The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Bill 5APart4 10/05/2009~;~t~, ~,1`1'c~t~tl~it)~~ C :,_. t)i)~L C; .. :.,:i(>rt .[~:.ecl((~.;atsi~ rlt;ti~~,:t ~'~~if ~ v.~;,(?~) Actbn Plan ' A ~ _ ~..- o, E 22=Eivuoo~d Center Soup Kitchen Licihting Retrofit ABAG EW `_' _ ~ , Power - Internal:. Flnaneed -Purchase Nat Capital o8M Annual Cost. -Annual CO2 Sirnple Rate of Net Present'.: - No. Moasure Name Impl. Date (yealno) Agreement. Cos4 Incremental Savings .Reduction" - Payback Retum Value (NPU). (`yes/no) -.. Cost (IRR) ~p EMrood Cntr Soup Kitchi;n 2009 yes no $845 $0 $631 1.01 1.3 80.8% 811,727 =Lighting ReUOft ABAG EV.r ABAG Energy Watch performed a lighting audit of the facility. The detailed findings for the facility are provided in the appendices.69 Due to the expiration of the ABAG EW program incentives ($.20/kWh}; the financial analysis used the incentive'numbers for the Small Business Energy Alliance ($.13/kWh). The reduced heat gain (HVAC). savings specified in the ABAG EW results were not included in this cash benefit analysis. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG Imp h Positive Public Employee Community - Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulaF ) Visibility Impact Impact SI bi6zation - Measure Score Measure8core -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) ~ (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 Ehvood Cntr Soup Kitchen Lighting 2.9 3.0 2.00 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.1 9.05 27.28 Retrofit ABAG EW 69 Draft Plan: City of Petaluma Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David Williard, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG'Energy Watch. Climate Protection Campaign, November 2008. . ,=i f ,~~;It ~ L i?#I lii;i ~a~ ., .F ... , ~.:1(ti ( `a ~~I21c1 ~}'~'~'Esl€.:'tCi~(~ ~t,:»ti ~':). .~.~C~f4,3,,;?i?~l !'st>l?~)It ~~~t1~$ J.~.~)~~ Atibn Plan .A.. ~ B:. ~ ~ o -~ E ~ 23-S.eni~or Center Lightinc~~ Retrofit A6~-G EIAI _. II ~ Power -- ~ Internal I Financed Purchase Net Capital' 08M Annual Cost. .Annual COT Simple Rate o1 = Net Present 'No. Measuro Name -1mp1. Date (yeslno) Agraenren£ Cost" Incremental Savings Reduction Payback' Retum Value(NPV)` (yes/no) rest (IRR). ~g -.. Senior Center Lighting Retrofit p009 yes no $2,578 $0 $1,059 ~ 7.69. 2.4 47:0% $18,636 ABAGEW ABAG Energy Watch performed a .lighting audit of the facility:. The detailed findings for the facility are provided in theappendices,70 Due to the expiration of the ABAG EW program .incentives ($.20/kWh), the financial analysis used the incentive numbers for the Small Business Energy Alliance ($.131kWh). 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 Fi ancial' E><isti~g ~ .GHG..Irnpact. Positive,Public Employee Community Ene gy Cost - Adjusted Measure Name .(relative) M Vics Problem Icumulat ve) Visibility Impact Impact Stabilizztion Measure Score Measuie Score -3to3 (relative) (cumulative (cumulative) (relative) (relaWe) (cumulative) O.to 6 Senior Center Lighting Retrofit ABAGEW 2.6 3.0 2:00 0.0 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.1 9.02 27.34 70'Draft Plan: Cityof Petaluma Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction, David. Williard, Sustainergy Systems, ABAG.Energy Watch, Climate. Protection Campaign, November 2008. s.,~ti' ()~ ~~'vi;:i€diiitl't,S1.''.c;t_1_~i()E€SC ~31;i9~1tilE4~i€~~,1 ~Zl'.(1llCtli}11 t~(;~!~}ta 1`itl(1 17J...`s;~)~ naloo r~~o. A B ~ ~ E 24=i46rpor>t Lightinol Retrofit,Al3~G E1N L I ~ I ~ ''- Power Internal - 9Financed Purchase ` Net Capital ' G8M Annual Cost Annual CO2'. Simple Rate of Net Present No. Measure Name Impl Date (yes/no) '!Agreement - Cost Incmmental Savings .Reduction Payback' Return - Value(NPV) (yeslno) :.Gust _ (IF2R) 24 Airr~rl '. I~: -'r„ t~L~ 'I ' 2009. yes no $7,420 $0 $2;063 3.30 3.6 .32.2%~ $33,897 ABAG Energy Watch performed a lighting. audit of the facility: The detailed findings for the facility are provided irr the appendices.) Due to the expiration of the ABAG EW program incentives ($.20/kWh); the friancal 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 Resolutionot Cost. Financial Existing ' GHG Impa t P Rive Public - ~. Employee Community "Energy Aost Adjustetl Measure Name (relative) Metrics Pioblem (cumulatve) Usibl ry Impact Impact ~ ~ Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative)-. (relative) . (relative) (cumulative) O to6 Airport Lighting Retrofit ASAGEW 2.6 2.4 2.00 0.7 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.2 6.31 2644 71 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. ~,~F 4 ~ ,;i l~~si'~C=~il<}ti~~£ ~i~~l; ~-tt1E4S1! r: spx.'Tti3t <1%`~1()I1 ~~!' ~~O,w'.~~3 Aetbn Qlen A a ~ o~ E ~ 25=Vending Machine Controls Power - Internal ,. F nancad Purchase. Not Capital o Annual Cost Annual CO2 Simpler Rate of `' Net Present No. __ Measure Na ma Impl. Dato (ye slno) =Agreement Cost Inc mentel Savings -Reduction Payback Return , Value (NPVI (yeslno) Cost (IRR).. 25 Vendi i r' in_ ~~ i.. 2009 yes no $2,548 ,SO :$5,259 - 8.40 0.5' 217.1% $10P,979 The Vending Miser measure will reduce the .energy used by 20 vending machines by a total of roughly 35,000 kWh annually.. The Vending Miser works by turning the vending machine's cooling system off when the machines are not being. utilized. Incentive funding for°this measure is available through the CPUC funded efficiency programs implemented by PG&E. This measure was specified in the, referenced report 72 Measure Eva~luatiofr'Scores Resolution of Cost F a cial Existing' GHG Imp t Pbs~Sve Public Employee C mmumry 'Energy Cost Atljusted Measure Nam (relative) Metrics. Problem (ciimulat ve) Visib lity Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3. (relative) (dumula6ve) . (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O tab Vendibg:Machine Controls 28 3.0 0.00 0.2 0:00 0.00 0.00 0~6 6.70 23.87 "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. "ti ~. ~,)~~' C)l ~~t"is€illii;ct {..si`~:t,t}rIt_?ti~t, ~3`=, 1 ;. •..,t71 1°iC~l€t,`tla3TP 1`k..lt(_).a i~tilfi iJ,7.~.3(~ ~ACtlori Plen'. c A B C D' E; 2~~ Frates.Pump :Retrofit ' Povmr Internal .: Financed ,Purchase Nct Capital O&h1 _ Annual Cost Annual C02 Simplo Rate of Net Presenf. No. Mcuura Name 1mpl. Date . - (yealno) -- - - Agreement Cost meremental --. Savings ' 'Reduction Payback Return Value (NPV) I (yeslno).. .,..Cost I (IRR) ~ 26 ~ r ~.: - I r 14 ruml ._. 2010 yes no $13,842 $0 $3,597 5.44 3.8 30.3% $58;234 ) The possible extension of reclaimed water to Zone 5 to serve the Petaluma Golf and Country Club will save pumping energy if .implemented. That demand is shown as an option in the' Reclamation Master Plan. The Corona Pump Station is not used. At that location water flows through the station from the SCWA aqueduct without having. to ~be pumped due to high pressures. Therefore. it isnot included in the flow into zone 4.' Zones 2, 3 and 5 will continue to use more energy as build .out: occurs in each pressure zone. Zone 1 is not pumped. The work at Frates Pump Station will.. reduce -power use there by approximately 20%.73 The power consumption values by station are provided in the appendices. Measure Eval'taation Scores Resolution of ~ Cost F nancial Exrstibg GF1G Impact P itive Putilic Employee Commuriiry E e gy Cost ~ ~. ' Adjusted Measure Name (relative) McViis Problem (cumdlatlve) Usib hry Impact Impact St bl 4on Measure Score Mea a Score -3 to 9 (elative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulauve)_ - - Oto6 Retrofit Frates Pu mps'(Zone 4) 2.2 2.3 1~:Otr 0.2 6.00 ~ 0.00 0.00 0.4 12.02 43.85 73 Email from Department of Water~Resources and Conservation. Staff containing energy consumption by zone and projected energy savings and' cost per tation, September 7, 2007. t ., .. +u_ ~.. _~dI ~ciE~{.?II lttXl 1 Av3.i>..~' Actlon Plnb ' A'B CDEL'/~' r~italuena:AgueciuctSupplxingZone 4 ~, ~ ~ - Povrer' - Internal need na Purchase Net Capital 08:1 - - Annual Cost Annual C02 S mple Rate of Net Present No Mcunuro Nomo ~ Impl Dnte (yeslno) Agreement Cost incremental -~- Roductlon Savings Payback Return Value(NP~: (yeslno) Cost ~ (IRR} etaluma Aqueduct supplying 2012 'yes no $195,368 $0 $15,413 20.89 12.7 9.8% $119,951 Zone 4 The .new Petaluma Aqueduct (east side alignment) when. constructed (estimated to be 2015) will allow the elimination of pumping into zone 4 (Frates Pump Station .and Corona Pump Station).74 The saving for this, measure are applied. after the savings, are applied for the previous measure. The power consumption values byatation are provided in the~appendices. 1Vleasure Evaluation. Scores Resolution of Cost F cial Existing GHG.Imp ct P sieve Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics' P oblem (cumulatve) Usibiliry Impact .Impact StabiOZatron Measure Score Measure Score -3to~3' (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 Petaluma Aqueduct supplying Zone 4 . -3.0 0.7 0.00 0.6 6.00 0.00 0.00 1.8 6.13 30.66 74 Email°froni,Department:of Water Resources and Conservation Staff containing energy consumption by zone and projected energy'savings and cost per station, September 7, 2007. , a,,i~..,,~ i.1 i. ~~ ~:'t;ittwdtt3tt ~3L`w't»%;~.~ii:t:ttiC, ~:ts{`; l.,€t~.),>s.P.c~)"? ~~'_~c~C(~.1:=`t3 .~1s~~~i~)ll l~icd~1~ Actlon Plan A B C D E 28 ~~Vllaste:lNater.Pond. Solar.BeeT"" Power Internal 1 Financed Purchase Net Capital ng.~ Mnual Cost Ahnual CO2 ~ Simple. Rate of Net Present. No. Mcasuro Namo Impl. Da[o (yes/no) ~AOreemenf:. Cost: incremental Savings Reduction 'Payback Retum '. Value (NPV)'. (yes/no) Cdst (IRR) `28 SolarBee'"'.(unless new ' - 2009 yes no $94,257 $0 $40;897 65.33 2.3 48.4% $722,199 facility removes need) The SolarBEETM wastewater lagoon aeration system significantly reduces the size of the pump motor combinations while providing equivalent results. This yields very large energy and cost savings. This measure has been evaluated by the Sonoma County Energy Watch for municipal applications in Sonoma County. The costs and benefits of this. measure are based on a municipal application scaled by waste ,water energy consumption ofthe jurisdictions. The relative savings numbers are reduced by a factor of 2 to provide a significant margin of conservatism in the financial results. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG Imp ct Positive Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulat e) Usibiliry Impact Impact Stabd zatron Measure Score Measure Score -310 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 SolarBeei° (unless new facility removes .2 7 3 0 0.00 1.9 6.00 0.00 0.00 4.8 12.99 58.38 need) ' .I, r .'6fl@°-. ~ ?fir ... .a~1, ii8;. its- ~~, ~ .:.; r '. tx[i i~,~.4ili~',tli7Tl ~CTt?'~i sTtzi. AetlonPlan A B . ~ o E 29- Commerciai ,Kitchen Grease to Gas Methane Program i. ~3, J ,(y~€.1 Power O&h1 Internal Financed Purchase Net Capital Annual Cost Annual C02 Slmple Rate of Net Presont No. ~ Measure Name Impl. Date lyes/no) Agreement Cost .': incremental Savings Reduction-, Payback' Retum - Valuo (NP1n Cost - 29 ~ieaee w vex Meg ane 2011 yes no ~ $265;880 $0 $102,723 571.65 2.6 43.5% $1,786,245 Program; . This measure applies the success of "the. City of Riverside in its well documented program to redirect restaurant trap ,grease to the wastewater methane digesters to displace the natural gas usage of the facility. The. costs and benefits of this program. as applied to the City of Petaluma are scaled down based on relafive populations. Furthermore, the costs of the Riverside program ($85k) have been :increased by a factor of 4. The benefits are reduced also reduced by 50%. These conservative adjustments are applied to account for the many unknowns involved in translating this program to a different community and wastewater treatment facility. The numbers used in the cost / beneft analysis are provided in the table below. Further information on the City of Riverside Grease to Gas program is available from the City of Riverside.75 Base Pooulalion Data RiversidePopulation 300,000 Petaluma '54;500 Population % '18% Adjustments for Conservatism Capital Costs 400% Energy Savings 50 O&M 50 Percentagelnc~ease Per capita percentage decrease Per capita percentage decrease Savings Riverside Petaluma Therms Natural Gas Displa 1,020,000 92,650 Therms Capital'Cost' $85;000 $340,000 Petaluma Adjusted Disposal Fees $21,000 $1,908 $0.03/gallon WelSolids Reduction $48,000 $4;360 $48/ton disposal fee Cost perTtierm $1.000 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost F cial Existing GHG Imp ct P five Public - Employee Community Energy CosP;~ Adjusted 'Measure~Name (relative) M tries Problem (cumulahv) Vsibiliry~ Impact Impact Stabilization MeasureSCOre Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative). (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0 to6 Grease to Gas Methane Program -3.0 3.0 6.00 6.0 3.00 -1.00 2.00 6.0 22.00 77.00 'S See the Appendices for a summary of material from the City of Riverside . , ?~~ ~ ~ ~ _~~ . Q/~~_. ~~11 t ~ .'.. 7)i1 ~' ~c 'it~f ~7c2C*'l.tsli:ii'.t:(.71i 14s,',t~il~~:If)1~ ,1C~'f~il ~~1s,Tl ~~i..;).~~`~ Aetbn Plan A ~ Il tl o E 30- Streetl6ghtong A: 50% Conversion from HPS to LED (or equiv) '-- Power ORM - Internal Financed Purchase Net Capital ' Annual Cosy Annual CO2 Slmple Rate of NetPresflnf No. Measure Namo Impl. Date (Yo slno) rAgreement 'Cost Incremental wings,,. Reduetlon- Payback` Return. Value (NPV). - (yea/no):. Cast _ - (IRR)' ' Streetligh'~rL ! - - - Comersiori HPS to LED.(or. . Y012 yes no - $692,010 ($132;212) $34,741 . 47.08 4-.1 28.4% $2,655,649 equiv-j ~ Streetlighting 'consumes over .2;000,000 kWh per .year, representing a significant portion of the City total. This measure addresses 50% of the' fixtures and assumes a 20% reduction in energy consumption for the fixtures affected. The broad demand for greater efficiencies in this sector is driving aggressive efforts to bring, a new generation of streetlighting options to the market. The cities of Raleigh, NC; Ontario, Canada, Ann Arbor; Michigan, and Oakland, CA have pilot installations to test efficient. products currently available. The analysis :for this measure is based on the assumptions in the table below. A key step in the adoption of this measure will be the negotiation of a PGBzE tariff that, reflects. this new technology. The implementation of this measure is delayed until 2012 to allow'-ng for the maturation 'of this new technology. Streetlight RetrofiDAssumptions 2,087,920 kWh:~Streetlight usage Jrom Petaluma 2006.billingdata 206;792 ~ kWh saved wdhthis measure 4683 Numberof (Mures --'.50% Percentage of fixtures in this measure 2342' Numberof fixtures affectetl $300. Incremental cost per Posture 20%' Energy Savings and Retluction,in PG&E'billing rate. 50 % Energy Cost Savings as percentagerof$/kWh (tariff negotiation requir $50 ~Mairitenance'Savings per Fixture (Annual) ,$117,075 Maintenance Savings Lamp Life: (for implementation schetlule, reduced maintenance) 24,000 liours'(HPS) 4380 annual hours of operation per.year 5:5 yearsotoperatioh 70 000 lioura(LED) 4380 ,annuabhoursofoperationper year 16.0 years of operation Measure Evaluation Scores 'Resolutiohol: Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Positive Public - - Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) McUics Problem (cumulative) Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3ao 3 (relative) .(cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relaWe) (cumulative) 0 to 6 Streetlighting A50%"Conve~sion,HPS to .3.0 2.1 0.00 1.4 3.00 1.00 0.00 6.0 7048 46.70 'LED (or equiv:) ~ ? ~ r .. mi. ~.". -. 1j°t .. ''s 3~~VV t C!~ ., ,`iw± s ,..~_. ~.`Il~' t?~ _l~C.~itkllllEt f ii''.c~(1llCtiS~ ~3<35 ~ itlt~:€(lii 1Z~:C€i,(L11(;t~ . t ~, :'t . ~`tt!'1 ~ i.~,~:.(.l"" 'Ae1bn Plan ~ - - ~ - A ~ a - tl - b E 31-~ Street_ lightinet. ~~.B: 50% Conversion from HPS to: LED ~(or eguiv). . = ' -~~ Power 08M Internal Financed. -. Purchase Net Capital Annual Cyst ~ Annual C02 Simple Rateof.' NotPresent No. Mca aura Name Impl Dtte - [(yeslno) Agreement Cosh.'; Inerementnl S.nfngs 'Reduction Payback: - Retum Value.(NPV) (yes/no) Cost (IRR) StreetllghGng B:50% 31 Conversion HPS to LED (or 201.3 yes, no $692;010 ($132,212] - 835,957 46:09 4.1~ 28.5% ~ E2,679,791 equiv.)., ~. This measure addresses the' remaining SQ% of the 'fixtures and assumes a 20% reduction in energy consumption for the fixtures affected. The broad demand for greater efficiencies in this sector is driving aggressive efforts to bring a new generation of streetligbting options to the market. The cities of Raleigh, NC, Ontario, Canada; Ann Arbo,r,. Michigan, and Oakland, CA have pilot installations to test efficient products currently available. The analysis for this measure is based on the assumptions in the table below: A key step in the adoption of this measure will be the negotiation of a PG&E tariff that reflects- this new technology. The implementation of this measure is delayed until 2013 to allowing for the maturation of this new technology. Streetlight Retofrt'Assumptions '" 2;087,920 kWh: Streetlight usage from Petaluma 2006billing data: 208.792 kWh saved with this measure X4683 Number ohfixtures .50%-. Percentage of fixtures in this measure .2342 Number of fixtures affectetl ''$300 ~ lricremeMal cost per (MUre , 20 % Energy SavingsantlReiludion inPGBE billing rate ' 50% Energy Cost Savings as percentageof $lkWh~(tariff negotiationrequir $50 ; Maintenance'Savings per Fixture (Annual) $1,17,075 MaintenanceSavings Lamp Life (tor implementation schedule, retlucetl maintenance) 24,000 hours(HPS) 4380' annual hours of operation per year 5.5 yearso( operation 70,000 hours (LED) 4980 annual hours of operation per year 16:0 years of operation Measure Ewal'uation Scores. Resolutiom of.. Cost Financial. Existing GHG Impact Positive Pu51ic Employee - Cornmuiiiry Energy Cosl Aujusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics ~ Problem (cumulative) Usibiliry - Impact ~ Impact Stabilization - Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative ;(cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to 6 Streetlighting B: 50% Conversion.NPS to~ -3.0 2.1 0.00 t.3 3:00 1.00 0.00 6:0 10.47 46.69 LED (oi equiv.) _. a. . - . ., - - ~ S ~ i 3, a f-, ~ 4 3 5 t _ e i ,.... L 6' `.. { i , a . ~:~t :' „tlt)~:t) x C.~f`e~;t~lt.c)t)sc. (i"5 x ~ ~C:<1uc:r:c>: ,,. )1 i'ltt~ "`"""`"" `32- Streetlighting' C Turn Off 50%, of :Resit A B C ~ D ;E LI ~11t111 ~__:_ if).~,~? - Powcr - Internal. Fnanced Purchase Net Capital -" O&M Annual Cost IAnnual C02 Simple Rato of Net Present No. Mcawro Namo Impl. Da[o (yeslno) - Agreement I Cost Incremental Savings Cost 'Reduction Payback Rotum. ~ Value (NPV) I (yeslno) ~ ~ (IRR) Streetliy y... Tuo ~ 32 ' of Residential (non 2010 no no $67,020, ~ $0 $108;899 ~ 164.76 0.6 171.7% $2,096,255 Intersection)allghtdig` This measure "turns off'' half of the residential stxeetlighting saving over 700;000 kWh annually. The. large NPV for this measure is due to reduced annual tariff payment to the utility which would need to be negotiated. This measure can also be modified to reflect availability of devices designed to switch streetlights off for a portion of the early morning hours. The assumptions behind the costs and benefits calculation-are provided in the tables: below.76 1,402,182 kWh: ResidenliafSlreetlight usage trombilling data 701,091 kWh saved with this measure 4083 Number of resitleritial fixtures 50% Percentage of fixtures in this measure '2042 Number o(fixlures affectetl $50. Incremental costper fidure 100% Retluction inPGBE billing rate $0 MaintenanceBavings per Fixture (Annual) g0 Maintenance Savings 406&Residential Streetlights 70w - 90% - 3675 t OOw-5% -204 150w - 5% - 204 6001ntersec[ion/Arteiial Streetlights 200w - 42.5% - 255 260w-42.5% -255 400w-15%-90 installed wattage 308,250 67% 257,250 20,400 30,600 installed wattage 150,750 33 % 51,000 63,750 36 000 459,000 Measure Evaluafiori Scores Resolutibn.of Cost Fnancial E istirig GHG Impact P sitive Public Employee Community ~ Ene gy Cost Adtusted Measure Name (relative) Mebics . Problem (cumulat ) Visibility Impacl . Impact St bJizaUon Measure Score Measure Score 3to 3 ( ~ ) relati a ( ) cumulatve ( ) cumulative ( ) relative ( ) relative (cu ) mutative O to6 Streetligtiting C: Turn off 50 % of -1.0' 3.0 0 00 d.7 5.00 -1.00 -2.00 6.0 74.72 65.19 Residential (non intersection).lightrng 76 Streetlighting date. provided by email-from Public Works Staff, May 19'h 2008. ~~Y"4 `e (t~~l~~'t~tltttlicl ~31'~;~:tt~l(?t4ti~ ~ttl` ~ t1(t.,;~;~t>41 ~'.:'.r~tl.;., ;34'l "`"°"°'°" 33- _3treetlia_hting ®:_Turn O'S0% of RE A B. C D,~.. E .. ,Li' Fitin _ ntial (non Povror '- Internal ~ ~ Financed Pureho se net Capihd 08M Annual Cost Annual C02~. S mple Rato of Net Prrsent No. Mea curo Nnmo Impl_ Dale (yc slno) .. Agreement: Cost incremonf3l &wings Reduction Payback Retum ~ ~~ Valuo (NPV) (yes/no) ~ Coat (IRR) Streetlighting D: Tum off 50°6 3 -oF Residential (non 2012 no no $67,020 $0 $116,655 158;10 0.6 - 183:7% $2;252;2.50 intersecfion) lighting, This measure "turns offl' the second half of the residential streetlighting also saving over 700,000 kWh annually.. The large NPV for this .measure is due to reduced annual tariff payment to the utility which would need. to be .negotiated... This measure can also be modified to reflect availability of devices designed to switch streetlights off for a portion of the early morning hours. The assumptions behind the costs and benefits calculation are provided in the tables below.' 1,402;182 kWh: Residential Streetlight usage;fromtiilling Uata 701,091 kWh savetl with thisinea3ure 4083 Number of resitlen[ial fudures 50% Percentage of fixture5in,this measure 2042 Number of fixtures affected $50 IncremeMalbost per fiidure 100 % Retluction.in PGBE billing rate $0 Maintenance Savings per Fixture:(Annuaq $0 Maintenance Savings 4083 Residential Streetlights installed wattage 308,250 67% 70w - 90% - 3675 257,250 100w - S% - 204 20,400 150w - 5% - 204 30,600 600 Intersection/AneriaCSVeetlights installed wadage 150,750 33% 200w - 42.5% - 255 51,000 250w -42.5%- 255 63 750 400w - 15% - 9D 36,000 459,000 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing ~ GHG.Jmpact Positive Public Employee ~ C muniry - 'E erg'y Cost - Adjusted Measure~Name (relative) Metiics P otilem (dumulat ve) U~sibiliry Impact Impaci Stabilization Measure Score ~.. Measure Score 3.to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O o6 Str tlighfihg D. Turn off SO /'ot ,1.0 3.0 0.00 d.6 5.00 -1 00 -2.00 6.0 14.53 64162 Residential'(don intersectiori)lighting, 77 streetlighting date provided by email from Public Workgs Staff May 19'h 2008. `?~ (?? ~'C'Lil~Liltld ~7.I~s=Ott#t.`~tibL-~t<ty z..c7i#:~:il~I`i ~t.c~~it,~lc.t' liL~t{1? l~lc't:t Action Plan ISM _ ' A B C D 'E' ',~/~- Commute 1 --- - -- i (~,.J .t.)~\ Pourer Internal Financed '.Purchase Net Capital 0&M Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple. Rete of. Net Present No. Measuro Name Impl. Date (yes/no) _ - Agreement Cost'- .Incremental Savingts - Reduction Payback Return` Value (NPV) (yeslno) Cost - '(IRR) -.t .mute 1 2010 no no $0 $22,500 $0 -75:53 0!0 NA ($4•..,,717) The general assumptions of a transit demand management (TDM) program are based on the documented cost and .impact of successful programs under similar circumstances provided in published case studies. This analysis assumes an increased' commute investment of $22.Sk per year resulting in an impact of 25% on the commuting ,patterns of -city employees. The cost is based on a 0.25 FTE position (entry level admin, .1FTE=$SQ000) and $10,000 per year in program costs. A general summary of commute programs is provided in the appendices. Further study is recommended to allow a more. aggressive analysis of commute program impacts. Additional support for comrriute program development, implementation and evaluation is available from the 51 l Regional Rideshare Program.78 There is -was an effective TDM program in place serving Napa and Solano eounfies at the time of tl-is analysis. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial 'Existing ~ GHG Impact PositivePublic Employee Community E e gy Cost Adjustetl Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulative) Usibiliry Impact Impact St bilizaDon Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (refatWe) (cumulative) O to6 Commute 1 2.5 -3.0 0.00 2.2 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.0 3.68 0.53 ~~ 511 Regional Rideshate Program; 70 Washington Street, Oakland, CA 94607; (51.0) 273-3628 f -~(~' C ~ L'l ..,_l:lct LS€C: C ai2l)'t{~;4 ~3,~ _ i.i.f'.t.~.li.:iJ€}jz_ '~{ t f),:, #Ti.<..f ~~.~. rAC11on Plan p B ~ o E 35- C:ornmute 2 - Pourer. ' DaM ~ - Internal Financed Purchase Not Capital Annual Cost Annual C02 Simpte Rate of Net Present. No. Measure Name ~ Impl Date .. (yes nojl - _ Agreement ~ .oat Incremental ~ Savings Reducrion. Payback Return -'. Value (NPV)` (Yes/no) Cost _. (IRR) •~ 2011 ~ no -'rib $0 $32;500 SO 75.53 0.0 NA (5645;257) This is a second commute measure essentially doubling the. effort in this area. As with the , previous measure, the analysis assumes an 'increased commute investment of $22.Sk per year resulting in an impact of 25% on the. commuting patterns .of city employees. The cost is based on a 0.25 FTE position (entry !level ~admin, 1FTE=$5`O,Q00) and $10,000 per year in program costs. A .general summary of commute programs is provided 'in the appendices. Additional support for commute program development, implementation and evaluation is available from the 511 Regional Rideshare Program.79 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of - Cost Financial. Existing GHG Impact Positlve Public Employee. Community E rgy.Cost ~ Adjustetl Measure Name (relative) Mehics Problem mulative) Visibility Impact Impact St bilizaaon Measure. Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cu (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) ,0 to6 Commute 2 2:6 -3 0 0.00 2.2 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.0 3.68 0.53 79 511 RegionaP Rideshare Program,. 70 Washington Street, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 273-3628 l.,ilti' l~ 1?W~t(il'itt~ ~~t~:c'.T11tC1Ct:~t' ~`I~li 1 Cl~[..;;t€?C~ 1~.~,C3~,i~:elL3p"l' ~~>I.E1€.s'; ?zi€l°y ~ ~~~ ~ (~<~ A~tb~ r7,n A ~ a . ~- ~ ~o~,.: ~ E ~ ~ 36- 4 Day~ ~~/orl( Meek (CoP11 i1`tute~ Ittn~actS) -- ~ . . ? Power Internal :Financed Purehaso Net Ca pltal ~&M Annual Cost Annual C02 - Simple Rete of Net Present No. M1leasure Nante Impl Dale (yeslno) _ Agreemenh Cott incremental Savings Roducticn Payback Return - Value (NPV)' ~- (yes/no) '; Cost '(IRR) 3~: .. .:^ek..€Commute) 2009 no no $0 $0 $0 32.26 NA NA $0 A reduced work week would also redtzse the greenhouse .gas emissions associated with. employee commuting. City staff completed an analysis of the number of employees that would be included in the 4 day work week program. It is assumed the: 88 employees working. a 4 day work week projected by that .analysis -would experience.a 20% reduction in commute fuel consumption. This yields over 3,000 gallons of fuel saved and over 29 tons Cote avoided per year.80 Measure Evaluation. Scores Resolution elf Cost Financial ~ Existing GHG Impact Po live Public Employee Community Energy Cost - Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulat ve) VisibAiry Impact Impact ~ St bilization - Measure Score Measure Score -3.to 3 (relative) .(cumulative) .(cumulative) (relative) (relajive) (cumulative) O tb 6 4 day work week (Commute) 3,0 3.0 2.00 0.9 ~ 3:00 1.00 --2.00 D.0 70.93 37.79 80 PGE Cosl Analysis-pre 2007 version, spreadsheet calculation provided by staff; December 30, 2008. • ~1~°, Cl~'r>t.':<l~Ui21t3 ~('t,~.tt~l()tiS~. ~~,..; '~'titi'~14)t"l ~`~i.CfiCsI1 ~~~2tCl ~~3.~,~)~) Atibn Plan ~ - A B, ~ o :E 37- 4 Day Mork 1Neek (Buiiding Impacts).. ~, ~~, Power - Infernal'. Financed . Purchasa Net Capital 08M Annual Cos Annual CO Simple Rate of Net Present No. Measure Name Irnpl. Date - 'ayes/no) .Agreement Coat Incmme Mal Savings - - ;Reduction :Payback Retum., - Value.~NPV) _(yes/nod--. Coat -- .. (IRR).. `7 .., ~rl.. v.~,~ t. ;Building, .2009 no no $o $0 $26,OOT 63.66 0.8 138:1 % $497,298 The reduced work week analysis: completed by City Staff yields a (projected a savings of 1.39,533 kWh .and 4,895 Therms annually based on the billing data for the. identified facilities.g' An investment of $20,000 is assumed to be required to complete the transition to the new schedule. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of - Cost F bncial - - Existing ~ GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Community ~Energy.Cost Adjustetl Measure Name (relative) M tries P obl em (cumulative) Vsibiliry Impact Impact Stabilization Measure;Score Measure Score -3 m-3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative (relative) (cumulative) 0'to 6 4 day work week (Biiilding) 1_:8 3.0 2.00 16 3.00 1.00 -2.00 3.0 13.66 50.21 81 PGE Cost .9nalysis pre 207 rersion; spreadsheet calculation provided by staff, December 30, 2008. ~~`~4, ~ ` E" il.~??~.t ~,rc~;r:~_}~c)~)se (:gas , _, ' ~'>Cti~~~~ 1' e:~t 1().>.()~~ "`"'"""' 38--Petaluma Transit Fleet Replacement°;Strategy A ~ Power Intel'nal Fnanced [Purchase ' Net Capital 08M Annual Cost Annual C02 Simplo Rate of Not Present No. Measure Name Impl. Date - (yeaJno) - _ Agreement Coat - incremental Cost - Sarongs Reduction- Payback i Retum i Value (NPV) (yes/no) (IRR) = 38 r FleetA 2014 yes no $271,593 $0 $261,835 244:93 '1:0. 103:3% $4',939;834 Tlie compressed natural. gas (CNG) replacements specified in the table below will save over 240 metric tons of C02e and result in considerable gasoline and diesel fuel savings annually. The costs are based on 'the cost data provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and assume ari 80% cost sharing by the federal government. The table of values provided by MTC is provided in the appendices. The analysis assumes this measure would be fully implemented by 2014. Vehicle No. Make Year Model Description Fuel Type MPG Replacement Vehicle Incr. Cost Fuel Annuar. Miles MPG/' MPkWh MPTherm CNG', (Therms) projected Electric (equiv.kWh) projected G aline S Ings (gap D esel Savings (gal) CNG Savings (Therms) 7 Ford 2003 E350 PareTransit Gas 8.3 CuhAwayNan 26'*. 7 year, CNG 513.970 ~ 'CNG '12368. ~ '8.3 ~ = 1736 0 1484 0 -1736 10 Ford 1997 Candidate ParaTransit Diesel ~ ---- 8.3 C f AzvayNan26'+, 7 Vear; CNG 513.970 " CNG 16201 -~ .8.3 ~'~ 2275 0 0 1944 -2275 30 Fortl 2000 Bus ParaTra nsit Gas. ~ 8.3 Cut AviayNan26'+,.7 - yeer;.CNG $73,970 CNG 22286' 8'.3 3129 0 2674 0 -3129 3T Fortl 2001 Bus ParaTra nsit Gas. 8.3' Cut-AwayNan 26'+, 7 year, CNG 513,970 CNG '25077 - _6.3 ~ 3633 0 3105 0 -3633 AA FerC 2001 Bus Para7iansit Gas - 8.3 Cut-AwayNan 26'+, 7 -- Vear,CNG $13,970 CNG 25877- i8.3 - _' . 3633 0 3105 0 -3633 BB Ford 2001 Bus ParaTransit Gas - °-- 8'.3 Cut-AwayNan 26'+, 7 Year, CNG 513,970 CNG - 25877' " 8.3 3633 0 3105 0 -3633 4 Braun 2003 Transporter: PPSC Gas 3.6 Transit Bus 40'. CNG 571 045 CNG 7038. ~3.6 2264 0 1935 0 -2264. 5 Ford 1997 Aerotech PPSC Diesel 36 Tradsit Bus 40'CNG $17,045 CNG 13298 3.6 4277 0 0 3656 -4277 ii Orion., 1969 Orion ll Fixed Roue Diesel 36 Transit Bus 40'~CNG $11045 CNG 9961 ~3.6 3204 0 0~ 2738 -320d.. 21 Chevy 2D03'~ Cui-a-way Fixed Route Gas 3.6 Tiansit Bus?0' CNG 511,045 CNG 17094 ~36 5498 0 4699 0 -5498. 22 Chevy 2003 Cut-a-way Fixed Route Gas' 3.6, Transit Bus'40' CNG 811,045 CNG 14025' 3.6. 4511 0 3855 0 -4511 23 Chevy '2003 Cut-a-way Fired ROUte Gas 3.6, Tiansit Bus 40'CNG 511 045 CNG 14299 3.6 4599 0 3931 0 -4599: 24 Chevy ,2003' Cut away Fixed Route Gas 3:6 Transit Bus 40' CNG $11,045 CNG 1662d 3.6 5347 0 4570 0 -5347 25 Chevy, '2003• Cut-away Fixed Route Gas 3.6 Transit Bus 40'.CNG 811,045 CNG 14458 3.6 4650 0 3974 0 -4650 26 ~ Chevy 2003 Cut-a-way Fixetl Route Gas, 3.6 Transit Bus 40'CNG $11',045 CNG ~15i19 3.6 4062 0 4156 0 -4862 27 Ford 2000 Cut-a-way Fized Route Gas 3.6 -Transiteus 40'CNG 511,045 CNG 26781 3.6 0613 0 7362 0 -0613 ' 28. Fortl '2000 Cul-a-way Fixed Route Gas 3.6 Tiansi~Bus 40'CNG $11,045 CNG 29200 3.6 9391 0 8027 0 -9391 29 Ford 2000' Cut way 'Fixetl ROUte Diesel 36 Tnsit Bus 00'CNG 511 X45 CNG 22321 X36 7179 0 0 6136: -7179' 32 Fortl 2000 Cutaway 'Fixed Route Diesel 36 Transiteus 40'CNG $11,045 CNG 24020 36 '. ' 7725 0 0 6603 =7725 33 Gillig. 2007 Tra st.Bus, F'nted-Route. Diesel 3.6 Transit Bus 60'CNG $11,045 CNG 150 '3.6 4B ~'0 D ~41 -48 34 Gillig 2007 Transit Bus ;Fixed Route Diesel 3 6 Transit Bus,40'-CNG 817,045 CNG 175 3.6 S6 0 0 48 -56 35 Gillig 2007 ~Transil Bus. Fixetl Route Diesel 3,6 Transit Bus 40' CNG $11,045 ~ CNG 172 3.6 55 0 0 d7 -55 36 Gillig 2007 Transit Bus Fixed Route Diesel 3.6 Transit Bu540' CNG 811 045 CNG 145 36 47 0 0 40 -47 Measure Evaluation Scores. Resolution of Cost Financial Existing . GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Communiy EnergyCost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) .Metrics - Problem (cumulative) Visibility Impact - Impair Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3 to3 ( ) relative ( ) cumulative (cumulative ) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O td6 Bus FleetA ~ -3.0 3.0 0.00 6.0 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 17.00 71.00 Ctf1' C`i}~~>~ts$~tlklk2' ~1t'~E;Clllt~lltiC ~-ic3S ~,IllttiS:lL1S1 1\e~~tli,t7vYk"a.~(.~,;ti t7iizTi iki..:1.~1"' Actlbn Plan A 13 ~ b, E: 39- Petaluma Transit,:Fleet Replacement Strategy B - -- -- _I Povmr Internal financed P urcha sr Net Cupiml Darr. Annual Cost Annual CO2 Simple - Rate of Net Present IJo. M1lca suro Numo ~ Impl. Datc (yeslno) , 'Agreement Cost incremental Savinga Reduction Payback Retum Value (NPV). ~ '(yeslno) Cost -' '-(IRR) --:: a 2014 yes no $630,667 $0 $151,760 259.12. 4:2 R6.3% •$2,412;429 The: hybrid compressed natural 'gas'. (CNG) replacements specified in -the table below will save almost 260' metric tons of C02'e and result in considerable gasoline and diesel fuel savings annually. The costs are based on the cost data provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and assume :an -80% cost sharing by the federal .government. The table of values provided by MTC is provided in 'the appendices. T,he analysis assumes this measure would be fully implemented. by 2014. MPG/ Gasoline Diesel CNG Vehicle Make Year Model Description- Fuel Type MPG Miles/Year Replacement Vehicle Incr. Cost Fuel AnnualMiles MPkWh Savings Savings Savings No. -,-- MPTherm (gal) (gal) (Therms) 7 Ford 2003 E350 ParaTransit Gas 8 3 12 368 Cut-AwayNan 26 * 7 - - $13970~~-. CNG _ 12368 8,3 1484 0 -1736 . , year CNG - 10 Fortl 1997 Candidate ParaTransit Diesel 8 3 16 201 Cut-AwayNan 28+ 7 - $13970' CNG 16201 8.3 0 1944 -2275 . ; .year CNG.-'~:; _ 30 Ford 2000 Bus ParaTransit Gas 6 3 22286 Cut-AwayNan 26'+,~,7 970: $13 CNG 22286. 8.3 2674 0 -3129 . . .Yea CNG',. ~ , _ - 31 Fard 2001 Bus P aTransit Gas B 3 877 25 Cut-AwayNan Z6'_+„7 - - ' $13970. - CNG '25877 83 3105 0 -3633 ~- . , Year CNG - ~ ... , A4 Ford 2001 Bus ParaTransic Gas 13:3 25 877 CuaAw yNa 26 t.r7 $13970 L' .CNG- 25877 8.3 3105 0 3633 . _ V a CNG r BB Ford 2001 Bus ParaTransit Gas 8 3 25 877 Cut-AwayNa 26:,?7 $1350' I.NG 25877 83: ~ 3105 0 -3633 . . , Year, CNG -. 4 Braun 2003 Transporter- PPSC: :Gas 3.6, 7,038 Transit BUS 40 Hybrid ' $31 t6' Oe°.el 7038 5:5 1935 -1290 0 5 Ford 1997 Aerotech PPSC' Diesel 36 13,298 Transit BUS 40'Hybrid ',;: $32,167 ,D;csel:,` 13298: S.5 0 1219 0 11 Orion 1969. Orion II Fixed Route Diesel 36 9,961 Transit Bus'40' Hybrid $32,167 __ DI sel 9961 5.5 0 913 D 2t Chevy 2003 Cut-a-way - Fixed Route Gas 36 17094 Tradsit8 s40'Hybrid $32;167 Diesel 'i7094 ~5-5 d699 -3133 0 22 Chevy 2003 Cut-a-way Fixed Route Gas 3.6 14,025 Transit Bus 40' HybnC $32,167. ~ Desel; ~ 14025 5.5 3855 -2570 0 23 Chevy 2003 Cut-a-way Fixed Route Gas 36 14,299 Transit Bus 40'Hybtiil ~ $32:767 'Diesel 14299 '~5.5 3931 -2621 0 24 Chevy 2003 Cut-a-way Fixed Route Gas 3.6' 16,624 Transit Bus 40'~Hybritl S32,t67 Diesel - 16624 5.5 4570 -3047 0 25 Chevy 2003 Cut-a-way Fixed Route Gas 3.6 14,458 Transit Bus 40'~HyEritl $32;167 'Diesel, 14458 'S.5 3974 -2650 0 26 Chevy 2003 Cut-a-way .Fixed Route Gas 3,6 15,1 t9 Transit Bus40'Hybrid $32,767 .=Diesel 15119 5.5 4156 -2771 0 27 Ford 2000 Cut-a-way Fixed Route Gas 3.6 '26,781 Transit Bus 40' Hybrid $32,167 Diesel. ~ .26781 'S.5 7362 =4908 0~ 28 Ford .2DD0' Gut-a-way Fixed Route Gas 36 29,200 Transit Bus 40' Hytirid $32;167 :Diesel 29200 5.5 8027 -5351 0 29 Ford 2000 Cut-a-way F dRdute Diesel 3.6 22,321 Transit BuS40'Hybrid ,$32,167 'Diesel 22321 55 0 '2045 0 32 Ford 2000 Cut-a-way Fix ed Route Diesel 3.6 24020 Transit Bus 40'Hybrin 832;167, Diesel 24020 '5.5 0. ,2201 0 33 Gillig 2007 Transit BUS Flxetl ROU[e Diesel 3.6 150 Transit Bus40'Hybri $32,167 Diesel 150 5.5 0 14 0 .34 .Gillig 2007 Transit Bus Fixed ROUte_ Diesel 3.6' 175 TransitB s40'Hytirid $32;t67'~ --Diesel 175 5.5 0 16 '0 35~ ;Gillig 2U07 .Transit Bus Flxetl Route. Diesel 3.6 172 Transit Bus 40' Hybrid $32,167 -Diesel 172 5.5 0~ 16 ~0 36 ;Gillig 2007 Transll.Bus Faed.Route. Diesel 3.fi 145 Transit BUS 40'Hybrid $32,167 ,Diesel 145 5.5 0 13 0 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Pdsitive~Public Employee ~ Community' Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relatlve) Metrics Problem (cumulative) Vsibiliry Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score - Measure Score -3,to3 (relative) (cumulxtlve) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) ' -0to6 Bus Fleet B -3.0 2.1 0.00 6.0 5.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 16.12 66.61 T' w :7i, ~~ ~~ ~/~ ~ E,~~'-Iw ~)Y iii 't ,.>v€tt ;il~. -,, € 'a,..,$t'~ `y;~i"-~~< .IY~ ~;C(~~~-)i)3":, CS,. ..... ~ ~.., €~iil ,_, .~cC+€Li Acton Plan A a ~ d E. .40-Fleet.,Replacernent~StrategyA.(Includin4,IdissanElectric9 ._ 1 V./.11 i~1 ~ Povrer Internal 'Financed ;Purchase Net Capital --'03M Annual Cost AnnualC02'. .:Simple Rateof- NetPresanf No. Measuro Namo Impl. Date (yea/no) ..Agreement Cost Incremental Savmga Reduction PayGack - Return Value (NPV) Cost 40 FIeeP Replacemenf StrategyA 2010 yes no $730,000 $0 $168,301 .490.96 4.3 27.2% $2,646,226 (includes Nissan Elec) The fleet changes specified in -the table below will save over 490 metric tons of C02e annually and. result in considerable gasoline. and diesel fuel savings. The costs are based on the estimated incremental cost of purchasing the more efficient alternative rather than the current model or equivalent. The analysis assumes this measure. would be .fully implemented by 2010. A later completion date would delay the greenhouse gas reductions by the portion not completed. A complete list of specifc vehicles, their classification and the associated strategies is provided in the appendices. s<ra~ay Original - Replacement Fuel MPG MPkWIi Incremental Cost COMPACT CAR& Nissan'Electric Sedan Electric 2:10 $10,000 MIDSIZECARS None in Fleet NA NA NA LARGE CARS Nissan Electric Sedan Electric 2.10 $10,000 SMALL PU TRUCKS2WD Diesel hybrid Pickup diesel 21.00, $6,000 SUV-2WD Hybrid SUV gas 30:00 $4,000 STD PU'~TRUCKS 2WD Diesel hybrid Pickup diesel 21.00 $6,000 STD PUTRUCKS~4WD Diesel hybritl Pickup diesel 21:00 $6,000 POLICE-CRUISER 1 Impala gas 20:80 $0 POLICECRUISER 2 Impala gas 20.80 $0 LARGE TRUCK Diesel hybrid Lg Truck tliesel 9.00 $6,000 Measure Evaluation. Scores Resolutiondf Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulative) Vsibiliry Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3':to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative (relative (cumulative) ' Olo 6 Fleet Replacement Sbategy A (includes 3 0 2.0 0.00 6.0 4.00 -1,00 0.00 6.0 14.04 60.21 Nissan.Elec) (: ~ ~ 3-q~ ~ . ~~ ,~ W ~3 ~ _ r - ~...~i;.t Cbi~1'L'.li1~LZ?~,. ~. .~ ~i 'C:`,~ Vii,... ; ~,til .._:'iL;).iUll ..~.'c1I~ ~:~,~.~T`~ . .Action Plan - . A a -~~_ ~ o E - 41-Fleet Replacement.Stratecty B {Includinc~~ Nissan Electric) _ Powcr Q8M - - Internal ' '. Financed ':Purchase Net Capital ' Annual Cost .Annual C02 Simple Rateof Net Present No. td easurc Namo Impl. Date. (yeslno) , Agreement CosL Incremental = ~" ngs ' Roduction Payback Return Value (NPV)' (yes/no) _ ~ ' Cost :::. (IRR) - 41 Fleet.Replacemerif SVateg; f-~ 2012 .yes no .$994,000 ~SO $207;179 531:43 4.11 ~ 24.9% $3,166,685 (includes Nissan:Elec), - , The fleet changes specified in the table: below will save over 530 metric tons of C02e annually and result in considerable: gasoline and diesel fuel savings. The costs are based on the estimated incremental cost of purchasing the more efficient alternative rather than the current model or equivalent. The analysis assumes this measure would be fully implemented by 2012. A later completion .date would delay the greenhouse gas reductions by the portion not completed. A complete list of specific vehicles,. their classification and the associated strategies is provided in the appendices. Strategy Original 'Replacement Fuel MPG tviPkWh Incremental. Cost COMPACT CARS NissariEledtric.Sedan Electric 210 $10,000 Noneiri Fleet ElecMc Compact 'tJA NA NA LARGECARS Nissan Electric Sedam. Electric 2>10 $10,000 SMALLPU TRUCKS'2WD Diesel hybrid Pickup diesel 21.00 $6',000 MINIVAN-2WD Electric Van ~. Electric 2:13 $15,000 SUV-2WD Electric SUV Electric .2.13 $75,000 STD~PU TRUCKS 2WD Electric SUT Electric 2:13 $15;000 STDPU TRUCKS 4WD Diesel hybrid Pickup diesel 21.00 $6,000 VANS,.CARGO Electric Vari Electric 2'13 $15,000 POLICE'CRUISER 1 Impala gas 20:60 $0 POCICECRUISER2 Impala gas 20:60 $0 LARGETRUCK Diesel hybrid tg Truck diesel 9.00 $6;000 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost F nbial Existing GBG Impact Positive Public Employee Commurii[y Energy Cost Adjusted MeasureNarne (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulative) Vsibillty Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3.to.3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 Fleet Replacement SVategy B (includes -3.0 1.9 0.00 6.0 4.00 -1.00 0,00 6.0 73.87 59.33 Nissan Elec) iY,:f : t ~,'t~. E1 P~1aL~c~ilti2ls~ C~ri'et',tt-li.c'te:~e Vii:.! ~-. ;4~ li<)il ~~{ tint"i ~~i<1t1~ ~f~.~.() Aetbn Plan" _ ~. .A a - c o E 42- iVissan Electric Vehicles _ Power O&M Internal.' ' Financed Purchase Net Capital Annual Cost :Annual C02 Simple` Rate of Net Present No. Measure Name Impl. Dato (yes/no) Agreement -Cost Incremental Savings Reduction - Payback - Return Value (NPV)' .. ~ (Yes/noj'' Cost - (IRR). E~cc6m Vehicles (Nissan 28 "_ " ::-42 Vehicles Excl to'other Fleet 2010 'yes no $130,000 $0. ~ :$5;357 27.70 24.3 $.7% ($17,580) Measures) - The opportunity.developing with the Nissan Electric Vehicle program has not been made fully public at the time of this analysis. Therefore the costs and fuel, economy are assumed per the table below. The implementation. cost does not include the cost of charging .stations (if required as part of the program). There' are 13 compact and .large cars in the fleet that are assumed to be replaced by this opportunity. A similar strategy is incorporated into the Fleet Replacement Strategy A and B. A complete .list of specific vehicles, their classification and the associated strategies is provided in the appendices. . Strategy Original ReplacemeriC Fuel MPG MPkWh Incremental Cost COMPACT CARS Nissan Electric~Sedan Electric 2:'10 $10,000 M IDSIZECARS Nissan Electric Setlan ElecVic .2:10 $10,000 LARGE CARS Nissan ElectricSedan Electric 210 $10,000 .Measure Evaluation Scores Resolutionor, Cost Financiab E istirig' ' -. GHG'Imp cl' Pdsifive Publii Employee Community ~ - Energy Cost Adjusted Measure.Name (relative) McVics_ P otile rn (cumulative)' Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score MeasureScore 3 to 3 ) ( elative (c ulative ) ) (cumulative ( ) relative ) .(relative (cumulative) 0 to 6 ElectrlcVehides (Nissao-26 VehicVes) -3.0 -2.7 0:00 0.6 6.00 -1.00 0.00 0 6 0.53 6.77 ~~ C-ytd~ (~1'1'eta`1`u.)~7~~~Ci<)'i;erthc)~(-s'e C~~~ ~ - siri€. ''.<:(' ~>~~) <~~.=i~>)~ 1'laz~ xtlonvm~. ~- a ~ D E 43- Biodiesel 20% i(3.~:f~~3 Power a8M Internal Financed Pureheae Net Capital Annual COSt` Annual CO2 Simplo Rate of NotPresent No. Measure Name Impl Dtte (yealno) 'Agreement: Cost Incremental: " Snvmgs Reduction Payback - Retum ' - Value(NPU)` (yes/no) Cost _ (IRR) 43.. Biodiese120' 2009 yes no ~ $0 $0 (51,646) 39.02 0.0 NA ($32',67,1) This measure changes the -fuel mix for all diesel vehicles to a.20/80% (biodiesel/diesel) blend for all fleet vehicles currently using diesel fue1..Biodesel is now readily available at a reasonable price allowing rapid impleinentafon of this GHG reduction strategy. This analysis assumes $3.38 per gallon and no infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc). Prices are assumed to escalate at the same rate as petroleum 'based diesel fuel. (8% per year). This analysis also uses the coefficient of 5.24 Ibs C02e. per gallon of 100% biodiesel. While the use of biodiesel fuel created from waste oil (assumed to. be available locally) would have close to zero emissions for the feedstock. The process requires that 20% of the feed stock is methanol, a petroleum product. Measure Evaluation. Scores Resolution of - Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name {relative) Metrics Problem cumulative) Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score - Measure Score -31b 3 (relative) (cumulative) ( (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 Biodiese620% 3.0 -3.0 0.00 1.1 1.00 -t.00 0,00 0.0 1.12 -3.63 r <~,_,. t.~~~~' tali s~€'iai(tilit$ ~..rlc4~ll_d"1(1ti~C. ~ 7c1. -;,?,t{4`~tt_.: , :it{~:tIC}~1 r `~ 1L`€ I{ "~ i1~~ Actlon Plan A B C .D E ~~- Biodiesel 50% - - Powea O&M ~ Internal : F Want ad Purchase Net Capital - Annual Coat Annual C02. Slmple Rate of:, Net Present No. Meu surd yamo Impl. Dato (yes/no) 'Agraemenf': Coat ineremen[el Savings Reduetlon' ` Payback' Return Value(NP1n .. (yeslno),. Cost PRR). 44 ~.~.:I~.,.-. 2010. qes. no $50,000 $0 ($4,435) 97.55 -1,1.3 NA ($135,B7D) This measure changes the fuel mix for all diesel vehicles to a 50/50% (biodiesel/diesel) blend for all fleet. vehicles currently using diesel fue1.82 Biodiesel is now readily available at a reasonable price allowing rapid. implernentati'on of this GHG reduction strategy. This analysis assumes $3.38 per gallon and $SOOQO for infgastructure improvements (tanks, etc) and a conversion cost of $500 for any unit older than 1995. Prices are assumed to escalate at the same rate as petroleum based diesel fuel' (8% per year). This analysis, also uses. the. coefficient of 524 lbs C02e per gallon of 1.00%.biodiesel, While the use of biodiesel fuel created from waste oil (assumed to be available `locally) would have close to zero emissions for the feedstock. The process requires that 20% of the feed stock is methanol, a petroletm product. Nlea"sure'Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Evisting GHGImpact. Positive Public Employee Community Energy Cosb Adjusted Measure Name (relative) McVics Problem (cumulative) VsiDdiry Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -1 to 3 (relative (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) _ (cumulative) O td6 Biodiese150% OA -0.0 0.00 2.8 2.00 -1.00 0.00 0.0 0.81 -0.57 sz-The`use of high percentage biodiesel must be coordinated with California Air Resource Board (GARB) requirements and vehicle warranty considerations. ._ ~ a ~, ~ ~ {~ 3 ~I.~~ .~i. . ~'d1i, I .ii .. ~.,._, ,~i'tiS(. {IiS, ~.iil$;,:ti'.1( .- ~~lL:~ _. .. l~?.,?.OC.)~ ACtbn Plan, - - .. A ,B ~, p. E : _45'- BiodieseF,99% Power -- OSM Internal ' F nanced :'Purchase Net Capital Annual COSt Annual C02 Slmpla Rate of NetPresent. No. Mna Burn Nama Impl. Dat^_ (yn slno) Agreement. Cost fncrementaV Savlnp; ': Reduc4on Payback Retum Value(NPV) (yeslno) Cost (IRR) 45 Biodiesel 99' '2010, .yes no $50,000 $0 ($8;781) 193.15 -5.7 NA (5221,360) This measure changed the-fuel. mix for all diesel vehicles to a 99/1°l0 (biodiesel/diesel) blend for all fleet. vehicles currently using diesel fuel. Biodiesel is now readily available at a reasonable price. allowing, rapid implementation of °this GHG reduction strategy. This analysis assumes $3.38 per gallon .and $50;000 for infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc) and a conversion cost of $500 for any unit older han 1'995, Prices are assumed to escalate at the same rate as petroleum based diesel fu-el (8% per year). This analysis also uses the coefficient of 5.24 lbs C02e per gallon of l00% biodiesel. While the use- of biodiesel fuel created from waste oil (assumed. to be available locally) would have close to zero emissions for the feedstock. The process requires that 20% of the -feed stock is methanol, a petroleum product.83 Measure Evaluation :Scores Resolutiomof Cost Financial E fisting GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Community ' Energy Cost Adjusted Measurd'Name (relative) Metrics P blem (cumulauve) Vreibiliry Impact Impact Stabilization Measure SCOre Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) , (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0 Io 6 Biotliesel 99%~ 0.0 -3.0 0.00 5.6 3.00 -1.00 0.00 0.0 4.56 ~ 71.69 83'The use of high'percentage biodiesel must be coordinated with California Air Resource Board (GARB) requirements and vehicle warranty considerations: .,. _ , ~.:1~~' {_12..~:`t:,=1.t"il.ll.11Ic1 C~ittltf~ti~c ETiI~ ~~..Sl~l.~.`;`~.1f~?Cl..l~..t':C~.llf;E.1L~l? I~LC:[1{)l1 ~ .,..; xtloavh6 - A a ~ o li . 46-~~ ~iodiesel~ 20% (linked to Fleet. Replacement StrateaU A) ~ . Power' `GSM Internal Financed Purchase Net Capital Annual Cost Annual C02 Simplo Rate of Net Present sNo. IMeaaure Name Impl. Data I(yes/no) AgreemenC. Costs= Incremental =` .Savings. 'Reducnon Payback Return' - Value (NPV) (Yes/no) Cost (fRR) 4 F ~ linked to Fleet 2009 yes no $0 $0 (53,046} 72.22 0.0 ~ NA ($00,467) A This measure, applied. after Fleet Replacement A, changes the fuel. mix for all diesel vehicles to a 20/80%° (biodiesel/diesel) blend for all fleet vehicles currently using diesel fuel. Biodiesel is now readily available at.a reasonable price allowing rapid implementation of this GHG reduction strategy. This analysis assumes $338 per gallon and no cost for infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc). Prices are assumed to escalate at the same rate as petroleum based diesel fuel (8% per year). This analysis also uses the.coeffrcent of 5'.24 lbs C02e per gallon of 100% biodiesel. While the use of biodiesel fuel created from waste oil (assumed to be available locally) would have close to zero emissions for the feedstock. The process requires that 20°/D of the feed stock is methanol, a petroleum product. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulative) VsibilitY Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -Oto 3 (relative) (cumulative (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 6iodiese120%linked tdFleetA 3.0 3.0 0.00 2.7 7.00 -1.00 0.00 0.0 2.08 -0.76 .l._ _ ~ .,. _,.71-tt ail 1i ~`.-'.'' 3~- .. _ `mot.:l. __. j, . i...~.)L~' ~.)F. A. ~.: y4.C'~1~..~.)~~i~ ~S')'G%C%~~_~.).~.}~.)~'i~. LTGi ~:. 1 i. •`. `it S~`l.,C:i. ~.i~ c: .: :. .. . 1~~1 ..,. A B~,~cPleno, ,E .47- biodiesel 20% (linked to Fleet ReplacementStcategy B) ~~ l ~~.>.+J Power - s ;' Internal I Financed Purchase Net Capital O&ht Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple . Rate of ~ Net Present No. Measure Namo Impl. Date (yealno) Agreement`. Cost Incremental Savmga Reduction Payback Retum Value (NPV) ..(Yea/no) ,. Cost _ (IRR) ''. a7 e Dales _ o-unkea to Fleet - 2009 yes no $0 $0 ($2 `36) 64:87 0.0 NA ($54';.314) B . This measure, applied after Fleet Replacement B, changes the-fuel mix for all diesel vehicles to a 20/80% (biodiesel/diesel) blend `for all fleet vehicles currently using diesel fuel. Biodiesel is now readily available at :a reasonable price allowing rapid `implementation of this GHG reduction strategy. This analysis assumes $3:38 per ..gallon and no cost for infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc). Prices are assumed to escalate at the same rate as petroleum. based diesel fuel (8% per year). This analysis also uses; fhe coefficient of 5.24 ]bs CO2e:per gallon of 100% biodiesel. While the use of biodiesel fuel created from waste oil (assumed to be available locally) would have close to zero emissions'for the feedstock. The process requires that 20% of the feed stock is methanol, a petroleum product. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost ,Financial Existing GHG Impact Positlve Public Employee Cammuniry 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) 0 to 6 Biodiesel 20 % linked to Fleet.8 3.0 ~ -3.0 0.00 1.9 t 00 -1.00 0.00 0.0 1.87 -1.39' `' ,) l„rt.~ ) _. -. r ~ ~~~.- 3~l"05 ~' _,~ t, ., ;,_rl+.r.... Irn~~. %.;ltti (7X.,~k:i~,4L.`..i~: tt~~.?1~:;eUE~~~~).~(:!~L);:6:7 '~~(~. ~.`.f:`r.){. ,.1 ~, u~..~E1P,'j i~ ,~o~P~ 48= Biodesel `50% (linked to° Fleet..Rep9ace~nent,Strategy A) A 'a C D 'E. _._~~ _ Power O8M ' ' Internal'. ' N I D t M N l Financed Purchase Net Capital Incro mental Annual Cos 'AnnualCO Simple: Rate of Net Present o. easure ame i a e mp . (yes/no) Agreement Cost 'Savings Reduction` -Payback Return Value,(NPV) ~ I _. (yes/no).. cost - - (IRR) -._ - --- h8 BledIe5E1 OU% IInKeC to I-M1-~ t - ~ 2011 no no $60;500 $0 ($6,208) 180.54 . -7:4 NA {$220.585} A This measure, applied after Fleet Replacement A changes the fuel mix for all diesel vehicles to a 50/50% (biodiesel/diesel) bl"end `for all fleet vehicles currently using diesel fuel.g4 Biodiesel is .now readily available at a reasonable price allowing rapid .implementation of this GHG reduction strategy. This analysis assumes $3.38 per gallon and $5.0,000 for infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc) and a conversion cost of $5.00 for any unit older than 1995. Prices are assumed to escalate at the .same rate as petroleum based diesel fuel (8%.per year). This analysis also uses the coefficient of 5.24, lbs C02e per gallon. of ] 00% biodiesel: While the use of biodiesel fuel created from waste oil (assumed to be available locally) would. have close to zero emissions for the feedstock. The process requires that 20% of the feed stock is methanol, a petroleum product. Measure Evaluation rScores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact PosibvePublic Employee Community Energy Cosl Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Mebics Problem. (cumulabve) Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score • 340 3 (relative {cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) relative) (cumulative) O to6 Biodiese150%linked to FleetA -0.6~ -3.0 0.00 52 1.00 -1.00 0.00 0.0 7.57 1.34 ~`~ The. use of high percentage biodiesel must be coordinated with California. Air Resource Board (GARB) requirements and vehicle warranty considerations. ~,`.t~ ,, t'?{ P='t~liFtfllc~ ~t'€;(;i1-~~19tt~k. 4~st~ 1. €Il€;~;i:ii>II 1Cet.u.~iiv)"S .'"i.C~~II)il ~4£19l Aetbn Plan ' A a ~ E ~49- Biodiesel 50% (linked "to Fleet Replacement Strategy B) ' I 1 -- I Power Internal Financed Purcheae - Nat Capital ~flM Annual Gost Annual C02 Slrn pie Rate of Net Pms~3nt No. Mea surd Namo ImpL Data (yes/na) Agreement Cost incremental ~°Inga - Reduction Payback Retum " Value (Nf~V)' (Yes/no) Cost (IRR) 49 P~,„n~~~al snoi i „o-en +o FiePt y010+ no no. $59,000 $0 {57,3731 162-.17 ~-6.0 NA {5202.571) This measure, applied after F1eet:Replacement;B changes the fuel mix for all diesel vehicles to a 50/50% (biodiesel/diesel) blend for all. fleet vehicles currently using diesel fuel.%5 Biodiesel is now readily available at a reasonable price allowing .rapid iinplementafon of this GHG reduction strategy. This .analysis assumes $3.38 per .gallon and $50,000 for infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc) and a conversion cost of x$500 for any unit older than 1995. Prices are assumed to escalate at the same rate as petroleum based diesel fuel (8% per year). This .analysis also uses the coefficient of 5.24 lbs CO2e per gallon of I00%_ biodiesel. While the use of biodiesel fuel created from waste oil (assumed to be .available locally) would have close to zero 'emissions for the feedstock. The process regtares that 20% of the feed stock is methanol, a petroleum product. Measure Evaluation 'Scores - ~ ~ - Resolution'bC Cost Financial Ex sting" GHG.Impact P iave,Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted ~Measure'Name (relative) Metrics Problem (cumulat Je) Visibility Impaci Impact Stabilization MeasureScore - Measure Score -3'.to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0 td6 ~ Biodiesel 50% IinkeC.idFleet 8 -0.5 -3 0 0.00 4 7 2.00 -i DO 0.00 0.0 2.13 3.93 ss The use of,fiighrpereenfage biodiesel must be coordinated with California Air Resource Board (GARB) requirements and vehicle warranty considerations. ®~~D~ -, i~;3t~' C}~ 1~Ctfi~ttiltF, t .. _. :='ll4t„ ~z<l~`~,!I.~:~SI(~)It 1~~~+((~fiiftj"1 .~t,t1.(~'1 .~~~it~l ~)..;).~)`-3 ktb~P~n ~ 50- Biodiesel.99% (linked #o Fleef_Replacement Sfratec~y Al A B 'C '~ . ~~E, Powrer O8M Internal. F-minced Purchase Net Capital Annual Cust Ftn nual CO2 Simple Rate of r Net Presoni No. Idea sure Name Impl. Date (ye:Jno) Agreement Coat Incmmentul Sa vlnOs 'Reduction Payback. Return Value (NPV) (yealno). Cost . ~ (IRR) &odie=. I~a- ~rdri to Fleet 2010 no no $60,500 $0 ($16,252p 35T48 -3.7 NA ($380,291} This measure,. applied after Fleet Replacement A changes the fuel mix for all diesel vehicles to a 99/1% (biodiesel/diesel) blend. for all fleet vehicles currently using diesel fuel. Biodiesel is now readily available at a reasonable price allowing rapid implementation of this GHG reduction strategy. This analysis .assumes $338 per gallon and $50,000 for infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc) and a conversion. cost of $500 for any unit older than 1995. Prices are assumed to escalate at the .same rate as petroleum based diesel fuel (8% per year). This analysis also uses the coefficient of 5.24 lbs CQ2e per gallon of 100% biodiesel. While the use of biodiesel fuel created from waste oil (assumed to be available locally) wotald have close to zero emissions for the feedstock. The- process. requires that 20% of the feed stock is methanol, a petroleum product.gb Mea"sure Evaluation Scores Resdlution.of Cost F nancial Ezis[ing GHG Imp t Po hive Public Em ployee C mmuniry. Energy.Cost Adjusted Measure Name - (relative) Metncs Problem - l t VisiS liry Impact Impact Stabilizatidn Measure Score su M a re Scare -3to 3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumu a e) (cu~muletive) '(relative) (relative) (cumulative) Oto6 Biodiesel 99%linked to Fleet A. -0.6 -3.0 0.00 6.0 3,00 -1.00 000 0.0 4.37 [1.74 86The-use of high percentage biodiesel must be-coordinated with California Air Resource Board (GARB) requirements and roehicle warranty considerations. ,.~ l.t:f','3 r. J)} t. _ €tyr,i ,i~ ~~ ®~ ~ '~ ,~t~'t v.~..:i}._,, - iiJ~. ;»a ~:ls; s;)i' a~~!%~ttl?.1 ~"(s'~*;~'i1~2C?t:ESC ~s: dt . _. C' ., :; 1'*~1b', s ~l,::r,)`l ". ' Actbn Plan ' A ~ a ~ o- li '51-~ Biodiesel 99% .(linked ~to~'Fleef Iaeplace0nent,~Strategy Bl i ' --~- -1 I Internal ' F nanu~d Power Fur~ha<PI Net Capttal OSM Annual Cosb A i wal C02 Simple: Rate of N t P ~scnt No Measure Name Impl. Date IYe< nc) Agreemertt ~ Cast meremeMal Savings - Redurfon Pa/back- Re[um Value (NFV) (Yes/no) Cost _ (IRR) '51 Bod eso .,., ,..Blnked to Fleet. 2010 no ~ no~ $59,000 EO tSt4,S96) 321.10 -4.0 NA ($346.025) , .This measure, applied after Fleet Replacement B changes the fuel mix for all diesel vehicles to a 99/1% (biodiesel/diesel) blend for~all fleet vehicles currently using diesel fuel. Biodiesel is now readily available at a reasonable price allowing rapid implementation of this GHG reduction strategy: This analysis assumes :$3.3`8 per gallon and. $50;000. for infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc) and a conversion. cost of $500 for any unit older than 1995. Prices are assumed to escalate at the same rate a.s petroleum based diesel. fuel (8% per year). This analysis :also uses the coefficient of 5.24 lbs C02e per gallon of 1.00% biodiesel. While. the use of biodiesel fuel created from waste oiT (assumed to be' available locally) would, Have close to zero emissions for the feedstock. The process' requires that 20% of the feed stock is methanol, a petroleum product.g~ Measure Evaltiiafion Scores Resolution of Cost Financial E fisting GHG Impact' P tive.Public Employee C muniry Energy Cost - Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Mebics. Poblem (cumulative) Visib liry Impact .Impact .Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 relative ( ) (cumulative) (cumulative) , (relative) (relative) (cumulaave) 0 to'6 Biodiesel 99 % linked to Fleet B -0.6 3 0 0.00 6.0 3.00 -1.00 0.00 0.0 4.46 11.92 ~' The•use.of high percentage biodiesel must be coordinated with California Air.Resouece Board (GARB) requirements and vehicle warranty, considerations. I la3':c°~;~'~:.'sir,t3E ~s /f~j ~ i t ml .. ". v_~ ~.-1IV C~ l'__., .< :.i i:aEa'tt9_II.CSIoi(. fa ':i ~ , "~t 'I()$~ <`~ClId711 ~°iiilt Homo elan . A a ~ ~ - b ~ E 52-. Fleet RAana4em~ent~~'Software (Linked to Fleet Strategy A) -- Financed Power Purchase Net Capitul 08M Annual Cost Annual C02 Simple Into vial R;rte of Nat Presant No. Moac uro Name Impl. Duto (yes/no) Agreement - Cos? Incramental Savings -' Reduction. Payback: Ra[um . Value (NPV). _ (Yes/no) -.. Cost pRR) - FI ~~I `. ~,, ., 52 Linked to Fleet Replacement 2070 ~ yes no 5300,000 ($20000) $11,500 33.61 9.5 13.2MO $339,684 Fleet management Software is available to track information on each specific vehicle in the City fleet and coordinate maintenance efforts. The mileage and fueling documentation typically available provides information to reduce of unnecessary or ineffcient travel patterns. In addition to the fuel savings from enhance .maintenance schedulirig, the performance data from each vehicle can provide. early indications of mechanical issues that reduce fuel. efficiency. The assumptions used in determining the costs and benefits of this measure are provided in the table below. The savings are calculated after the savings associated with Fleet Strategy A. FleetManagementSoftware Savings Cost Estimate $300;000 Fuel Savings Estimate 5% Original Gal.Gas (2008) 18,415 921 Original Gal. Diesel (2008) 45,923 .2,296 08M Cost Savings 10% 08M Original Costs $200,000 $20,000 Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact PositivePublic Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Mehics Problem (cumulative) Vsibiliry Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure Score -3 to 3 (relative) (cumulative) , (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 Fleet Management Software Linked to _3 0 X1.0 3:00 1.0 4.00 0.00 0.00 3.7 9.63 38.53 Fleet Replacement A .. , ~,.) ,~ I •';'.? .? ~~it;ti%Itt3()tS~ ~a ; 'l.. .,p ~ I~'~~:t:U€s~i(>ii ~~~ tit;l a (" Action Plan.. p `B ~ F D E 53~.- Fleet IlAanagement Software (Linked. to f tact Stratecw B) . __,_i_' . Internal F to od P r P r~ h.rse Net Capital O3M Annual Cost nnu tl CO2 A .Sim le p Rate of Net Present No. Mee :urn Name Impl. Date 1Y~5 no). Agreement - Cost tnerememal .Savings - Redaction Payback Re[um - Value (NPV) (yeslno) _ - host (IRR) --,~--~ VanapemFn(SOftware ~ '.-inkeii to Fleet Replacement 2010 ~ yes no $300,000 ($20;000) 310,575 30.90 9.8 12.3% $321,316 B Fleet management Software is available to track information on each specific vehicle in the City fleet and coordinate maintenance efforts. The mileage and .fueling documentation typically available provides information to reduce of unnecessary or inefficient travel patterns. In addition to the fuel savings from enhance. maintenance scheduling, the performance data from each vehicle can provide early indications of mechanical issues that reduce fuel efficiency. The assumptions used in determining the costs and. benefits ofthis-measure are provided in the table below. The savings are calculated after the, savings associated with Fleet .Strategy B. Fleet Management Software Savinga Cost Estimate $300,000 Fuel Savings Estimate 5 Original GaLGas (2008) 18,415. 921 `Origirial Gal. Diesel (2008) 45,923 2,296 O8M Cost Savings 10 O&Nl Original Costs $200,000 $20,000 Measure Evaluation Scores Resdlutiooot Cost Financial Existing GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Community ~ Energy Cost Adjusted MeasureName (relative) Metrics Probli:m cumulative) Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure~SCOre -3'to.3 (relative (cumulative) ( (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 Fleet ManagementSbftware.Linked to -30 ~1.0 3.00 0.9 4.00 0.00 0.00 3.6 9.47 37.72 Fleet Replacement B t s_ d 7, .y 1 C`it~~ cif I'ctt~1~(i~~<t CF~~;ertltc~c~~~ C~~~s I' (ni~si~c7~~ ~~eciL~~.!7c» .~.. "'' ""b""°' S4- Photovoltaic Sysfem 1,.0 M~Vac (PPA-) A B D. D E i, • _ -~ Irrtemal F need Power Purc n,~. Ncl Capital Oft 1.1 An al Cosl Annual CO2 Simplo Rate of Net Pfe59(tt No. Measure Name Impl. Date (yes;no) Agreement Cost Incremental Sa Inds Reduction PaybacM Retum Value (NPV) (yeslno).. Cost - 54 PV ~: P.1`.Nac (PPA) ' 2011 no yes $50,000 $0 ($13,42d) 284.51 -3.7 NA {5187,375) Photovoltaic (PV) systems are available for electricity generation to offset the energy consumption of buildings, water pumping, wastewater treatment and' other uses of significant electrical energy. The application of PV systems to water supply pumping situations is particularly attractive if the jurisdiction has the ability to schedule the majority of the pumping at night when energy rates are low (utilizing the capacity of the storage tanks). In this case the PV system generates electricity du"ring the day when the energy is most valuable, and the pumps draw energy .from the utility grid at night when it is least costly. Therefore the energy produced is much more valuable than the energy purchased from the utility'.for that meter. This measure specifies a 1.0 MVJ .system producing an average of roughly 1,235,000 kWh per year. The negative "Annual Cost Savings" reflects the additional .cost of power over PG&E supplied power ($.145/kWli) and is dependant. on the contract negotiated with the provider. The general assumptions underlying "the PV production calculations: are provided in the appendices. The financial metrics reflect the assumption that a power' purchase agreement (PPA) will be utilized. to implement the system. A power purchase agreement is a long-term agreement between. a power provider (the sol'ar' company) and a customer. The customer agrees to purchase energy from the provider at a~fixed'rate for the term of the agreement. This rate increases every year by an'agreed percentage..The ,fife of the agreement may be in the range of 20 years. At the end of'the contract period the customer typically has the option to purchase the system at its value at that time. This analysis. assumes the cost of energy would be 5% more than the current PG&E rate, ..and. would escalate at 3.5% per year. The analysis also. assumes the city retains ownership .of the Renewable Energy Credits (REC). The cost of,energy specified in the contract will have .significant influence over ;thee financial metrics of the :measure. The value used in this analysis (S% above PG&E rates) ..should be considered reasgnabl:y conservative: The capital cost for this measure- assumes $50,000' of staff and legal time: invested in the contrasting Iprosess. Tle assumed term of the:contract matches the term of this analysis,, 25 years. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolutibnrof Cost Fnancial Exist ng, .... GHGImpacr Positive Putilic ' Employee Commudiry Energy Cos! Adjusted Measure Name (relative) Mehics Problem l t Visibility Impact Impact Stabilisation - Measure Score Meas e S o -3to 3 (relative) '(cumulative) (cumu a e) -. - - (cumulative) - (relative) - (relative) (cumulative) ur re c O l0 6 PV 1.0'MWac(PPA) 0.0 -3.0 0.00 ~ 6.0 6.00 0.00 0.00 30 9.00 39.00 (~2~4. C7I41~e~Li~!s.i2ec3 ,_ ,'`.llt.~3~lSf, g x~;lti l.r~~€;i;tti!"I I~£:C1t1<;~3L)I'l ~`1(.`IIC1i1 l~~s$t1 'Action Plen A B ~ ~ o ,E 55- PhotoVOltaic Sustem 2--0 M~lac (PPA) It).~,U> ~ Internal Financed Power Purchase Nol capnal ORM AnnualCost Annualc02 Simplo Ratn of Nut Ptusant No. - Mca nureName Impl. Date (yeslno) Agreement Cos[ Incremental - Savings Reduction Payback Retum Value (NPV) (yeslno)~ Cost 'S5 I°:' _ ~.1,Yac (PF -. 2013 ho yes $60,OOD $0 (526;847) 545.54 -1.9 NA {5334,751) This measure specifies' a 2.0 MW system producing an average of roughly 2;470,000 kWh per year. The Net Capital Cosf;reflects $5.0,000 expended to negotiate the PPA contract. The costs reflect the assumption that.. a power purchase ,agreement (PPA) will be utilized to implement the system. A power purchase agreement is a long-term agreement between a power provider (the solar company) and a customer. The customer agrees to purchase. energy from "the provider at a fixed rate for the term of the agreement. This rate .increases every year by an agreed percentage. The: life of'tle agreement may be in the range "of 20 years. At the end of the contract period the customer typically has the option to purchase the system. at its value at that time. This analysis assumes the cost of energy would be 5%.more than. the current PG&E rate, and would .escalate at 3.5% per year. The analysis also assumes the city retains ownership of the Renewable Energy Credits' (REC), and the provider pays all, maintenance costs including replacement of the inverters whieh:ha~e a life of roughly 10 years. The cost of energy specified in the contract will have significant influence over the financial metrics of the .measure. The value used in this analysis (5% over present PG&E rates) is based on a large contract proposal presented. to a public agency in Sonoma County in 2008.. The assumed term of the cortract matches the term of this analysis, 2S years. The general assumptions underlying. the PV . production calculations are provided in the appendices. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial E><isting~ GHG Impact. Posifive Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name - (gel alive) McMcs Problem ~ (cumulat e) Visib liry' Impact Impact Stabilization - MeasureScore Measure Score -3'.to 3 (relative) (cumulative) . (cumulative) - (relative) ~ (relative) (cumulatlve) O to6 PV-2 MWaC(PPA) 0.0 3.0 0.00 6.0 6:00 0.00 0.00 3.0 9.00 39.00 ka, ,~. 3°It ., _. (_`,~15' t3~'l:'~,~al~(<' ! ; _ . 1!t(:TtI+L' Wis. ,. ~ t ~"`, ....lC3ti .1.. .. _:tit Acikri Pliin - A ~, ~ o E 56- Photovoltaic: SYSfem 1.0 RA1Alac (PPAY -'-i-= Internal Fna iced Power Purchase - - Ncl Capital oRM Ai nuul Cost. Annual C02 almple Rate of ' NerPresent No. Mrasure Nnme Impl. Dato lyr s nol Agreement . Cost Incremental Savings Reduction Payback Retum Value (NPV) ,:. IYes/no) Cost (IRR)- :. i PV 1.0 MWac (PPA) 2012' no yes $50,000 :0 .($13,424) 278.64 -3.7 NA .($767,375) This measure specifies. a 1.0 MW .system producing an average of.roughly 1,235,000 kWh per year. The Net Capital Cost'reflects $50,000 expended to negotiate the PPA contract. The costs .reflect' the assumption that a power purchase agreement (PPA), wild be .utilized to implement'the system. A "power purchase agreement is a long-term agreement between a power provider (the solar company) and a customer. The customer agrees to purchase energy from the provider at a fixed rate :for the term of the agreement: This rate increases every year by an agreed percentage. The life of.the agreement may be in the range- of 20 years.. At the end of the contract period the :customer typically has the option to purchase the system at its value at that time. This analysis assumes the cost of energy would be 5% more- than' the current PG&E rate, and would escalate at 3.5% per year. The analysis also assumes_the city retains ownership of the Renewable Energy Credits (REC), and .the provider pays .all maintenance costs incl"uding replacement of the inverters which have a life of roughly 10 years: The cost of energy specified in the contract will have sig-nificant influence over the fnancial metrics of the measure. The value used in this analysis (5% over present PG&E rates) is based on a large contract proposal presented to a public agency in Sonoma County in 2008. The assumed term of the contract matches the term of this analysis, 25 years. The general .assumptions underlying the PV production calculations are provided in the appendices. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolu[ionof Cost Financier. Existing GHG Impact PositivePublic Employee Community ~ Energy Cost Adjusted MeasureName (relative) McVics Problem (cumulative) Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure Score Measure'Score -3 to3 (relative) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 PV 1.0 MWac,(PPA) 0.0 -3.0 0.00 6.0 6.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 9.00 39.00 3 I~~°~ .l ~ ~..t ., iv 4~.1~~.' t)l~.'~t~il~~~~~~~ Cat°~;~;r~lt~te):~e ~i . ~ ~~~.cio.€ctit}~~ ~~16;:tti~~ 1'1~~~~ Actlon Plan: A 8;~~~ ~.. o - E~ 57 .Photovoltaic ~SYSfePil 0.5 M~Vac (PPA~1 (~.~,~~? ~POwerP rcha~c 08M - Ittemal F-nanced Net Capital Ar l al Cost Annual X02 Slmplo Rata of Nnl Prese n[ No. Moasure Name Agre-ment Impl. Dato (ycsino) Cost Inc namantal Sa. ngs = Reduction Payback R3tum. Value (NPVJ ~ (yes!nol Cost rIRR) 57 -'. ~. `.t .V ac (PPA) 2012 no ,yes $50,000 $0 (56;712} 139.32 -7.4 NA ($63,666) This measure specifies a 0.5 MW system .producing an average of roughly 615,000 kWh per year. The Net Capital Cost reflects $50,000 expended to negotiate the PPA contract. The costs reflect the assumption that a power purchase ..agreement (PPA) will be utilized to implement the system. A power purchase agreement is a long-term agreement between a power provider (the solar company) and a customer. The customer agrees to purchase energy from the provider at a :fixed rate -for the term of the agreement. 'This rate increases every year by an agreed percentage. The life of the agreement may be in the,range of 20 years. At the end of the contract period the customer typically has the option to purchase the system at its value at that time. This analysis assumes the cost of energy would be 5% more than the current PG&E rate, and would escalate at 3.5%-per year. The analysis also assumes the city retains ownership of the Renewable Energy Credits (REC), and the provider pays all maintenance costs including replacement of the inverters which. have, a life of roughly 10: years. The cost of energy specified in the contract will have significant influence over the financial metrics of the measure. 'The . value used in this analysis. (5% over present PG&E rates) is based on a large contract proposal presented to a public agency in Sonoma County in 2008. The assumed term of the contract matches the. term of this analysis, 25 years. The general assumptions underlying the PV production. calculations are provided in the appendices. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost F nancial E sling GHG Impact Positive Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adtusted Measure.Name (relative) Metrics Problem - (cumulative) Visibility - - ' Impact Impact Stab lZaLOri Measure Score Measure Score 3'10.3 (relative ~ (cumulative) (cumulativ e) (relative), (relative) (cumula[ve) O,to 6 PV .6 MWac (PPA) - 0,0 -3:0 0:00 4.0 6.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 7.07 33.04 ~- ".. _ eNeN~: y r ,_ I i;.. ~,r ._ !Y~ ~-^i~Er!i_ ~'l'. .',~Eti,. i.."~. ~p..)'-,. kti<;. ~~± t,:.l~~~~r~ ~~: ~~:..,r. .; .{ {.)~a~ 1.rY~s~s€(~)r~ .l~£.yci~~ctic»i ~1c~ti~~i~ l'Iart Aetlon Plan !!~R }' - /~ Q`' } yyy - - A B C D ~E 5$_"Pilotovoitaic S\/Sten'1_~a5 RA1Nac(City Owned) - -.- ~L~ -- Flnaneed Po r.or Purchase --- -' Net Capital 03M Ar rual . Est A i ul C02 Intern it Simplo Rate of Nc! Frasent No. Measure Namo Impl. Date (yea/no) Agreement Cost miremental Savings R daction Payback Retum Vnlue (NPV) (yeslno) Cost (IRR) 58 PV 5 M Wac 2013 yes no $4,002;843 $10,000 $106;399 136.39 41.5 NA ($2.532.377) This measure specifies a 500 kW system producing an average of.615,000 kWh per year similar to the previous measure. However, this measure assumes ownership by the City. The low IRR and negative NPV reflect the diminishing CPUC incentives over the next few years. However, the CPUC may refund the. PV :incentive programs, which would improve the financial metrics of this opportunity. ss The general assumptions underlying the PV production calculations are provided in the appendices. Measure°Evaluation Scores Resolution of Cost Financial Existing. GHG Impact Posiave Public Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted ,Measure Name (relative) Medics Problem (cumulative) Visitiiliry Impact Impact Stabilizatlon Measure Score Measure Score -3,to 3 (relative) (cumulatve) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0106 PV .6 MWac ~3:0 -3.0 0.00 3.9 6.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 9.93 36.78 88 California Solar Initiative /Self-Generation Incentive Program Statewide Trigger Point Tracker, www.sjip- ca.com. 0 <'l~~" i _ , 1!i.cc ~si`Iati111.~t!`.>~ ~s '` . ? . "~lP? l~(3<~llC;l(s3"7 ~~Cit}11 I``ltil"l ~.~I..i.~7°'; Action Plan a ~ o t: '59- Photodoltaic System 1O MVNac (Gifu Owned) Imemal ~ F)nanced Power Purchase - Ne[ Capital - OSM - - Annual most Annual CO2 Stmpln Rate of Net Proannt No. ~ Measura tJam? Impl D,tte (yes/no) Agreement Cost incremental -'Savings - Reduction Payback Re[um Velue:(NPV)' ~~, (Yes~oel Cost (IRR) 59 PV 1.0 ~.i,'..: 2009' yes no $8,002,843 $20,000 $185,441 296.25 48.4 NA ($5,605,190) This rneas.ure specifies. a 1.0 MW system producing an average of 1;235,000 kWh per year , similar to the previous measure. However, this measure- assumes ownership by the City. The low IRR and negative NPV ref]ect the diminishing CPU.C incentives over the next few years. However, the CPUC may refund the PV incentive prggrams, which would improve the financial metrics of this opportunity. s9 The general assumptions underlying the PV production calculations are provided in the appendices. Measure Evaluation Scores Resolutidnot Cost' F' ancial Existing GHG.Imp ct Positive Public - Employee Community Energy Cost Adjusted Measure Name (relative) M tries P otilem u l t Visibility Impact impact Stabiliiatlbn MeasureScore Measure Score _3,to3 (relative) (cumulative) mu a ve) (c (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) O to6 PV 1.0 MWac 3.0 -3.0 0.00 6.0 6.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 12.00 45,00 s9 California Solar Initiative /Self-Generation Incentive Program Statewide Trigger Point Tracker, www.sj~p- ca.com. It, 1. .d. ,.~I~~." , .. .. ; ~~~~ ,-~` ,.. 'I-_, . €:it~,~ ~~~ I`, _6, ... . trer;t3~e~.tt5c <;st~ ~~° . r?ccittc~t~ '`~._ Actbn Plan `,' "A B G D :E. 6~- ~~~~~V OILfiIV V•1 S.`~~9~'~a0 ~®~,6®~Y,~V'br 'O.®V~~i \Y ~, i ~.~.~)< Intemel Financed. Power Purchase :- ": Net Capital Gard - Annual Coat AnnuaICO2 Simplr! Rate of Nnt Prcxen[ '-NO. G1ea6ure Name Impl Dale - (yeslno) Agreemanf Cost incremental Savings Reduction Payback Retumi -- Value (NPV) (yes/no) ;; Cost - ORR! 60 ' PV 2.0 MWac 2074 yes no $16,002,843 $40,000 $440,491 533.80 40.0 -2.7.% ($9.825.642) This measure specifies a 2.0 MW system producing an average of 2,47Q,000 kWh per year similar to the previous measure. However, this measure assumes ownership by the City. The low IRR and negative NPV reflect:: the diminishing CPUC incentives over he next few years. However, the CPUC may refund the PV incentive programs; which would improve the financial metrics of this opportunity. 90 The general assumptions underlying 'the PV production calculations are provided im the appendices. 1Vleasure; Evaluation Scores Resolutiod of Cast ~ .Firiancial Existing GFiG Impact Positive Public Employee Community ~ £nergy.Cost Atljusted Measure Name (rela6ve) Mehics Problem (cumulative) Visibility Impact Impact Stabilization Measure:5core - Measure Score -310 3 (relative), (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulative) 0 td6 PV 2.0 MWai -3:0 -3.0 0.00 6.0 6.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 12:00 45.00 90 California Solar Initiative /Self-Generation Incentive Program Statewide Trigger Point Tracker, www.sjip- ca.com. I . - ~ 3~1~~ C.;it~ t~t° I?c tGtitt3~.~t -j~, r: ~~h~)t~:e 4_~~_ ~~ ~ ~ _ _ ~i ~+. ~ ~c>n r~C~tit~t1 I'_1<txt L~.~,I~4; Aetlon Men A A B. C'. D E .~fl-'Photovoltaic System 4~1 iCvvac (City.Ovvned)' ,~ ~ Y I t rnal FI .mod F wr r Purchase - Nat Capital OB,M I':ost. ~~ not ~ slurpre Rule .,f Net Frenant No Hcv~suro :umo ~ Impl Dot) (7evnol Agreement. Cost IncrE rtal .a. ngs. RWU~uon Payback' Re>vrn Vnlue (NPV) .. (yeNno)- . L t (IRR). .. 61 ~n ly Center 41 kWac ~ 2010 yes yes 8272,903 $822 $7,888 11:93 38.6 NA ;$17',73') FV MCAP This measure .specifies a 4rl kW system producing an average of 50,000 kWh per year similar to the previous measure. However, this measure assumes ownership by the City. The low IRR and negative NPV reflect ahe .diminishing. CPUC incentives over the next-'few years. However, the CPUC may refund .the PV incentive programs, which would :improve the financial metrics of this opportunity. 9i The general .assumptions underlying the PV prodtaction calculations are provided in the appendices. Measure: Evaluation Scores Resolution.of Cost F ancial Ex~sting' GHG Imp t Positlve Public ' Employee Community - E gy.Cost Adjusted .Measure Name (relative) Metrics Pblem (cumulat ve) Usib liry Impact Impact Stab lrzatibn ~ M asure Score Measure Score 3 t 3 relative ( ) (cumulative) (cumulative) (relative) (relative) (cumulatve) O tb6 Community Center;41 kWac PV,MCAP ~ -3.0 -3:0 0.00 0.3 6.00 0.00 0'.00 0.8 1.17 7.32 91 California Solar'Initiati_ve /Self-Generation Incentive Program Statewide Trigger Point Tracker, www.sjip- ca.com. _. ~ ~ . (t ~ -l ~~ c.' ~ ~ ~ ~ '13. .