The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Bill 5APart3 10/05/2009~.,It4' ~~~~1_}.i~,~t'!''.Ic1 ~7t;>;IL~1.tJt,i;iL 1~7l 1~.T121';~' ~ i .lt~sla <11;11(`?l'€ 1`ii17? ~ _l~).~'.~,'~ _.. ~iSII ~~1~~113', Plan:: A: 1,263 Tons C02e Avoided 23.2% % Reduction Community.~Beneft (over-:25•year'life of'plan) ~ Financial ANetrics $$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments $8,213,356 Jobs Created 1,094 $$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases $111,593 IRR NA $$$.Invested"Locallyin GHG Projects $52,761,391 IVPV ($17,587,409) Action Plan A: This plan has 10 specific actions and reduces .the net GHG by 23% below 2000 levels. This ,plan relies. primarily on the generation of electricity from photovoltaic systems. A total of 6.6 MWac of PV projects are included, roughly half utilize the power purchase agreement approach to financing. 'The PPA approach requires no capital or O&M expenditure. The financial metrics of this approach are very .challenging: where the NPV is negative $17M. The resulting annual cash flow is the net income. to the City (energy cost savings minus project debt service; replacement costs and associated'O&Mj. The negative value in year 2024 is due to PV inverter replacement: .The GHG Emissions graph below depicts the growth of emissions from 2000 to present- an°d the reduction anticipated with this plan. into the future. It includes the impact of the CA Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the CA Low Carbon Fuel Standard.3z- d io sb t :Cash Flow ~ Annual Debt uct n y Sec or C02e%Re Year (Capitaltand Service Net Cash Flow Outstanding Savings, Payments Principal Building t tli hti n:e g ng S 7h i ~OX 2009 $0 $D $0 $8,002,843 ~ Fleet ~ 2010 $198 j 49 td -95,1 >=j .t5. ?5985) $6:653,824 /- iX I 2011 $210622 _ t$ fi24,ec<i (~ 5.3,5;~D; $5,092,358 / j 2012 $117.993 (>" 824',°921 ~$ 70~ 2~Sj $3,469,215 • ~_ Commute 2013 $152 559 824 292) $ c~' 73SJ $5 784 800 _ X , , , . \ ~ ~ 2014 $291 089 t~~:'2,'175) E$2 431,08,')- $19;293,966 • ~ W r 2015 $716;004 t$4S;6,E70t tSs 301;,666) $15,539,408 ate ~~ Wastewateri 2016 $741;289 54,48.5051 153 %45.~2D1 $11,665,705 ~' 2017 $767,466 154,487.SD9} (53 720.043; $7,638,992 2018 $794!566 $4,487.4D9) $ :892,344) $3 453,222 2019 (5534 7:i ~; ($3,589,625; l$3, E29,33'.: $0 .95°A ~ 2020 $851,666 $0 $851,666' .. _ $0 _. ,. '-. .~~ ~ 2D21 $881;738 $D $681;.735 ~ $0 - ~ 2022 $9121864 ~$0 $912;664• '$0 2023 $363,923 $0 $363;923 $0 j 2024 15`.,345,2=4) -$0 ($`,.°.46,214) ~ $0 j ~ zozs $r,o12;s9z $o $1,D12;ssz $o 3z The reductions:are obtained by reading the bottom curve on the graph on the next page. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) impacts are assumed to be 50% of the stated statewide targets. A Cite c71'I'et.~lunl~~ Gi-een_hc}uz;e Cas I (2i~~:sic~n f~eciu.c>tit~~~ <-~eti~~l~ I'Ittn I O.~.U~~ 800.. 0 -; ~ -800 ~'i - - - - - --_ _ ~~~. -20 ,« - \`= --- - ~ -1.600 ~ -- - - --- - --_ v -40% ~ ~ ~ - V ~ -2.400 ' - ---. - - _. - _. __ d N - -60% O U -3.200 I~--- - -- ----. - __.- - -60 -4.000 -.- .. ~ _- ~- -- -4.800 - -_ __ __ __ - .__. .... ' -100% 00 0'` oti o'~ cA o`' 06 0~ om o° ,~° ,~° ~ti ,~~ ,~°' ,~`' ,~e ,~~ .~e ,,°' ,yo r10 ry0 ry0 ry0 ~O ry0 ry0 ry0 ,LO ry0 rt0 ~O ,LO ry0 ry0 ry0 ~ry0 ry0 r10 ry0 ry0 Plan A Measure'List Selected Measure Number Measure Name - - ~ Implementation Date Financed (yes/no) 36 4 day work week (Commute) 2009 no 37 4 day work week (Building) 2009 no 42 Nissan.Electric VehiGes (Exclusive to other Fleet Measures) 2010 yes 54 PV 1.0 MWac (PPA) 201.1 no 55 PV 2.OMWac (PPA) 2013 no '56 PV 1.0 MWac (PPA) 2012 no -57 PV .5 MWac (PPA) 2012 no 58 PV .S MWac '-2013 yes 59 PV 1.0 MWac 2009 yes 60 PV 2.0 MWac 2014 yes I,ii.Z~~~M 11 _`-..`1.13 i ` i'i) t1A)3t ~~'I L (~({`-: ^ ;Iv<i' ;w! l~i1 f_`..- f!i~.. GHG Emissions Trend by Sector C~it~~ ~~f Petasuit~a Gree.n.h~~tlse C~as EtY).iss.icin [t.ectuttic~n i~cti~an Plan. 10.5.Oy Plan B: 1,21.3 Tons C02e Avoided ,22.3% % Reduction Community Benefit (over 25 year life of plan) Financial Metrics $$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments $4,484,311 Jobs Created 341 $$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases $2,816,847 IRR 49.8% $$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects $16,253,720 NPV $11,169,284 Action Plan B: The plan includes a combination of 28 new measures including 2 MWac of Photovoltaic systems producing over 2.4 million kWh per year. This plan also includes a broad range of efficiency measures for the city buildings, fleet and wastewater system. The fleet measures are more aggressive including a range of gas hybrid, diesel hybrid and all electric vehicle replacements. The plan also includes reducing. the Kenilworth pool schedule ~by 50%. All together, the measures in this plan allow the City to exceed the target of 20% GHG emissions reduction by 2015, yet realize an attractive internal rate of return of ST% and a net present value of the investment of over $11M. The resulting annual cash flow is the net income to the City (energy cost savings minus project debt service, replacement costs and associated O&M). The Emissions Trend below illustrates the progress toward the city's reduction goa1.33 C02e %ReducBons by Sector Straet6ghting 9X Building ~ 22X ~ i;, 1 (~ M; Fleet ~. --~~ 15X L ~~~_ ~k PV 26% i Water~~ Commute wa:tewater 6x 3% Annual NeY Cash Flow Cash Elow - (Capital and Savings) Annual Debt .Service Payments Plan B Outstanding principal zoos ($20,000} $o ($zo.oocj $122,3za 2010 $7;953. ($21,439} •($19,485) $1,235,132 2011 $246;102 ($278,236] (532.1341 $1,162;653 2012 $264;471 ($313,446} (548,975] $2,686,101 2013 $616;675 (5715,181) ($98,506] $2,077,021 _2014 $671,557 (5715,181) (543.624] $2,074;549 2015 $852,229 ($829,205} $23;021 $1,327;285 2016 $882;156 (5583,132} $299,023 $796,580 2017 $973;133 (5547 922) $365,210 $260,123 2018 $945;197 (:5146,187} $799,010 $145,001 2019 $978;386 ($146,.187} $832,199 $4,541: 2020 $892,907 (54,'21} $888,186 $0 2021 $1,048;300 $0 $1,048,300 $0 2022 $1;085;107 $0 $1,085,107 $0 2023 $1,123;207 $0 $1,123,207 $0 2024 $1,162,644 $0 $1,162,644 $0 2025 $1,203;464 $0 $1.203.464 $0 3s The reductions are obtained by reading the bottom curve on the graph on the next page. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) impacts are assumed to be 50% of the stated statewide targets. ~. G tffr,•-?_ ~ ll3°CC~! 'a; (_.;'ti it z1 ~~ i L ~..}~= 1 yr ...,. ~l.je`i ...~.:`°,_ If~t'. C;it~~ c?1~1?~ta(illt~~ Gr~:crlhc7us~ Cfas ; tta.i'4si(~n IZecilic;fic>r~ <'~~tiol: I'It~rl 10.~.()~~ GHG Emisslons`Trend,by Sector. aoo _ - - - - ,_ ,, p Future Actions ---. - ~ `~~ 0.. . _ _ _~ - - ~< ~~~~~ --- ~._--- -- --_ 0% pPower Content. y ` ^CA LowCarbom c -800',- -. \ -~- -20% Fuel .~.. \ _-~ `__ ^ PV O -1800,. _ - -_ '~ 7 ~ - - 40% ^ Fleet ~ 'O m. -2, 400 .. , -- - _.. - ~ ®Water N - -60% Wastewater ~ -3.200 ~'. U - _ _ _ -: _.- - - -, OCommute - -80% ^Streetlighting -0,000. i - - ---- ~ "~ - O Building 4,800 - - -100% 00 O O~ Ory 00 Da oy 06 O~ 00 09 ,O , ~ {l• ,~'~ ~a ~h ,~0 .~'~ ,~0 '~~' ,y0 0 0 , O 0 0 , O r 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ry y L ,ti ti ,~ ~ y ry ,1 ,t y r~ rt ry ry ry ry ry r1 Emission Reductions Including Utility Power Content Trend and Assumed Future Actions Plan B Measure List Selected Measur MeasureName Implemenlatio 'Finance Number ~ Date (yes/no) 9 K. Swim Center Closure 50 % Days 2009 no (exclusive-to other K. Swim pool measur s) ',. 10 Cavn. CnU Opt. Operation Pool Pumpsa d .2009 yes Filtratiori EEM-6 11 Cavn. Cntr Premium Efficiency Pool,Pu p 2010, yes Molors EEM-6 (Matcliedto #10) 14 City Hall, Com Cntr, Police Dept: SBE 2006 es y - Lighting Measures 15 Police Facility Energy Management Syst m 2010 yes MCAP' 16 Police Facility HVAC Upgrade to 16 SE 2012 yes and 80% AFUE ABAGEW / HDR EEM- I 17 Luchessi Cmty Cntr Replace Gas Pcks / 2011 yes HighEff UhitsEEM-9 (Exclusive to #18j 19 Animal Shelter Lighting,Retrofit ABAG E 2009 yes 20 CorporationYard Lighting Retrofit ABAG W 2009 yes 21 Cavri. Cntr Lighting Retrofit ABAG EW 2009 yes 22 Elwood Cntr Soup Kitchen Lighting Retr it 2009 yes ABAG EW 23 Senior Center Lighting Retrofit ABAG E ~ 2009 yes 24 Airport Lighting Retrofit ABAG EW 2009 yes 26 Vending Machine Controls 2009 yes 26 Retrofit Frates Pumps (Zone 4) 2010 yes 28 SolarBe~'" (unless new facility removes 2009 yes need) 30 Streetlighting A: 50 % Conversion HPS t 2012 es y LED (or equiv.) Plan B Measure List (continued) Selected Measu Number Measure Name Implemenlatio Date Finance (yes/no) 32 Streetlighting C: Tum off 50 % of Residen lighting (non intersection) al 2010 no 34 Commute 1 2010 no 36 ~4 tlay work week (Commute) 2009 no 37 4 day work week (Building) 2009 no 39 ~ Bus Fleet 8 2014 yes 41 FleerReplacement Strategy B (includes Nissan Elec) 2012 es y ~- - '~ 49 Biodiesel 50 % linked to Fleet B 2010 no ' ~_ 53 Fleet Management Software Linked to FI Replacem ent ~B et 2010 es y ''. 55 PV 2.0 MWac (PPA) 2013 no 62 K.Swim Cen[er 80 kWac PV System MC P 2010 yes ~64 Public Works PV System 25.3kWac 2010 .yes ~` 65 Efficiency Coordinator (.SFTE) 2010 no 1 .,,<lti I','s ?i t'i i7t l!1 ( .~i l~!sj tlf, t; ,~ E ~..,'.1 `, t.~ii -~'~. :1i1:_ 3~`~3 ,I . ~.'3? ~ G,1' ~}t,'~iTjtl311z$ i.€I,: , 113 ~'.: ~~~.5 ~. ;iC>Tt €~_~'C~lSi,i°f€?T3 .~i;tttii l~iili''t i €1.,~',~~~ Plan C: 1;210 Tons cote Avoided 22.3°/° % Reduction ;community.Benefit. over25 year_life of plan) FinanciaLMletrics $$$ AvoidedUtility" °Conipany $3,373,850 Jobs Created 188 Payments $$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases $3,477,322 IRR 409.7% $$$ Invested Locally in GHG " $9,788,725 PiPV $12,748,340 Pro ects Action Plan C: This plan includes 27 measures. In addition to~ similar measures of Plan B, Plan C replaces the fleet .replacement strategy with a less aggressive strategy,. and relies on a major grease to methane gas collection34 and processing progratb implemented elsewhere in California. Plan C exceeds. the City target of 20% GHG emissions reduction by 20] 5 with very attractive financial metrics. The Internal Rate of Return is l90% and the Net Present Value exceeds $1.4 million over the term of the :analysis (25 years). The annual net cash flow (energy cost savings minus project debt service, replacement- costs and associated b&M) is negative for a number of years. However, the cash flow turns strongly positive in 2015. The Emissions Trend below illustrates the progress toward the city's reduction goal,35 C02e %Reductions by Sector) Streetlightmg 2% r Suild'mg 21% i Fleet 32% PV \~~ /^\ ~ 13% ~ ~ ~ /} t~ ~ 6% Water Wastewater 27X .Annual Net' Cash Flow CashFlow (Ca pitaland Savings) -Annual Debt Service .Payments Plan C Outstanding Principal 2009 $0 ~$0 $0 $43,594 2010 $71;398 ($9.7731 $61;620 $1,384,712 2011 .$266,285' ~ j$2?8.`126) ($1}.54;. $1,427,161 2012 ~ $321,425 (4"337J6fi1 ;i>'6,34`1 $1,837,778 2013 $548,992 (4492, 9fi2? $56,000 $1,417,376 2014 $568;257 r4492 °97? $75,264 $1,251,965 2015 .$859,196 (5644, 135? $315,061 $757,282 2016 $889;321 :43~t',4:`.41 $571,918 $469;791 2017 $920,502 (°x25',764? $662,738 $230,584 2018 $952,775 14102,536? $850,238 $137,'155 2019 $986,180 t4YJ2 536? $883,643 $40;035 2020 $991,385 .441 6s6; $949,769 $0 2021 $1;056,544 $0 $1,056,544 $0 2022 $1,093;586 $0 $1,093;586 $0 2023 $1,131,926 $0 $1.131,926; $0 2024, $1,171,610 $0 $1,171,610. $0 2025 $1,212,686 $0 $1,212,686 ~ '$0 34 See Appendix 7.8 "Grease to Gas Augmentation of Digester Gas" which describes the Riverside CA experience with a restaurant trap grease program. ss The reductions are obtained 6y reading the bottom curve on.the graph on the next page. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) impacts are ,assumed to be 50°/n of the stated statewide targets. ~.~. i~~S *. j~l>.-.. LCl~ ~1•Vt. '.F ~~ ~. ~ t i~}~i ~ • - - I~..C'~.l.l)if ~~~£213 ~~. ,-.. GHG Emissions irend.by Sector r aoo - -- __ ^Future Actions 0 -- ~~ - -_.._. _l ' \ - - --~"-- - ow'Carbon ~ H -8W - -__ -_ _ J 20% Fuel c ~- ---- _. ------ --- _ p - - __ -- c -1600 O --- - --- w _ -40% ®Fleet ~ I N -2,400 ~ ® Water m N $0% Wastewater U -3 200 ^ Commute -80 % ~ Streetlighting -0,000 p Building -4.800 _.- ..~ .......... ...... -_ _ . :100% 00 Or.. ory ors Ob oh o6 01' - 00. O~' ,v0 ,~~ .~`7' ^O ,vA .~5' ,vro ^1 ,~0 ~9 O ~' ,LO ,y0 r~0 r~0 DO ,rtO ry0 g0 ry0 rt0 rt0 ,LO ,LO rtO ,ti0 r~0 - ry0 ,ti0 ry0 ,y0 ,Lp Emission Reductions Including Utiliry Power Content Trend and Assumed Future Actions Rlan C Measure List: Measure Implementation Financed Selectetl Number Measure Name Date (yes/no) K' SwimCentei Solar Thermal Repair MGAP ZOW es 1 (Exclusive to #2,7;8,9) y 3 K.Swim Center VFD MCAP~(Exclusive to'#9) 2010 yes K.SwimCenter Pool Cbvers'Repl. MCAP 2409 es 4 (Exclusive to#9) y 6 K. Swim Cntr Opt, Operation Poot PUrnps 2009. es y and Filtration EEM-1 (Exclusive to N6 9) 10 Cavn. Cntr Opt. Operation Pool Pumps and 2009 yes Flltratidn EEM-5 14 City HaII,Com Cn(r; Police.Dept. SBEA 2006 yes Lighting'Measures 16 Police Fac Irty EnergyMahagemeht System 2010 es y MCAP t9 ~ Animal Sheffer LightingRetrdflt ABAGEW 2009 yes I ~. , 20 Corporato Yard Lighting'Retro(t ABAG EW 2009 yes ~_- _ _ 21 Cavn C (Lighting ReUOfrt ABAGEW 2009 yes __- ,22 ElwapdC t Soup. Kitch n, Lighting Retro/it 2009 yes F - ABAGEW 23 Senior.Center. Lighting RetrofM ABAG EW 2009 yes 2a Aiiport Lighting,Rebofrt ABAG EW 2009 yes ~ X25 Ventling Machine Controls 2009 yes -_ 26 Retioht Frates Pumps (Zone 4) 2010 yes I I 29 Grease to Gas:Methane Program - 2011 yes ` 30 Streetlighting A' S0%COnversion HPS to ZOt2 es y ' LED (orequiv.) Plan C iNeasq~e List (continued) ' Selected Measure Number Measure Name Implementation Date Financetl (yes/no) 34 Commute 1 2010 no 36 4 day work week (Commute) 2009 no ~. - 37 4 day work week (Building) 2009 no I i 38 Bus FleetA 2014 yes - - 40 Fleet Replacement Strategy A (inclutles Nissan Elec) 2010 yes 46 Biodiesel 50% linketl to FleetA 2011 no . 62 ~ Fleet Management Software Linked to Fleet Replacement A 2016 yes 54 PV 1:0 MWac (PPA) 2011 no L - 61 Community Center 4l kWac PV MCAP 2010 ,yes II 64 Pubtic Works PV System 25.3 kWac~ 2010 ;.yes Ir I ~ 65 Efficiency COOrdinatort.SFTE) 20W, no ~._ >E~4, t t___ ..._ - ,- ~~ 9~ I ~. ~i~'.' :~.' .ti~7 3- IiiL.~. ~;:, Ci: [~l, ,:.. rEli.',tt11C1t1tiC ~tu;x-1-[Eit~5.lt1C1 .~ec~iil~tEt3r .`1{~~.1€)11 ~~12$1l C~.~3,()~) Plan D; . 1.,523. Tons C02 Avoided 28:0% °~ Reduction Communifit Benefit (over 25 year life of plan) ~ Financial lYietrics $$$ Avoided Utility Company $6,673,737 Jobs ~CFeated 207 Payments $$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases $3;374,173' IRR ~ ~ 108.2% $$$ Invested. Locally in GHG ' $11,545,266 ~ NPV $13,600,309 Pro ects Action Plan ID: The plan. includes a combination of 35 :measures including two residential streeflighting reduction measures not included in previous plans. It includes a 1 MW Photovoltaic system as well as most of `the energy efficiency measures that are available :for each sector.. An aggressive biodiesel fuel measure for the diesel powered vehicles is added to the aggressive fleet replacement program: All together, the measures in this plan allow the City to redtace emission by 28% GHG emissions below 2000.by 2015. While the sash flow is negative in the early years, financial metrics' of I.RR and NPV are both ,attractive due to the positive cash flow after 2014. The resulting annual cash flow provided below is the net income to the City (energy cost savings minus project debt service, replacement, costs -and associated O&M). The Emissions Trend below illustrates the progress toward the city's reduction goa1,36 C02e%Reductlons'by Sector Streetlightlng 12% Building t1% - I loet 3G l.. 11% ~ \~ ~~~~/ - Commute. \~ " 7% Water Wastewater ~ 25% Annual Net Cash. Flow Cash Flow - (Ca pilaf and Savings), Annual Debt Service :Payments PlanD OutYa nding Principal 2009 $0 $0 $0 $129,280 2010 (S29G', 3): (528.3991 ;558.67b $1,250,702 2011 -$227,839 ~ ;5282,012; 1$54.1787 .$1,297,309 2012 $243,616 ES344,650} (?1G',033i $2;420,864 2013 ;$635,553 _ ~(5662;g90j ($26:~?7; $1.853,998 2014 $657, 847 - t$E62,590) (54;643) $11536,333 2015 $951:922 ($09,413) $257,510 $902.606 2016 ,$985,292 (S44C>,1163 $539,177 $492,143 2017 $1.019,832 -$383,433) $636,349. $128,099 2018 $1,055,582 5.64~j $989;940 $67;517 2019 $1,092,585 1565,84 ~; $1,026,943 $4,541 2020 $1,011 052 {$4,72-tj $1,008,331 $0 2021 $1,170,527 $0 $1;170,527 $0 2022 $1;155,830 $0 ~ $1,155;830 $0 2023 $1-,254;028 $0 $1254,028 _ `$0 2024 $1297, 986 $0 $1297986; _ $0 2025 $1-.343.485 $0 $1,343,485' $0 36 The reductions are obtained by .reading the bottom curve on the graph on the next page. The Renewable Portfolio Staridai•d (RPS) impacts.are assumed to be 50% of the stated statewide targets. [_'fz~,' (~~"rr:>C;1r81tSfflit ~i`vt;it.t~(_lt(~~ ~3 .` '~ ~;,3~ 1i1I~,.c~tilt43~it?I'2 <,4.I1~)II ~~iti2 ~~}.:~.f$t~ GHGEmi§sions Tn3nd 6y Sector ~ _~\ ^FutureA'ctions 0 ~_ - - - O CA Low Carbon w.~ -600 ~ ~ - -_ ~ 20%. Fuel c ~,, ~-._ _ --- ---- ~ - o PV o ~` c ~- =_ _ - ----~ , A -1600.... - f I ~ ~ -00% m Fleet 7 d -2;400 K m Water a Fi0% Wastewater N U -g 200 o Commute $0^!o D Streetlighting 4 000 Building -4.600 . ' ____._ _ _ _ - -100% . O~ O^ ory O"~ ~' Oh 06 01 00 OA ,~O ,.~. _ ,.~' ,~"~ ,`b ^y ,~6 ^1 ,~0 ,~9 ryO ,yO, ryO ,yO ,vO ;10- ,LO ~O ,yO rtO ,yO ryO ,LO ,tiO ,tO ,~O ,yO ryO ryO ,yO ,tO ,y0 Emission: Reductionslncluding Utility Power Content Trend and Assumed Future Actions .Plan D fNeasure:list Plan D RAeasure List (continued) Selected Measure Number - Measure Name Implementatio Date Finance (yes/no) Measu- Selected - Number Measure Name Implementatio Date Finance (yes/no) 3 K:Swim Center VFD MCAP{Exclusrveto 9) 2010 yes - I '29 Grease to Gas Methane Program 2011 ~ yes 5 K Swim CntrOpt. Operation Pool Pump and.Fil4ration EEM41 (Exclusiveto.#6.9) 2009 yes ~ ~ 32 - StreetligtitingC: Turnoff 50 % of'Reside lighting (non intersection) tial 2070 no ~ K. Swim Cnter High Eff Condensing~Boil to #4~and 8;9) EEM-3 (Exclusrve s 2012 yes 33 ~Streetlighting~D: Turn off50 % of: Reside lighting (nonintersection) ial 2012 no I' 10 , Cam. Cntr Opt: Operation Pool Pumps a Filtration EEM-5' d 2009 yes ~ ;34 Commute 1 2010 no 11 . Cavn..Cntr Premium Efficiency PoolPum (Matched to # 10) tors EEM-6 M 2010 yes -_- 35 ~ Commute 2 2071 no - 13 . _ : o Cavn.,Cntr Install Cool F2ooffEM-B 2011 yes ~ ~ 36 ~ 4 day work week (Commute) 2009 no I ' 14 CityHall,~ComCntr, Police Dept. SBEA htin M s ,2006 yes ~ 37 4iday work week~(Building) 2009 no mo ' 15' g easure _ Lig Police Facility Energy ManagemenLSyst ~ 2010 yes --- - -- 38 Bus FleetA 2014 eyes MCAP 18 'Luchessi Cmnty.Cntr Instal6Cool Roof EE - 2011 yes 41 Fleet.ReplacemenYStrategy B (includes Nissan Elec) 2012 yes. (Exclusive to.#17) 10 h 19 Animal~Shelter Lighting Retrofit ABAG E 2009 yes 49 Biotliesel 50 % linked to FleetB 2010 .rio - • _ ' are Linked'to FI t Soft Fl t M - et _ -- - ' 20 ' ._ Corporation'Yard LightingRetrofit ABAG W 2009 yes I ~ 53 w ee anagemen Replacement B. . :2010 `yes; ' I -~ ~ ~ 21 - - Cn$Lighong RetrofifABAG'EW Cava 2009 yes ; 54 PV 1,0 MWac (PBA) Q011 no . , . __ _ __ _ '~ 22 ;Elwood Cntr:Soup Krtdhen~-Lighting~Reiro iL 2009 es 61 Community~Center 4l kWac PV MCA 2010 yes - ABAG~EW --- y _ _ 2 dfitABAG E ight n Ret S io C t 2009 es ; ~ 62 K.Swim Center 80 kWac PV System MC P 2010 yes 3 en r en en.L i g r y ----- 4 - i R f EW h 2009 s 63 City HaIIPVSystem50kWac 2012 yes . 2 t ng etro it ABAG Airport Lig ye - --- - 0 9 64 Public Works PV System 25.3 kWac 2010 yes 25 Vending MachineControls 0 2 yes n - -- - 65 Efficiency Coordinator (:5FTE) 2010 o ~, 26 Retrofit Frates Pumps (Zone 4) ~ 2010 yes i 66 di SFTE Effi i t ( C 2012 no --- - SolarBee'"' (unless newfacility removes : oor na ency or . ) c 28 need] y009 yes d ,?e ? t-,[4".4 ~ ;.)~a: ~~ t ., ~i t~k", tii>f ,id .. _. t:. 't'i.'. _, ~~`,j~w t~#z. f.~€ctltttl1c$ ~dl!~'.~;~a.}t.C7th~~ `~.zc~4`,~rT2iS-Si6`~!1 ~~~(:~tl~~l~it;~~~. .~ '~. ~ ~e171 i~~3._i.~L9 Plan ,E: 2,'i 0;'i Tons C02e Avoided. .38:7% % Reduction Community Benefit (over 25 near life of plan). Financial Metrics $$$ Avoided' lJttlity Company $4,858,555 Jobs Created 510 .Payments $$$ Avoided' Fuel Purchases $2,734,847 IRR ~ 35.6% $$$ Invested locally in GHG $25,071,010 idPV $12,007,322 Pro ects . Actaon flan E: This plan. includes 40 new measures: In addition to most of the measures of _ Plan D, Plan E replaces the fleet fuel strategy with a more aggressive, approach that specifies 99% biodiesel; and adds another. 2 1VIWac PV system. This. plan replaces the residential streetlighting measures. with a .conversion to LED streetlighting systems (or equivalent technology projected fo be available by 2012). Plan E pushes the GHG emissions reduction beyond 38% liy 2015, and maintains egmpelling financial. metrics. The Internal Rate of Return is over 30% and the Net Present Value exceeds $l IM. The :annual. net cash flow (energy cost savings minus project debt service, replacement costs and. associated O&M) turns positive in 2016. The Emissions Trend below illustrates the progress toward tNe city's reduction goa1.37 C02e %Reductionsby,:Sector Streedighting~ • 3% Building "Fleet tgX - - 256. I ~~'~.~ Commute ~ _ 6% ~ ~r \~ i PV 26X Water Wastewater 21% I I Annual Net Ca sFt Flow CashPlow (Capital and Savings) .Annual Debt Service. Payments Plan E Outstanding Principal 2009 $0 $0 $0 $137,851 2010 $54;726" ;$30;922? $23;805 $1;257,669 2011 $125;638, (528.,.9351 (g'. 58.3013 $1,580,737 2D12 $222 428 (540° 0501 (t.186.52T~ $3,562,624 2013 $558;050 (ss3'23?'~ .>3?3,1871 $3,464;120 2014 $784;985 $`;%F ~-F,31 1.s . 47ri $3,145,157 2018 $969;679 ($`.li?~,Li;61_ (W1.1i,3291 $2,072,383 2016 $7.003;769 (.i~34?~?11. ~ $55;058 $1,205;531 2017 $1,039'056 ~~62 %00;. $215;357 $429,450 ' 2016 $1,075,564 8D 413; $774,171 $145,001 2019 $1~113~394' i$7-:'`~:~187; ~ $967;207 $4,541 202D $1 0327D0 ;$<"?_9) $1 D27;979 $0 2021 $~ 193047 $0 $1,193;047 $0 2022 $1,179;254 $0 $1,179.254' ,$0 2023 $1,278;394 $0 $1278;394 $0 _' 2024 ,$1,323;329 $0 $1,323,329 _$0 ~ 2025 $1',369;842 $0 --- - $1369;'842 -~ `$D 37 The reductions are o6tained,by leading the bottom curve on the graph on the next page. The Renewable Portfolio. Stahiaiel (RPS) impacts are assumed fo lie~5,0% o"f the stated statewide targets. ;, . _ .._ ~ .... ,~ ~ 3~~ -, ~ ~~( ~~~~ , ~1.((~ c ._ ~,~~. ~z_ .'i...[„~ c': € _.~ i'tl~±£. ~Su`3 '; ., 1 ,,.;lit I~.E,'(~L(t11€~it"i rks.+:;ttC1I1 ~~~=.~1 GHG Emissions Trend by Sector) 800 ~ _`` p Future~.Adtions. - CA:Low Caibon _ y^ -800 c ~. .20% Fuel.. o • ~ _ ~_ __~~ ~ OPV: p -1.600-~ ~ _ ~\, ~ __ - - o - ~ ~ - ------ - ---- X30% ^Fleet v ~ .2.400 _____.---------- J~ ®Water m ~0% Wastewater N ~ -3,200 _ ^Commute ~.~ -80% oStreetlighting -4,000 - o Buildirg -0,800 1= - -100% 00 O'er 0 0 Ory O`S OC' Oh 06 O'1 Ob 09 ,~O ^'~ ~.`1' ~O ,~b. ~h ^0 ,~1 .~0 ~O ry0 0 , 0 O O r 0 , 0 , O r O r 0 r O , O r O O 0 r 0 O O 0 o r .1 ry y ry y 1 y y t y y ~ y ry ~ y . ry rt ry rt t Emission Reductions Including Utility Power Content Trend and Assumed Future Actions Plan E Measure'List • Rlan E Measure List (continued) Selected Measure Measure:Name Implementatio Financed Selected Measure ~ Measure Name Implementatio Financed Number Date (yeslno) Number Date (yes/no) 2 K.Swim Center.:Solar ThennahExpansio. ~ 2041 yes I I -:27 Petaluma AqueducDSUpplying Zone 4 2012 ~ yes MCAP (EzUusive tb:#1 7,8;9). 3 K:Swim CenterYFD MCAP (Exclusive.to 9) 2010 yes :Y8 SolarBee'"' (unlessnew:facility;removes 2009 yes need) 4 K.SwimCenter Pool CoversRepl MCA 2009 yes I I 29 Greaseto Gas Methane Program 2011 yes 5 K. Swim Cntr OpF. Operation~Pool Pump - 2009 yes i ~ ~0 Streetlighting..A: 50% Conversion HPS t 2012 yes ' #6;9) and Fltrahdn,EEM-1 (Exclusive to ~ ~ LED (or equiv:) --- 10 Cavn. Cntr Opt:-Operation PooLPumps a d 2009 yes 31 Streetlighting B: 50 % Conversion HPS t 2013 yes _ Filtration EEM-5" LED (orequiv.) 11 Cavn: Cntr Premium;Efficiency Pool Pum 2010 yes r , 34 Commute 1 2010 no MotorsfEM-6 (Matchetl~,to:#10) 12 Cavn. Cn$ Supplimental Solar Watr Heati g 2011 yes ~ i 35 Commute 2 2011 no EEM-7 i 13 ~Cavn.Cntr Install CooLRoof EEM-B :- 2011 yes , 36 4 day workweek (Commute) 2009 no 14 CityHall, Com~Critr, Police DepLSBEA 2006 yes 37 4 dayworkweek (Building) 2009 no Lighting Measures 15 Police Facility Energy Management Syste 2010 yes 39 - Bus FleetB 2014 Yes MCAP ~- ,16 Police Facility NVAC Upgrade to 16 SEE - - ~ ~ 2012' yes 41 Fleer Replacement Strategy B 2072 yes. ~ ' 60% AFUE.ABAGEW./HDR EEM- and (includesNissan flee) - i _ 17 Luchessi Cinty:Cntr ReplaceGas Pcks - - - - ~ - 2011 yes i 51 Blodlesel'99%;linked to ~. Fleet6 ~ 2010 no , High Eff UnitsEEM 9 (ExGusrve td #16) ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - 19 Animal'Shelter Lighbng~Retrofit ABAGE 2009 yes 53 Fleet'Managemenf Sgftware~Linked to':Fle - t 2010 .yes i Replacement6 ~20 Corporation Yarii;Li9hting RetrofiC'ABAG„ .2009 yes 1 54 PV 1.0 MWac,(PPA) 2011 no ~ 21 Cavn,.Cntr Cighting:RefrdfiEABAG EW 2009 yes - i 55 PV 2.0 MWaa(PPA) 2013 no 22 ElwdodCntr Soup Kitchen Lighting Retro it 2009 yes ' 61 CommunityCenter 4l kWac PV MCAP 2010 yes ABAG EW 23 .Senior Center Lighting-Retrofit ABAGE 2009 yes 62 K.Swim Center 80 kWac PV System MC 2010 yes 24 Airport Lighting Retrofit ABAG EW 2009 yes 63 City Hall PV System SOkWac 2012 yes 25 Vending Machine Controls P 2009 yes ~'I 64 Public Works PV System 25.3 kWac 2010 yes 26 Retrofit Frates umps (Zone4) 2010 yes 65 Efficiency Coordinator (.SFTE) 2010 no ~~ 66 Efficiency;Coordinator (.SFTE) 2012 no _ s .. t6t I:d:= ) tFS' _s i ~~1 r~lr. ~ r 6 ;~{);~. 11 1fG` .~..,..'•E _ - ... ~,s`. 41~~~'C',l%Ilttl~ic: iSi'`'t;s li:ttt5~. ~Sc3^+ 1.~~1EtitiiCYi1 1~4:C~t[t'~'€.til t~~~:ti.C3i1 ~'i`<~+? ~%~,:3.~t)~~ R: Ac>t~®n Pla>:~.Evalua>~ons The GHG Emission Reduction Action Plans involve more than CO2e reduction and cash, flow. There are critical concerns- that should be factored into the decision making process. The_ se" include the financial .metrics of internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV), used to evaluate -thee worthiness of the investment; the cost of implementing the measure, some measures. come with a large price .fag which will challenge liquidity; the degree to which the plan resolves ; existing problems, such as old, -high maintenance air conditioning. units; the visibility of the measures to the :public, for example the photovoltaic systems are a physical example of actions. taken the City and communicate; action and commitment to the community. Other key considerations include the employee .impacts of new equipment or procedures, which may generate internal opposition'; and the impact on the variability of future energy costs and the associated budgetary vulnerability. Each measure and the plans as a whole are evaluated by the following considerations: ® Measure. Capital Cost: ® Financial Metrics (IRR and NPV) © Resolution of Existing Problems ® GHG Impact ® Public Visibility ® Employee Impact a Community Impact o Energy Cost Stabilization The "adjusted measure score" reflects the relative weighting of the evaluation criteria as presented in Table I0 below. Resolution of ' Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Positive Public Employee ' Community Energy,Cost (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulative) Visibility Impact Impact SI bilization total=24 .=3 to3 (relative (cumulative (cumulative (relative (relative) (cumulative) l)to 6 2 5. 2 ~ 3 4 2 2 4 24 Table 10: Evaluation Criteria Weighting The scoring for the plans is derived from the evaluations of each measure included in the plan. Each of,the measures received a score' for each of the criteria listed above. These measure .level evaluations are provided in the appendices. ~r . ~-.. _~ ~ 3~5~~ 1 W(3 ~ ~ ~ ~~:~~- ~,`f`' ~)i~"~;i~llllill2~ ~.si.~~~.,t,.. 4.~,.., I ., .ill"1 ~~t'.;.it-!~',iCzl1 G~t~lt)`l ~~i~li ~~,~;{~~! The: ,table below compiles the scaring for' each measure included in each plan and .yields a relative' score ;for each criteria.. As with the previous table; a higher score indicate more a more favorable evaluation for that criteria. Plan C, for example scores high. on "Firiarcial. Metrics" but scores. relatively low on "Public Visibility". Plain. C scores below Plans D and;E' overall: The category weighting has been integrated into these numbers as well as an integration factor ;to allow the aggregation of the relative and comprehensive scoring Values.38 Plan Scoring Metric \ Plan: A B'. C D' - E -_ Gost -13.7 24.8 38.6 42.0 25.1 financial'.Metrics' -88.6 147.9 145.5 126:7 115.4 Resolution of Existing, Problem 4.5 17.4 22:6 22.6 22.6 GHG Impact 47.7 51.9 47:9 60.5 64.4 Public,Visibility 81:5 99.6 81.5 125:2 147.9 Employee Impact 2.0 12.0 20.0 18.0 26.0 Communitylmpect -8.0 -18.0 -4:0 -12.0 -4.0 Energy Cost Stabilization, 53.T 78.6 64.4 83:5 94.6 Total 79.2 414.1 416.5 466:6 492 0 Table il: Plan Evaluation Results This analysis is intended to provide an overview of the effectiveness of each plan as a whole and by each evaluation criteria. While. it should .encourage a more comprehensive review of the cost/benefits of each strategy, these quantitative results are based on subjective judgments and are advisory only. They shotald be only one consideration in the selection of the most appropriate plan for the City of Petaluma. 38 A factor of.0:38 was applied to the. results of=the "cumulative" metrics to equalize the scale of results for the two types, of scoring (>-elative and cumulative). ~,i~`•: l~i`~°~;lG~~ltlllt~ ~~1't~fC3:I1C4ti;f. ~zt'x`,i [.i11I:~;IC~tI a~`,`(~.ilt;~iEC)I1 <~i{.~I.t3S1 ~}~iiT' ~~~.`- The tables below provide a complete list of the measures considered in this analysis along with the financial data and results for each.. The :individual measures .are described 'in the Measure; - Results section of this report. ~ - Inbrn.l Masum Maawn Flnencb Power PUmhna Nnt CepBil 08M - M tl COSt- Mmul C02e 8dnpls Reb of Net PrneM No. Naaum Nama Calepory BbWa. Impl. Dab lyea/ne1 AprnmeM' - Cost Irrcromenbl . Havlnpe. RaAUetlon~ - PayWCk RMrmr Velua (NPV) (Ye~~) CpN (mettle Sou), (IRR) 1 K. bvin Center SoMr Tnennal Building Future 2010 yas 5124.000 50 S],820 45.01 12.8 9.Z% 560.020 Repair MCAP 2 K.Sxim CaMar Solar TM1ermal Bulldirrp FNUre 2011 yea no '5124.000 50 58.094' 45.09 15.3 T8% 542.5% Eepanebn MCAP 3 K.Swim Cener VFD MCAP BuiMinq Future 2010 yes no 59,900 50 "520.348 JO.TB 0.5 216.2% 5394,561 4 K.SSSim Center POOl Covers Building FNpre 2009 yes 58,5)1 50 '316,J92 100.10 OS 2%.3% 3325.218 Repl. MLAP K. Sw'vn Cntr Opt: Operation 5 Pocl Pumps antl Fikrenon EEM- Builain9 FNUre 2009 yez no. 36,956 50 E1 J.O40 ~ 2(1.83 OS 19) 5% 5252,26) 6 K. bwim Cnbr Premium Building Future 2009 yez. ne §2,]34 SO 54,099 655 B] 158]% 5)8,)84 EfBCienry Moton EEM~2 K' bw»i Cnbr Hpn Ert. Builtlinq Future ~.Z012 yes no 500.900 50 ' E9.602 51.63 6.4 14.9% E113,601 Lontlensin9 boilers EEM-J - 8 K. Swim Cnier Bupplimenbl buildlnq 2009 Yes- no 511,19) 50 52?BO' 16.5] 40 29.1% 544529 Solar Wn Maating EEM~,4. 9 K. Swkri Centx Cbzure 50% Da s Y Buiiainq Future .2009 no 520,000 50 .5/9.394 213.BJ 0.4 259.1% 5961 621 i0 Lavn. Lntr Opt. Operation POOI PumDS antl Fibratun EEM-5 Building FuNra 3009 yes no E4,J19 30 ST.32s" 2.ti 3.6 32.5% S21 J9J 11 Lavn. Cntr Premium ERCiaricy Building Future 2010 yes. no S6T2 30 545 BOJ 15-1 80% 5245 Pool Pump Motors EFM~fi ' 12 Cavri: Cnn SUpDlimental9oler ~ Building FNUre '2011 yes no 54,320 10 3532 2.% 8.1 154% 56051 Watr Heating EEM) 13 Cavn. Cntr lnstnn Lool ROOF EEMA Buildln 9 Future 2011 yes no 56.139 50 5992 t <2 6.2 198% 3118a0 14 CM Hali, Com CMr, Police DeW~ 68EA LigM1tinB Measures BuiMinq rn pamtl 20% - yas no E43,%1 EO '516.661 J0.10 2.6 NA NA t5 Police Facility Energy Management System MCAP guiMing Future 2010 yes no SJ8,306 SO E2.830 ].50 ~1J.5 9.t% St9?85 16 ca FeciIM FIVAC Up9ratla Po griiWinq Fu[ure 2012 yas. E104.959 50 55,52) 89J 19.0 5.8%. 59?65 ABnGEwIHOR EEM-3 ~J Luc M1essi Cmry CnV HVAC Building future 2011 yes no S15B9J0 EO 59426 19.38 16] ].0% 53].651 EEM~9 uppmae - Lucliessi Cmnry Cnn tnualt GOOI Roof EEM-f0 guiwing FNUre 2011 yes no S].ZOJ EO' S1,OJJ 1.Sa 6.J '10:4% 314.520 '19 Mirnal6Aeaer Li9Min9 Retroyrt - ABAG EW Buildln9 FNUre 2009 yes no 52,409 50 5563 09J - '284% - 59.2]5 ' 20 C po xi rtl L98nng. ror ABAG EW grultlinp Future 2009 Yas no SJ.450 50 f1,29J~ 2.0] 2.] 4Z.J% 312.3]8 ~t Levn. Cntr Lignrin9 RetrolX ABAG EW Building Fulura 2009 yes no 54.156 f0 5934 '.t.d9 4.5 266% 5195]6 21 Ehwod Cnn Soup N4cM1an Ligntinq Petroln ABAG EW buil0~ng FMUre .2009 yes- no 5845 30 E631 101 1.3 60.0% Etl?2] ZJ Senipi Center Li9Minp Reuore Building Future 2009 yas no 52.510 50 51059 169 2.a 4Z0% 510636 ABAG EW 24 Airport LgMm EW IroM1I ABAG euild~ng FMUre 2009 yes no S]a20 50 f2.063 3.30 3.6 32.2% 5]359J 25 Vending Macnine LOntrelS Buibinq FMUre 2009 y no f25a8 30 35,259 8<0 0.5 21].1% St01.9J9 26' RetrobtFmtas Pumps lZone 4j Water WaLemter, FNUre 2010 yes no f1J.8a2 SO 5159] 5<4 3.8 303% 558.23a Table 12: Results by Measure (1-26) ,i~. fl~ (`,~i.. ~. ~~itrta'[l~lfatPS~ ~.)ct4 ~_T111SS.[ClC1 .~'~t:',C~:IlC;~7C)II 1~('•~It~7il S~lc$1 dt),W;.i3~3 Internal Measure ~Meesure Flnanted Power PUrch - Net Capital O8M Annual Coa AnaualCO Slmple Rate of Net Present No. Measure Name Category- ~ Status Impl. Dat (yealno) Agreement Coat Incremental Savingq Reductlon Payback Relum Value (NPV (Yea/no) Coat (metric toa (IRR). 27 Petaluma Aquetluct supplyi- -- Water Future 2012 yes no $195,368 80. $15,413 20:89 '12:7 ~ 9.8% $119,951 Zone4 Wastewater 28 SolarBe~"(unless new.facili ~ Water Future 2009 yes no :$94,257 $0 $40,897 ~~ 65:33 2.3 48:4% $722;199 removes need) Wastewater 2g Grease to GasMethane Water ;Future 2011 yes no $265,880 80 8102,723 571.65 2.6 43.5% $1,786,245 Program Wastewater. , Streetlighting A: 50% ~ - 30 ConversionllPSIO LED (o Streetlighting Future 2012 yes no •.$692,010 i8t32„?12;~ 834,741 47.08 4.1 28.4% $2,655,649 equiv:) Streetllg h[ing ;8„50%- 31 Conversion HPS [o LED(o 'Streetlign[iag Future 2013 yes no $692,010' (5132;2'12] 835,957 46.09 4.1 28.5% $2,679,791 Streetlighting C:;Turn off 50 of ~ 32 Resioential (non intersectio Streetlighting Future 2010 no - no 867,020 80 $108,899 164.76 0.6 171.7% $2,098,255 lighting Streetlighting Di Turn aff 50 of 33 Residential (non in4ersectio )Streetlighting Future 4012 no no 867,020 ~ $0' $116,655 158.10 0.6 183.7% $2,252,250 lighting 34 Commuted Commute Future 2010 no nc $0 $22,500 $0 75.53 0.0 NA (84>",?7i 35 Commute4 Commute .Future. 2011 no no 80 $32,500 $0 75.53 0.0 NA ~;i64545~t 36 4 day work week (Commute Commute Future 2009 no no 80 SO $0 32.26 NA NA 80 37 4day work week lBuiltling) Building Future 2009 no ~ no $0 $0 $26,007 63.66 0.8 138.1% $497298 38 ,Bus FleetA Fleet .Future 2014 yes no $277,593 $0 8261,835 244.93 1.0 103.3% 84,939,834 39 ~ BUS Fleet B Fleet .Future. 2014 yes no 8630,667 $0 8151,760 259.12 4.2 28.3% $2,412.429 40 Fleet ReplacementStrategy Fleet Future 2010 yes no 8730,000 80 $168;301 490:96 4.3 27:2% 82,646,226 (inclutles Nissan Elec) 41 Fleet Replacemen[Strategy Fleet Future 2012 yes no $994,000 80 8207;179 531.43 4.8 -24.9% 83,766,685 (inclutle5 Nissan. Elec) Elettrlc Vehiclesi Nlssan2 42 Vehicles Excl to other Flee ;Fleet Future 2010 yes no $130,000 80 85,351 21.70 24,3 3.7% -....., Meas Ures) 43 Biodiese120% Fleet Future 2009 'yes 80 $0 ,F:+6; 39.02 0,0 NA .., ....... 44 Biodiese150% Fleet Future: 2010 yes no ~850,000~ 80 i44-..>~; 97.55 -11.3 NA ,; ::.. 45 Biodiesel 99% Fleet Future 2010 yes no $50.000 $0 .- 793.15 -5.7 NA ....Z:i. I.:i6G1 46 Biotliese120%Iinked to Fleet A Fleet Future; 2009 yes nc $0 $0 ,.:.i:4r,; 72.22 0.0 NA ...r;~:4c ri 47 Biodiese120% Iinked to Fleet B Fleet Future 2009 'yes no $0 80 =;~2,"r ~6; 64,67 0.0 NA , 48 Biodiesel 50% linketl to Fleet A Building Future 2011' no no $60,500 80 ,5f;.2:s: 180:54 -7.4 NA ,-,., - . . '49 ,_., _. ,_ Bodiesel 5p/ lihkedto Fleet B Building Future 2010 no no 859.000 80 '~. _, 162.17 -8.0 NA 8 _- 50 Bodiesei 99%,Iinked to Fleet A' Building Future; 2010 no no 860,500 80 ;i'.2`~; 357:48 '-3:? NA ~^"~^~ 51. Biotliesel~99%Inked,to: Fleet B Buittling Future 2010 no no $59,000 80 ~S' -O 321.10 -0.D NA ~~;iJ2~ij 52 Fteet Management5oriwar Fleet Future 2010 yes no 8300:000 ,. ,;.GO~~i` 811,500 33.61 9.5 13.2% 8339,664 Linked ioF feet Replacement A Table 13: Results by Measure (27-52) ..- t 4~ .I .~ ... ,.r ,_. _. _~ a ~~ _ ~ CE(ik•-- 1 tisi... _- , ~.:Itti' ('~~~~~f:Cz~llillil ~Si~t'~;i~ti:'l:ttia, ~r~.'_;' .:. ;::d~€ i~tiat,IillE?I? '., ii . :li"1 1 {y (. C3., wl .ll i~ ' ' ~ ~- '- Meedura Mepsura Financed Power Purch _-->- ~` ~ • ~~ -Net Capital O8M ~ In e t l ~ Annual COn - Annual CO2 -- - Reductl ~ Slmple~ internal ,Rata oT ~ NeYPteaen No. Measure Nama ~ "-•, .Category -~-~ ,Status. ImpL:Da ~yes/no) Agrcement esMo). I Cost cr men a - Cost ~ Savings u on (metric Dona Payback ,Retum ~ Value (NPV y , , - ,(IRR) 53 =Fleet Management Softwa~ -~- - Fleet .Future 2010. yes no $300,000 _. (52 ~f.~0;, ..- $10,575` _ ~~' 30.90 ~9i8' ' 12:8%' , $321,318 Lmketl to Flee(Replacement 8 54 PV'1(0 MWaq(PPA) PV' future 2011 ~ hd. yes 850,000 $0 (513,E24! 284:51 -3.Z NA (a'6?,:i75) 55 PV,2 MWac>(PPA) PV Future 2013 no yes $50,000 - $0 ($26,847] 545.54 -1.9 NA ~$33a;?5i`i 56 PV 1:~0 MWac,(PPA) PV Future 2012 no yes $50,000 $0 ;57;?,424; 278.64 -3.7 NA i5':67,375j 57 PV:S MWac (PPA) PV Future 2012 no yes 850,000 $0 ($6;?t2; 139.32 -7.4 NA !$836rs8) 56 PV .SMWac PV Future 20'13 yes no 84,002,843 $10;000 8106.399 136:39 41.5 NA ;z2,532;377j 59 PV 1.0 MWac PV Future 2009 yes no -$8,002,843 820,000 $185,441 296.25 48.4 NA (g56~5.130; 60 PV 2.0 MWac PV Future' 2014 yes no $16,002,843 $40,000 $440,491 533.80 40.0 -2.7% y9,625 E42i 67' Community Center 4lkWac V PV Future 2010 yes yes $272',903 $822 $7888 11.93 38.6 NA 18,71.'31] MCAP 62 K.SwimCenter 80 kWabP PV Future 2010 yes no .$625468 $1,557 $74,938 ,22.60 46.7 NA .5426 _.1,..i System MCAP - 63 City Hall PV System SOkWd PV Future 2012 ,yes no 8342,1)60 $959 $9,858 13.36 38:4 -2.8% ;5205,834}. 6q Public Works PV System25. PV Future ~ 2010 yes no $757,047 $505 $4,686 7.49 37.6 NA i498.6':2i kVJac 65 Efficiency Coordinator j.SFT ) Building Future; 2010 no no $0 830,000 $0 0.00 0.0 NA t5596,522~ 66 Efficiency Coordinator t.SFT ) Buikfing Future 2012 no no $0 $30,000 $0 0.00 0.0 NA ,. "..:.. 67 Sv4m Center Pay-per-use Building Future NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Showers MCAP (not quantifi ). 68 City Hall HVAC Upgrade.MC P Buildin Future NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA - ']not quantifietlj g - CityHall Council Chambe 69 HVAC Upgrade MCAP~not Building, future NA NA NA NA NA NA. NA NA NA NA Quantified) _ rty a pgra es sl 70 Wing Chillei. East Wing ` Buikfing Future NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Package units MCAP(ndt City HaII.HVAC. Motion/ 71 Occupancy Sensors fdr.Lighti -g. Building Future NA NA NA NA NA ~ NA NA NA -NA NA MCAP (not Ouantifietl) 72 Ctty Hall Daylighting.MCAP ( of Builtlin Future NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 'NA quantified) g Community Center Energy 73 Management System ABA Building .Future NA~ NA NA NA NAI NA NA NA NA NA EWMDR'~not quantified) Community Center Lighting ' 74' D-esig'n antl Cd ntrol5 MCAP ( of Building' Future NA NA NA NA. NA NA NA NA NA NA --,qua~neea) C augh Complei Variab n - °75 en yD ves MCAP(n F g - t 'Builtling Future NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA. 'NA ,NA - ;quantifietl) - ' 76 WasleWater Tfeatinent Pla .Water ' .Future NA NA NA NA NA NA ,NA NA NA NA - - Wastewater ' 77 Reclaimed Water Initiatives Water. - 'Future NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA. NA NA Wastewater Table 14: Results by Measure (53 - 7'~ !'; ,_ .~de3: _.. 7 >wi:,i,`$. _ ,I ?> 3~5~' P ti''t`. ,Ir~~ 1 ,... ... :3:4.,. ~~~31l~~`e ~e1~C>~1®Il Each Plan. is comprised of measures from the tables: above.. The makeup. of each plan is provided' 'in the table below. A "y" in the column• under the .A`stion 'Plan (A -E) in the first .five columns indicates that`the measure is included in that plan. •Action Plan. A contains l0 new measure and one completed measure. Action Plan E is comprised' of 40, individual new measures. 0 Actlon~Plan .. Measure Measure Name Implementatidh Financed ~ ~ Number Date (yeslho) A B ~ C D E .. .. ~ K. Swim Center Solar Thermal Repair MCAP - - 2010 es n .~ n ~~ ] (Exclusiveto #2,7,8;9) y ., _ 2 'K.SwimCenterSolarThennalExpanSionMCAP 2011 es (Exclusive to #1,7;8;9) y - - ~ ~ = I ~ 3 K:Swim Center VFD MCAP(Exclusive to 9) 2010 yes - I q: K.Swim GenterPool Covers Repl. MCAP ' 2009 yes (Exclusiyeo 9) , K.~Swim~Cntr Opt. Operation Popl,PUmps and 2009 es 6 - FiltratioaEEM-7 (Excusive to#6;9) y 6 K. Swim Cnter Premium Efficiency Motors EEM-2 2009 yes (Exclusive.to #5, 9) n n -. ~ ~ 7 K.Swim Cnter High Eff- Candensmg Boilers~EEM- 2012 yes 3 (Exclusiveto #4 and~8, 9) n ~~ ~ 8 K. Swim Cnter Supplimental Solar Wtr Heating 2009 yes EEM-4 (Exclusive to#1,2,7 -,9)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 _ K. Swim Center Closure 50 % Days ' 201)9 no :measures) (exclusive to other K:Swimpool n' 10 Cava Cntr Opt. Operation Ppol;Pumps antl 2009 yes I Filtration EEM-6 -+ I n I 11 Cavn. CnV Premium Efficiency Pool Pump Motors -2010 ' yes ~ ' EEM-6 (Matched to #10) n ~ ~n n ;: ri- 12 Cavn. Cntr Supplimental Solar Watr Heating 2011 yes : - - EEM-7 n ~ '~~ ~ n - ~ v- -13 Cavn. Cntr Install Cool-RooY.EEM-B pt. SBEA Lighting GityHall, Com CnV, D 2011 •~" , ' yes • 14 ~easur s 2006r yes ~~ _-h 45 Police:Facility Energy Management.System MCAP 2010 yes n 18 Police Facility HVAOUpgrade to 16 SEER and 2012 yes r, ~ 80% AFUE ABAGEW / HDR. EEM-2 ~;i ~~ 1fi Luchessi~Cmty Cntr Replace Gas Pcks w/ Highs Eff 2011 yes. ' . ~ ~ UriitsEEM-9 (Exclusive to,#18) ri ~ -_ _ n 16' Luchessi Cmnty Cntr Install Cool RoofEEM=10 - ~ 2011 yes (Exclusive to #17) ' n ~ ~ 19 Animal ShelterLightingRetrofit ABAG EW 2009 yes r~ ni I 20 Corppratiom Yartl,Lighting Retrofit ABAGEW 2009 ~ yes -:. _ ~,n, t _ - _ 21 - CavnrCntrLighting RetrofiFABAG EW 2009 yes ni~- 22 •Elwood.Cntr Soup KitcheriLigtitinj.Retrofit'ABAG 2009 ~es y EW h' ~ i 23 Senior Center Lighting Retroft ABAG EW 2009 yes ~n; ~ 24 Airport Lighting RetrofihABAG EW 2009 yes 'h j 25 Vending.Machine Cpntrots 2009 yes Talile'1'Sc Measures 1 -25 C'it~- cif'Pe~C~I~~t71a ~;reeia.h~~t)ae Gay ~nii~wi~n R~ducti~)~ ~~ction I?la~n Iu.:5.U9 Actlon Plan Measure Measure Name Implementation Financed Number Date- (yesMo) A B C D E 26 Retrofit Frates Pumps (Zone 4) 2010 yes i n ~ ~ , 27 Petaluma Aqueduct supplying Zone 4 2012 yes n ~ ~ I - 28 SolarBee"" (unless new facility removes need) 2009 yes n n , ~ 29 Greaseto Gas Methane Program 2011 yes Streetlighting A: 50% Conversion HPS to LED n 30 2012 es y - (or equiv.) Streetlighting 8: 50% Conversion HPS to LED n ~ _ 31 (or equiv.). 2013 es y 32 Streetlighting C: 7um off 50% of Residential 2010 no ' ~ lighting (non intersection) ~ ~ ~ 33 Streetlighting D: Tum off 50 % of Residential 2012 no lighting (non intersection) ~~ 34 Commutet 2010 no n '~n ~ 35 Commutet - 2011 no 36 4 day work week (Commute) 2009 no 37 4 day work week (Building) 2009 no n ~ ~ 38 Bus Fleet A 2014 yes ~n ~. ~ ~ 39 Bus Fleet B 2014 yes n ~ n i~ n~ 40 Fleet Replacement Strategy A 2010 yes ~ (incudes Nissan Elec) n ; ~ ~ 41 FIeeYReplacemenf Strategy B 2012 yes . y ' (includes Nissan Elec) n -ry- n n ~-~ 42 Nissan Electiic Vehicles 2010 yes (Exclusive to other Fleet Measures) 'n- n ~ n ~~.n-~., 43 Biodiese120% 2009 yes ?n- _ ~. n ->n n n 44 Biodiesel 50% 2010 yes n:,r, ,;=n,• :.'n n `+ ~-_~ q`.- 45 Biodiese1.99% 2010 yes n; "-. . n ..' n- n .n. 46 Biodiesel 20% linked to Fleet A 2009 yes n .` n '~n' h 'n , 47 Biodiesel 20% linketl to Fleet B 2009 yes -.n n n -` n 48 Biodiesel 50 % linked to Fleet A ~ 2011 no 'n ~ u `'~n. 49 Biodiesel 50% linked to Fleet B 2010 no n ~n n n n 50 Biodiesel 99% linked to Fleet A 2010 no Table 16: Measures 26 - 50 i (._I11T 1.!ti C 3"Sttc"C(1s ~ '_~1 )~t)<.iE~=~)) ~ ~ ~~(k"~..~n ~ ._imr} 'L)ali_ - !)i:. City clfPetaiu)~7t~ G)•eerthc~e)se C~{~ l m.iss.ic~rr E~.~<iuctc>n ,~t;tit~n Plar) I.0.5.{~t3 Action Plan Measure Measure Name Implementation Financed A B C D E Numbor Date (yes/nd) - n n r. ~ 51 Biodiesel99% Iinkedto Fleet B 2010 no n n r. 52 Fleet Management Software Linked to Fleet Replacement A 2010 yes n , n 5& Fleet Management Software Linked to Fleet Replacemen48 2010 yes , ~ - , 54 PV 1,0 MWac (PPA) 2011 no ~, i ~ 55 PV 2.0 MWac (PPA) 2013 no ~~ ~ 56 PVI.OMWac(PPA) 2012 no y ~ ~ 57 PV .5 MWac (PPA) 2012 no n - n n ~ X58 PV .S MWac 2013 yes .,.7}i n n 'n: ~ 59 PV 1.0 MWac 2009 yes n ~ ~n ~~ ~~ 60 PV 2.0 MWac 2014 yes n ~ ~~ 61 Community Center 4l kWac PV MCAP 2010 yes i 'i 62 K.Swim Center 80 kWac PV SystemMCAP 2010 yes ' n - n n 63 City Hall PV System 50kWac 2012 yes n ~ I i 64 Public Works PV System 25.3 kWac 2010 yes n ' _ 65 Efficiency Coordinator (.SFTE) 2010 no ~.'n- .n: ~ -,°n 66 Efficiency Coordinator(.SFTE) ~ 2012 no Table 17: Measures 51- 66 Action Plan Measure Measure Name Implementation Financed Number Date (yes/no) A B C D E ,,..., n , n ` . .n ~ n n' 67 Swim Center Pay-per-use ShowersMCAP NA NA (not quantified) n` ~ ~n ~ ~ n' n n 68 City Hall HVAC Upgrade MCAP NA NA • • ~ ~ - (not quantified) - ri- n n n n 69 City Hall Council ChambersHVAC Upgrade MCAP NA NA (not quantified) City Hall HVAC Upgrades West Wing:Chiller, East ~~ - ~ Wing PackagevnitsMCAP (not Quantified) n ri n ri n 71 City Hall HVAC Motion/ Occupancy Sensors for NA NA Lighting MCAP (no[ Quantified) n •~: ''n ~ n ~ ~ n n 72 City Hall Daylightirig.MGAP (not quantified) ~ NA NA ri n n ri ~ n 7g Community Center Energy Management System NA NA ABAG EW/HDR(not quantified) ~ - 74 Community Center Lighting Design and Controls NA NA n - n n - n n MCAP (not quantified) n n n n 75 Cavanaugh Complex Variable Frequency Drives NA NA n MCAP (not quantified) n ~ ~n' - n n n 76 Wastewater Treatment Plant ~ NA NA m n n n n 77 Reclaimed Water Initiatives NA NA Table 18: Measures 67 - 77 (Not quantified) ~_Iii-l1;•)?~ ~;of r::l:Iit.)I; ( Est i~~xii.~(i ~ /~ t~~~~??S ?j.~lt_' _ `"~t.ii„`il ~. ~i'.~. . ..., . ~>~Y1 ~..~it~ t' .:.. t:-: `s._.-s!~:.'_: t ~:iit~;C, lic:4i:.I§14=~:IC?i": l,i(':t~~:z.,=<.t)v17 ~F~f~~~;l(~t~t I}~Cii.i. 1:~.~ (l.? ~li'~S>ll)~'~3 te31<11tS The. measures .considered for inclusion. 'in the plans"are described.. below.. Each .measure: includes a table;ind'icating wliich Action Plans include that measure. For example; Measure 4 K:Swim - , Center Pool Covers is included in Plans C, and E as indicated; by "y" under each.. plan ("n" indicating not included. iri the plan). Action Plan A B C D E n The description of each. measure also includes a table listing the. results of the measure: the cost of implementation, the annual savings,. the GHG .impact :and `the financial metrics of Simple Payback, Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV). Again using Measure 4 as an example: - ~ ~ Power -~ -= -' - ~ - Gtemal .Financed °Purchase - ,Net Cepital Q8M Annual Gost Mnual CO2' Simple Rate of Net Present, =:No. Measuni Name - lmpl: Date (Ye ) a/rio ~ ' reement: Cost. inc tai .e - Savin s ` Reducbon_'~ Payback Retum~ Value (NPV) C st ~= ~ - ~' 4 K.Swim Center Pool Cove}s 2009 yes no $6,571 $0 $16,792 100:10 0.5 206.3% $325,218 Repl: MCAP (ExGto 16) Finally, each measure description includes the Selection 'Evaluation table to enable a comprehensive appraisal and relational comparison of -the benefits of each opportunity. The measure is scored for each evaluation metric. This score is .totaled under"Measure Score". This measure score~is modified by the metric weighting and results in the "Adjusted Measure Score". The complete table of measure evaluations is provided in the appendices. . ' Resolutbn of - Cost F n ciaL Existing GHG Impact Positve Public Employee _Commnbity - - Energy Cost ' -- ,Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics-~ Ptotilem ' (cumulative) Visib liry Impact -Impact StabilizaGOn Measure Score - " Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative cumulative . ( ) cumulative ( ) (relative) ~ .(relative) ) (c mula6ve O to 6 --~K.Swim Center,Pool.CoveisReDI: MCAP 2.5 3.0 0:00 2.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 73':32. 48:44 I The. metric weighting. below is. applied to each measure scoring. Resdlutionot' ' Cost Financial Existing ~ ~GHGImpact Positive Public Employee Co mudiry, ~. - ! Ene gy Cost:' (relative) Metrics Protilem (cumulative) Visibility Impact: -. ct I. p ---- St bl tron - - total=24 - -3 to 3 (relative (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative); (relative) ~ (cumulative) O to6 2 5 2 3 4 2 2 4 24 The measures considered in• thus analysis are listed in the following pages, with a brief description of each. The background information for many of the measures is provided in the Appendices. ( ,,,t ,(_.. 3 ~.. E.`it.- ofPetalun~~~ (ireent~ous~ C:ias Frrlissi~~n Reduction A~t~i~)n Plan 10.3.~)E3 Acibn rt,n .p e ~ e I'.. 1-Ker>ilvlrorth.Swim Center Solar'l•hermal:System Repair Power Internal Financed Purchase N at Capital 08M Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple - ' Rate of NM Present Id easu~ Namo Impl, Dato (ycslno) - Agreement Cost Incremental Savings - Reduction .-Payback Return-- Value (NPV)r _ _lyes/no) Cost (IRR). SwimCente~Solai fh.".rrn" p010 yes no $124,000 $0 $7,820 45.04 '12.8 9.7% $60,020 - RepairMCAF I This measure addresses the repair of the inactive 50 panel solar hot water system for the swim center. The project was included in the Building Energy Efficiency Draft Report completed in ' November 200839 The resurrection of the old solar thermal arrays will be a sound investment, especially since the plumbing is already in place.40 ,Completed. " ~ Date."` ` Savings Savings GHG - Description % Status t Cost Measures ,., Im lemented $IYear . kVUht r s Reduction SO panel Solar Thermal- 1990 nla It/a nla System non Cunctional, ~ „iiy~letely dismantle Pro o'sed~Mea"surisr ' s ` " , , :: ,-, , ~„ :. •. Replace missing panels. ]nstall Repair Solar $10 220 7;300 45 tons all racks at ]0' above ground to create shade Thermal therms structures and increase security. Estimated cost: $100,000 rehab Expand Solar 7,300 Add 50 more solar thermal 4x8 panels in sam " Thermal $10,220 ~ Therm 45 tons fashion as measure above. Estimated cost: $124,000 70 kW ground mount, 10 kW roof mount 80 kW Photovoltaic Syste $12,233 138,600 50 tons specified by SPG Solar Proposal. Estimated cost: $438,000 Variable frequency drives $96;500 131,000 48 tons Pool pump motors regulators, 0.6 yr payback . (VED) Other'.Opportunities _ `_` ,.,. -, Lighting upgrades Lighting retrofit throughout. Boiler'upgrade $15;400 11,000 67 tons Economizers and high efficiencyreplacemerit Pay-per-use showers Reduces wasteful hot water use in locker roo Reduces heat loss at night. Old ones"'saturat Pool Cover and'be and serviceabilit . Table of Measures Specified in the. Building Energy Efficiency Draft Reportal Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of ' Cost Finandal Existing GHG Impact PosiWe Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relaYrve) Metrics Problem (cumulative) V~sibiliry Impact Impact Stabiliza0on Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 K. Swim Center Solar ThermafRepair .3.0 0.7 2.00 6.0 0.00 -7.00 0.00 0.0 4.73 17.64 MCAP (Excl to p2,7,8,76) s9 Draft Plan: City of Petaluma Building" Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Williard, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG Energy Watch, Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. 40 tbid. al Ibid. i 111 ~_t'C ~' •?I_''= 'Ii ( ;sr 3~~1 I(.~li'-.~t~,,~.- .(.~.:i'=`~: .. ~ t.; V1 ~~]tr' (]I:~~t~i~'~!flilc3 {~~~c'c:iiltf')C[4{, ~T :; I ~` i~,1S"1 ~~.'~' ;t'A.'a~'`illiit l~~ii]"1 Al~..%:i~`: nonoo r~,,, _ ~ - A B, ~ ~~ ~ E ~ 2-Kenilworth. SW/ihl. Center Solar Thermal.~Systern Expainsion ' L` ~- ~ - ~ Power - Internal" ~ . Financed Purchase ' Net Capital O8M Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple Rate of NetPresent . _ ( No. .Measure Name Impl. Date (yes/no) Agreement Cost Incmmental ~ Savings Redur.6on Payback` Return. .:. Value (NPV)I i (yes/no) '.. Cost (I~) 2 K.SVnm Center Solar Them., ~ 201,1 yes no' $124,000 80. $8,094 45.04 15.3 P.6% $42;596 Expansion MCAP Expansion of the solar hot -water system is also an option detailed in the Building Energy , Efficiency Draft Report.42 The expanded system could be installed on raised racks to serve a dual purpose of added security against panel vandalism/theft, .and add much needed shade structures with extended grass areas underneath.43 Completed Date Savings 'Saving"s ~ ,GHG i Description /Status /Cost iWeasures Im lemented ~ $~Year i kWh/ r Reduction ~O p, l~rl ~~~i.n I I~_~ir~.,I I ~",~ i~ ~ I i~ ~ n/a Sti'stem non (unctit~n,~l ~ I ~~, _~J. Jl.~;~,~cile ' Pra osed AAeasures , I Replace missing panels. Install Repair Solar ~ $10 220 7,300 45iohs all racks at l'0' above ground to create shade Thermal , therms structures andiincrease~security. Estimated cost: $100;000 rehab Expand Solar 7;300 Add 50 mole solar thermal 4x8 panels in sam Thermal $10,220 Therm 45 tons fashion,as measure above . Estimated cost: $124,000 70 kW ground mount, lO,kW roof'mount 80 kW Photovoltaic Syste $12,233 138,600 50 tons specified by SPG Solar Proposal. Estimated_cost: $438,000 Variable;'frequency'drives $ 16,500 131,000 48 tons Pool pump motors regulators, 0.6 yr payback ('UFD)~ . ='Ottier~0 ~ o~unities ~ ~ ~. ~ ' - _ ~.~. ~ ` ~ - Lighting,upgrades ~, liightingretrofitthroughout. Boller upgrade _ '.$15;400 11,000 6Ttons Economizers and high efficiency replacement Pay-per-useshowers Reduces wasfeful hoCwater use in.lockersioo~ Reduces heat loss at night. Old ones "satiiPat Pool Cover - and beyond serviceabili Tabae ofMeasures Specified in the Building Energy Efficiency Draft Reportaa t Measure Ewa'luation -Scores -- Resolution of Cost ,Financial Existing GHG Impact Posifive Public Employee Community Energy.Cost Adjusted MeasureName (relative) Metrics Problem. (cumulative) V~sidlity Impact Impact Sta6ilizatlon Measure Score Measure Score ., -3 to`3 (ielative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0 [0 6 K.Swim Center Solar Thermal Expansion .3.0 0.6 2.00 6.0 1.00 2.00 b.00 0.9 9.53 30.71 MCAP 4'` Draft Plan: City of P-etaluma Building;Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Willard, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG Energy Watch, Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. 431bid. 44 .Ibid. , .. .,.'~~. $'tc)it`~.`1 ~ ~ ;E /~~~ 1 ~.1,.~.. '` t~.,.. ~ ~ ~ ,.`i'..v._. i'iE`. ~'.It~ ±:)~~l~iriil~ltt?tct ~si'c°t ii-~1CtliSty t it1~. T . . :~;.?it .~~t'.<~lttil=?t"'t !i€ 1i(_)I? 1)i<tt l ~,:~_~~ anwp rr,~, ~- A a -...~ ~ ~,- ~ E- 3-i(enilworth...:S~rim.~Center Pool P~um~ Variabie~.. Frequency ®~~rives u~ ~ _~ ~. Power Internal- . Flna nced Purchase Net Capival O&M -. Annual Coat Annual C02 Slmpte Rate of Net Present No. Measuro N~mo Impl Date (ycsJno) Agnaement 'Cost Incremental Savings Reducfioh Payback Return Value (NPV) Cost 3 .., n r':'F.~ MCAP. 2010 'yes no $9,900 $0 $20,348 30.79 0.5 216.2% $3&1 ~ut There are several measures available to reduce the energy consumption of the pools. These include limiting the filtration pumping to meet public .health .regulatory requirements and adding VFDs on the pumps. The most lucrative investment is in variable frequency drives (VFD) for the circulation pumps.. An ABAGEnergy Watch audit of_.the Fnley.Aquatic Center, in Santa Rosa, specified a payback<of 0.6 years for a similar sized retrofzt.as Completed Date ~ Savings I Savings ' ' GHG ` Description /Status !Cost Measures kWh/ r $IYear Im lemented Reduction SO pan_i tiolarThermal I' ~~~~ ~ i~ .~ n/,t n/c Scst ~~~ r~~~~ i, ~-~,n~1,~.1 ~ ~ ,:.~I I,IU n~lie Proposed Reasures ~ `~` '~ ' ~ Replace missing panels. Install Repair Solar $10 220 7,300 45 tons all racks at LO' -above ground to create shade Thermal , therms structures and increase security. Estimated"cost: $100;000 rehab Add 50 rnore solar thermal 4x8 panels in sam Expand Solar $10 220 7,300 45. tons fashion as measure above. Themal. , Therm Estimatedcostt $124,000 70;kW ground moun4; l O kW'roof mount 80 kW Photovoltaic Syste $12;233 ]38,600 50 Ions specified by SPGSoIarProposal. Estimated'cost: $438,000 Variable freyuency'drives $}6;500 131,000 ,48 tons Pooi pump motors regulators, 0.6 yr payback (VFD) - Other'O orturiities , . . - . `..-. , . Ligfiting upgrades Lighting retroficthroughoui: Boilerupgrade ~ $115,400 l 1;000 ' 67 tons Economize:;; and high'efficiency replacement Pay-per-use showers Reduces wasteful hot water use in locker roo Reduces heal loss at night. Old ones "saturat Pool Cover and beyond serviceabilit . Table ofMeastires Specified in the Building Energy Efficiency Draft Report`'6 Measure Evaluation Scores _ Resolutionbf' Cost Financial Ex sting - GHGlmpact Positive Public Employee Community EnergyiCOSt ~ Adjusted Measure Name (relative) McMcs- Problem (cumulatve) Visibility Impact Impact' Stabilization ~ Measure,Score Measure Score 3to 3 (relative) (cumulative} (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 K:Swim Center VFD MCAP -2.4 3.0 0.00 4.4 0.0 0.0 '0.0 24 12.21 42.59 "'Draft Plan: City of Petaluma Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Williard;, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG•Enet•gy Watch, Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. 46 Ibid.. r :r+.' s I~ 1:' ~r ?; 3e ~~ 1 1(" a?llt.. ..::1 ~_'I:l~ f:l(: ~~t'$~t~tl4112i ~3t'C:4:~Ct11C'tiia~ ~'I, . .. r. `i; f'. '.' .a ~..s#"t ~-1J,~'.~)s~ amoo w,n' A 13 ~ o:. E 4-Kenilworth~Svvirn Center Pool Cover Replacement `"__-__--~ J Power _ Internal Financed Purchase Net Capital 08M Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple Rate of Net Present No. Measure Name Impl Data (yeNno) Agreement Cost_ incremental Savings Reduction Payback.. Retum Value(NPV). , - (yeslno).' Cost (IRR) 4 t ~ 2009 yes no $8,571 $0 $16,792 100:10 0:5 206.3% 5325,218 ~ F~I MCAF ~ Pools lose heat energy in a variety of ways, but evaporation is' by far the largest source of energy loss for swimming pools. When compared to evaporation, all other' losses are small.. The reason evaporation has such an impact. is that evaporating. water requires large amounts of energy. Evaporation is approximately 70% o'f the heat loss from. a pool. Pool covers will reduce energy consumption by 40 to 60%, reduce, make-up water by 30-50% and reduce the pool's chemical consumption by 35-60%. The .report referenced in the table below includes replacement of the pool covers: Pool covers Reduce heat loss at night. The old ones are "saturated" and are beyond serviceability.47 Coinplefed Date Savings Savings " GHG" - ' I Description /Status /Cost Rfleasures Im lemente . $tYeaF IcWh/' r Reduction 50 au:;lJul:~illt,ia:_1 i,~,~~~ n(a n/a ~hht ~;,(.--,i,~~,,i~u,ctional com~lc~~_I,Ic,laant Pro os_ed; Measure t Replace missing panels. Install Repair Solar $10;220 7,300 45 tons all racks at 10' above ground to create shad Thermal therms stnlctures and increase security. .Estimated cost: $100,000 rehab Add 50 more solar thermal 4x8 panels in sa Expand,„Solar $10 220 7,300 45 dons ,fashion as measure above. Thermal , Therm .Estimated cost: $124,000 ' 70 kW,ground mount, tO:kW roof mount- 80 kW Photovoltaic Syste $12;233 138,600 SO tons specified by SPG Solar Proposal. Estimated cost: $438;000 Variable frequency drives $1'6,500 131,000 48'tons Pool pump motors regulators, O.byr payba (VFD) Other 0 ortunitie ' ~ ~ _ Lighting upgrades Lighting7etrofit throughout. Boiler u rade $1`5;400 11,000 67 tons. 'Economizers.and.hi h efrcienc re lacem P.,a ,- er; useahowers Reduces wasteful hot water usetiri;locker:ro Reduces heat hiss at night Old"tines `saCur Pool'''Cover and beyond serviceability. Table of Measures Specified in the Building Energy Efficiency Draft Report4~ Resolution of Cost ,Finandal ' Exisfing GNG Impact Positive.Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulative) Visibility Impact " Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0to6 K.SwimCenter Pool Covers Repl: MCAP 2.5 3.0 0.00 2.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 13.32 48.44 ~7 Drafr Plan: City of Eetaluma Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Williacd, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG Energy Watch, Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. 4s Ibid. ~~tii~' (>`,~:'C~?~(~i.icc Vt.~%wtLl~.(}titii }~' ;': ;i':'t4:(,.i~E',L~$€C11t:P:€ ~>t;i`i~7i? i~121; J,~.~S`~ Actlon P_ bn A a ~ o E 5-Kenilworth Swim Celiter Pool Pump ancl~ Filter Olptirnzation i Powor Q&M Internal. Financed `Purchase Net Capital Annual Cos Annual CO Simple;. Rate of Net Preaerk No. Measuro Namo Impl. Date (yeslno) - -,Agreement -- Cost Incremental - 'Savings Reductlod'. -Payback Return I Value (NPV) , (yes/no). ~ :Ccst (IRR) r.. 5w, ~ - -v.Yir ~ 5 Fool Pumps and Rltrat --~ ~ 2009 yes no $6,956 $0 $13,040 20:83 0:5 197.5% $257;267 EEM-t- The Swim Center pool pumps operation can be optimized fo reduce energy .consumption and still meet the health and operation requirements. The full text of the recommendation is provided in the appendices. The circulation pump runs. continuously at full speed for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year even though the pools are in use from 1Llarch through October during the hours from about 5:00 a.-m. to roughly 9:00 p.m. 7t is possible to reduce the flow rates during non peak use .and unoccupied hours and still maintain water quality and clarity.49 Compieted' I Date > Saving`s Savings GHG ' ` ' ° Description /Status /Cost Aheasures i Implemented :$IYear==~- kNUh/ r Reduction SO pr. ~,_I ;olurThcnnal I ~+~ n%a n/~ n/a ~~ cl n„ii I~in, Ii„i,.,i III ;_i_I. Ji~I:..~~~tle ;Pro .osed;Plleasures _ Replace missing panels. Install Repair Solar $10 220 7,300 45 tons all racks at ]0' above ground to create shade ' Thermal , therms structures and increase security. Estimated cost: $100,000 rehab Expand Solar 7,300 Add 50 more solar thermal 4x8 panels in sam Thermal $10,220 Therm 45 tons 'fashion as:measure above. . Estimated cost: $124;000 70 kW ground mount, ] 0 kW roof mount 80 kW Photovoltaic Syste $12,233 138,600 50 tons specifed by SPG Solar Proposal. Estimated cost: $438,000 Variable fregilency drives' $16;500 131,000 48 tons Pool pump motors regulators, 0.6 yr payback (Vrll). portunities "Other A - - ,. ;.. - _ ~ . ~ .,- _. _ _ . .~ : ;._ . Llgfitirig upgrades Lighting retrofit throughout. Boiler upgrade $15;400: 11,000 6.7 tons, Economizers and high efficiency replacement Pay-per-use showers Reduces wasteful hoYwater use in locker coot rat nght Old ones`'satu Reduces heat loss at Pool Cover _ . and be ond,serviceabili Table of Measures Specified in the Building Energy Efficiency Draft Reportso Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost 'Financial Existing GHG Impact Positlve Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjustetl Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem mulative) c Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure8core Measure Score -3 to 3 ) (relative ) (cumulative u ( cumulative ( ) (re{ative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 K. Swim Cntr Opt. Operation Pbo1.Pumps 2.6 3:0. 1.00 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 9.70 32:04 and Filtration EEM-1 a9 Draft Plan: City of Petaluma Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Williard, Sustainergy:Systems, ABAG Energy Watch, Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. so Ibid. y ~•, - ,,, ... ., ,_d.It7lf l c~YEr zr`I s ~ l~'ti..t. .;ir3 x. a,.`^, }t'i::. ( s~:(1'e~a~It.a~~t~~~ _:_.. t.;~kts~, C;~.4: ~.~ i~~(lcl~ai~3,t1,1~.t' ,. :.~~ i~3.:~.(}t~ -_ A a ~ o E 6-:Kenilworth Swim Cenfer-~Premiurro Efficiency Motors Powor - Internal Rnanced Purchase Net Capittl' OSM Annual Cosl Annual C02. Simple'` Rate of Net Presenf' No. Mcas ura bkime Impl. Date (yes/no) - ..Agreement Cost .Incremental Savings :Reduction Payback Return ' Value (NPV)} (ypslno) Cost (IRR). B 'KSwim Cnter Premium = -2009 yes no $2;734 $0 $4,099 6.55 O:Z ~ 158:7% '$78,784 Efficiency Motors EEM 2 The upgrade to more efficiency "pool pump motors was included in the recommendations in the referenced .report. EEM-2: Replace Existing Pool Pump Motors with Premium. Efficiency Motors The motors for .the circulation and gutter surge tank pumps` have efficiencies far lower than premium efficiency levels. Both motors are at or very near the end of their useful service life. We recommend replacing these motors with premium efficiency motors.sl Table 1 Summaryof EnerggEfficlency Measures Annual Annual Demand Elect i it Natural Annual Estimated :Simple Titl 24 EEM Description Savings c y r Gas Cost Installed Payback e (kW) Savings Savirjgs Savings ($) Cost ($) (yrs) Applicable? 1kWh) ' themts Kenilworth Swim Center EEM-1 Optimize :Operation of: Pool_ 5.3 86;888 $10,479 $6;956 0.7 N FiltrationlCirculation Pum EEM-2 Replace'Pump Motors with'Prentium - 3.1 27,315 $3;294 $2 734 0:8 Y Efficieric .Motors , EEM-3 Replace"Pool_Fleatirig Boilers~withHigh 8 368 $8;730 $80,900 9.3 Y Efflcienc ;Rollers , EEM-4 Install New SolarPOOP:Heatih 5 stem 2 686 $3°374 $13,346 4.0 N Cavaha h,Center EEM-5 Optlmizg:Operahon of Pool ~• ~ 0.5 8,822 '~~ $1,538 ,$5,161 3.4 N - Fdtrahon/Circulabon Pum s EEMI ReplaceP.ump'Motors with Premium ~~ 0:1 883 _ $154 $686 4.5 Y Efflcienc Motors EEM? Install New Solar Poo6Heatiri S stem Y~: i ' -'"- ""-.` 480 '$603 $4 704 7:8' N EEM-B~. InstaltCool;Roof 6:5 6.168 .$979 . $47718 48.7. N Luchessi:C ommuhi Center EEM-9. Replace.Ezishng Gas,P,acks withNew .. - ~ 19.8 57,309 192 $8;800 $159 989 18.2 Y Hl ii-Efflcienc Units , EEM-10 Install'Cool Roof 2.1 1 969 `:'.:: '"u'"% $295 $15;235 51:7 N TOTAL 37.4 789'355 11'726 $38,246 $337428 8.8 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of .Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Positlve Public Employee Co~ muriiry Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relaMe) Metrics P oblem (cumula[ e) Usibiliry Impact Impact StabilizaUOn Measure Score Measure Score -3to3 (relalrve) (cumulafive) (cumulative) ,(relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 K. Svrim Cnter Premium Efficiency Motors Z.6 3.0 0.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.50 23.15 EEM-2 s' Petaluma ABAG EV/ Audit Report: Energy Audit Draft Report: City of Petaluma, HDRIBrown, Vence acid Assocates and Energy Solutions, April I5, 2008. ~.~~~`' fly l}C;'~~~ti31ac1 ~.tt`€e.'i1IC~tt`±4; ~i't1ti ~~i11144tt}I'1 ~~E'.C~IIb;~1C)13 <~t.tE~'ia~~~<~?1 i~,) ~?;~~~~ Adbn Pt~:~ A a - ~ r; E 7=Kenilworth. Sw/inl Center _Fi-igh' Effici~ency' C.ondensingBoilers Pourer 8M ~ Internal Financed Purchase Net Capital O Annual COSt: `Annual C02 Slmplo Rate of Net Present No. . Measure Name Impl. Date (yes/no). Agreement _ Cost Incremental Savings Reduction Payback Return - Value (NPV). . `. (yes/no); Cast _. (IRR) n: avnm Cnler High E(f 2012 yes no $80,900 ~' ~ '.$0. $9,602 51.63 6.4 74.9% $173;607 Condens ng Bcilers EEM 3 Energy efficiency rebates can be applied to address the aging boilers for the Swim Center reducing maintenance concerns and significantly reducing energy costs.52 The summary tables are available in the appendices. EEM-3:. Replace Pool Heating Boilers with High Efficiency Condensing Boilers The two natural gas boilers for heating the swimming pools are old and ineffrcient, and have estimated thermal efficiencies of 76%: Additionally, the boiler for the smaller pool is estimated to be grossly oversized. We recommend replacing he boiler. for .the .larger pool with a condensing boiler of similar capacity and a much higher thermal effciency. N!e also recommend replacing the boiler for the smaller pool ~with~a smaller condensing boiler with a much higher thermal efficiency.53 1Vleasure Eva"luation Scores Resolution df' - Cost Financial' E><isang GHG Imp t PositivePublic - Employee -..- C mmuniry E gy Cost - .- Adjusted Measure Name (ielative) Metrics Problem (cumulat ve) Vsibiliry Impact Impact St blz tion , Measure Score ' Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0 to,6 K. Swim;Cnter High Eff. Condensing 1 9 1 t 0.00 1.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.87 34.81 BoilersfEM3 sz Petaluma ABAG Ew'AudirReport: Energy Audit Draft Report: City of Petaluma, HDR/Brown, Vence and Assocates and Energy Solutions, April 15, ?008 53 lbld- ~. ~`"".L~.'tC2171~ t_t~'.t S111C'.tlti~ ~~.. ~ ~~i l~s~'(~llt.l1G11 1iC:41(7':2 ~a:c': ~ {,i ^; ;3f ' lletbn Plan A t, ~ e ~ E, 8- Kenilworth' Swim CenterSupplemental SolarWater F6eating -- __ Power ~ Intsmal -Financed Purchase' Net Capital 08M Annual Cost Annual CD2 Slmplv Rate of" Net Present No. Moasure fJa mo - Impl. Date (yes/no) Agreement .Cost Incremental . __SaNngs.: Reduction -- Payback Retum Value (NPV): (yeslno) ,mac^t (IRR):: _ "{ -. L,t ,~ 2009 yes no $11,197 $0 82,780 16:57 4.0 29:1.%; $44,529 The referenced report includes an expanded solar thermal system to .provide hot water and significantly reduce energy consumption.54 The summary tables are available in the appendices. EEM-4: Install Solar Thermal Hot Water System to Supplement Pool Heating ' ~ NOTE -this recommendation is proposed as an alternative to EEM-3 The pools are currently heated by natural gas-fried boilers. The facility had a solar thermal system in the past to supplement pool heating. The system is decommissioned at the present time. We recommend installing a new solar pool heating system: wifh flat plate collectors, and integrating it with he existing pool heating systems. The solar heating system would meet a portion of the pool heating load; the rest would be met by the existing pool heating systems. This would result in natural gas savings. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost financial ~ Exisang ~ GHG~Impact Positive Public Employee C mmunity Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name - ( ) relative Metncs Problem (cumulabve) Visibili tY pact Im Impact .Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0to6 K Swim CntetSuppllmental Solar;Wtr ~ 2.3 2.2 0.00 0,5 0.0 OA OD 0.3 5.35 1829 Heating EEM,4 (Excl to#7.27,16) sa Petaluma ABAG EW AuditReport: Energy Audit Draft Report: City of Petaluma, HDR/Brown, Vence and ' Assocates and Energy Solutions, April 1'S, 20,08 ' ~ ,~ _.. 4 -ti is-?,'~' / ~ (~t 7:: t: <(tt: ~'l~'.' t' t,`_i:"ilia ~~I°4'.<'[l.li(:1tB~~ {.Iiz; ~.Cl7Stiylt~: _ .- ., . .:: ,` ..:iC?I3 ~:~l~i~:l ~ ~;„?.~~~ --' Actlon Plan A a r -o E 9-i4eniiworth $vvim.Center'Closure'for Half of~the Year. ' _, _ ' Power I ~ Internal ~ Financed 'Purchase Net Capital ~8M Annual Cost Simplo I Rate of Annual CO2 Net Present No. Measure Namo Impl. Date (yea/no) Agreement- Cost Incremental Savings -Reduction Payback , Rotum Value (NPV)= , (Yes/no) Cost 'I (IRR) 9 P `" I ,. "` -- 2009 no ~ no 820,000 $0 849;394 273.63 0.4 259.1% $96Yi621 The closure. of the Kenilworth Swim Center" for 50% of its current operating schedule would save roughly 123,0.0.0 kWh and 29,872 based on the utility billing data for that facility assuming energy consumption is reduced by 50%i due to the reduced. schedule. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Positive Public - - Employee Community Energy Cost - Adjusted Measure Name .(relative) Metrics Problem (cumulative Vsihiliy Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) {cumulative) ) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 K: Svdm Center Closure80%pays 7.8 3.0 0.00 6.0 300 -3.00 -3.00 5.6 73.55 59.67 y E , t,...,.i ,.~_. : ,z;€`=.';l ~(t (.. i:° s,l'..i~'s": f~i ~..ll,~ ~ I' t„~ I~:71 ,.. t_.,ig~ c~ ,.. .;tilii ~.ti;.... '''*i)i~' ~' -'3< 1~':lue,i.C)~ <i%'tttil .€~ltil. 1_t~.~•.~'s Adtlori Plan A B C ~ ~ D E ~ 1~0-.Cavanaugh ~Sw6m Center Pool Pump sand F~ilter'Optimization _ ~l _ - J , I I Financed Pow.~r Purchase Not Capltnl O8M Annual Cos Annual CO Simple Internal Rate of Net Present No. Mcasum Namo Impl. Dato (yeslno) ;Agreement Coat Incremental :- Savings - - Reduction Payback Return - Value (NPV) (yes/no)J Cost - (IRR) Cavn: Cntr Opt. OpePation ~ '10 Pool.PumpsandFtltration 2009, yes, no $4,719 $0 $1;324 2.12 3.6 32:5% $21;793 EEM-5 The referenced .report includes pool recommendations similar to those specified for the Kenilworth Swim Centeras EEM-S: Optimize Operation of Pool Filtration/Circulation Pumps The two circulation pumps run continuously at full speed for 24 hours a day, 36S days a year even though the pool is in use from April through October during the hours from 7:00 a.m. to roughly 8:00 p. m. It is possible to :reduce the flow rates during non peak use and unoccupied hours and still maintain water quality and clarity. ~ ~ a®e ~ . P ~ : ~1 ~a~, mr ~ ~ ~a ®~ ~ tea` • s~lM~ :. _ ~ ~JOIt ° ' $1 ~8~1 t~ rJ ~P ~ to ~/ # ^~ 4 ~~ . " - . ~s A~a6iasffi i4® ~7 1 B B '~ ~l.A 1r ~F11~ p7~6~' '$J ' 1 !~~ i~ `~. tt>O1~Li ~ '8i 8i Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG.Impact Positive Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Mebics Problem (cumulative) Vsibiliry Impact Impact ~ Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 Cavn. Cntr Opt. Operation Pool Pumps 2.7 2 4 1,00 0.1 0.0 1.D D;0 0 2 7.37 22.41 and Filtration EEM=6 Petaluma ABAG Ew Atadit Report` Energy Audit Draft Report: City of Petaluma, HDR/Brown, Vence and Assocates and Energy Solutions, April 15, 2008 __ ~ n ,. ~. . . c_:tj~,' ~)(.~~~;~, ii!lsc? ~.~f~:t.)l_hC)ti~:~ 4,~ ~.:. ~.:~d's ~'~'*v~~l!€,i,:sr': s"tu~3~,1,'4 lit€"I .i).af.l' A ~ a~vl~~o, E, 'i9~~-Cavanaugh.~Swim,~CenterPremium EfficiencyPoolPumps-~ Power Internal F lnanced Purchase Net Capital o.4M Annual Cust Annual C02' Slmpla Rate o! Net Present' No. Measure Namo Impl. Data (yeslnp) _ ~ ~ Agreement - Coet incremental Savings Reduction Payback Return- Value (NPV) ' (Yeslno) -.:..Coat (IRR) I i i,avn. Cntr Premium Efficiency 2010 yes no $672 $0 $45 0.07 15.1 8.0% $245 Pool Pump MotorsEEM-6 This measure is applied subsequent to measure 10 (operation .optimization) which reduces the projected energy savings. T_he financial calculations are based on $.145/kWh (rather than the $.17/kWh in the referenced report), and the utility incentive; is assumed to be the minimum $.OS/kWh saved (the revised incentive levels for the 2009-2011 program are not currently available).56 The summary tables are available in the appendices. EEM-t5: Replace Existing Pool Pump Motors with Premium Efficiency Motors The motors for the circulation pumps have efficiencies .far lower than premium efficiency levels. It is estimated that the motors have about five years of useful service life left. We recommend replacing these motors with premium efficiency motors. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing ~GHGImpact Positive Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure:Name (relative) Mehics Problem (cumulative) Vsibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Scme '.3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative (cumulative ) (relative) (relative) (cumulafive)~ Olo 6 Cavn. Cnh. Premium Efficiency-POOL 3 0 O 6 0.00 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.57 6.94 Pump-Motbrs'EEM-6 sb Petaluma ABAG EW Audit Report: Energy Audit Draft Report: City of Petaluma, HDWBrown, Vence and Assocates and Energy Solutions, April 1.5, 2008 C;it~~ c)~'I'ctalut~t~t ~t~cc;rt~tot)s~. Ctt;~ i-tt~s:~icaat l~~ci"a.ctiotz <^~c;fic~tt I'i<~tz 1. E)./:~)~' ~n~lan p B ~ e E' 12- Cavanaugh Svuim. Center~Su~plemental:'Solar`1Nater Heating Pourer Internal Financed .Purchase Net Capital OSh1 Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple ~ Rete of Net Present No. Measure Name Impl Date (yes/no) Agreement Cost Incremental Sevmgs Reduction Payback Return Value (NPV) ~ ' (yes/no)... Cost (IRR) ':. 12 - Cavri_ CntrSupplimental Sc '~~ ~ '. 2011 yes no $4,320 $0 $532 2:96 6.1 ~ 15.4% $6,451 Watr Heating EEM 7 , . The referenced report ,includes solar water heating recommendations similar. to those specified for the Kenilworth Swim Centers' The summarytables.are available in the appendices. EEM-7: Install Solar Thermal Hot Water System: to Supplement Pool Heating The pool is currently heated by a natural gas feed boiler.. The facility had a solar thermal system in' the past to supplement pool heating. The system is decommissioned at .the present time: We recommend installing a new solar pool heating system with flat plate: collectors, and~integratirrg, it with the existing pool heating system. The solar heating system would meet a portion of the pool heating load; the rest would be met by the existing pool heating system.. This would result. in natural gas savings. Measure Evaluation Scores. Resolution of Cost Financ al Existing GHG Impact Positive Public - Employee C muniry ~ ' E gy Cost ~ ~ Adjustetl Measure Name (relative). Metrics P oblem (cumulative) Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score - Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0 to 6 Cavn. Cntr Supplimental Solar Watr 2 7 1 2 0.00 0.1 6.0 0 0 0.0 0.1 10.04 35.77 Heating EEM-7 57 Petaluma ABAG Ew Audit Report: Energy Audit Draft Report: City of~Petaluma, HDR/Brown, Vence and Assocates and Energy :Solutions:. April l'S, 2008 ~'~(~:~ ( ~' ;.' :. rtlt-4:t11tC)C1ti(. tic i-E~t(,4jC}Yl .l'a~'iiLIC:IICi':. ',~iI31 'pcr~~,~ Plan A 6 ~ o. E 13- Cavanaugh ~Swirr>I Center Cool Roofi -J Power Internal'. No l Dato Measure Narnc Im Financed I `Purchase '. Net Capital C&M incremOnt~l Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple Rate of Net Present . p . (yes/no) Agreement Costs , Savings '. Reduction Payback Return Value (NPV) -(yes/no) Cost ~ (IRR) ..3 Cavn ~ ,i ~f~:of - 2011 yes no $6,139 $0 $992 1.42 ~ 6.2 19.8% $13,.40 The Cool Roof measure will reduce .the energy needed to cool the facility by using light colored materials on the roof that reflect the sun, and reduce the heat. transferred to the building. Incentive funding for this measure is available through the CPUC58 funded efficiency programs implemented by PG&E. The measure.is inc'hzded 'iri fhe, HDR efficiency report which provides the description' and summary table below.59 The costs are' based 'on -the incremental cost of including the cool roof membrane when the roof undergoes replacement. EEM-8: Install Cool. Roof The roofs of the gymnasium and ..the club are in very poor shape and are in need of immediate replacement. The summary tables are available in the appendices. Details of the measure and calculations are available in the HDR report 60 Measure: Evaluation Scores Resolution o_t Cost Financial E fisting 'GRG'Imp it Positive Public Employee Community E e gy Cost Ad(ustetl Measure Name (relative) Medics P oblem (cumulat ve) Ysibility Impact Impact St blizatibn; Measure:Sco M asureScore -3 to'3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) - Oto6 Cavn. Cntr Install Cool Rool EEM-8 2.6 1.5 0.00 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.1 4.27 13.27 58 California Public Utilities Commission s9 Petaluma A$AG EW Audit Report: Energy Audit. Draft Report: City of Petaluma, HDR/Brown, Vence and Assocates and Energy Solutions, April 15, 2008_ bo Ibid a'.ia ~;{.i_~(,"~i>~~.Ii1:t2 ~ ft.t;C:1i'lE=L`t$+; ~J4.'ti 1_El>3titiltr(1 l~<'.fE_;i;tIC31"~ ,tCSiC)1t l~i~1 Acton Plin- .:A 8~,- ~ ~ ,p .E _14~-Buildinc~,Lic~hting'.Retrofits-forCity. Hall _i I , tPe PoBce Facility 1(~._J.(,C PoHrer pgM i Internal Financed Purchase Nat Capital Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple Rate of Nct Pre seM No. Mmsure Name Impl. Date (yc sJno) Agreement Cost Incremental Savings CC Redue6on f Payback Return Voluo (NPR '.(yes/no) Cost (IRR) -' ,Ciry.Hall, Com Cntr, Pollc~~ ~ ' ~4 Dept SBEA fighting; ~ 2006 yes no $43,961 $0 -$16,661 30.10 '2.6 NA NA Measures` These lighting retrofits-were completed by the Small Business. Energy Alliance (SBEA) in 2006. The associated energy savings are included in this analysis. The associated costs and benefits are not included as the financial results are intended to reflectahe .results of::future actions. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Eicis[ing GHG Impact PositrvePublic Employee Community Energy Cost Atljusted MeasureName (relative) Mtrics Problem (cumulative Vsibliry Impact I p_ct~ St bA zation MeasureScore Measure Score 3 to3 (relatrve) (cumulative) ) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 4to 6 City:HaII.ComCritr; POliceDept.`SBEA - 0.4 0:0 2.00 0.9 0.0 0.0. 0:0 1 9 5.17 15.09 Lighting~Measures, ®~ C® S $,tlb tt '~"ultkt~l:kd ~~~a`i't"a~[t.iltiwL' ll~i~, i '~Si~ ....'.d- Ir)li ,46,1 _ .~;il~ ~.~~.~.~)~~ M.Uon Plan. ~ - - A a. e o E ~ 1~5-Police Facility Energy;INlanagement,System i '. Power 08M Internal Financed Purehase:: Net Capital Annual C Est Annual C02 Simple Rate of , Net Present No. Meas uro Namo Impl. Date (yes/no) Agreement - -- - Cost Incremental '~` nps rReduchon Payback' -Return-: - - Value'(NPV), (yeslnc)' Coat (IRR) 15 --- ~ Police Faalay Er e yy. p010 ' yes no $38,386 $0 $2,838. 7.50 13.5 9.7% $19,765 Management System MCAP . In 2005, the buildingwas audited and an HVAC Energy Efficiency: Studywas prepared by HDR1 Brown, Vence and Associates and- presented to the City by LGEP. The-figures in the table below for the energy management system and the HVAC upgrade come from this report.b' Completed Date Savings.' Savings GHG Description /Status! Cost Measures Implemented R/Year- - kWhlyr - Reduction Lighting retrofit 2007 T-8 revofit .Proposed Measures ~ Install EMS for building Energy Management System, - - 13,408 kWh controls. -2005 $3,489 9 tons•~ (EMS) 705 therms Total cost. $38,386 Full HVACupgrade to 16 31,063 kWh SEER, 80% AFUE Full HVAC Upgrade --2005- $4,764 13 tons Gas-electric units. Total cost: ' 312 therms - $94,667 Measure. Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost F ancial Ex sting - GHG~.Impact Positive Public - Employee Community En rgy Cost .Adjusted MeasuceName ( lative) Metrics P blem (cumulatve) Visibility Impact Impact. St bihzahon Measure Score Measure Score 3;to 3 (relative). (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (c ulative) 0 to.6 Police Facility Energy ,Management 0:7 0.7 D.00 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.93 6.78 System. MCAP 6' Draft Plari: City."of Petaltama Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse' Gas Emission Reduction, David Williard, Sustainergy System's, ABAG Eriergy Watch; Climate Protection Campaign. November 2008. ,, i {i'~~):1~ , its~.a °:.. , ... ~ ~~~~ Ii...°^ .it:{1 ~~s,1'..I t.~.- sib. ~,'x€t^ ()t I~etalttil~<~ ~.i€c-c[~Il(~titi(r ~. lititi:iC)it ~~+:Csl1C;lt):l ~^~t<;i. li§ ~ -;.i1 Aetlon Vlan A a ~ a E 16-Police Facility H\/AC U.pgrac9e ^-,~ ~ Power - - U8M Internal Financed Purchase Net Capital . Annual UOSt Annual C02. Simple'.. Rate of-. Not Present. No. Meo sure Name Impl. Date ',(yes/no) Agreement Cont incremental ' Savings ' Reduction` Payback Return ' ~ - Value (NPV) ''(yeslno) , cost (IRRj ( - 16 Police Facility nJAi: Upyiade 2012 yes no $104,959 $0 $5,527 8:93 19.0 5.8% $9,765 ABAGEW ~HDR.EEM-2 In 2005, the building was audited and an HVAC Energy Efficiency Study was. prepared by HDR/ Brown, Vence and Associates and presented to the City by LGEP. The figures in the table below for the energy management system and the HVAC upgrade come from this report.62 Completed - Date Savings Savings 'GHG Description ! Statusl Cost Measures Implemented $lYear kWhtyr Reduction Lighting retrofit 2007 ~ T-8 retrofit { Proposed Measures Install EMS for building Energy Management System 13,408 kWh controls. -2005 $3,489 9 tons (EMS) 705 therms Total cost: $38,386 Ful] HVAC upgrade to i6 31 063 kWh SEER, 80%.AFUE Full HVAC Upgrade -2005 $4;764 13.tons Gas-electric units- Total cost: 312 themes $94,667 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact PositivePUblic Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulative) Vsibiliry Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score ~ Measure Score -3 l0 3 (relative (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative), 0 10.6 Police Facility HVAC Upgratle ABAGEW / 3.0 0.4 0.00 0.3 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.6 1.34 t 1.53 HDR EEM-2 6z Draft Plan: City of Petaluma Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Williard, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG Energy Watch; Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. 3~- ~ t ~ ~~.... d .. . ~'StC" i .; .El. !,~ a~: ~ ~.:"tltiC 4_s41;~ ~- '., ;~?~ #~.eCLICliYi11 l~C~It~I'i 1~~~1Ct a.,.rbn vl~n ~ p e ~ ~ o f '17-Luchessi Community Center i-1VAC Upgrade L_ ! `J.r~.J~) Poorer O8M i I Interttal Flnaneed Purchase: Net Capital - Annual COSt Annual CO2 Simple Rate of Net Pre sent No. Measure Namo lmpl. Dato yes/no) Ag reement Cost ' incremental - Savmga - Reduction Payback Rotum - Valuo (NPV) -(yeslno) Cost i (IRR) 17 wch=_ssiCmty Cntr HVAC 2011 yes no $156,970 $D $9,426 74.38 . 16.7 7.0 % $37,651 ..:Upgrade EEM 9 ~. In 2005, the building was audited and an HVAC En_ ergy Efficiency Study was prepared by HDR/ Brown; Vence-and Associates and presented to the City by LGEP. The summary table is provided in the appendices. The ..financial. calctalations are based on the .full cost of the upgrade (rather than the incremental cost of choosing the higher effci'ent.model). The utility incentive is assumed to be the minimum $.OS/kWh and $.80/Therm saved (therevised incentive levels for the 2009-20.11 program are not currently available). The summary tables are available in the appendices. EEM-9: Replace Existing Gas Packs with New High-Efficiency Units The building has fifteen roof-top gas packs with direct expansion (DX) cooling and natural gas furnace for heating: The units range in size from 3 to I S tons, and were installed at the time. the b_ wilding wqs commissioned. They have come to the end of their useful service life. We recommend replacing these gas packs with new units with higher cooling and healing efficiencies.63 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolutiori'ot Cost Einanciab Existing GHG Impact Positive Public Employee C munity Energy Cost Atljusted Measure Name (ielative) Metrics 'Problem (cumulative) VisitiilRy Impact. - Impact - Stabilization - - Measure Score Measure Score -=3to } (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) ~ (cumulative) 0[06 LuchessiCmty,Cntr HVACUpgradeEEM - -}.0 0:5 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.1 -0.96 2.27 9 (Excbtoa 8) _ 6s Petaluma,ABAG EW Audit-;Report: Energy Audit Draft Report: City of Petaluma, HDR/Brown, Vence and Assocates and Energy Soluti'ons', April 1`5, 2008 ~- n ° f ... '4 .... t"~,6'=.-.. g t tt.: c_'° 2f r -•::) :~-`?11 3~ f t"° ~. ,..'i '.'C`. tii'~. ~._.:i', C14~ 1'~Ci~~ti.ill<t t1l'tetll~t:?t#C, ~~i.lt= }' ;:'' 1r) c~i:~'C~tIC:f l{.?!'i <`~Zt~~l~}tl 1~1~'z1 ActbmPlae. ~A~ B ~ ~ ~~o~~~' E .:1.8-~Luchessi.. Coenmunify~Center-~CooLRoof ~,~i~ ,, Power Internal I Financed ' Purchase : Nat Capital ' DgM Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple Rate of Net Presets No. Measure Name Impl. Date (yeslno) Agreement Cost incremental Savings Reduc4on Payback Retum Value (NPV) (yes/no) :: ,- Cost (IRR) 18 'Luchessi Cmn Cnlr Install 20~7J yes no $7,203 $0 $1,077 1'.54 6.7 18.4 ~ $14,520 Cool Roo( EEM 10 The Cool Roof measure will reduce the energy needed to cool the facility by using light colored materials on the roof that reflects the sun, and reduce the heat transferred to the building. Incentive funding for this. measure is available throtagh the CPUC64 funded efficiency programs implemented by PG&E. The ,.measure is included in the HDR efficiency report which provides the description and summary table (available in the appendices).65 The costs are based on'the incremental cost of including the cool roof membrane when the roof undergoes replacement. EEM-8: Install Cool Roof The roofs of the gymnasium and the club are in very poor shape and are in need of immediate replacement: 1Vleasure Evaluation ,Scores Resolutiohof Cost Finanaal Existing ~ GRG Impact Posi4ve Pubbc :Employee Community ~ Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metr cs P blem - (cumulative) usibdry Impact ~ Impact. Stabilisation Measure Score Measure Score -3.td 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relatve) (cumulative) 0 to6 LuchessiCmnry.Cntr; Install Cool ROOF 26 7.4 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1 4.12 1269 EEM-10 (Excl to l7) ea California Public. Utilities.Commission bs Petaluma ABAG Ew Audit Report: Energy Audit Draft Report: City of Petaluma, HDR/Brown, Vence and Assocates and Energy Solutions, April 15; 2008 ,, ? ul+,_ '~ „'k't. ( i1) ;s<ri~>:} ~~~ `L l;!t.~ '3 E, ;,= ~ .o~,Q2 _ !;•)r. L.EL'ti S`,L) . ,.411. ,3,cT ~Jt`.!~v3~ T: .. 4 ~ „~ .`:}i~ L~4t~iL1£,llt7~? 1L.Ll`.1 r ictlt ~ ~..;.~~ Aclbn Plan. _ - A 1, ,~ o E 1.9,-Animal Shelter-~Liah~ting. Retrofit. - - -- Power Internal` Financed -Purchose Net C~pit31 08M Annual Coat Annual W2 Slmple Rate of Net Present No. Measure Name Impl Date (yes/no) = 'Agreement Cost incremental Sav ngs 1 Reduction Payback`-I Return. Value.(NPV). Cost .. -19 Animal Shelter Lighting 2009 yes no $2,409 $0 $583 0.93 4.1 28.4% $9,275 Retrofit ABAC~.EW ABAG Energy Watch performed a lighting audit.of the facility. The detailed findings for the facility are provided in the appendices.bb Due to -the expiration of the ABAG EW program incentives ($.20/kWh),.the financial analysis used the incentive numbers for the Small Business Energy Alliance ($.13/kWh). The reduced heat gain (HVAC) savings specified in the ABAG EW results were not included in thus cash benefit analysis. "Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution'of.; Cost F nancial Ex sting GRGimpact Positive Public Employee Commumry E ergy Cost .. ' Atljustetl Measure Name .(relative) Metr cs~ P blein (cumulative) Vsib bry Impact Impact St bilrzation Measure Score Measure Score -3.10 3 (relative (cumulative) (ciimulahve) (relative) (relative) ( mutative) D to 6 Animal Shelter Lighring.Retrofit ABAG. 2 9 2 1 2.00 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.7 6.06 22.72 EW vv Draft Plan: City of Petaluma Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Williard, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG Energy Watch, Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. ,j, 3~~ ~ti~ `...nWl . ~,i~~. ~~11.°~' t~)i A.~~.~.: II.t i.tt~v.5.~6(:~t~4^r~. 1itil~r ~Jeit~:e.`#.)i~ 1Z.~:t~~{l?~~~t .~s. t~'-~}{ S~1C~~1 3 V./.V7 AelbdPlan . A a ~ :p E 20-Corporation Yard Liahting. Retrofi$ ABAG E~lI -'-' _j Pov~r Internal Financed Purchase .Net Capital OSM Annual COSt Annual CO2 Simple Rate of NetPreaent= No. Measure Narno Impl. Date (yev no) Agreement. ~ Cost' aneremental. oavln gs Reductlon- Payback Return,= Value (NPV) (yeslno) Cost - - (IRR) Corporal on Yartl'Lighb"p ' p009 yes no .$3,450 $0 $1-;293 3:07 2J 42.3% $22,378 -Retrofl ABAGEW' ABAG Energy Watch performed a lighting audit of the facility. The detailed findings for the facility are provided in the appendices.b' Due to the expiration. of the ABAG EW program incentives ($.20lkWh), the financial analysis used the incentive numbers for the Small Business Energy Alliance ($.13/kWh). The reduced heat gain {HVAC) savings specified in the ABAG EW results were not included' in this cash benefit analysis. `lVie'astare Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost F ncial Foisting GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Community E ergy CosP Adfusted Measure Name (relative) M tiics Problem (cumulative) Visibility Impair Impact St bilizatibn Measure Score ~~ su Mea re Score • -3 to..3 (relative) (cumulative) - (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) • Oto6 Corporation Yard Lighting Retioft ABAG 2 8 3.0 2.00 0.1 1.00 1.00 0.00 0 2 10.00 37.37 EW 67 DraftPlan: City of Petaluma'Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David VJilliard, Sustaine~gy Systems; ABAG Energy Watch, Calimate ProtecfiomCampaign, November 2008. .. 1 ,_ ,. .. ,. .: tuts .( "a;~ [r!~}~ 1 t.. ~, 4'... ._ 't. i£,:f~ .a., (rill. C;ti~' €~1I 1~£'tc1~tkI11tt ~Sl.i't: C}:s.iti ~1s~~ ~_t2t?, ~)€')S1 1~;v~iL, i.va rt A tlnn Plan _ _ A B ~ D ~.E 21-CavanaughCenter Lighting-Retrofi$:ABAG EUV .' I (~,~s.U Povrr ~ IMemal Flnanced ,Purchase Net Capitnl DgM Annual Coat .Annual C02'. _ Simple Rate of - 'Net Presets No. Measure Name Impl Date - '(yeslno) Agreement Cost. incremental ~vmgs Reduction Payback Retum Value (NPV) coat "I n i,n(r i.ighlin9 Retrofit 2009 yes no $4,156 $0 $934 1.49 4.5 26.6% $14,576 ABAG.EN/ ABAG Energy Watch performed a lighting audit of the facility. The detailed findings for the facility are provided in the appendices.68 Due to the expiration of the ABAG EW program incentives ($.20/kWh), the financial, analysis used the incentive numbers for the Small Business Energy Alliance ($.13/kWh). The reduced heat gain (HVAC) savings specified in the ABAG. EW results were not included in' this cash benefit analysis. Measure Evaluation: Scores Resolution. of Cost F ancial _ E sting GHG Impact Positive Public Employee. C muniry E gyCosf .. Adjusted Measure Name (elative) M tries Problem (cumulative) V'sibiliry Impact Impact. Stab Lzation Measure.Score - Measure Sco . -3to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) D to 6 Cavn. Cntr Lighting Retroft ABAG.EW 2.8 2.0 200 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.1 7:90 22:04 68 Draft Plan: City ofPetaluma Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Williard, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG Energy Watch, Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. .. .. 3 .,, _ . , . _.1 l) _ _ _ , _.