to ensure rebates critical to the anticipated project cash flows are indeed received by the city. A preliminary proposal for project financing of $4.5 million at 4.4% using atax-exempt municipal lease is presented on page 55. The next step is to work collaboratively with the city's executive staff to refine the current project: options into Option A and Option B for presentation to City Council at an upcoming council meeting. This material will be included in Appendix K as a Report Addendum. Siemens puts its 110 year reputation for quality and customer satisfaction behind every project. Its financial strength as the world's sixth largest employer with $107 billion (US) in annual revenue (2008) gives assurance to our Energy Services Performance Contracting customers that Siemens will be there to stand behind its services and solutions in the years to come. viii City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Siemens is pleased to present the City of CuE~ertino with the results of our Detailed Clean Energy Study. We identify three options for turnkey facilities improvements to reduce energy and water consumption and corresponding utility costs. Two of the options allow for solar photovoltaic renewable energy generati~~n. Based on the Letter of Intent authorized by the City Council on June 16, 2009, Siemens undertook a detailed evaluation of seven of tPie city's facilities, city-wide irrigation and street lighting, as well as opportunities for renewable energy generation. Project Motivation City of Cupertino is known for its leadership in environmental matters as well as fiscal stewardship. For the past ten years and more, the city has been implementing environmentally and fiscally sound, sustainaf:,le policies and practices. In 2008, with the assistance of ICLEI, the cite undertook a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for local government operations (published April, 2009) which found almost 2400 metric tons of CO2e emitted in 2005 (baseline year). The study found that 39% percent of the city's emissions result from Buildings and Facilities, with half that amount coming from City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, and thE: Sports Center combined. 18% of emissions result from Public Lighting. In 2007, City Council adopted the US Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement committing to significantly reduce the city's greenhouse ga;~ emissions, and the Agreement has been signed and committed to by Mayors Kris Warrg (2007), Dolly Sandoval (2008), and Orrin Mahoney (2009). As a logical outgrowth of these efforts, Cupertino undertook a competitive selection of an energy services company (ESCO). In June 2009 the city selected and entered into a Letter of Intent with Siemens for a Detailed Energy Study to develop a proposal for implementation of an energy, water, and cost saving project that would pay for itself primarily from guaranteed savings, i.e. a Performance Contract (PC) Project. At that time the city also applied for (and has subsequently received) 1=nergy Efficiency Community Block Grant (EECBG) funds from the federal government, part of which may be used to "buy down" a portion of the capital cost of the project. Detailed Energy Study Overview During the course of the past several months, Siemens investigated characteristics of the city's energy and water consumption using a combination of methodologies including data logging of electrical circuits, utility bill analysi:~, site and building plan analysis, equipment and fixture inventory development, calculations and other technical analyses, staff interviews, etc. These activities involved frequent site visits and close coordination with city staff. Costing for proposed facility improvements was developed using competitive RFP processes as well as negotiated solutions. Siemens Industry, Inc. 1 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Siemens found that the city spends $1.2 million annually on electrical, gas and water utility bills. Of that total, 43% is spent on water for domestic and landscaping purposes, 33% is accounted for by electrical consumption by city facilities, and 19% is spent on streetlights. This breakdown is shown in Figure 1. Annual Utility Cost (2008) Electricity, Gas, Waiter $1.2million Electrical -Irrigation 1% Electrical-Traffic Signals 2% ,~~~i ~ ~ i • s . ~~~fll~ l ~~~''~ Gas ~ 't Z ~o Cal Water 9% [See Detail in Fig 2] Figure 1: City of Cupertino's Annual Utility Cost (based on 2008 data) for electrical, gas, and water is $1.2 million. Of that total, 43% is spent on water for domestic and landscaping purposes, 33'% is accounted for by electrical consumption of city facilities, and 19% is spent on streetlights. Facilit~~ improvements that reduce consumption of utilities can save the city significant resources and GHG Emissions. Siemens Industry, Inc. 2 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Regarding water consumption, the city spends $539,000 annually (based on 2008 figures) on San Jose Water and California Water Company bills. About 95% of the consumption is for irrigation purposes, including watering of ~~arks, facility landscaping, and medians. Figure 2 shows a breakdown of water consumption. Water Consumption (2008) $539,000 D San Jose Water(Irrigation) D San Jose Water (Domestic/Unknown) Gi Cal Water(Irrigation) O Cal Water (Domestic/Unknown) D% Figure 2: Water Consumption accounts for $539,000 annually, 95% of which is ror irrigation purposes. Siemens Industry, Inc. ., Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Regarding electricity and natural gas consumption of the city's buildings and facilities, Quinlan Community Center, City Hall, and th~~ Sports Center were found to be the three facilities with the greatest consumption. This finding is consistent with ICLEI's previous findings regarding GHG emissions. A breakdown of electricity and natural gas costs for Buildings and Facilities is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Electricity Cost in 2008 for the city's buildings and facilities totale~~ $350, 000, with 68% of that accounted for by three facilities: Quinlan Community Center, City Hall, and the Sports Center. Siemens Industry, Inc. 4~ Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Regarding streetlights, the majority of cost w~is found to be associated with city-owned streetlights. About $206,000 is spent annually on electricity for city-owned streetlights, based on the most recent data collected from September 2008 through August 2009. Streetlight electricity costs are broken in Figure 4. * mnst ~ Figure 4: Electricity Cost `Streetlight costs for the city totaled $251, 000 from September 2008 through August 2009, with 82% of that accounted for city-owned streetlights. In looking at the city's utility expenditures as ~i whole, the most potential for cost and energy savings were found in the highest expenditurE: areas: irrigation, electricity for buildings and facilities, and electricity for streetlights. Siemens Industry, Inc. 5 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division Streetlight Ellectricity Cost* $251,000 City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Recommended Facility Improvement Measures' (FIMs) During the course of the detailed study, Siemens found that the City of Cupertino already had implemented in previous years many "lo~~r hanging fruit" energy, water, and cost savings facility improvement measures including lighting upgrades, motor replacements, and plumbing fixture replacements. City leadership and staff alike should be recognized for their progressive mindset and pro-active upgrades that have already saved the city's taxpayers significant resources. Siemens also found a number of additional opportunities to improve energy and water efficiency including upgrading building (interior and exterior) lighting and controls, street lighting, park lighting, irrigation improvement:, implementation of an Energy Management System (EMS), as well as other Facility Improvement Measures (FIMs). Opportunities for solar photovoltaic electricity generation were also identified. Performance Contract Project Options Three performance contract project options were developed: Option 1: "Base" Project consists primarily of energy and water conservation measures. Streetlight upgrades use induction technology. State-of-the-art irrigation technology is applied to about half the city's irrigation infra:~tructure. This project option meets the strict financial parameters of the LOI, including a 10-year self-funding financing duration. Option 2: "Stretch" Project consisting of the Base Project plus greater build-out of some of the Base Project FIMs. This option adds an Energy Management System for city facilities, a solar thermal water heating installation, a Greenscreen in the City Hall lobby to show real- time energy savings and production, and a 105kW solar photovoltaic system at City Hall. Option 3: "Stretch Plus" Project consisting) of the Stretch Project, full build-out of the irrigation technology upgrades, and a 24kW solar photovoltaic system at Monta Vista Recreation Center. The benefit of the Base Project is that it is smaller in scope, with a shorter financing duration, and requires less debt. Generally :peaking, the FIMs in the Base Project result in hard dollar savings. Likewise, the Stretch Project is expected to result in hard dollar savings, but it also includes projects with "softer" harder-to-quantify savings that lay a foundation for additional future benefits. For example, the Energy Management System has a longer simple payback period when hard dollars are considered, but with energy savings viewable by staff and the public in city hall's lobby could induce/incentivize other upgrades and even behavior changes. Installing solar photovoltaic panel: on the roof of the council chambers and city hall sends a clear message of environmental leadership to the community. This option ' Note: Another common term for Facility Improv~sment Measure (FIM) is Energy Conservation Measure (ECM). This report uses Facility Improvement Measure because it encompasses not just energy conservation, but water conservation and renewable energy generation -the full spectrum of clean energy upgrades. Siemens Industry, Inc: li Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit substitutes the less-proven LED lighting technology for the induction technology retrofit inclluded in the Base Project, which would allow the city to make a statement about supporting emerging technology. However, the Stretch Project is a larger dollar amount and has a longer financing duration. The Stretch Plus option adds an additional solar photovoltaic installation (Monts Vista), and creates city-wide consistency in the city's irriclation management equipment, making maintenance easier and more staff-efficient. These options are summarized in Table 1: Table 1: Performance Contract Options j Cost Simple F=inance Description of FIMs Pro ect: millions Pa back term Base $3.5 +/- 10 10 • Interior/Exterior Lighting (5 sites) • Street Lighting (Induction technology) • Park Lighting (6 sites) • Irrigation (50% of controllers) • Plug load controllers (200) Stretch $6 - $7 12-15 12-15 • Interior/Exterior Lighting (5 sites) • Street Lighting (LED technology) • Park Lighting (all 9 sites) • Irrigation (75% of controllers) • Plug load controllers (200) • City Hall Solar photovoltaics (105kW) • Energy Management System (EMS) • GreenScreen, City Hall lobby • Solar Thermal -Blackberry Farm Pool Stretch Plus $7 to $8 12-15 12-15 • Interior/Exterior Lighting (5 sites) • Street Lighting (LED technology) • Park Lighting (all 9 sites) • Irrigation (100% of controllers) • Plug load controllers (200) • City Hall Solar photovoltaics (105kW) • Energy Management System (EMS) • GreenScreen, City Hall lobby • Solar Thermal -Blackberry Farm Pool • Monts Vista Solar photovoltaics (24 kW) Note that the concept of bundling is very imp~~rtant in making the financial pro-forma of these project options viable. Savings from shorter pay-back items are leveraged so that longer payback items can be included. "Unbundling" defeats the benefits of performance contracting wherein projects are developed, managed, guaranteed, justified, financed and implemented as a whole, and wherein the savings are measured, verified, and tracked over Siemens Industry, Inc. 7 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit time in a systematic fashion. The energy performance contracting approach enables precious capital funds to be preserved for otPrerhigh-priority but non-energy-related projects. In developing and evaluating these project scenarios, conservative assumptions were made with respect to the Utility Escalation Rate anti Labor Savings. The Utility Escalation Rate is the annual percentage the costs of electricity, gas, and water are expected to increase on a blended basis. The cash flow analysis in the Financial Analysis section of this report uses a Utility Escalation Rate of 5%. This is in contrast to increases PG & E has applied for with the California Public Utilities Commission (CF'UC) of 6% to 7%. San Jose Water has applied to the CPUC for a water rate increasE~ of 18.4% for 2010, 6.5% for 2011, and 8.1 for 2012 for the water it delivers to the City of Cupertino. Taken as a whole, the Facility Improvement PJleasures (FIMs) proposed for the project options take into account the profile of the city's current (and to some extent future) utility expenditures. Together, they provide a solution that reduces utility expenditures in a cost effective manner, and hedges against (i.e. protects the city from) rises in utility rates. Although a number of the FIMs will clearly le~~d to staff time savings, none of these savings have been quantified or used in the financial analysis. This is because for the City of Cupertino, such savings do not translate into reductions of staff positions. Instead, staff is re-deployed to perform other critical services. It should be recognized that while savings are not quantified, staff efficiencies will be realized. The cost of each FIM includes (but is not limited to): • Subcontractor Cost • Design • Engineering • Project Management • Permitting (if required) • Warranty • Guarantee (if applicable) • General Construction Costs (Insurance, bonding, field office, etc.) • Profit Siemens Industry, Inc. 8 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Project Options -Savings and Costs Figure 5: Base Base Project Cost $3•.4 million 0 Plug load 100% Controllers 90% Gi Engineering g0% Development 70% ~ Park Lighting (6 Parks) 60% Gi Interior/Exterior 50% Lighting 40% O Irrigation (50% o f 30% City) 20% ~ Streetlights 10% (Induction) 0% Base Project Annual Savings $294,000* Interior/Exte ri or Lighting, $34,955 ,12% Park Lighting (6 Parks), $7,559 , 3% Plug Load Controllers, $6,386, 2Y 'Does not include parts/maintenance savings P-nnuafi aav~ Figure 6: Base Project Cost Siemens Industry, Inc. Building Technologies Division 9 Proprietary and Confidential City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Figure 7: Stretch Stretch Project Annual Savings $434,001) o Streetlighu (LED) i Irrigation (75%of Gty) G Gty Hall Solar PV (Production) ^ Interior/Exterior Lighting G Park Lighting {9 Parks) i2 EMS 4 S of ar Therm al (B I a ckberry) *Does not include parts/maintf:nance savings on streetlights Annual Stretl~h Project Cost $6.7 million k` Plug Load Controllers 100% & Engineering 90% Development 80% IG Solar Thermal (Blackberry) 70% ft EMS 60% 1G Park Lighting (9 50% Parks) to Interior/Exterior 40% Lighting 30% Iti City Hall Solar PV (Production) 20% ~ Irrigation (75% of 10% City) ~ Streetlights (LED) 0% Figure 8: Stretch Project Cost Siemens Industry, Inc. 10 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Stretch Plus Project Annual Savings ~ Streetlights (LED) $447,000 ~ Irrigation (100% of City) 4 City Hall Solar PV (Production) 101nterior/Exterior Lighting ~ Park Lighting (9 Parks) G EMS ke Monte vista Solar PV (Production) 6~t Solar Thermal (Blackberry) tw Plug Load Controllers *Does not include parts/maintenance Figure 9: Stretch Plus Project Annual Savings Stretch Plus Project Cost $•7.2 million i"r Plug Load 100% Controllers L' Engineering, PM, 90% M&V fl5olarThermal 80% (B-ackberry) 70% G2 Monte Vista Solar PV (Production) 60% 1~ EMS 50% D Park Lighting (9 Parks) 40% O Interior/Exterior Lighting 30% City Hall Solar PV (Production) 20% ~ Irrigation (100% of City) lOYo O Streetlights (LED) 0% Figure 10: Stretch Plus Project Cost Siemens Industry, Inc. 11 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Project Summary The Base project has the following characteristics: 1) Energy, water & operational savings proje~;ted over the life of the project are $6.4 million. 2) Total technology solution is projected to cost $3.4 million. 3) The project provides a simple payback of !3.9 years. 4) Over the project life cycle projected rebates will be approximately $123,253. The financial benefits are illustrated below: Table 2: Performance Contract Project Options Summary City of Cupertino Project Options Base Stretch Stretch Plus Total Costs $3,463,324 $6,771,052" $7,294,356. ARRA Funding $438,000 $438,000 $438,000 Amount Financed $3,025,324. $6,333,052 $6,856,356 Interest Rate 4.0 4.0 4.0 Payments per Year 12 12 12 Financing Duration (Years) 10 15 15 Cashflow Duration (Years) 15 15 15 Annual Lease Payment ($367,559) ($562,138) ($608,588) Total Year 1 Rebates $123,253.. $343,309 $385,456 Total Savings $294,369 $434,194 $447,188 Overall Simple Payback 9.9 13.8 143 SIEMENS will utilize its significant resources and expertise to implement facility improvements, providing the following benefits to the City of Cupertino: ^ Significantly reduce energy and water consumption, as well as associated greenhouse gas emissions. ^ Increase comfort levels and environmental control, benefiting building occupants ^ Increase lighting quality for improved working and civic environments ^ Improve exterior lighting in the parkirn3 lots, common areas and city street lighting ^ Complete all filings for incentives and rebates to ensure project tracks cash flow projection ^ Provide a financing solution so that the entire energy services program is substantially self-funding ^ Guarantee the utility savings so there is no risk to the city in accomplishing the facility improvement measures ^ Shoulder all the risk for successful project implementation by providing a Guaranteed Maximum Price for construction, with no change orders ^ Manage the entire project to ensure minimum disruption to existing staff workload. Siemens Industry, Inc. 1;? Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Comparability to Other Projects in the United States This project is comparable to projects undert~~ken by cities across the United States and within California in partnership with Siemens. The following chart provides a breakdown of similar energy-saving projects during the period 1998 through 2008: Table 3: Number of Siemens PC Projects Gre<<ter Than $1 M, 1998-2008 Geographic Unit All ProjectTypesa Cities/Towns/Munis Cities/Towns/Munis Projects > $ 1 million > $ 1 million > $ 3 million In the US 576 88 24 In the multi-state region 188 20 5 In California 81 13 4 a Incudes Federal, State, Counties, Cities/Towns/Munis, Healthcare, Higher Education, K-12 Education, & Other. One of the larger projects in California was developed for the County of Sacramento. This project package included energy conservation as well as solar photovoltaic renewable energy generation. Energy conservation improvements were made in three county facilities, and included upgrades to lighting and mechanical systems, as well as implementation of state-of-the-art automated building controls. The solar photovoltaic system is a 100kW installation. This $3.7 million project was funded by county capital contributions and annual lease payments with a 15 year financing duration. The County opted for no performance guarantee in order to deploy all available fun~~s toward capital improvements. Energy and operational savings realized by the county are expected to be in excess of $350,000 per year, and to result in a reduction of 860 tons of carbon emissions per year. Siemens Industry, Inc. 13 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Environmental Impact In addition to reducing energy consumption, these proposed turnkey improvements give the City of Cupertino the opportunity to improve environmental performance of its buildings, both in terms of increasing building occupant con-fort levels while reducing harmful environmental impacts. This project will have a positive impact on the City's environment and environmental commitments. While PG&E has a higher percentage of renewable energy in its portfolio than most utilities, much energy generated still comes from burning fossil fuels. By reducing your energy consumption, fewer fossil fuels ;ire consumed which means less harmful emissions. Commercial buildings generate '18% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. (Source: www.energystar.gov). By implementing the proposed energy projects, the city will save significant amounts of electricity and natural gas and significantly reduce its climate footprint. Calculations of C02 reductions will be provided upon development of final ~~roject options in Report Addendum. Water conservation savings not only conserve a valuable resource; but reduce the pumping lo~~d on California's electrical grid. Siemens Industry, Inc. 1,4 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit SIEMENS Performance Contract Services SIEMENS strives to build long-term busine:~s relationships with our customers. Under the performance-contract business model, SIEMENS defines a true strategic alliance by sharing in the investment and risks with our cust~~mers. From this arrangement our customers achieve the maximum return on their facilit~~ project investments with minimized risk. This performance-based strategy lends itself t~~ adaptability, flexibility, and a full range of possibilities under a strategic alliance arrangement. SIEMENS' staff members are LEEDT"" AccrE:dited Professionals and can provide advice for new or existing buildings. For over 100 years, SIEMENS has provided exceptional products and services to its customers. SIEMENS also has a history of proven success in performance based contracting, delivering o~/er $1.7 billion in performance contracts in over 600 projects nationwide. SIEMENS has implemented over 70 successful projects in the State of California. SIEMENS stands alone among its peers in performance contracting with a record of 99.5% in energy savings guarantees, which are audited annually by KPMG. SIEMENS' commitment to excellence has led to a Stane'ard and Poor's rating of AA- and a Moody's rating of AA3, the highest financial ratings in the industry. This has given SIEMENS the lowest bonding costs industry wide. Phase I: Strategic Planning -Preliminary Study [COMPLETE] Strategic Planning is SIEMENS' first phase of a four phase approach to implementing a performance-based energy project. As the' chosen energy service provider, SIEMENS invests its resources to deliver services through Phase I -Strategic Planning. City of Cupertino is not responsible for any costs incurred by SIEMENS for services performed through Phase I -Strategic Planning. This evaluation included (1) assessing the city facilities environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with project development in the city facilities; (2) the assessment of a number of alternatives to enable optimized energy performance; (3) understanding the specific payback criteria. Phase II: Development -Detailed Study [C;OMPLETE] The next step, a Detailed Study, verifies savings, assesses project feasibility, and develops a comprehensive energy services program. In Phase II -Development, SIEMENS shares the risk of the development costs with the City of Cupertino. SIEMENS focuses only on solutions chosen by the customer that were cliscovered in the Preliminary Study during Phase I -Strategic Planning. The detailed sl:udy includes measurements of existing conditions, a thorough analysis of efficiency rneasures, engineered specifications, performance measurement and verification c~~iteria, a project cash flow analysis, and a comprehensive financing package. At this stage applications for utility and other rebates and incentive programs would be completed on behalf of the city. This phase culminates in the detailed study report and presentation to city staff. Phase III -Implementation SIEMENS provides affirm-fixed price for work: delivered in Phase III -Implementation. This investment by the city is guaranteed by SIEMENS to meet the ratio of cost to savings, Siemens Industry, Inc. 1;i Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit and/or future performance criteria or requirernents documented in Phase II -Development. Under a SIEMENS guarantee, the City of Cupertino has no risk in the future financial or technical performance of the project developed by SIEMENS. Phase IV -Performance Assurance On all performance solutions projects, Phase IV, Performance Assurance, is performed and a formal turnover process is executed. Turnover should occur within two weeks of sign-off by the customer on the letter of substantial completion. The letter of substantial completion should be executed by the customer at the time construction is significantly finished. Upon this sign-off, the customer will be assigned ~i Performance Assurance Engineer (PAE}. The PAE will perform measurement and verification to guarantee savings, if guaranteed savings are desired by the customer. SIEMENS would like to thank the City of Cuf~ertino for allowing us the opportunity to conduct this detailed study. Special thanks to the city staff for their input and support during the study. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. On behalf of all of us at SIEMENS, we look forward to a continued partnership. S I E 1111 E N 5 Global Network of Innovation Siemens Industry, Inc. 1Ei Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 2.0 GENERAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION Baseline The figures below describe usage for city buildings over the course of 12 months (September 2008 through August 2009). The city building that has the greatest electrical dollars per square ($/ftZ), is City Hall (Table 4). Although Quinlan Community Center has a large annual spend, the overall electrical energy usage index is much lower than City Hall or the Corp. Yard. This can be attributed to Quinlan's large square footage. The Corp. Yard has a high electrical spend and gas spend per square foot. Conversely, this is also attributed to the small building and office space that makes up the city facility. Table 4: Existing Electrical Summary All Utility Area Existing Electrical Existing Rate kWh/ft2 $/ft2 Site Name (sf) kW Density kWh $/kWh City Hall 23,040 114 4.95 539,520 0.1405 23:4 3.29 Corp Yard 7,500 0 171,~l70 0.1604 22.9 3.68 Quinlan 28,695 130 4.53 483,600_ 0.1473 16.9 2.48' Sports Center 20,808 130 6.25 404,x{20 0.1530 19.4 2.97 Senior Center 15,900 68 4.28 167,520 0.1664 ' 10.5 1.75 Totals 95,943 111a 5.00 1,766,930 0.1535 18.4 2.83 aCorp. Yard excluded from Electrical Density average bCorp. Yard excluded from kW average °Average utility rate at $0.15352/kWh Table 5: Existing Natural Gas Summary Natural Utility Area Existing Gas G~~s Rate Therms/ft~ $/ft~ Site Name (sf) Therms Density Cost $ $/Therm (Therms/sf) City Hall 23,040 6,060 0.26 7,870 1.32' 0.342 0.34 Corp Yard 7,500 11,811 1.57 15,(156 1.44 2.007 2.01 Quinlan 28,695. 20,530. 0.72 26,]29. 1.29 0.911 0.91 Sports Center 20,808 7,078 0.34 9,156 1.39 0.441 0.44 Senior Center 15,900 5,110 0.32 6,460 1.41 0.406 0.41 Totals 95,943 50,589 0.53 64,E~81 1.37 0.674 0.92 Siemens Industry, Inc. 1 ~~ Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Btu per Square Foot Index (12 Months throcgh September 2009) i Motta Vista Recreational - 13.5 Center City Hall -', 2aa All Commercial ~~ 2s.o N d R LL Senior Center - 2~•8 Quinlan Community Center Sports Center ~ sus { , y4 ~ ?~+F.F~w%T. y. Health Care (Typ.} Corp. Yard o.o zt~.o 50.0 7s.o too.o i3tu per Square Foot Figure 11: Annual Gas Usage per Square Foot Index kWh per Square Foot Index (72 Months Through September 2009) Monta Vista Recreational Center Senior Center Corp. Yard All Commercial d Quinlan Community Center ct ~ Health Care (Typ.} Sports Center Community Hall City Hall 0.0 '10.0 20.0 30.0 kWh per Square Foot Figure 12: Annual Electric Usage per Square Foot Index Siemens Industry, Inc. 18 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertinq Detailed Energy Audit 3.0 FACILITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES (FIMs) 3.1 Interior Lighting Upgrade and Occup~rncy Sensors Overview Lighting is one of the top energy consuming :systems in a commercial building. Lighting typically represents almost 30% of most commercial buildings electrical consumption per the 2006 PG&E Commercial End Use Survey. P,s simple as it may seem, there is more to an energy efficient lighting system than simply installing 32W T8 lamps. Most commercial buildings today illuminate their building with fluorescent tube lamps. Older technology lamps were referred to as T12 and varied in wattage from 48W to 34W (for the 4- foot lamps). These lamps were approximately 1 "in diameter and were typically paired with magnetic ballasts. The luminaire consists of both the lamp(s) and ballast in combination with a fixture housing. Power draw from the:;e fixtures varied based on the combination of lamps and ballasts. During the late 1990s ar~d early 2000s, many of these lamps were retrofitted for the more efficient 32W T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. Today, newer generation T8 lamps come in ~~ wide variety of wattages, color temperature and lumen output. The ballasts also come in a variety of ballasts factors for a near endless combination of lamps and ballasts. Pairing the right T8 lamp with the proper ballast can yield energy savings while still providing similar light output to an existing first generation T8 based fixtures. City Hall Example For example, the indirect lighting in City Hall lobby and hallways are 1-lamp T12 fixtures estimated as 43W/fixtures per PG8~E's Table of Standard Fixture Wattages. A single lamp 32W T8 equivalent can vary from as high as 41W/fixture to as low as 25W/fixture depending on Color Rendering Index (CRI), Ballast TypE: (Instant Start vs. Rapid Start vs.Premium) and Ballast Wiring (Tandem vs. individual ballast: per fixture). It's not intuitive to think a 1-lamp, 32W fixture could actually only use only 25W. Siemens Industry, Inc. 1!3 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division Figure 13: Indirect Lighting in City Hall Lobby City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Baseline As part of the detailed energy audit, Siemen;> has conducted room by room lighting audits of the following five facilities: City Hall, Corp Yard, Quinlan Community Center, Senior Center and the Sports Center. The purpose of the lighting audit is to establish a baseline of what currently exists and what opportunities may tie available to the City. With the assistance of Roger Winslow and Cindy Martinez, Siemen:~ was able complete this task and establish the baseline for lighting at these sites. Though 11Aonta Vista Recreation Center was audited as well, Siemens has removed this site from the list of possible projects as it had recently (2008) gone through a lighting upgrade. The table below summarizes the existing energy consumption of the building lighting systems. Table 6: Existing Lighting Summary Lightin No. of Area Existing Densit!/ Existing Lighting Lighting Total kWh % of Site Name Fixtures (sf7 kW (Watts/sf) kWh kWh/ft2 $/ft2 of Site Total Bill City Hall 541 23,040. 35.27 .1.57 90,835 3.94 0.554 532,800 17.1% Corp Yard 189 7,500 25.77 3.44a 64,789 8.64 1.386 175,314 37.0% Quinlan 500 28,695 ' 41.00 1.43 156,040. 5.44 0.801 478,960- 32.6% Sports Center 301 20,808 113.39 5.45b 248,192 11.93 1.825 413,600 60.0% Senior Center 232 15,900 13.74 0.86 34,761 2.19 0.364 163,920 21.2% Totals 1,763 95,943 230.16 2.40 594,616 6.20 0.951` 1,764,594 33.7% aHigh lighting densities in the Corp Yard are due to the high wattage metal halide lamps and the small area bHigh lighting densities in the Sports Center are due to the wattage contributed by the tennis courts `Average utility rate at $0.15352/kWh General Observations During the course of the audit, Siemens took notes, pictures, measurements and installed data loggers on lighting systems. The City oi` Cupertino has taken great strides in replacing aging lights with T8 lamps and ballasts. However, there are still a number of older T12 lamps and magnetic ballasts particularly in City Hall and Quinlan Community Center. For City Hall, many T12 lamp fixtures are found in the hallways, reception area and lobby. It has been explained to Siemens that the cove lighting has been an issue for the City with regards to maintenance. It has been Siemens' experience to find older T12 lamps in areas generally not seen by the public (i.e. mechanical spaces) or areas where it is difficult to get to, and City Hall is no exception. Siemens Industry, Inc. 20 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Proposed Improvement Based on lighting audit results, Siemens find:: that significant energy savings would be achieved by upgrading the less-modern portion of the City's interior lighting stock. Once the lighting audit was completed Siemens was able to determine what opportunities were in fact available to the city. Of the 1,76:1 light fixtures that were counted, Siemens only recommends modifying 1,413 of them. Thesc: modifications include a mixture of retrofitting lamps and ballasts and installing new lighting fixtures completely with new lamp and ballast. A detailed description of each existing fixture type as well as the proposed modification is included as an appendix to this report. Occupancy Sensors Included in this lighting project is the use of occupancy sensors. .. Occupancy sensors turn off lights during the absence of people ,~,~~ '~~`~ within certain spaces. These sensors are commonly recommended for conference rooms, private offices, restrooms and other areas where occupancy can be sporadic. s.. Occupancy sensors have evolved over the yE~ars and are not limited only to the basic motion sensors. Today, sensor technology can be based on motion, heat anti sound. The effectiveness of these sensors is highly influenced with the location at which they are mounted. Sensors may be mounted on the ceiling, wall or incorporated with the light switch. As with the sensors, lamp and ballast technology has also improved. Older "Instant Start" ballasts send high voltage to a "cold° lamp to excite the phosphor. Newer "Programmed Rapid Start" ballasts send high voltage after preheating the lamp. Instant Start (IS) t~allasts are analogous to starting your car cold and accelerating hard whereas Programmed Rapid Start (PRS) ballasts are analogous to warming your car up first and then accelerating. What this means in practical terms, as you turn on a fluorescent lamp with an IS ballast, more phosphor burns off as compared to a PRS ballast. When using older ballasts, lamps are warranted based on the ANSI cycle of 3 Hours on, 20 minutes off. When using a PRS ballast, lamps are warranted based on a 15 minute/start minimum. The key when using occupancy sensors is to ensure the proper b;~llast is used for the controlled lamps. Below is a table of potential savings as published in the Advanced Lighting Guidelines published by the New Buildings Institute, Inc. This table is based on the results of researchers (Maniccia et al. 2000) study across 24 states between February and September 1997. Table 7: Occupancy Sensor Potential Saving:. Space Type Savings Potential Savings; Potential Savings Potential All Hours Normal Hours After Hours Restroom 60% Conference Room 50% Private Office 38% Break Room 29% Classroom 58% :LS% 42% ?7% 23% 5% 13% :L4% 15% .~3% 35% Siemens Industry, Inc. Building Technologies Division 21 Proprietary and Confidential City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Table 8: Proposed Lighting Summary Lighting No. of Area Proposed Density Proposed Savings % Site Name Fixtures (ftZ) kW (Watt/ftZ) kWh -kWh Reduction City Hall 525 23,040 16.92 0.73 47,213 43,622 48.0% Corp Yard 187 7,500 15.06 2.08 40,017 24,772 38.2% Quinlan 358 28,695' 22.77 0.79 93,592 62,448. 40.0% Sports Center 201 20,808 48.58 2.33 134,392 113,800 45.9% Senior Center 142 15,900 9.44 0.59 25,131 9,630 27.7% Totals 1,413 95,943 112.76 1.18 340,345 254,272 42.8% Rebates As part of the Non Residential Retrofit -Demand Reduction (NRR-DR) program of PG&E, this project would qualify for a rebate at the r~~te of $0.05/kWh. In order to know exactly how much of a rebate the City of Cupertino would get, Siemens would have to submit an application to PG8~E: and have aPre-inspection conducted by PG&E. Upon review of the application and completion of the Pre-inspection report, PG&E would notify Siemens with the approved amount. Siemens Industry, Inc. 22 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 3.2 Street Lighting Upgrade The City of Cupertino has 3,265 street lights throughout the city. Of these, 315 of them are owned and maintained by PG&E, while 2,950 of them are owned and maintained by the City of Cupertino. Two basic rate structures that apply to the street lights for the City are LS1 and LS2, each with several variants. Unlike the standard rate schedules found for buildings, these rate schedules are not based on actual consumption, but rather on a flat rate. Monthly ~ ^ ' energy charges per lamp are calculated using the ~' ` ~f sue,, ;- ~, r` ~~,.. ~ __ following formula: (Lamp Wattage + ballast wattage) `~`~ ~ °"~~~ ~ ~~` ~ x 4,100 hours / 12 months / 1000 x streetlight ~ ~ energy rate per kilowatt hour (kWh). The current ' energy rate for streetlamps is $0.12245/kWh per the current LS2 rate schedule effective October 1, 2009. ,~' The City pays a flat rate per lamp, per month used on lamp wattage. The City can save money Cy installing either an induction lamp or LED equivalent. These technologies have a lower flat rate than the standard High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps such '_ ~~t'. -_,_ '" as High Pressure Sodium (HPS), Low Pressure ~. Sodium (LPS), Metal Halide (MH) or Mercury Vapor (MV). Another benefit of induction and LED lights ~ ~ ~- ~ _~ _. are the life expectancy of the lamps. Both these -~ .l; y. lamps are rated at 100,000 hours2, well above the ~y,Ya- ~`Yr.~,.. 24,000+ hours of the current lamps. At 4,100 ` ;~ ~' . ~y ' annual run hours, an induction or LED is estimated ~ ' - - to last 24 years. Figure 14: Mock Fixture Project xx/xx/09 Baseline Due to the magnitude of size, a detailed street lighting audit was not done. Instead, Siemens' analysis is based on an inventory spreadsheet provided by PG&E. This spreadsheet inventories all 3,265 lamps, and includes details such as lamp wattage, pole type, pole height, badge number, etc. Table 9: Existing City Owned Street Lighting Summary (Annual) Service Agreement Rate Schedule Electric kWh Electric $ 4993063026 LS2-A _ 1,554,006 _ ~ 4 4993063046 LS2-A 1,119 $140 4993093166 LS2-A 512 $63 4993063176 LS2-A 122,095 $14,887 4993063379 LS2-A 353 $44 4993063396 LS2-A 353 $44 4993063439 LS2-A 706 $88 4993063819 LS2-A 353 $44 Totals 1,679,497 $206,464 z Induction lamps have been tested to demonstrate 100,000 hour life cycles. LED fixture manufacturers claim 100,000 hours though LED component manufacturers only claim 50,000 hours. Siemens Industry, Inc. 2~~ Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Siemens Industry, Inc. 2~~ Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Table 10: Existing PGBE Owned Street Lighting Summary (Annual) Service Rate Electri: Electric Agreement Schedule kWli $ 4993063002 L51-A 37,70! _ 0,693 4993063172 LSl-A 35:3 $120 4993063004 L51-B 1,65!i $316 4993063008 L51-C 27,59~t $4,946 4993063173 LS1-C 985 $176 4993063014 LS1-E 32,273 $9,406 4993063174 LS1-E 985 $209 4993063886 LS1-E 3,37:2 $1,047 4993063016 L51-F 1,837 $495 4993063022 LS1-F 46,367 $17,587 Totals 153,131 $44,995 Though not considered in the analysis, it ma~~r be instructive to understand where the other street lights fall with respect to the LS-1 rate schedule. The table below shows the breakdown of street lamp type versus rate schedule. As can be seen in the table below, 90% of the street lights are under the LS2-A rate structure and are city owned. Table 11: Existing Street Lighting Lamp Types vs. Rate Schedules Lamp Type LS1-A LS1-B LS1-C LSi-E LS1-F LS2-A Totals 54H-100 3i 31 54H-150 , S4H-200 14 29 S4H-250 S4H-310 54H-400 54H-70 S-H-100 1 S-H-150 S-H-70 65 S-L-90 S-M-100 S-M-175 S-M-400 S-V-175 1 2 S-V-250 Totals 81 2 29 56 56 18 1 430 492 61 61 4 4 5 5 165 155 6 2 192 201 77 77 45 131 1,785 2,026 1 1 _ 6 6 15 15 117 117 4 7 1 1 69 134 2,950 3,265 Siemens Industry, Inc. c:5 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Table 12: Existing Street Lighting Lamp Description and Costs Lamp Types Description kWh/ Month $/Lamp/ Month # Lamps $/ Month 54H-100 100W High Pressure Sodium / 240 V 47 $5.755 31 $178.41 S4H-150 150W High Pressure Sodium / 240V 69 $8.449 56 $473.14 S4H-200 200W High Pressure Sodium / 240V 81 $9.918 430 $4,264.74 54H-250 250W High Pressure Sodium / 240V 100 $12.245 61 $746.95 54H-310 310W High Pressure Sodium / 240V 114 $14.572 4 $58.29- 54H-400 400W High Pressure Sodium / 240V 154 $18.857 5 $94.29 54H-70 70W High Pressure Sodium / 240V 24 $2.939 165 $484.94 5-H-100 100W High Pressure Sodium / 120V 41 $5.020 192 $963.84 S-H-150 150W High Pressure Sodium / 120V 60 $7.347 77 $565.72 5-H-70 70W High Pressure Sodium / 120V 29 $3.551 1,785 $6,338.54 S-L-90 90W low Pressure Sodium / 120V 45 $5.510 1 $5.51 S-M-100 100W Metal Halide/ 120V 41 5.020 6 $30.12 S-M-175 150W Metal Halide) 120V 63 7.714 15 $115.71 5-M-400 400W Metal Halide / 120V 162 $19.837 117 $2,320.93 S-V-175 175W Mercury Vapor/ 120V 68 $8.327 4 $33.31 S-V-250 250W Mercury Vapor / 120V 97 $11.878 1 $11.88 2,950 $16,686.32 (Note: A Facilities Charge of $0.187 per lamp is not included ire the table above.) Observations During the installation of mock fixtures, one o~f the eight fixtures was found to be different than PG&E's inventory. Instead of finding a 100W lamp, a 150W lamp was found. The results of this analysis are only as reliable as the source of its information. With nearly 3,000 street lights, it is expected that there may be more discrepancies whether by lamp type, lamp wattage, lamp voltage or even counts. Should the City choose to implement this project, they will receive a current and accurate inventory of their street lights. Street Lighting Standards [Content to be provided by the City of Cupertino.] Proposed Improvement Based on an assessment of the City's street light inventory and billing data, Siemens finds that significant energy and materials savings ~~vould be achieved by a comprehensive upgrade to the street light infrastructure. There are two technologies PG&E recognize: as energy saving alternatives for street lighting: Induction and LED. Induction lamps are a member of the fluorescent light family while LEDs is the abbreviation of Light Emitting Diodes. Both technologies are white lights as opposed to the amber color cast by the existing High Pressure Sodium (HPS) fixtures. In both cases, PG&E has lower flat rates for k>oth these technologies. Siemens recommends installing induction lamps over LEDs, but have included both technologies in this detailed study. Induction lamps are a proven technology as opposed to an emerging technology. Induction street lamps have a lo~rver cost and a faster payback when compared to LED. When asked to PG&E if they endors~sd LEDs over induction, the reply was, "PG8~E endorses emerging technology." Siemens Industry, Inc. 2f:i Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Table 13: Proposed Induction Street Lighting Equivalents and Costs Lamp Type Current Rate Proposed Induction kWh/ Month Induction Rate Monthly Savings/Lamp 54H-100 $5.755 70* 25 $3.054 $2.701 S4H-150 $8.449 100* 32 $4.602 $3.847 S4H-200 $9.918 ' 100** 44 $5.3551 $4.563 S4H-250 $12.245 150 53 $6.245 $6.000 S4H-310 $14.572 N/A S4H-400 $18.857 N/A S4H-70 $2.939 40 14 $1.714 $1.225 5-H-100 $5.020 70* 25 $3.054 $1.966 S-H-150 $7.347 100* 32 $4.602 $2.745 S-H-70 $3.551 40 14 $1.714 $1.837 S-L-90 $5.510 ' 70* 32 $3.054 $2.456 S-M-100 $5.020 70* 32 $3.054 $1.966 S-M-175 7.714 100* 32 $4.602 $3.112 S-M-400 $19.837 N/A S-V-175 $8.327 100* 32 $4.602 $3.725 S-V-250 $11.878 150 53 $6.245 $5.633 * These fixtures not explicitly listed in the rate schedule. Raters calculated per LS2 instructions **This fixture based on 100W lamp driven by 150W Ballast Note: There are no suitable Induction replacements for the 31 ~~W and 400W HID fixtures. Table 14: Proposed LED Street Lighting Equivalents and Costs Proposed kWh/ Lamp Type Current Rate LED Month S4H-100 $5.755 75 26.5 S4H-150 $8.449 100 35 54H-200 $9.918 100 35 54H-250 $12.245 170 58.9 54H-310 54H-400 S4H-70 S-H-100 5-H-150 S-H-70 S-L-90 S-M-100 S-M-175 S-M-400 S-V-175 S-V-250 LED Rate ~~ $3.245. $4.286 $4.286 $7.212 $1.776 $3.245 .$4.286 $2.192 $1.776 $3.245 $3.245 $4.286 Potential avi ngs/La m ~~... $2.510 $4.163 $5.632 $5.033 $1163 $1.775 $3.061 $1.359 $1.775 $2.265 $1.775 $3.428 $4.286 $4.041 $7.212 $4.666 Note: There are no suitable LED replacements for the 310W and 400W HID fixtures. As an alternative induction lamps or T5 lamps have been recommended. Siemens Industry, Inc. 27 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division $14572 $18.857 $2.939 $5.020 $7.347 $3.551 $3.551 $5.510 5.020 7..714 $19.837 $8.327 $11.878 N/A N/A 40 75 100 50 40 75 75 100 N/A 100 170 14.5 ......26.5. 35 17.9 14.5 26.5 26.5 35 35 58.9 City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Mock Fixtures Demonstration As part of the detailed study process, Siemens installed demonstration fixtures along Pacifica Drive. Replacing almost 3,000 street lights is a large investment, so Siemens had eight fixtures installed so the City could see the different technologies and fixture types. Seven of the fixtures were new installations while one was a retrofit of an existing "Cobra Head° fixture. This effort also served the purpose of evaluating potential lighting contractors and their workmanship. Siemens has includE:d cut sheets for all the lamps installed on Pacifica Avenue in the Appendix of this report. Selection Criteria The engineering team invited a team of lighting experts to assist with the detailed energy audit. During that time, Siemens selected four lighting sub-contractors to help evaluate the existing city's lighting infrastructure as well a:~ the proposed facility improvement measure. Due to the size of the number of Cupertino-o~rvned city street lights and the past experiences of having worked with these experts, The selection criteria for the lighting experts was based on Below is a simple diagram outlining the demonstration street lights and their location. Generally speaking, induction lamps were in:~talled on the north side of Pacifica while LEDs were installed on the south side. The exception with this are CUP 18218 (induction lamp) and CUP 6243 (LED lamp). The reason for this change was that a suitable LED equivalent was not available to replace the existing 200UV high pressure sodium lamp. Siemens Industry, Inc. 28 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit a~ U m o= F 1 CUP 6243 CUP 18218 CUP 6244 9 8 1 -CUP 6243 - S-H-100 2 -CUP 6245 - S-H-100 3 -CUP 6254 - S-H-100 4 -CUP 6256 - S-H-100 6 -CUP 6255 - S-H-100 7 -CUP 6246 - S-H-100 8 -CUP 6244 - S-H-100 9 -CUP 18218 - S4H-200 Figure 15: Basic Diagram Demo. Fixture Locations 2 3 4 CUP 6245 CUP 6254 CUP 6256 O \~ CUP 6246 CUP 6255 r 6 Siemens Industry, Inc. 2!3 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Prior to the installation of fixtures, Siemens took light level and power readings of the existing fixtures. After installation, Siemens took light level readings again. (Power measurements of the new fixtures have yet to be taken.) A table summarizing the measurements is shown below: Table 15: Street Lighting Levels Pre and Post __ __ Number Badge_»_ Campanp Fixture Tvpe Re lacement Tv e Pre Measurements Left {4' from ole:°38" hi h Ri ht {4' from o1e136" hi h Front (10'frnm o1e;36" hi h Under {36" hi h) Post Measurements Left f4' from olei35"high) Ri ht {4' from ole;'36" high Front (10' from oIQ'3fi" hi h' Under {35" hi h Difference (Post -Pre) Loft 4' from nle,''36" high Ri ht S4' from olet36" hi h Front r1fl' fram ole,'36" high) Under 35" hi h Avers a fe's IumHt2) Pre Past Tv]easurements Wam e Pre Post {sti ulated) Post (measured 1 62A3 Sun ]nd LED Fiat. Re I. 2 X245 Enlight InducUOn Retro. 3 625.1 SLS Inducton Fixt. R=_ I 4 6256 Collins _. Induction Fixt. Re I. L'247 _. Gity hPS N,`A 6 _. 6255 Collins _ _ LE© Fixt. Re 1. 7 5248 SLS . LED Fiat Re I. 8 6244 Enlight LED Fiat. Re 1. 9 182]8__. Sun ]nd. Induction Fixt. Re I. 17.5 1.2 0.7 9.8 0.7 1.7 0.8 1.5 2.5 fl.5 1.2 fl.7 ].9 fl.8 1.9 0.8 fl.8 1.7 0.8 1.5 fl.9 2.1 1.2 2.2 1.fl 1.8 2.5 0.7 1.4 0.8 2.0 0.8 2.0 0.9 1.7 2.4 0.9 0.5 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.6 2.9 0.9 1.9 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.4 0.8 1.6 2.8 0.8 2.0 0.9 fl.7 ].4 1.6 9.2 2.0 3.8 0.9 2.0 1.0 0.6 1.3 ].5 0.8 ].8 3.6 0.9 1.7 fl.3 -0.6 fl.5 -0.-0 0.0 -0.1 2. ] -0.7 -0.7 0.4 -0.6 0.8 -0.5 0.0 -0.3 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 -0.6 0.5 -0.5 0.0 -0.2 2.8 -0.9 -0.5 fl.3 -0.8 0.~ -0.5 fl.fl -0.2 2.7 -08 -0.7 0.7 1.3 0.8 2.0 fl.9 2.0 0.9 1.5 2.3 0.9 0.6 1 ? 1.5 0.9 1.8 3:3 0.9 1.9 136 218 11b 90 115 89 ]]0 92 267 56.4 65 80 87 100 75 91 56.4 200 55 57 76 89 115 78 89 56 139 Equations Used /Assumptions Made _ ___ __. _ _ _ _ _ Watts ; square foot = L^latts `lumens `square feet' 1 1 lumens _ _ __ _ _ _ __ Pre f~]easurements & Post l~9easurements were taken by Sylvania Lighting Services Tech. Ben Vera on 9,'22:`09 at 9.30pm and 924.09 at 9 4c In order to find 1~'attage. Current ~a"as measured at the base of each fi>3ure (pre only) and multiplied by the assumed Voltage on.9'22'09 at 11: Past {stipulated)1~~attage ivas taken aff of the Data Sheets far each lamp type __ _. _. Lumens (Past) suss taken off of the Data Sheets for each lamp type The Gity installed a HPS lamp an 4"Jhitney Nray; hrleasurements have yet to be recorded as of 9;30109 Siemens Industry, Inc. 31) Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Rebates As part of the Non Residential Retrofit -Demand Reduction (NRR-DR) program of PG&E, this project would qualify for a rebate at the r~~te of $0.05/kWh if induction lamps or LED retrofits are chosen. If new LED fixtures are installed, rebates would be on a per fixture basis based on the published list by PG8~E. Siemens suspects this list can and will change as more manufacturers submit their products for PG&E's approval. In order to know exactly how much of a rebate the City of Cupertino would get, Siemens would have to submit an application to PG&E: and have aPre-inspection conducted by PG8~E. Upon review of the application and completion of the Pre-inspection report, PG&E would notify Siemens with the approved amount. Operational Savings Another benefit with induction and LED lights are the life expectancy of the lamps. Both these lamps are rated at 100,000 hours3, well above the 24,000+ hours of the current lamps. At 4,100 annual run hours, an induction or LE:D is estimated to last 24 years. Average life is defined as the total operation !Hours at which 50% (median) of any group of lamps is still operating. Below is a list of High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps and their average life as recorded from a major manuf;3cturer's lamp catalog. • Mercury Vapor 16,000 - 24,000+ • Low Pressure Sodium 18,000 • High Pressure Sodium Up to 24,000+ • Metal Halide 7500 -20,000 depending on wattage and orientation (vertical vs. horizontal) Given a 4,100 hour annual runtime, you would change the lamps at the following interval: • Mercury Vapor - 3.9 to 5.9 years • Low Pressure Sodium - 4.4 years • High Pressure Sodium - 5.9 years • Metal Halide - 1.8 to 4.9 years The City of Cupertino has agreed to allow SiE;mens to claim product replacement at a rate of $20 per lamp over the lifecycle of an induction or LED lamp. Table 16: Material Savings for HID Lamps Lamp Type # of ReplacemE~nt $ per Cycles in $ per Lamps Cycle (yr~s) Cycle 24 years 24 years Mercury Vapor 5 6 $100. 4 $400 Low Pressure Sodium 1 4 $20 6 $120 High Pressure Sodium 2,806 6 $56,120 4 • $224,480. Metal Halides 138 5 $2,760 4 $11,040 Totals 2,950 $236,040. s Induction lamps have been tested to demonstrate 10~~,000 hour life cycles. LED fixture manufacturers claim 100,000 hours though LED component manufacturers only claim 50,000 hours. Siemens Industry, Inc. 31 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Further Notes Control technologies for streetlights are an emerging area. In general, the ROAM technology is available for induction lighting. For example, the technology provides the desktop user with an ability to see whether tf`~e lamp is functioning properly. LED Technologies (control) Control technologies are emerging and are not included in the proposed improvement. 3.3 Park Lighting Upgrade The City of Cupertino operates and maintain: 14 different parks throughout the city. Of these parks, Siemens evaluated exterior lighting opportunities at the following nine parks: • Memorial Park • Sommerset Park • Varian Park • Linda Vista Park • Three Oaks park • Jollyman Park • Creekside Park • Monta Vista Park • McClellan Park Siemens was directed to evaluate lighting alternatives for the parking lot lights as well as the pathway lights. The City of Cupertino has been proactive in their conservation efforts and has already installed LED lighting at Wilson F'ark and has approved the installation for LEDs at Portal Park as well. Siemens has investig;~ted both induction lighting and LED technologies similar to the street lights for this application. Siemens began with a simple inventory of lights provided by City Staff and ended up creating a detailed inventory of lamps including location (by park), quantity, and fixture style and lamp wattage. Baseline Light fixtures varied between the parks but c~jn generally be categorized by the following styles: • Acorn • Cone Top (or High Hat) w/ Drop Lens • Round Top w/ Drop Lens • Shoe Box y L F,~ ',_: x~:. ~~ r ~ ,~ a rsY t i.''r? ~ ;. ~ ._ Figure 16: Typical Luminaires at Existing Parlcs Siemens Industry, Inc. 3? Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Table 17: Summary of Existing Park Lights Park Quantity Fixture Description Wattsa Hours/Yr. Costb $ Memorial Somerset Varian Linda Vista Three Oaks Jollyman Creekside Monta Vista McClellan Ranch 3 Shoe Box 25fl W _29© 4100 $448.80 5 Acorn 250 W 290 4100 $ 748.00 54 Cone Hat 175 W 210 4100 $ 5,849.88.. 6 Acorn 250 W 290 4100 $ 897.60 11 Acorn 250 W 290 4100 $ 1,645.60 15 Cone Hat 150 W 180 4100 $ 1,392.83 10 Acorn 250 W 290 4100 $1,496:00 9 Shoe Box 175 W 210 4100 $ 974.98 19 Cone Hat 175 W 210 4100 $ 2,058.29 38 __ Round Top 175 VJ - 290 _ 4100 $ 5,684.80 20 Acorn 250 W 290 4100 $ 2,992.00 5 Acorn 250 W 290 4100 $ 748.00 aWattage specified by Siemens via faxed sheet of the existing parks lighting setup bUtility Rate assumed to be $0.12582/kWh Energy Savings Unlike street lighting, these lights are not on ~~ flat rate schedule or charged by lamp. Energy consumption is metered and therefore: charged an electric rate in terms of $/kWh of their respective rate schedule. Induction and LED technologies, typically consume upwards of 50% less energy than their HID counterparts. Majority of the lamps are either 175W or 200W Metal Halide. It is estimated that by implementing this project, the City can save $13, 500. Siemens Industry, Inc. 33 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Proposed Improvement Based on the park lighting audit conducted on 9 city parks, Siemens finds that significant energy savings would be achieved by upgrading the City's park lighting infrastructure. Siemens recommends replacement of a portion or all 271 fixtures in the 9 city parks. Operational Savings Another benefit with induction and LED lights are the life expectancy of the lamps. Both these lamps are rated at 100,000 hours4, well above the 24,000+ hours of the current lamps. At 4,100 annual run hours, an induction or LE:D is estimated to last 24 years. Average life is defined as the total operation i~ours at which 50% (median) of any group of lamps is still operating. Below is a list of HID lamps and their average life as recorded from a major manufacturer's lamp catalog. • Metal Halide 7,500 -20,000 depending on wattage and orientation (vertical vs. horizontal) Given a 4,100 hour annual runtime, you would change the lamps at the following interval: • Metal Halide - 1.8 to 4.9 years The City of Cupertino has agreed to allow Siemens to claim product replacement at a rate of $20 per lamp over the lifecycle of an induction or LED lamp. Table 18: Material Savings for Metal Halide Lamps Lamp Type # of Replacement $ per Cycles in $ per Lamps Cycle (yrs) Cycle 24 years 24 years Metal Halides ~ 233 5 $4,660 4 $18,640 Rebates As part of the Non Residential Retrofit - Derr~and Reduction (NRR-DR) program of PG8~E, this project would qualify for a rebate at the rite of $0.05/kWh. It is estimated that implementing these projects may qualify for ~i rebate as high as $6,000. In order to know exactly how much of a rebate the City of Cupertino would get, Siemens would have to submit an application to PG&E: and have aPre-inspection conducted by PG8~E. Upon review of the application and completion of the Pre-inspection report, PG&E would notify Siemens with the approved amount. a Induction lamps have been tested to demonstrate 100,000 hour life cycles. LED fixture manufacturers claim 100,000 hours though LED component manufacturers only claim 50,000 hours. Siemens Industry, Inc. 3~1 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 3.4 Solar Thermal Hot Water Based on the preliminary recommendations i~or renewable energy generation detailed in the Preliminary Report, the City asked Siemens i:o research solar thermal hot water heating at 5 building locations: City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, Sports Center, Senior Center, and Blackberry Farm Pool. During the course of i:he Detailed Energy Audit, Siemens determined another candidate site for solar thermal hot water heating analysis: Corp. Yard. Each building uses natural gas to feed domestic hot water (DHW) heaters, boilers or rooftop package units. It is important to understand the gas usage at candidate facilities due to the contribution of heating domestic water with rr3tural gas. Baseline The City's combined gas usage for the twelve months between October 2008 and September 2009 is 54,949 Therms. The annual spend at these six facilities totals $76,537, with an average cost equivalent to $1.3929 per Therm. The table listed below illustrates the annual gas usage at the six City facilities. Curing the Detailed Energy Audit of the project, Siemens received an updated file from PG8:E of data on October 9~', 2009. Anew Utility Data Analysis can also be found in the Appendix section of this report. Table 19: Annual Gas Usage at City Facilities (October 2008 -September 2009) Facility Name Therms Cost $/Therm* City Hall Complex Quinlan CC Corp. Yard Senior Center Sports Center Blackberry Farm** ..5,598 $.7,270 $1.3654 ' 20,818 $ 25,454 $ 1.2138 .12,731 $16,091 $.1.4339 4,390 $ 5,594 $ 1.3066 ...6,612 $ 8,279 $ 1.2814 4,800 $ 13,849 $ 1.2623 'Outliers from monthly data removed 'Stipulated values based off of 7 months "summed' data durir~g 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009 General Observations Rebates Unfortunately, PG&E does not offer an incentive for Solar Thermal Hot Water. Siemens Industry, Inc. 3:i Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division Proposed Improvement Installing solar thermal hot water at the Sports Center and Blackberry Farm Pool Complex remains a promising possibility, however, a definitive recommendation for inclusion in a final project option cannot be made at this time. Other FIMs have more definitive potential for energy and cost savings. City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 3.5 Photovoltaic System The City then had Siemens look at photovolt~~ic (PV) solar energy generation at four selected sites: City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, Corp. Yard, and Monta Vista Recreational Center. During the course of th~~ Detailed Energy Audit, Siemens also determined two more selected sites to analyze: Sports Center and Senior Center. Aggregate Net Metering At the presentation of the Preliminary Report to the City in Spring 2009, Siemens was anticipating an aggregate net metering scenario across multiple city facilities as enabled by AB2466, signed into law in September 2008. This piece of legislation enables a city with multiple electric meters to over-produce electricity at one meter and aggregate it to another city meter in need of electricity. During the please of the Detailed Energy Audit, however, the aggregate net metering scenario was determined to no longer be a viable scenario for the City due to the high fees PG&E would ch~~rge for transmission and distribution. If barriers to aggregate net metering were mitigateds, the scope of potential solar PV implementation by the city could increase sut~stantially. The scope suggested in the Stretch Project Option could be complemented by additional installations. Any investment already made by the time aggregate net metering might become viable would at a minimum retain its value, and may become more valuable. Tf•iis is because of the potential allowance for electricity produced at peak times by the solar PV installation to be fully consumed by city facilities, offsetting consumption during peak demand /peak rate periods (generally, afternoons). Baseline As part of the detailed energy audit, Siemens has conducted building by building PV audits of the following six facilities: City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, Sports Center, Senior Center, Corp. Yard, and Monta Vista Recreational Center. The purpose of the audit was to establish a baseline of what currently exists, :and what opportunities may be available to the City's facilities. With the assistance of Cindy Martinez, Siemens was able to complete this task and establish the baseline for PV generaition at these sites. The table below summarizes the existing energy consumption at the six City facilities. Table 20: Summary of Existing Electrical Usage at City Facilities* Facility Name kWh Demand Cost $/kWh City Hall ' 532,800 114 $ 75,117 $ 0.1405 Quinlan CC 478,960 129 $ 71,752 $ 0.1473 Sports Center 413,600' 134 $ 63,752 $ 0.1530 Senior Center 163,920 67 $ 27,775 $ 0.1664 Corp. Yard 175,314 - $ 27,647 $ 0.1604 Monta Vista RC 66,623 26 $ 13,849 $ 0.2023 `Data range from October 2008 through September 2009 s Siemens and City of Cupertino are currently investigating A6758, signed into law in October 2009, to determine if it has the potential to close the loopholes that inhibit AB2466 from enabling financially viable municipal aggregate net metering projects. Siemens Industry, Inc. 3Ei Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit General Observations for Rooftop PV Struictures During the course of the audit, Siemens took notes, pictures and measurements of available roof locations and roof orientation. Clay barrel the roofing (commonly referred to as "Spanish roof the") is located on the roofs of City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, Sports Center, and Senior Center. Monta Vist~i Recreational Center has a newly installed composition roof and the Corp. Yard and Sports Center both have flat composition roofs. ~. `_: ~,_ r Figure 17: Sample Ceramic Barrel Tile Figure X -Sample of Ceramic Barrel Tile located on City Hall, QCC, Sports, and Senior Center Roofs Proposed Improvement Based on the detailed energy audit walk-through at the City Hall campus site and the Monte Vista Recreational Center, a utility data ~~nalysis of the facilities and consideration of possible configurations and economics, Siernens finds that installing agrid-tie PV system is feasible at these two facilities. Upon completion of the PV audit, Siemens ~n~as able to determine what opportunities were in fact available to the City. Due to the recommendations from the City planners and Siemens' own recommendation, the selected sites irn~lude both City Hall Complex and Monta Vista Recreational Center. Both of these locations have desirable infrastructure, demand, roof composition, roof area, roof orientation, and roof tilt. The table below shows PV generating production, offset and equivalent GHG emis:~ions reductions at the two proposed PV sites. Table 21 - Summary of Proposed PV Sites with Generating Potential 8~ Offset Table 21: Summary of Proposed PV Sites PV System Avoided Equivalent Dollars Annual Output Size Percentage Ibs COZ Tree Saved / Facility Name kWh kWh kWp~ Offset % (30 yr. life) Acres Year City Hall ~ 532,800 129,200 105 29 % 2,300,000 35A $18,190 Monta Vista RC 66,623 29,750 24 53 % 553,000 8.0 $4,165 (Note: PV Output, System Size, % Offset, Avoided CCz, Tree Acres, $/Year are approximated.) The potential for solar PV was also reviewed at Quinlan and the Corp. Yard, however, these facilities did not demonstrate feasibility undE~r a traditional net-metering scenario to justify a positive recommendation. Insufficiencies included: Siemens Industry, Inc. 37 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit • Low kWh consumption • Incompatible rooftop geometry, azimuth orientation, and/or vegetative "shading" • Requirement for expensive parking structure Rebates City Hall - As part of the California Solar Initiative (CSI) -Statewide Trigger Point Tracker, this project would qualify for a rebate at a rate of $0.26 per solar kilowatt-hour per year for 5 years through the California Solar Initiative -Performance Based Incentive (PBI). The incentive payment of this program is paid out to you on a monthly basis for five years after the systems initial operation date. Monta Vista Recreational Center - As part of the California Solar Initiative (CSI) -Statewide Trigger Point Tracker, this project would qualify fora rebate under CSI's Expected Performance-Based Buy-Down (EPBB) in thE~ amount of $1,850 per kilowatta~. p (( /~~ r ~y ...,...... .4' ~>~~ c fe~an kx A :._i ~ ~ ~) ! . ~ ~. r1 ~'~ ~ {~• _ ~ ' -. " 50Sta1n3~IC F n(tf£y . P~7~ Ay" ~ Q~ Jds\~, Last uptlafed 10+i5~2009 v..P.._,..__..~........ ---~--~ Residential 6 - _____._. 2:.50 0.12 27.52 5.05 22.47 0.39 F_+E+E Non- 5 55.60 20.11 75.71 2L14 54.7 1.17 Residential Residential 4 ?9.70 0.71 20.x1 6.77 15.64 1.23 55=E Non- 5 59.30 31.96 61.26 26.99 55.77 11.67 Pesidential Residential 5 5.40 0.13 5.53 4.46 1.07 i.55 GCSE Non- 6 11.10 4.i4 15.64 7.60 6.03 1.76 P,esidentiat __ _ _ _ a~:. _.. i . i. f a ... ~ ,,. nra 1 50 n('a na n/a nra n;a 2 70 52.50 52.50 53.25 50.39 $0.39 SO.SD 3 100 52.20 52.20 52.95 50.39 50.34 50.45 4 130 51.90 51.90 x2.65 50.26 50.26 50.37 5 160 51.55 51.55 52.30 50.22 50.22 50.32 J - J .G J S S .e0 8 250 50.35 50.35 51.10 50.05 50.07 50.15 9 265 50.25 50.25 50.90 50.03 $0.03 50.12 10 350 50.20 50.20 SD.70 50.03 50.03 50.10 The non-r6~idantial customer cuss inc3udes commercial, prig,ate. go~rernrnen~. and nen-p, ofrt participants. Please be aa~are that the final CSl Ir~cenElve rate that is reservetl for you will be determined by your CSI Program Administrator at the time your reservation request {RR} applkation is approved. and may be lower than the current inventive rate shown in Ehe CSI Statewide Trigger Point Tracker. Please note that final incenwe 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.] For more information about the California Solar Initiative. vises GoSolarCalifnmia ca orn. For more details on the California Solar Initiative's project history., visit CSl t'os~erClerk com. Figure 18: California Solar Initiative Statewidt: Trigger Point Tracker The overall cost for implementing a clean energy project at City Hall and Monta Vista Recreational Center can be reduced by the California Solar Initiative. A summary of the PBI and EPBB payments are in the table below. Table 22: Summary of Available CSI's PBI anld EPBB Rebates EPBB per Kilowattsa~ Rebate Siemens Industry, Inc. 38 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Facility Name PBI per kWh kilowatta~ City Hall $ 0.26 Monta Vista RC - $ 1,850 kWh outpu 129, 200 - - 20.2 Amount $ $ 167,960 $ 37,370 Since City Hall would fall under the PBI plan, only an estimate can be made on the incentives over 5 years. Monta Vista's potential incentive is likely to be close to the amount shown in the table. Unlike energy efficien~~y programs in PG&E, there would be a cost associated with the CSI application. Siemens Industry, Inc. 39 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 3.6 Water Conservation The City of Cupertino purchases their water from both San Jose Water and California Water utility companies. The water delivered by these companies to the city irrigates the medians, parks, and some school landscapes and athletic fields. Other forms of water usage that contributes to the annual consumption and sK~end at the City of Cupertino are domestic water (drinking, hand washing, showers), fountains and mechanical pumping systems for heating, ventilation and air conditioning. According to the data supplied to Siemens from San Jose Water and California Water, there sire 143 water meters in the City of Cupertino. Figure 19: Memorial Park Water Fountain, Turlf and Fields Baseline As part of the detailed energy audit, Siemens has conducted an irrigation audit for the following water uses: City medians, City parks and City school landscapes/athletic fields. The purpose of the irrigation audit is to establish a baseline of what equipment currently exists and what opportunities may be available to the City. With the assistance of John Bisely, Diane Mahan, Mike Drake, Cliff Mabutas, and Mike Basile, Siemens was able to complete this task and establish the baseline for irrigation usage for the City. The table below summarizes the existing water consumption for the irrigation systems in Cupertino. Table 23: Summary of Existing Water Consumption Total Water Type Consumption Water Rate Annual Irrigated Gallons/ft~/ Number of ccf $/ccfa Spend $ Acres year Meters City Parks + AF 127,909. $ 3.18 $ 394,766 90.9 24.2 105 Medians + Other 36,046 $ 2.59 $ 93,363 55.4 11.2 37 BB Golf Course 20,378 $ 2.50 $ 50,980 12.8 27.3 3 Total 184,333 $ 2.76 $ 539,109 159.1 20.9 143 aVllater Rate represents a blended rate amount. For savings calculations on ccf, the fixed rates for San Jose Water and Cal Water were used at rates of $2.2926/ccf and $3.0372/ccf, respectively. Siemens Industry, Inc. 40 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit General Observations Blackberry Farms Golf Course The city has irrigation infrastructure that dates back as far as 40 years ago with the construction of Blackberry Farms Gold Course. Spanning 40 years, the city has gradually improved and implemented irrigation strategies to increase the quality of life for residents and businesses alike. The golf course is controlled by a single water meter and three irrigation control stations: 2 serve the main Hydraulic line and one recently installed, serves the "nine green." Parks There are 15 major city parks. According to 2008 annual data, the city spent $269,610, on irrigating these parks. This is equivalent to or 50.0% of all 2008 annual water budget. The total consumption for 2008 was 79,385 ccf. This is equivalent to 43.1 % of all 2008 annual consumption for the city. The approximatE~ area at these 15 parks, which accounts for 34.2% of all irrigated acreage in the city, is 54.4 acres. The table below lists some interesting details about water usage at thesE~ parks. Table 24: Summary of Existing Water Consumption at Cupertino Parks Consumption Utility Water Annual Park Name ccf Company Rate $/ccfa Spend $ Acres Ga Memorial Park 18,640 SJW $ 2.58' Wilson Park 10,245 CAW $ 2.89 Jollyman Park iQ104 SJW. $ 5.46 City Hall Complex 7,740 SJW $ 2.81 Hoover Park 6,033 SJW $ 4.95 Creekside Park 4,964 SJW $ 4.68 Varian Park 4,513 SJW ' $.2.45- Portal Park 3,952 CAW $ 2.89 Three Oaks Park 3,858 SJW $ 2.46 Linda Vista Park 3,616 SJW $ 2.70 Monta Vista Park 1,809 SJW $ 3.75' Somerset Square Park 1,444 SJW $ 3.19 McClellan Ranch Park 1,249 SJW $ 2.96 "Pocket" Park 660 SJW $ 3.41 Blackberry Farm 557 S1W $ 5.57 Total 79,385 N/A $ 3.52 $ 48,091. 8.8 36.4 $ 29,608 6.7 26.3 $ 55,210 8.2 21.2 $ 21,475 2.0 65.2 $ 29,850 4.2 24.7 $ 23,251 7.2 11.8 $ 11,038 1.7 45.6 $ 11,402 2.8 24.2 $ 9,492 2.7 245 $ 9,766 2.6 23.9 $ 6,786 3.4 9.1 $ 4,601 0.9 27.6 $ 3,698 _ 1.9 11.3 . $ 2,251 0.5 22.7 $ 3,090 " ~ 0.8 12.3 $ 269,610 54.4 25.8 Note: Cali Mill Plaza was not included in the field audit and subsequent analysis aVllater Rate represents a blended rate amount. For savings calculations on ccf, the fixed rates for San Jose Water and Cal Water were used at rates of $2.2926/cc~ and $3.0372/ccf, respectively. Athletic Fields There are 13 major athletic fields in Cupertino. According to 2008 annual data, the city spent $240,253, on irrigating fields. This is equivalent to or 44.6% of all 2008 annual water budget. The total consumption for 2008 wa:~ 71,435 ccf. This is equivalent to 38.8% of all 2008 annual consumption for the city. The approximate area at these 13 fields, which accounts for 37.4% of all irrigated acreage in the city, is 59.5 acres. The table below lists some interesting details about water usage at the fields. Siemens Industry, Inc. 4'1 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Table 25: Summary of Existing Water Consumption at Athletic Fields Park Name Athletic Fields # Utility Company Consumption ccf Water Rate $/ccfa Annual Spend $ Acres Jollyman Park 1 S, 1 B SJW 10,104 $ 5.46 $ 55,210 8.2 Regnart School 1 S, 2 B SJW 8,820 $ 2.43 $ 21,396 3.3 Eaton Elementary 1 S SJW 7,939 $ 2.45 $ 19,462 3.8 Hyde Middle School 2 S 1 B SJW 6,143 $ 2.61 $ 16,019 5.7 Hoover Park 2 S SlW 6,033 $ 4.95 $ 29,850 4.2 Faria Elem. School 1 S, 2 B 5,052 $ 2.87 $ 14,514 2.8 Creekside Park 3 S SJW 4,964 $ 4.68 $ 23,251 7.2 Library Field Park 1 C SJW 4,838 $ 2.59 $ 12,521 2.9 Lincoln Elem. School 1 S, 2 SB SJW 4,741 $ 2.45 $11,608 2.5 Garden Gate Elem. 1 S 4,619 $ 2.71 $ 12,524 3.4 Stevens Creek Elem. 15, 2 SB SJW 3,572 $ 2.64 $ 9,439 2.9 Kennedy Middle Sch. 2 5, 3 B SJW 2,800 $ 2.74 $ 7,673 9.2 Monta Vista Park 2 SB 5!W 1,809 $ 3.75 $ 6,786 ` 3A Total 32 71,435 $ 3.26 $240,253 59.5 (Note: Memorial Park S=Soccer, 6=Baseball, SB=Softtall, C=Cricket I totaling 16 S, 9 B, 6 SB and 1 C) aWater Rate represents a blended rate amount. For savings calculations on ccf, the fixed rates for San Jose Water and Cal Water were used at rates of $2.2926/ccf and $3.0372/ccf, respectively. Medians and Other Water Users There are approximately 37 meters that serve both the medians and various other water meters. According to 2008 annual data, the city spent $93,636 on this part of the water bill. This is equivalent to 44.6% of all 2008 annual water budget. The total consumption for 2008 was 71,435 ccf. This is equivalent to 38.8°% of all 2008 annual consumption for the city. The approximate area at these 13 fields, which accounts for 37.4% of all irrigated acreage in the city, is 59.5 acres. The table below lists some interesting details about water usage at the fields. Other Water Users Proposed Improvement Based on a comprehensive inventory and a:~sessment of the existing irrigation controllers, Siemens finds that significant water savings would be achieved by upgrading the irrigation technology to state-of-the-art standards. The proposed improvement realizes water savings by reducing water usage through weather based strategies capable of predicating and forecasting weather patterns. The "smart" irrigation controllers receive information to update irrigation schedules in accordance with changes in daily weather. The controller then dynamically adjusts watering schedules, on a zone by zone basis, to properly apply tF~e right amount of water for each plant, without creating dry weather runoff. The proposed system has four integrated components: 1. Hardware Controller 2. Scheduling Engine Software Siemens Industry, Inc. 42 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 3. Daily Weather Updates 4. Internet Management Portal for all Controllers The hardware controller is an electromechanical device, powered by 110Va~. It controls water flow to landscape irrigation valves sending electrical current over existing 24Va~ wiring to actuate solenoids on irrigation control valves. At the time of installation, a landscape review is conducted, and information necess;3ry for creating precise watering schedules is collected and entered into the controller. Scheduling Engine software inside each controller automatically creates proper irrigation schedules for each zone on the landscape, according to plant type, root depth, soil type, slope, sun exposure, precipitation device typE: and a host of other variables that have been programmed at the time of controller installation. Coefficients for plant water requirements, soil moisture holding capacity, and soil /water infiltration rate and root depth are already embedded in the Scheduling Engine softwarE~. Soil moisture depletion levels are calculated for each landscape zone, and are monitored daily to determine when plants require water to thrive. Dynamic adjustments are made to w~~tering schedules, upon receipt of daily weather information related to evaporation each day Weather data is delivered to each controller Every day. The system uses computer generated climate models, real time weather data from over 40,000 terrestrial weather stations, links to NOAA and a team of climatE~ scientists to validate and ensure that data is accurate to one square kilometer, every day. The weather data is sent to each controller, via an internet connection that is included in the offering. Benefits of proper irrigation include improved plant and turf health, as water is driven to plant roots, and roots are allowed to "breathe" befirreen watering intervals. Landscape appearance improves with proper watering. 1=urther, dry weather runoff that may cause damage to pavement or asphalt is reduced; thereby prolonging hardscape conditions and reducing frequency of resurface or repair intervals. An additional benefit of eliminating runoff is the reduction of potential liability frorn slip /fall hazards on wet pavement or walkways. Reduced runoff also improves im;3ge in the community regarding water conservation. Why Weather-Based Evapo-Transpiration (ET) Technology? Soil moisture depletion is the optimum method for determining when to irrigate. Typically used in agricultural settings, where soil and crop-type are the same for an entire orchard, these devices can be effectively used to help determine manual watering schedules. However, soil moisture sensors are not practical to deploy in great numbers on commercial landscapes. There is an inherent "scale" problem with this approach, when deploying across a city. A soil moisture sensor typically profiles soil moisture within a 12' radius. However, Memorial Park is 28 acres. How many sensors would you need? One per controller? One for each zone on every controller? (4" grass roots vs. 36" tree roots?) Where would you place them? (Shade or sun?) Who would read them? Who would translate the readings into irrigation schedules? Who would calibrate the sensor:; when they begin to degrade? (Objects buried in the ground do degrade over time.) What ~~re the annual replacement costs? Siemens Industry, Inc. 43 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Evapotranspiration smart controllers monitor soil moisture depletion for each unique landscape zone, on every controller city-wide. They do so by identifying root depth of plants at the time of installation, by tracking evapor~~tion, and byfine-grained modeling of local daily weather. When the moisture around thE~ root zone depletes by 50%, the scheduling engine determines how much water is need to replenish the soil, and how to apply it so that the right amount goes to the roots, and not to the street. Maintaining a dedicated weather station is ore method (though expensive) of producing a true ET value This weather data, however, ~~ill only be accurate for the microzone (square kilometer) surrounding the weather station. I'f'the City is flat, inland, and without "micro- climates" then this approach might be adequ~3te. However, if the city is near mountains, or have elevation changes within the city, or ha:~ any kind of "heat island" effect from buildings vs. vegetated areas, ET variables can be suk~stantially different between micro climates. Another challenge of the weather station approach is the requirement to get the weather messages to every irrigation controller, every day, over some kind of wired or wireless network. Managing a proprietary communication network, solely for the purpose of irrigation, is not practical. Adding the costs for protection from vandalism, semi-annual calibration, and weekly sensor cleaning adds to the cost and complexity of this approach. The proposed ET solution uses NOAH tools ~~nd a balanced energy physics model to accurately calculate local ET values for every square kilometer in North America. The system also draws data, every hour, from ovc~r 40,000 weather stations around the country, and analyzes the weather variables, includinl~ temperature, humidity, wind and solar radiation, that cause evaporation. In addition, the WeatherTRAK Climate Center has three full time scientists that analyze incoming dat~i, and refine ET calculations to ensure accuracy. Each night, the WeatherTRAK Climate Center sends out unique weather messages, with ET values, for every micro-z~~ne in North America. HydroPoint has published over 60 billion ET values since inc~:ption. Calibration of Irrigation System At the time of installation, a complete review will be conducted of each irrigation zone on every irrigation controller within the City that is part of the Project Scope. Detailed notes will be taken, and a variety of landscape-specific information will be recorded, including plant type, root depth, soil type, sun exposure, irrigation device type, degree of slope, etc. These notes will become the programming instructions for each controller. Each controller operates scheduling softwarE: that allows for automated irrigation scheduling adjustments on a daily basis. The site data will be entered into each controller, and the scheduling software will then create automated custom schedules for each independent zone. These parameters are not used as guideline: to then create a manual schedule, as is the case with other controllers. Rather, these p~~rameters actually inter-relate to automatically create an appropriate watering schedule for ~sach zone on your landscape. This schedule is then dynamically optimized using daily weatf'ier updates from the weather service, called ET Everywhere TM Siemens Industry, Inc. 44 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit ET Everywhere T"" is a maintenance-free method of reliably delivering accurate weather data to every controller on a daily basis. ET Ever)~whereT"" service does not require phone lines, RF networks, FCC licenses, dedicated weather stations, water buckets that need to be refilled with distilled water or any annual calit~ration /maintenance by City personnel. ET Everywhere T"" delivers a daily weather index, in the form of an ET variable, directly to each controller. The ET data that is delivered is site specific, based on the physical address (GPS coordinate) of each controller. Each controller contains a wireless transmitter/receiver (the same communications used by a BlackberryT"' handheld device) that enables it to communicate with the WeatherTRAK ET EverywhereT"" weather service and with the WeatherTRAK Central Internet Management Service. This weather service is accurate to 1 square kilometer. It draws data from over 40,000 government regulated weather stations acro~;s the United States each day, including all data from California CIMIS stations. Weather stati~~n data is combined with other weather readings available from sources, such as NOAH, in order to create a.local weather index for each 1sq km (.6sq mile) area across the US. The controller takes the daily ET data and, together with the scheduling engine variables (plant type, soil type, etc.) calculates the most appropriate and efficient irrigation schedule for the specifics of each zone on your landsc.pe. There is no need for users (City staff or landscapers) to try to anticipate, change or calculate an irrigation schedule for each individual valve on the landscape (minutes, days, cycles and soak time) -this is all automated. Nor is therE: any need to have a local weather station to install and maintain - ET Everywhere TM provides accurate, maintenance-free ET climate data. This also eliminates the risks of having a single point of failure for weather data. Rebates [Content to be added at a later time.] Siemens Industry, Inc. 4~~ Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 3.7 Energy Management System Describe general benefits of a system Describe specific scope of recommendation, including Greenscreen Discuss Scale-ability of system Discussion of future capabilities that could be added on (distributed control not just of building equipment, but street lights, etc.) 3.8 Plug Load Controller Side Coverage Plug load controllers are smart power strips ~nihich incorporate an occupancy sensor. More often than not, workers are not always present at their workspace and leave electronic devices running while not in use. Though computers and monitors are able to clo to sleep, other electronics are not as sophisticated. Common devices that are left on include the radio, chargers, desk light, desk fan and even space heaters! ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004 mandates that task lighting be considered as part of the lighting power density if uncontrolled but not if controlled by an automatic shutoff control device. ~.- _ ,.1.` =~, ~ . . ~ x i~. y~~. Figure 20: Plug Load Controller The device is configured with several "always on" receptacles so this can be used for the computer or other devices that should not be turned off. These devices are user-adjustable and can be set between 30 seconds to 30 minutes. The effectiveness of these devices comes from the location of the sensor. One rnust mount the sensor in a place such that it does not pick up the passer-by. Below are possible mounting scenarios depicting the coverage of the sensor. C#verhead Caverage ~~ ~~ o 0 O O 0 0 Figure 21: Plug Load Controller Theory of Opertion Due to the fact that is difficult to know what 200 people may plug into these devices, and what occupancy patterns they may have at tf Heir workspace, energy savings is conservatively estimated as follows based on the following assumptions: Siemens Industry, Inc. 4Ei Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit • Each workspace will plug in 300W worth of devices. This is considered conservative as a single foot heater can be 900W. • A diversity factor of 60% will be taken since not all people will have a heater. • Typical run hours will be taken as 4,380 (half a year) since many devices are most likely left on or always trickling after hours. • A reduction of 25% will be assumed • A safety factor of 10% will be taken on top of everything Annual Savings (kWh/year) 200 devices x 300W x (kW/1000W) x 4,380 Hours/yr x 25% x (1-10%) = 59,130 kWh/year Assuming a blended rate of $0.12/kWh, this vvould equate to $7,095 per year. Rebates As part of the Energy Efficiency Rebates Procjuct List of PG&E, this project would qualify for a rebate of $15 per Plug Load Occupancy Sensor. It is estimated that implementing these projects may qualify for a rebate of $3,000. Siemens Industry, Inc. 4i Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 4.0 OTHER OBSERVATIONS This section discusses general observations made during the detailed study phase. It also includes descriptions of measures that were ~svaluated but not recommended at this time. 4.1 Premium Efficiency Motors Electric motors are found in just about all HV~~C equipment in the form of a pump or fan motor. Motor sizes varied from fractional horsepower to 35HP at the sites visited. Most of the motors however were either 5 or 7.5HP. Energy savings from premium efficient motors are a result of less input power required to produce the same output. A sample table taken from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Industrial Technologies Program is shown below: Table 26: Annual Savings from Specifying NEMA Premium Efficiency Motors Full-load Motor Efficiency Annual Savings from Use of a NEMA Premium Motor Horsepower .Energy Efficient Motor NEMA Premium Efficiency Motor Annual Energy Savings, kWh Doilar Savings $/year 10 89.5 91.7 1, 200 $60 25 92.4 93.b 1,553 ' $78 50 93.0 94.5 3,820 $191 100 94S 95.4 4,470 $223 200 95.0 96.2 11,755 $588 Note: Based on purchase of a 1,800 rpm totally enclosed fan-cooled motor with 8,000 hours per year of operation, 75% load, and an electric rate of $0.05/kWh Siemens recommends that the City standardize on NEMA Premium Efficiency motors and replace failed motors with the Premium equivalent version. 4.2 Boilers Always On Siemens observed the hot water boiler at Quinlan Community Center was operating even though the outdoor temperature was well into the 80°F or more. It was later explained to Siemens by Cindy Martinez that the boiler is left on year round to prevent condensation from forming in the pipes. Siemens recommends implementing a boiler reset schedule if the boilers are capable. A reset schedule would lower the setpoint temperature to a value less than the normal setpoint. 4.3 Utility Rate Analysis At the request of City Staff, Siemens evaluatE~d the rate schedules for the six facilities including: City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, Sports Center, Senior Center, Corp Yard and Monta Vista Recreation Center. PG&E t-~as a web-based tool to evaluate different rate schedules base on user input. The analysis calculates potential costs for the same energy consumption under different rate schedules. The costs are based on current rates. Siemens inputted data into this tool and evaluated the six facilities against the A1, A6, A10S and E19 rate schedules. Siemens repeated this analysis manually to see if the historical data aligned with the predicted. Details of this analysis are summarized in the Appendix. Of Siemens Industry, Inc. 48 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit the six sites, three of them were already on tl~e correct rate structure. These sites were Quinlan Community Center, Sports Center and Senior Center. The Corp Yard has two electric meters and both of them are on the F~6 rate schedule. One of the meters was reported a lower cost under the A10S rate schedule, however the difference in amount was considered negligible. Interestingly, the analysis reported City-Hall ~~s being best suited for an E19S rate schedule even though they are currently on an A10S. The difference between the two was $73,824 (A10S) vs. $71,129 (E19S); representing a 3.7% decrease in costs or $2,695. Though not much, it may be worthwhile to discuss this with the City of Cupertino's PG~E representative, Sonya Casares. Of greater significance are the findings with 1l/lonta Vista Recreation Center. The rate analysis revealed what Siemens had already suspected: Monta Vista should not be on an E19S rate schedule. This site should be on ~~n A10S rate schedule. The difference between the two was $12,295 (E19S) vs. $10,961(A10S); representing a 10.8% decrease in costs or $1,334. It is unclear to Siemens whir this site is on this rate schedule since it uses nowhere near the 500kW demand normally rnquired for the E19S rate. Siemens Industry, Inc. 49 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 5.0 MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATIC)N As part of Siemens' offering to the City of Cu~~ertino, a Performance Guarantee can be provided for this entire project or portion of the project. In order to provide a guarantee, Siemens must provide Measurement and Verification (M&V) services to prove to the City the performance of the project. Measurement ar~d Verification is defined as follows by the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP): "Measurement and Verification" (M&V) is the process of using measurement to reliably determine actual savings created within an individual facility by an energy management program. Savings cannot be directly me~~sured, since they represent the absence of energy use. Instead, savings are determined by comparing measured use before and after implementation of a project, making appropriate adjustment for changes in conditions. M&V activities consist of some or all of th~~ following: • Meter installation calibration and maintenance • Data gathering and screening • Development of a computation method and acceptable estimates • Computations with measured data • Reporting, quality assurance, anc' third party verification of reports. When there is little doubt about the outcome of a project, or no need to prove results to another part M&V may not be necessary. However, it is still wise to verify that the installed equipment is able to produce the expecte~~ savings. Verification of the potential to achieve savings involves regular inspection and commissioning of equipment. However, such verification of the potential to generate sa~rings should not be confused with M&V. Verification of the potential to generate savings does not adhere to IPMVP since no site energy measurement is required. There are four different options for M&V. These four options are: A. Retrofit Isolation -Key Parameter Measurement B. Retrofit Isolation -All Parameter Mea:>urement C. Whole Facility D. Calibrated Simulation Should a guarantee be required by the City, ~~iemens will use one of these four types of methodology for proving performance. Siemens propose recommended methodologies based on measure type as well as cost benefit to the City. For example, lighting retrofits are almost always Option A: Retrofit Isolation -Key Parameter Measurement. Proving the performance of a variable frequency drive (VF~D) is best suited as Option B: Retrofit Isolation -All Parameter Measurement. Option C: Whole Facility is often referred to as a Bill Comparison method. It is best suited for cases where the proposed measure is the primary or sole source for the bill. Finally, Option D: Calibrated simulation can be used for a whole host of reasons. The measure may be so cornplex with interacting effects that a computer simulation is necessary. Another case may b~~ where no baseline exists, and one must be simulated. A calibrated simulation may be as complex as a computer model or as simple as an Excel spreadsheet. Many variables must tie taken into account before choosing which method is best for the City. Siemens Industry, Inc. 50 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Interior Lighting Upgrade and Occupancy Sensors As stated above, Option A is almost always used for lighting upgrades. Under this scenario, the "Key Parameter Measurement" is the power draw of the lighting system. Typically lighting measurements are taken on a small I~ercentage of the lights. The hours of operation are commonly estimated and used in calculations. Usually, this option is done on a one-time only basis for lighting since the equipment doesn't vary from year to year. The 13W compact fluorescent lamp is most likely going to be 13W next year. Siemens can guarantee the power draw of a light fixture, beat cannot guarantee how often the City turns it on or off. Street Lighting Upgrade Street lighting is unique for two reasons. First, dollar savings come from a change in rate schedule as opposed to actual energy savings. Second, they're on their own electric bill. One possibility would be to use Option C: Whole Building (Bill Comparison). The City would be required to provide all the street lighting bills to Siemens on a monthly basis for review and analysis. This could prove costly in the I~~ng run. Another downside to this method is that the rates are likely to increase, therefore reducing the savings. Siemens cannot guarantee the electric rates. Another possibility would be Option A: Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. Under this option, the Key Parameter Measurement would be the most recent rate schedule at the time of implementation. Once Siemens could verify that all the street lights that were changed were put onto a new rate, the guarantee would be complete. When all is said and done, it is probably best not to provide M8~V since the City could easily perform these same tasks. Park Lighting Upgrade Since Park Lighting is on a regular electric mE:ter, Option A would be the best method for all the same reasons described previously with Interior Lighting Upgrades. Solar Water Heating This is one of those unique projects which could be guaranteed using any of the four options. That being said, choosing the best economic value for the customer will dictate the correct option to use. Considering the fact th;3t there is a relatively small dollar savings, one should pick an option that doesn't cost more than the annual savings. For this case Option A or Option D would be the most cost effective. Option A would most likely take water flow and temperature measurements to demonstrate the amount of energy in Btus the system can provide. This could be done on aone-time only basis or annually through the length of the contract. Alternatively, a simulation could be provided so long as the City accepts the methodology. Photovoltaic System Measuring the performance of a photovoltaic (PV) system is easy, however guaranteeing the performance is another matter. What makes this system difficult to guarantee is the fact the performance is directly related to a variable no one has control over -the sun. Since it is required to install an electric meter on the system, the City will know exactly how much the system is producing. Siemens proposes Option A for this measure. Siemens will measure and verify the output in terms of kilowatts (kW) and will estimate the available irradiance (or sun) in their calculations. If the system is designed to output say 100 kW AC, Siemens will measure and demonstrate the system can produce at 100 kW AC at the rated insolation. Siemens Industry, Inc. 51 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Water Conservation Irrigation is another one of those measures where several options could be used. Similar to the street lighting, irrigation has its own utility bill. This would imply Option C as a possible methodology since it is the only thing on the Dill. Again, the City of Cupertino would have to provide Siemens all bills for all irrigation metE:rs on a monthly basis through the term of the performance guarantee. This could prove costly to the City in the long run. When all is said and done, water savings occur when the runtime of the sprinklers is reduced. The flow through the sprinkler heads will not change with the new controllers. Plug Load Controller Due to the uncertainty of devices that could ~~nd would be plugged into these controllers, it would be difficult to provide M&V for this measure. Also, considering that the potential savings is relatively small, the costs to provide M8~V would most likely outweigh the benefit of the savings. Therefore it is not recommended to provide M8~V for this measure. Siemens Industry, Inc. 52. Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit [This page intentionally blank.] Siemens Industry, Inc. 53 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 6.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The following pages show cashflows for each scenario. After the cashflows, summary of financing options is included, which describes tax-exempt municipal lease and low-interest- rate California Energy Commission (CEC) programs. Finally, a preliminary proposal for project fin~incing of a $4.5 million project over a financing term of 13 years is provided. This proposal is provided by Siemens Financial Services, a bank that is a separate business entity than Siemens Industry Building Technologies Division. Amore refined financing proposal, including a RFP process to ensure a competitive interest rate, will be developed as part of negotiations with the city manager, should project implementation receive city council approval. Siemens Industry, Inc. 54 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino 5-IEMEN November 11, 2009 City of Cupertino 1-0300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR TAX EXEMPT LEASE FINANCING FOR SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT Dear Sir or Madam: Siemens Public, Inc. ("Lessor") is pleased to provide this lease proposal to the City of Cupertino (the "Lessee") for your review and consideration. Please note that this proposal is being issued by Siemens Financial Service:;, Inc. ("Agent") on behalf of the Lessor and is subject to final credit and legal approval by Lessor. Upon your acceptance, this proposal shall constitute Lessee's application to Les:~or. This proposal is subject to, among other things, Lessee being qualified to issue tax Exempt obligations under the Internal Revenue Code, as well as certain additional conditions set forth hereinafter. Lessor/Resolutions: SIEMENS PUBLIC, INC., its affiliates, assigns or nominees. Note that all re:~olutions approving this financing should name Siemens Public, Inc., its affiliates, assigns or nomi- nees as the "Les:~or". Lessee: City of Cupertino, California Vendor/Supplier: Siemens Building Technologies ("SBT") Total Equipment Cost: It is anticipated that the Total Equipment Cost will not exceed $4,500,01)0.00 Reimbursement: If Lessee intends to be reimbursed for any advances it has made against the Total Equipment Cost, Lessee must provide Lessor with proof of payment acceptable to Lessor, and such reimbursement must be in accordance with all laws and regulations, including without limitation Treasury Regulation Section 1.150.2. Maximum Lease Term: One hundred ar~d sixty-eight (168) months, including 12 month installation period. The Maximum Lease Term for each item of Equipment will commence on and as of the Lease Commencement Date. Siemens Industry, Inc. 5:i Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Lease Payments: Lessee will be rE~quired to make one hundred fifty-six (156) consecutive monthly lease payments, each in arrears. These payments can be level or they can escalate at a rate of up to 4% per annum, or vary to match savings each year. The first Lease Payment shall be due twelve (12) months after :losing assuming the maximum Total Equipment Cost (set forth above) and assuming the Interest Rate are not adjusted (as set forth below). Escrow Funding: Lessor will deposit the principal sum into an Escrow Fund on behalf of the Lessee. The Escrow Fund shall be established with an escrow agent mutually acceptable to Lessor and Le;;see and shall be used to acquire the Equipment. All interest earnings shall be for the account of the Lessee. Lessor uses UM13 Bank, N.A. ("UMB") for its escrow services related i:o municipal-type financing transactions. UMB's headquarters are located at 2 S. Broadway, St. Louis, MO 6310:. UMB's compens;3tion for its agreement to provide services is $100 per moni:h to the date of termination of the Escrow Fund payable in arrears. Lessee shall be responsible for paying all trans2~ction fees and expenses associated with the Escrow Fund As an alternative, Lessor is willing to use a preferred escrow agent of the Lessee, subject to Lessor's approval. Equipment Location: Within specified t~uildings and facilities or at locations within the Lessee's boundaries as more specifically described in the related performance contract agreement with SBT. Lease Commencement This lease proposal, including the Interest Rate and Lease Date: Payments provided below, assumes the Lease Commencement Date is on or before December 30, 2009 and also assurries Lease Payments begin twelve (12) months after the Lease Commencement Date. Current Interest Rate: Closing Fees: If the lease commences after December 30, 2009, the Lease Commencement Date will be the date the Lessor deposits the principal sum into an Escrow Fund. Lease Payments will bE~gin twelve (12) months after the Lease Commencement Date. 4.3954% None charged by Lessor Siemens Industry, Inc. 5E~ Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Adjustments to Interest The proposed financing is based on the current Rate ~ Lease (comparable) yield of the seven (7) year Swap Rate (USD) Payments: of 3.18% as reF>orted in the Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15 as of November 9, 2009 (currently published at www.federalreserve.gov/ releases/ h15/update). If such rate increases, the actual Interest Rate and Lease Payment amount will be ;adjusted and will be fixed on the Lease Commencement Date or escrow funding date. Upon funding (Lease Commencement Date), the then current interest rate and payments will remain fixed for the duration of the term. Payment 8~ None required by Lessor Performance Bond: Prepayment: The purchase option price will be at 102% of the unpaid principal. Prepayment will only be allowed on a payment due date. Type of Lease: This will be a nE~t lease transaction, whereby any/all fees and costs for ~~ocumentation, insurance, maintenance, filing, registration, searches and taxes, relating to the purchase, lease, ownership, possession and use of the Equipment and to the transaction, including without limitation, issuance costs and all items of a similar nature, will be for Lessee's account. Tax Treatment: The interest portion of the Lease Payments must be excludable from the gross income of the Lessor for state and federal income tax purposes. Non-Appropriation: The Lease will be subject to termination by the Lessee in the event fund:a for payment of the Lease are not appropriated for ~~ given fiscal year. Insurance: Lessee must pr~cvide evidence of physical damage and liability insurance in an amount and from an insurance carrier satisfactory to Lessor. Lessor must be listed on the policies as loss payee and additional insured, as applicable, and ~r certificate of insurance is to be provided to the Lessor. LE~ssee may self-insure for these amounts. Essential Use: Lessee shall represent that all of the equipment financed in this transaction ~nrould be considered essential use by the Lessee. Transaction Costs: Any/all transaction costs incurred by the Lessee (including but not limited to escrow agent and Lessee's attorney fees) shall be for the account of Lessee. Siemens Industry, Inc. 5 ~ Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Deinstallation Costs: In the event Les;~ee returns the Equipment as permitted in or required by tFie Lease, Lessee shall be responsible for all return cost~~, including deinstallation, packing and shipping costs. Statement of Intent: It is the intent of Lessor and Lessee that for federal, state and local income tax purposes, the transaction contemplated hereby will be a conditional sale or financing arrangement consisting of a loan from the Lessor directly to the Lessee, and the Lessee acquiring and being deemed the owner of the Equipment. For income tax purposes, the parties shall take no action or file any return or other document incon:aistent with such intentions unless other- wise required by U.S. federal, state or local tax law or di- rected by the Internal Revenue Service or similar state authority. Title: Title to the Equipment will transfer to Lessee upon acceptance of the Equipment, subject to divestment for default or non-appropriation of funds by Lessee. Legal Opinion: An opinion of Lessee's legal counsel, reasonably acceptable to Lessor, as to, among other things, the legality, enforce2~bility, authority, title and execution of the Lease will be required. Opinion of Special Tax An opinion of Lessee's special tax counsel, reasonably Counsel: acceptable to Le:~sor, as to the tax treatment of the interest portion of the Lease Payments, will be required. If the Lessee's special tax counsel does not provide this opinion, the Lessor shall obtain a tax opinion and the cost of that opinion (which would not exceed $7,500.00) will be for the account of the Lessee. Siemens Industry, Inc. 5>:~ Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Documentation: All lease and related documentation will be provided by Lessor and must be satisfactory to all parties concerned. The following st~rndard documentation, among others, will be required for this transaction: 1. Master Lease Purchase Agreement 2. Leasing Scrredule(s), Rider(s) and Addenda, as applicable 3. Acceptance Certificate 4. Escrow AgreE~ment 5. Amortization Schedule 6. Essential Use/Source of Funds Letter 7. Opinion(s) of Counsel as noted above 8. Resolutions 9. Officer's Certificate 10.8038-G 11. Insurance Co~rerage Requirements form 12. Signed copy of Energy Performance Contracts Lessor may, at its discretion, order judgment, tax and similar searches .against Lessee. Additional documentation and/or information may be required based upon the results of those searcher. Proposal This proposal shall expire on December 11, 2009, unless Acceptance/Expiration: prior to that date Lessee acknowledges its approval of this lease proposal b!/ signing and returning the enclosed copy of this letter together with the information set forth on Exhibit A to Lessor. Miscellaneous: Lessee will be re:~ponsible for obtaining all of the necessary approvals for this transaction. The terms and conditions outlined herein are not all-inclusive and are based upon information provided to date. This proposal does not represent an offer or commitment by Lessor to enter into a lease transaction or to purchase the Equipment described in this proposal, anti does not create any obligation for Lessor. A commitment to enter into the transaction described herein may only be extended by Lessor after this transaction has been approved by all necessary credit and other authorities and a "written commitment letter" has been issued. Closing of this proposed transaction will be subject to, ~~mong other things, there having occurred no material adverse change in the L_essee's financial condition or business operations or in the economic and/or regulatory conditions existing prior to the closing and, subject further, to the execution by Lessee and Lessor, and delivery to Lessor, of all documents required by Les~;or, all in form and substance acceptable to Lessor. This proposal may be withdrawn or modified by Lessor at anytime prior to a definitive written commitment letter to enter into a lease transaction with Lessee being issued by Lessor and accepted by Lessee. Lessor shall have the sole right to assign this proposal, any commitment letter or any lease between Lessee and Siemens Industry, Inc. 59 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit Lessor. All rates stated herein are based upon current money cost, tax rates and tax law assumptions. Should any changes o~~cur, the rates will be adjusted accordingly. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or would like to discuss this proposal in greater detail. Upon Lessor's receipt of a properly countersigned copy of this proposal letter and the information :yet forth on Exhibit A hereto, the approval process shall promptly begin so that LE;ssor may be in a position to finalize this transaction with Lessee. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present this proposal. Sincerely, ~-~^~ Gene Rogero Vice President (706) 769-6864 PROPOSAL ACCEPTED: We hereby approve the leasing propo:~al as presented in the above letter. In reviewing this application, Lessor and its Agent are hereby authorized to obtain and utilize such credit information as may be c~eemed necessary and desirable by Lessor for the analysis and the processing of this proposed transaction. This proposal is subject to final Board approval by the Lessee and final credit and legal review by Lessor. LESSEE: CITY OF CUPERTINO By: Name: Title: Date: Siemens Industry, Inc. 6C' Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit EXHIBIT A Lessee To Provide The Following: Executed copy of this Financing Proposal Copy of last three year end audited financial :statements, or two years of comparative audited statements, each including cash flow statements Copy of current operating budget Copy of recent Official Statement, if available Resolution or meeting minutes of the governing body authorizing approval of this transaction Evidence of no blanket or other liens that could affect the Equipment In addition, where reimbursement of prior ex~~enditures is requested: Copy of Official Letter of Intent for Reimbursement Proof of Payment (e.g. check copies) (Lessee acknowledges that Lessor, in its discretion, may request additional information and documents.) Siemens Industry, Inc. 61 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Siemens Industry, Inc. 62 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS This Detailed Energy Audit has identified areas where the city can reduce energy, water, and operating costs resulting in numerous otl~er benefits. The next step in the project development process is refinement of the prc-ject Options in collaboration with executive staff in preparation for Board review and approval. In parallel with this, further refinement of financing options can be evaluated, including (if the city so desires) a competitive process for tax exempt municipal lease financing proF~osals. Upon approval of the project concept the Bo~-rd, the City and SIEMENS will further negotiate aspects of the project including operation anti maintenance, training, and measurement and verification to ensure that projected savings sire fully realized. SIEMENS will also thoroughly consider the following factors: ^ Available financial resources, including federal, state and utility incentives ^ Financing options for customer consideration ^ Any further project development requirements ^ Project management requirements ^ Potential training needs of facility operators ^ Long range operation and maintenance, if needed SIEMENS' experience has shown that the analysis in this Detailed Energy Audit study report is an important first step in helping customers better understand their facilities' energy and water efficiency profile. However, the most significant benefit results from helping customers implement the energy, water and operational savings solutions that are proposed in the three project options. SIEMENS' licen~;ed and skilled professionals will ensure that projects are implemented in a timely manner with minimal disruption to daily activities. The final outcome of the entire process will bc; a co-authored energy program that is in the best interests of the city. Here are some key characteristics of SIEMENS' unique and rigorous approach: ^ No Up-Front Capital. All costs related to the implementation of the recommended solution, such as feasibility study costs, design and engineering fees, project management, construction costs, operations and maintenance training, monitoring of results, and verification of savings are included in SIEMENS' integrated solution. The city anticipates contributing approximately $438,000 in ARRA funds toward buying down the capital cost of the project. ^ Long-Term Comprehensive Perspective. SIEMENS evaluates and considers all cost-effective measures and is not limited to short-term payback projects or constrained by any product preferences. We will work with the preferences of the city as it relates to contractors and/or equipment. ^ Hassle-Free Implementation. Since tl~e SIEMENS solution is an integrated arrangement, the city does not have to allocate existing personnel to manage the various steps involved in performing energy efficiency improvements such as feasibility studies, designing and installing equipment, training personnel, and monitoring the systems' performance. Siemens Industry, Inc. 63 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division City of Cupertino Detailed Energy Audit ^ Partners in Process. SIEMENS will always include the city management in key milestone decisions throughout the project and will ensure a co-authored solution. ^ Performance Standards. SIEMENS will oversee the quality of service provided and will ensure that vendors and subcontractors follow specific and strict performance standards. ^ Comprehensive Warranty. SIEMEN;> will provide overall warranty coverage for a period of twelve months from the date of substantial completion for each end-use measure. ^ Follow-Up Reports to the City. SIEMENS will provide the city with a summary of the project's performance on a periodic ba:~is. ^ Capturing Energy Savings from Capital Improvement Projects and Avoided Capital Costs. SIEMENS can capture energy savings from current city projects pending that are not implemented before a contract is signed, and roll those savings into the performance program to allow 1'or paying of projects where shortage of funds exists. Siemens Industry, Inc. 64 Proprietary and Confidential Building Technologies Division November 30, 2009 AB32 SUMMARY Page 31 Attachment E Signed into law in September 2006, The Global Warming Solutions Act, also known: as AB 32, requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas enssions to 19901evels by 2020 - a reduction of approximately 30 percent, and then an 80 percent red action below 19901evels by 2050. Many of the 74 proposed measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, scheduled to become regulatory requirements in 2012, rely on local government actio~is. The "Scoping Plan" is California's policy blueprint containing the broad overview of the programs, measures, and approaches that will help California achieve the required reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions required under•AB 32. The Plan, when it is completed, will have a range of GHG reduction actions, which could include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. Through the Scoping Plan, ARB recommends that local governments set their GHG reduction goals to 15 percent below present levels by 2020. To achieve this target, Cupertino has partnered with ICLEI to apply its Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) to inventory and report the city's municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The LGOP is the California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), The Climate Registry (TCR), and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) agreed upon greenhouse gas emissions inventory and data collection methodology for local government. Cupertino's report, scheduled to be released in June 2009 will challenge the city to set emissions reduction targets, t~ be achieved by measures identified through a sustainability/climate action planning process. To achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions, required through the 2006 California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), and demonstrate climate leadership within an environmentally progressive region, the City of Cupertino has comnut:ed to benchmarkina, tracking and implementing actions to reduce its energy consumption. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program provides the financial stimulus and means for the city to move beyond its benchmarking phase to prioritize projects that will provide substantial, sus~ainable and measurable energy savings. November 30, 2009 ~C~~'I1~G pLAf~ I~F~~~~~ u~i '`'a } ~ ~ ~ r'. _. __ alt 2 =- E `: _ ~~ ~ ~ ~'Y ~ ° ~ r _ ~-~ ax ~ ~~ ~ l .IAe ~ ~f :s u r Scoping Plan Subgroups ~ ~ ~ '~ ~~~ y"{ ~ ~ L7 _r ~ V ~ :!~F „ ~~ ~ ~ '^ ~-~ \~ +~ ~ SJ _ `` y ~ .-._._.___.. _.._- ~I .~ E Y Page 32 Agriculture, Cement, Econonucs, Energy, Forestry, C=reen Buildings, Land Use, Recycling, State Fleet, Water /Energy Scoping Plan & AB 32 Implementation Timeline A~ ~~ ~M~'~.~1~~~+f`i`ATIOIV MME[ ~N SJO~ t~1+aR ~U0~9 ]Ate 1, ]Ad,l 1kf~ 1, ]rAN 1, ZGO~ 2t1G8 EGOS ~aD9 2GG'~ ~0?1 212 GAT Stab- GAT Star- r~pB t~o Deadiirve GAT Deadli.r~e Re.~~t~tisa:ns gr~pup5 are groups submit drat ko adopt mem:b~rs to adopk enforceable forced wikh submit AP 32 sloping e~signed all rips frown sector scoping pl~r~ psar. r`~duCti~n regt~E~tcvry d~epts proposa•Is to meet measurers measur~5 t~ ARB goaEs November 30, 2009 Page 33 Attachment F ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACT SUMMARY ESPC is a combined energy and financial solutions approach to address facility improvement needs in a budget constrained environment. The ESPC approach utilizes existing budgets and redirects utility and operational savings generated to fund the cost savings improvements. A performance contract will allow the city to leverage its EECBG funds and money saved on energy and operating costs to pay for building improvements. It also offers an alternative to the traditional bid and spec process by placing the burden of performance and guaranteed results on energy service contractors. Savings realized will be applied toward facility improvements, within existing budgets and without the need for capital funding. Furthermore, this contract will allow the city to achieve the EECBG's ambitious targets required for cities to successfully access funding including job creation, funds leveraged and energy/emissions reduced. Using utility billing records, facility data, and characteristics of applicable sites, an Energy Services Company (ESCO) identifies an inventory of these clean energy opportunities, each with an estimated capital cost and pay-back period. Items having shorter pay-back periods (typically energy conservation) can be bundled with items having longf;r pay-back periods (typically renewable energy generation) to achieve an overall project package with an acceptable pay-back period. Typically, part or all of the capital financing associated with a performance contract can be provided by a third. party lending agency, with capital lease payments allocated from resulting utility cost savings. All facility improvements made as part of the performance contract become the property of the city upon the completion of the lease payments. In addition to the benefits of facility upgrades and cost savings enabled by a performance contracting approach, a further benefit is the ability of the city to demonstrate measurable greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions in a short timeframe rel~itive to many other sustainability and climate protection strategies. Hiring of local sub-contractors for these "green-collar" construction jobs can also contribute to the vitality of local economies. Performance Contracting is a four-phase process: 1) Preliminary Study, 2) Detailed Energy Audit (DEA), 3) Implementation, and 4) Guarantee Phase. The final three phases are performed by a single ESCO. Because of the continuity provided by the fact that the DEA and the Implementation steps are performed by the same company, that company is able to guarm2tee the energy savings that will be realized by the city over the project lifecycle, as validated in the Guarantee phase by monitoring and verification (M&V) methods. EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE c.C,%l~- 3C'~~-~~ Linda La er ren ~ ~ r From: Fergusson, Kelly [kelly.fergussonCsiemens.com] Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 7:07 F'M To: Kris Wang Subject: Tomorrow -- Agenda item #31 Hi Kris, The Siemens Detailed Energy Audit (DEA) is coming to the council for acceptance tomorrow night As we were finishing up the DEA, my team at Siemens also ha:> been working with your staff to develop Options A & B (pg 31-10 & 31-11 of the staff report). Option A is focussed on energy-savings and water-savings only, whereas Option B also includes renewable energy production in the form of solar panels on the roof of city hall, the council chambers, and the library. Each project creates significant future utility cost savings that are used to finance (via atax-exempt municipal lease) the bulk of the implementation/construction of the facility improvements (interior and exterior lighting upgrades, streetlight upgrades, irrigation technology upgrades, etc.) Siemens guarantees the energy and water savings for both Options A & B, and the production capacity of the solar photovoltaic system (if Option B is selected), so the city is protected from financial risk. Kris, I got to know your values when we served together on the LCC Environmental Quality Committee, so I imagine this project is important to you because of both the cost savings and the greenhouse gas emissions savings it will create. We have been working well with your staff throughout this desicin-build Performance Contract (PC) process. (Siemens was selected in a competitive RFP process last spring and entered into a Letter of Intent (LOI) for the design-build PC process with the City in June, 2009 based on Council's direction on 6/17/09.) However, very recently the Finance Department has become more involved and has raised some concerns. Siemens wants to continue to work through these concerns with Finance and City staff -- these questions and concerns are legitimate and normal in the development of a design-build Performance Contact. The Performance Contract financing mechanism is new to Finance staff, but has been used successfully in over 600 clean energy projects that ~~iemens has done for public entities across the US in the past 12 years. Unfortunately, Finance's concerns manifested tf•~emselves out-of-the-blue in a staff recommendation to issue another RFP. This recommendation is problematic for a number of reasons, primarily because as part of its winning proposal, Siemens agreed to "open book" pricing so staff could ensure it was fair and reasonable. To go out to a new RFP now, out-of-the-blue, and share our numbers with potential competitors, is quite problematic. Hopefully this will get cleared up tomorrow night so we can "get the wheels back on the cart" and continue moving forward productively with staff toward implementation. believe the Finance Department's concerns could be molified if the city had the means to "buy down" a portion of the amount financed for each project. Hopefully this can be part of the discussion and direction tomorrow night as well. I don't want to make you read through a lot of detail, but I did went to put these issues on your radar screen, and make myself available to answer any questions you might have in advance of the meeting. All in all it looks like a terrific project that the city will be able to be very, very proud of! Don't hesitate to give me a call! -- Kelly Kelly Fergusson, Ph.D., P.E., LEED®AP Business Development Manager Self-funding Clean Energy Projects -- Local Government SIEMENS Industry (note name change as of 10!1/09) 25821 Industrial Boulevard, Suite 300, Hayward, CA 94545 (510) 861-2168 cell; (510) 731-3069 direct kelly.fergusson(a)_siemens.com