Riverside Fall Forum Agenda

Transcription

1 Riverside Fall Forum Agenda October 6, 2014 Riverside County Office of Education Conference Center th Street, Riverside :30 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast 9:00 a.m. What s on the Horizon for Prop 39 Program and Funding Anna Ferrera, Executive Director 9:20 a.m. Case Study: Riverside Unified School District Mike Fitzgerald, Riverside Unified School District Mary J. Gyll, Riverside Unified School District 10:00 a.m. Case Study: Los Angeles Unified School District Peter Yee, Los Angeles Unified School District 10:45 a.m. Case Study: Desert Sands Unified School District John David Vallesillo, Desert Sands Unified School District Larry Baebler and Jonathan Brown, OpTerra Energy Solutions 11:15 a.m. CPUC, Rates and Title 24 Report Joshua Nelson, Best Best & Krieger Dominic Cardenas and Chikezie Nzewi, Willdan Energy Solutions 12:00 p.m. Lunch Bill McNamara, California Conservation Corp (CCC) 12:45 p.m. RFQ or RFP, Sole Source, Energy Manager Bryce Chastain, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo Joshua Nelson, Best Best & Krieger 1:30 p.m. Solar and Proposition 39 Ted Flanigan, Climate Smart Schools Rick Brown, TerraVerde Renewable Partners 2:00 p.m. Process for Substantive Changes for Prop 39: What Does the CEC Need to Hear? SEC Survey Results & Brainstorming Anna Ferrera, Executive Director 3:00 p.m. Adjourn

2 Fall Forum Riverside, California October 6, 2014 List of Attendees Nasimul Anwar Omar Aoun Camille Asuncion Larry Baebler David Bennett Michael Bishop Luke Boughen Jonathan Brown Rick Brown Dominic Cardenas Bryce Chastain Martin Coyne Lindsay Currier Ann Feng-Gagne Anna Ferrera Mike Fitzgerald Ted Flanigan Kyle Frandsen Paul Gill Errol Glenn Virginia Gutierrez San Bernardino City USD SunEdison Dolinka Group LLC OpTerra Energy Services Fullerton Jt. Un. HSD Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs (ASCIP) Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost OpTerra Energy Services TerraVerde Renewable Partners LLC Willdan Energy Solutions Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo West Contra Costa USD Riverside Co. Ofc. of Educ. Dolinka Group LLC School Energy Coalition Riverside USD Climate Smart Schools Balfour Beatty Construction Ruhnau Ruhnau Clarke Fontana USD Hesperia USD

3 Fall Forum Riverside, California October 6, 2014 List of Attendees Mary Jane Gyll James Hammond Phil Hillman Martin Hom Tom Hunt Mac McGinnis Kathy McKee Bill McNamara Jorge Mendez Craig Misso Alex Murdoch Joshua Nelson Chikezie Nzewi Mike O Brien Robin Park Paul Parker Matthew Schulenberg Stacy Strawderman Hilda Swain John-David Vallesillo Peter Yee Riverside USD Ontario-Montclair Elem. SD Ontario-Montclair Elem. SD Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo Riverside USD Maas Companies Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost Calif. Conservation Corp Moreno Valley USD Ontario-Montclair Elem. SD Murdoch Walrath & Holmes Best Best & Krieger LLP Willdan Energy Solutions Schneider Electric SunEdison Corona-Norco USD Apple Valley USD Val Verde USD Romoland SD Desert Sands USD Los Angeles USD

4 10/1/2014 What s on the Horizon for Prop 39 Program and Funding October, 2014 Who We Are The School Energy Coalition (SEC) is made up of school districts, county offices of education, community colleges and private sector associates who have made or are planning to make investments in school energy projects. Relevant State agencies also actively participate in SEC forums to discuss the impacts of energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable measures on K 14 schools. 1

5 10/1/2014 Membership Membership in the School Energy Coalition gives you access to essential and timely updates on Proposition 39, Rates, Water, Public Utilities Commission, California Department of Education, California Energy Commission, Legislation, Legislative Analyst's Office, State Budget and more. Participate in hearings and proceedings at these agencies in a timely way that will impact and affect statewide projects. Discounts on SEC workshops and webinars. Proposition 39 Update: Original State and District Goals Success for the State through energy savings Success for districts through cost savings Jobs Savings for the lifetime of the project especially in light of anticipated electricity rate increases Investing a portion of the savings back into facilities and maintenance Changing the way we look at our school facilities going forward Adding Water to SEC Agenda 2

6 10/1/2014 Prop 39 Second Year Update: Where are We Now? Preparing Energy Expenditure Plans (EEP) Waiting for multi agency approvals (CEC, CDE, DSA, and CCC) and funding Ensuring accountability and transparency in awarding funds (Non Sole Source Process) Leveraging and job creation Fiscal planning for reinvestment of savings in efficiency and green buildings Reviewing Proposed Substantive Changes to CEC Guidelines and participating in stakeholder process for December 10 Approval Proposition 39: Eligibility Eligible Projects: Energy efficiency measures and/or clean energy installations Eligible Applicants: LEAs: County Offices of Education, School Districts, Charter Schools, State Special Schools and Community Colleges All Facilities Within the LEA: School site facilities include: classrooms, office facilities, auditoriums, multi purpose rooms, gymnasiums, cafeterias, kitchens, pools, and special purposes areas 6 3

7 10/1/2014 Prop 39 Award Allocations Tier Levels Tier 1 Average Daily Attendance Prior Year 100 or fewer Minimum Funding Awards $15,000 plus FRPM Tier ,000 Tier 3 1,001 to 1,999 Based on prior year ADA or $50,000 (whichever amount is larger) plus FRPM Based on prior year ADA or $100,000 (whichever amount is larger) plus FRPM Tier 4 2,000 or more Based on prior year ADA plus FRPM 7 Energy Planning Funding Portion of yr funding only Now Closed Allowed Energy Planning Activities: Energy audits and energy surveys/assessments Proposition 39 program assistance Hiring or retaining energy manager For years 2 5 LEAs may request up to 10 %of their annual award for this. May pool funding & share manager Energy related training for classified employees years 2 5 may use up to 2% of annual award. Clarifying language that planning funds may be used in LEA first year of eligibility in proposed Guidelines. 8 4

8 10/1/2014 Tier 4 Awards: Large Eligible Energy Project Award Requirements For LEAs that receive an award of more than $1 million in any one fiscal year, not less than 50 percent of this funding must be used on large energy projects A large eligible energy project is defined as a group of energy efficiency measures combined for a project cost totaling more than $250,000 *The intent of the law: LEAs to implement deep retrofits at large individual school sites 9 CEC s Funding Approval Process All LEA s have the same two options for EEPs: Annual Award Multiple year (bundled) EEP which can include a full five year program award plan. CEC will review on an annual basis Clarifying language regarding funding for multi year plans in proposed language EEP Plan Review and Approval Process at CEC CEC will notify CDE and LEAs of approved EEPs on an ongoing basis until and unless workload dictates otherwise 10 5

9 10/1/2014 CEC s Funding Approval Process Project Sequencing: LEAs Should Consider: First, maximize energy efficiency Next, clean energy generation (e.g. solar PV panels, water heating systems, wind, biogas, combined heat & power, etc.) Finally, non renewable energy generation measures (e.g. combined heat and power project systems) Self Certification: Eleven factors from the statute LEAs are required to consider (age, Title 1, recent mod, year round operations, potential for energy demand reduction, number of jobs, etc.) 11 CEC s Funding Approval Process: EEP 12 month Electric and Gas Usage/Billing Data Identify all electric, natural gas, propane, or fuel oil accounts for all its schools and facilities Provide a signed utility data release form allowing CEC to access past 12 month and future utility billing data through 2023 Benchmarking Building simulators, ASHRAE, or utility options are available and may be used Free tools like ENERGY STAR Portfolio Mgr or LBNL s Energy IQ are good options 12 6

10 10/1/2014 CEC s Funding Approval Process: Cost Effectiveness Determination Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) SIR Formula based on present value of savings divided by project installation cost, subtracting rebates and other grant fund sources. Formula and calculator in Handbook. Inputs such as energy and maintenance savings over installation costs minus non repayable funding sources and other rebates. (New Appendix D) Energy Commission online calculator in Forms A and B must be used An eligible energy project must achieve a minimum SIR of 1.05 to be approved for Prop 39 award and new language says the projects may be bundled within an LEA 13 CEC Funding Approval Process: EEP Energy Expenditure Plan: Essential Items EEP Must be Complete to Submit to CEC: Expenditure Plan General Form A Expenditure Plan Project Summary Form B One for each site (Audit and Benchmarking info to be used in Form A should do this form first) Consent for utility provider to release usage data Energy Calculators (if applicable) Description of energy planning funds expended from year funding only 14 7

11 10/1/2014 CEC s Funding Approval Process: EEP Energy Expenditure Plan: Essential Items (Cont.) Energy training request (optional) Energy manager request (optional) Non energy benefits project (adder/optional) Job creation benefits estimation Self Certifications of compliance with various requirements Leased facility certification (if applicable) 15 CEC Tracking and District Reporting After EEP is Approved LEA Submits Annual Status Reports required until an approved EEP is completed Final Reports After Project is Completed To include seven elements required by statute (Final gross product cost, estimated amount of energy consumed and saved, number of FTEs or trainees created, time elapsed between award and project completion, energy intensity before and after project, etc.) 16 8

12 10/1/2014 Audit Guide Language: For Audit Guide (EAAP Approved on 2/10/14) Representative sample of CA Clean Energy Jobs Act expenditures and verify they were consistent with the approved plan and the Prop 39 Program Guidelines Determine that the total expenditure for planning funds did not exceed the planning fund award amount Determine if the LEA was in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 26235(c) by verifying that a sole source process was not used to award funds. An LEA may use the Best Value criteria If any expenditures are found to have been made for non qualifying purposes or not in accordance with law, include a finding in the Findings and Recommendations section of the audit report stating the amount inappropriately expended Additional Proposition 39 State Resources CEC s Energy Conservation Assistance Act (ECAA Ed) Program 0% interest rate loans for energy efficiency projects Technical assistance for planning, energy audits and project recommendations Budget Funding TBD: Not in Governor s Proposal or Assembly but State Senate Sub has included $28 million California Workforce Investment Board (WIB) Grant Program Earn and learn job training and placement programs Targeting disadvantaged job seekers California Conservation Corps (CCC) Conduct Energy Surveys Implement basic energy efficiency measures 18 9

13 10/1/2014 Other Related School Energy Items Title 24 Changes to Code Took Effect July 1, 2014 State seeking "maximum energy savings" in existing buildings & new construction. Areas of change include building envelope and mechanical requirements, indoor and outdoor lighting and overall scope changes. Rates and CPUC Proceedings Ongoing Water conservation issues as State seeks to address drought impacts SEC/C.A.S.H. Workshop in Nov Prop0sition 39 Overview 10

14 10/1/2014 Contact Information Anna Ferrera (916) Executive Director of the School Energy Coalition. A former appointee and Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of Energy and former staff to the California State Senate on energy issues

15 Riverside Unified School District Prop 39 Year 1 SEC Fall Forum Mary Jane Gyll - Energy Manager Mike Fitzgerald - Energy Manager Prop 39 Timeline May 2013 First draft guidelines released Started putting together project ideas October 2013 Second draft of guidelines released After vetting various projects found that bard unit replacement & lighting retro fit gave the quickest return on investment 1

16 Prop 39 Year 1 Projects RUSD s Bard Unit project Jan Needed to replace old inefficient Bard units Higher SEER rating More efficient unit reduces KWH usage Change out from R22 to R410A to meet EPA compliance by 2020 Improved indoor air quality Gave a low SIR Has a payback of 12 years Prop 39 Year 1 Projects RUSD s lighting project Jan 2014 Delamp of T8 32 watt lamps with reflector kit Reduced 64 watts per fixture Lower initial installation cost Give even lighting distribution District-wide Surplus of lamp stock Gave a high SIR Has a payback of 2 years 2

17 Prop 39 Submission & Timeline February 2014 Performed ASHREE level II audits for 3 sites that fit criteria Filled out Utility data release forms for all RUSD utility accounts Filled out Forms A & B March 2014 Submitted Energy expenditure plan Worked with CEC project manager to reformat lighting & bard unit back up information April 2014 Approved by CEC & sent to CDE June 2014 Approved by CDE for funding As of date RUSD has not received funding from CDE Prop 39 Submission & Timeline August 2014 Went out to Bid for projects Lighting project work to be done during Thanksgiving week 2014 HVAC project work to be re-bid and done during summer 2015 RUSD finance department funding projects until state back fills funds 3

18 Portable Classroom Lighting Retrofit Ref No Space Information Retrofit Description Annual Retrofit Savings Costs Paybacks Site Area Fixture Type QTY Watts Hours Pre Use Factor Total KW Total KWH Post Retrofit Description QTY Watts Hours Post Total KW Total KWH Total KW Saved Total KWH Saved Cost Savings 1 EOC Portable 1 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 2 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 3 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 4 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 5 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 6 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 7 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 8 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 9 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 10 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 11 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 12 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 13 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 14 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 15 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 16 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 17 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 18 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 19 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 20 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 21 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 22 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 23 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 24 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 25 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 26 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 27 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 28 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 29 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 30 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 31 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 32 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 33 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 34 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 35 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 36 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 37 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 38 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 39 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 40 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 41 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 42 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 43 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 44 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 45 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 46 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ EOC Portable 47 4'x4LampF32T , ,506 4'x2lampF32T , , $ $88.33 $ TOTALS Unit Cost To Customer Total Cost Simple Payback Prop 39 Submission Riverside Unified School District Proposition 39 Lighting and HVAC Energy Efficient Project Years 1-3 Portable Bard Unit Replacement Light Replace (1) R22 low efficiency Bard unit with (1) R 410A high efficiency Bard unit Energy Reduction: Daily run hours 9 Number of days/year 180 Total reduction of Kilowatt Hour 4261 KWH Cost per Kilowatt Hour $.18/KWH Project Cost: Labor $ 80/hr. 10 hrs. $ Parts $ 8,405/ea. $8, Gross Cost $9, RPU rebate incentive -$ Net Cost/Classroom $9, Annual Savings per room $ Non-energy Benefits: Improve occupant comfort Improved indoor air quality may assist in the instructional process Improved acoustics may assist in the instructional process Reduce current HVAC department backlog (saves staff time) Higher efficient economizer (automatic vs. manual) Reduce KWH due to higher efficiency Reduce KW demand thereby reducing "peak demand" charges When extended use is required the extended use expense is less Avoid DSA review and related soft cost Quicker temperature recovery improves occupant comfort Stockpile R-22 refrigerant for future use (no longer manufactured) Riverside Unified School District Proposition 39 Lighting and HVAC Energy Efficient Project Years 1-3 (2) 32 watt lamps with reflector Remove (2) 32 watt lamps, install socket holder with reflector kit, & clean lenses. Bard unit Energy Reduction: 24 lamps x 32 watts.768 KWH Daily run hours 9 Number of days/year 180 Total reduction of Kilo Watt Hour 1245 KWH Cost per Kilo Watt Hour $.18/KWH Project Cost: Labor $ 46/hr. 8 hrs. $ Parts 12 $ 12/ea. fixtures $ Gross Cost $ RPU rebate incentive -$75.00 Net Cost/Classroom $ Annual Savings per room $ Non-energy Benefits: Significantly improve life-cycle cost per fixture Potential increased and consistent foot candles at the student desk top Improved and consistent visibility may assist in the instructional process Reduce current Electrical department backlog (saves staff time) Reduced heat load in classrooms thereby reducing HVAC demand Reduce slightly HVAC department backlog and equipment wear (saves staff time) Initial custodial time savings for other school needs Reduce KW demand thereby reducing "peak demand" charges When extended use is required the extended use expense is less Prop 39 Submission cc 4

19 Prop 39 Concerns Long delay with CDE approval & funding Large LEA s ½ of projects must be over $250,000 Getting 1.05 SIR on each school difficult Utility accounts for every meter was tedious due to amount of accounts RUSD has Not enough project options on CEC calculators Calculators provided are vague don t have specifics Time from approval to bid contracts caused change in project completion discussion 5

20 9/30/2014 Desert Sands USD: Strategic Approach to Energy Innovation and Sustainability Larry Baebler Jonathan Brown John-David Vallesillo OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES District Goals/Needs Replace existing air conditioning units at La Quinta High School Minimize district contribution to install La Quinta project Leverage Prop. 39 funds Lower district utility expenditures Implement pilot renewable generation project Modernize older schools lighting systems with new LED fixtures Improve learning environment 2014 OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES 2 1

21 9/30/2014 Scope of Work Install 153 new air conditioning units at La Quinta High School Upgrade air conditioning controls at La Quinta High School Install 6,700 new LED classroom lighting fixtures Indio MS La Quinta MS Madison ES Monroe ES Truman ES Construct new solar shade parking structures at Palm Desert HS OpTerra energy savings guarantee OpTerra solar maintenance 2014 OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES 3 Solar Layout for Palm Desert HS 2014 OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES 4 2

22 9/30/2014 Solar Layout for Palm Desert HS 2014 OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES 5 Economics Estimated program cost: $13,000,000 District Contribution $3MM Energy/ Generation Savings $2.8MM Prop 39 Funding $6.4MM 5-year bridge financing for cash 1.99% interest rate Project pays for itself in less than 6 years District energy/generation savings in year 6 = $629K District energy/generation savings from years 6 to 25 = $19.5 million Solar Incentives $800K 2014 OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES 6 3

23 9/30/2014 Environmental Benefits 57% of energy use at Palm Desert HS will be generated by solar Removes the annual equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from 435 Cars from local freeways. Removes the annual equivalent of CO 2 emissions from 284 homes electricity use. Removes the annual equivalent of Carbon sequestered by 1,694 Acres of forest OPTERRA ENERGY SERVICES 7 4

24 9/30/2014 CPUC Rate Update School Energy Coalition Fall Forum October 6 and 7, 2014 PRESENTED BY Joshua Nelson Attorney 2013 Best Best & Krieger LLP Renewable Energy Overview Option R (Southern California Edison) NEM 2.0 SDG&E TOU Shift Renewable Energy 1

25 9/30/2014 Rate Making Proceedings Every 3 years before CPUC Phase 1 Revenue Requirements (How much revenue is required from ratepayers to maintain service through next 3-year rate cycle) Phase 2 Revenue Allocation and Rate Design (How to apportion the Phase 1 revenue requirement) Renewable Energy Option R Southern California Edison solar customer tariffs Proposed settlement in 2013 Rate Design Window Expand Option R to 400 mw (from 150 mw) Renewable Energy 2

26 9/30/2014 NEM 2.0 What is NEM? Permits renewable generators to sell energy back to the grid when it is not needed Important part of renewable energy financing / analysis Pre-AB 327, early adopters were entitled to NEM and other protections from IOU surcharges or discrimination Focus on roof-top solar and other smaller projects: >1 megawatt located on the customer's property AB 327: (1) Grandfather Period and (2) NEM 2.0 Source: See Pub. Util. Code section 2827 et seq. Renewable Energy NEM 2.0 New successor tariff must take effect before Applies to new NEM customers (post ) CPUC currently developing public tool Schedule of Proceeding (R ) Renewable Energy 3

27 9/30/2014 SDG&E TOU Shift SDG&E has proposed modifying peak and off-peak times for customers operating under time of use (TOU) pricing. SDG&E wants to shift higher TOU rates to periods when most customers are home and using their AC, heater, TV, etc. The proposal will shift peak and off-peak times for TOU customers. Currently, peak times are 11 a.m. 6 p.m. The proposal shifts peak time for Summer (May-Oct) to 2 p.m.-9 p.m. and for Winter (Nov-April) to 5 p.m.-9 p.m.. Renewable Energy SDG&E TOU Shift New semi-peak and super off-peak periods. Super off-peak will be 12 a.m.-6 a.m. All other times will be semi-peak. SDG&E and school impact Schedule of proceeding (A ) Renewable Energy 4

28 9/30/2014 Thank you. Joshua Nelson Attorney Best Best & Krieger LLP Sacramento Phone: Renewable Energy 5

29 9/30/2014 October, 2014 PRESENTATION School Energy Coalition Fall Forums Impact of New 2013 Title 24 Standards On Schools and Prop 39 Presenters Dominic Cardenas, Senior Program Manager Chikezie Nzewi, Engineering Manager Agenda What s New with Title for Schools Applicability of Title 24 Standards Requirements of New Standards Impacts on Lighting Systems for Schools Case Study Ontario Montclair School District Questions and Answers Schools Energy Coalition 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools 2 sdfasfd 1

30 9/30/2014 What s New with Title for Schools Applicability of Title 24 Standards Previous T 24 Standards were focused on New Construction and Extensive Renovation Projects needed to be significant enough to require a Construction Permit Projects focused on the Area under modification Existing controls were not affected Schools Energy Coalition 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools 3 What s New with Title for Schools Applicability of Title 24 Standards All aspects of new 2013 T 24 Standards applies when a project affects 10% of lighting fixtures/lamps Reduced from previous 2008 trigger level of 50% of lighting fixtures/lamps being upgraded Lighting controls are now required What are these requirements? Schools Energy Coalition 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools 4 sdfasfd 2

31 9/30/2014 What s New with Title for Schools Requirements of Title 24 Standards New LPD Requirements for Office Buildings: from 0.85 w/sq.ft. to 0.80 w/sq.ft. Parking: from 0.30 w/sq.ft. to 0.2 w/sq.ft. New LPD Requirements for Office Spaces: from 0.9 and 1.1 w/sq.ft. to 0.75 and 1.0 w/sq.ft. Classrooms: LPD requirements remain constant at 1.2 w/sq.ft. Schools Energy Coalition 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools 5 What s New with Title for Schools Requirements of Title 24 Standards New Daylighting Controls Impact Classrooms All spaces with greater than 120 watts of installed lighting All spaces with natural lighting from skylights & windows Defines Primary & Secondary daylit areas. Primary areas must be controlled Schools Energy Coalition 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools 6 sdfasfd 3

32 9/30/2014 What s New with Title for Schools Requirements of Title 24 Standards New Occupancy Sensing Controls Requires Partial On / Partial Off occupancy controls Shut off lighting when space unoccupied Minimal egress lighting allowed Bi level lighting controls required for Parking Lots & Garage Outdoor lighting requires: Photocell Motion sensors (Fixture over 24 high) Scheduling controls Acceptance Certificate Confirms controls for daylighting, ADR and lighting shut off are operational Schools Energy Coalition 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools 7 What s New with Title for Schools Requirements of Title 24 Standards Automatic Demand Response, ADR New lighting systems should include connectivity and controls to enable automatic demand response on a signal from the Utility Buildings > 10,000 sq.ft. must include one of three ADR types Centralized Addressable ADR for specific zones Schools Energy Coalition 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools 8 sdfasfd 4

33 9/30/2014 Case Study Ontario Montclair School District Ontario Montclair School District Approach Lighting is considered as part of larger projects Integrating lighting controls with HVAC controls Evaluate Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Consider LED lighting to achieve exterior lighting requirements Schools Energy Coalition 2013 Title 24 Impacts on Schools 9 Questions and Answers sdfasfd 5

34 10/14/2014 Sole Source October, 2014 Sole Source Language in SB 73 (c) A community college district or LEA shall not use a sole source process to award funds pursuant to this chapter. A community college district or LEA may use the best value criteria as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section of the Public Contract Code to award funds pursuant to this chapter. 1

35 10/14/2014 Education Audit Appeal Panel Language (c) Verify that the LEA was in compliance with Section 26235(c) of the Public Resources Code which states that an LEA may not use a sole source process to award funds, and that an LEA may use the best value criteria as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section of the Public Contract Code. One Federal Definition of Sole Source Sole source acquisition means a contract for the purchase of supplies or services that is entered into or proposed to be entered into by an agency after soliciting and negotiating with only one source. Source: Federal Acquisition Regulation 2

36 10/14/2014 Overarching Things to Remember About Sole Source: Start and end with non Sole Source in mind Recent amendments to CEC Guidelines (to be approved on December 10) clarify that the non sole source process also applies to planning funds. Keep clear documents memorializing your process Consider checking with your auditor if you believe your district's selection process could be sole source School Energy Coalition Fall Forum 2014 RFQ or RFP, Sole Source, Energy Manager Bryce Chastain, Esq. Cerritos Fresno Irvine Pasadena Riverside Pleasanton Sacramento San Diego 3

37 10/14/2014 What is the letter of the law? Proposition 39 Rules Enabling Statutes added to the Public Resource Code under SB 73 (2013) Guidelines promulgated by the California Energy Commission Rules for procurement are ambiguous in the statutes and almost absent from the CEC Guidelines 4

38 10/14/2014 Prop 39 says two things about procurement Public Resources Code Section 26235(c): A community college district or LEA shall not use a sole source process to award funds pursuant to this chapter. Public Resources Code Section 26235(c): A community college district or LEA may use the best value criteria as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section of the Public Contract Code to award funds pursuant to this chapter Prop 39 statutes say three things about the resulting contracts: Public Resources Code Section 26206(d): All projects shall require contracts that identify the project specifications, cost, and projected energy savings. Public Resources Code Section 26206(e): All projects shall be subject to audit. Public Resources Code, Section 26240(h)(1): The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall require local education agencies to pay back funds if they are not used in accordance with state statute or regulations. 5

39 10/14/2014 What can we find in case law? No Direct Authorities No California case law interpreting SB 73 No California case law interpreting best value procurement under Public Contract Code section

40 10/14/2014 Interpreting Statutes Courts interpret statutes: to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law, looking first to the words of the statute themselves, giving them their usual, ordinary import, and according significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, ) Interpreting Statutes If the language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part." (People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008.) 7

41 10/14/2014 Similar Case Law Best Value The closest analogous case is Schram Const., Inc. v. Regents of the University of California (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1040 A different best value statute specific to the U.C. System Court s essential rule was that when a statute allows selection other than by competitive bidding, the courts will take a strict view of adherence to the stated requirements Similar Case Law Procurement City of Inglewood-Los Angeles Civic Center Authority v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861 Rejecting use of Government Code 4526, et seq. for hiring contractors Court s essential rule was that Government Code 4526, et seq. is only for hiring professional consultants, including construction managers, not contractors who have to be hired under an applicable authority But we have options 8

42 10/14/2014 Guiding Case Law Discretion Mike Moore s 24 Hour Towing v. City of San Diego (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1294 Held that that as long as city s actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or without factual support, the court would not disturb the city s rejection of a bid Whenever the legislative body of a public agency has or must use discretion, the Courts should not question it as long as it is not arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, contrary to established public policy, unlawful or procedurally unfair. And we have flexibility Out of School Comments The view of individual legislators is legally irrelevant The view of individual administrators is legally irrelevant You cannot rely on individual non-legal opinions 9

43 10/14/2014 So where does that leave us? With more questions than answers With risks that must be evaluated With having to make a judgment call Procurement Authorities 10

44 10/14/2014 Professional Consultants Government Code Sections 53060, et seq., for procurement of special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters Government Code Sections 4525, et seq., for procurement of architectural, engineering or construction management services Both based on the qualifications of the consultant Energy Management Consultant Allowed to use a certain amount of first year allocation per CEC guidelines May make sense to pool funds with other LEAs 11

45 10/14/2014 Joint Exercise of Powers Government Code Section 6502 Do not need to form a JPA Can enter agreement for a lead agency to run procurement for a group Must use most restrictive method available to a member Joint Exercise of Powers San Mateo County Office of Education Hired energy management consultant for various local districts Each gets the same services, but scoped to their needs and funds 12

46 10/14/2014 Find the Right Procurement Authority Hard bid - Public Contract Code Section Only for construction not a good fit Lowest bidder not a good fit Formal design-build - Education Code Only for projects over $2,500,000 not a good fit Cumbersome selection requirements not a good fit Lease-leaseback - Education Code Only for construction (Education Code 17402) not a good fit Most Flexible Lease-leaseback - Education Code Only for construction (Education Code 17402) Only works if you have complete Field Act compliant plans Energy Conservation Contracting Government Code No built-in procurement requirements - highly flexible Need to address sole source bar within discretion New best value authority 13

47 10/14/2014 The best value method created under SB 73 Public Resources Code Section 26235(c) allows ( may use ) a best value method stated in Public Contract Code Section 20133(c)(1) Public Contract Code Section 20133(c)(1) states: Best value means a value determined by objective criteria related to price, features, functions, and lifecycle costs. So, what do we do about it? 14

48 10/14/2014 The Black And White Award cannot be on sole source basis Contract awarded must address project specifications, cost, and projected energy savings Defensible Have a written record Have some evidence to support your discretion Show your homework 15

49 10/14/2014 On the Safe Side Use separate procurement for each award Use contract authority matching what you re buying Make each procurement process objective Question Answer Session 16

50 10/14/2014 Thank You For questions or comments, please contact: Patrick A. Gunn (925) Bryce Chastain (925) Renewable Energy 17

51 10/14/2014 Proposition 39 RFP RFQ Process School Energy Coalition October 6 and 7, 2014 PRESENTED BY Joshua Nelson Attorney Best Best & Krieger LLP 2014 Best Best & Krieger LLP Renewable Energy Incorporation of Best Value Districts may use best value to procure projects funded by Prop 39. Best Value is defined as value determined by objective criteria related to price, features, functions, and life cycle costs. A standard one step RFP or RFQ process where the consultant is selected based on best value to the district satisfies Prop 39 s procurement requirement. Renewable Energy 18

52 10/14/2014 RFP RFQ Process A two step RFQ/RFP process is not legally required. Prop 39 only requires districts to abide by state and local procurement regulations and to avoid using the sole source process For Prop 39 funded projects, a one step RFP or RFQ process incorporating the best value criteria as the basis for selecting the consultant is in compliance with the procurement regulations under Prop 39. Renewable Energy Thank you for attending. Joshua Nelson Best Best & Krieger LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 Sacramento, CA Phone: (916) joshua.nelson@bbklaw.com Renewable Energy 19

53 9/26/2014 Solar & Prop 39 by Climate Smart Schools and TerraVerde Renewable Partners October, Outline 1. The Solar PPA Computation 2. Making Solar Work on Campus 3. Tracking Clean Up Legislation 1

54 9/26/2014 Can Prop 39 Support Solar PPAs? 3 Background Climate Smart Schools reviewed the Final CEC Guidelines for Solar PPA for Poway Unified School District Could a Solar PPA be used to buoy up lower SIR values? It seemed so! Could Prop 39 funds be used to buy down Solar PPA rates? The treatment of the SIR for Solar PPAs was ambiguous, and could make or not make sense 2

55 9/26/2014 The Statute (PRC Section 26206) Total benefits over time must exceed total costs over time SMMUSD, $775,000 net savings over 20 years with 5% discount rate EcoMotion s current project at Millbrook School in New York will create a million dollars in net benefits over 20 years and no up front costs Even PPA providers charging cents/kwh can create a net benefit for an LEA through rate shifts Our Recent PPA Story Millbrook School, Millbrook NY Initial power price = $0.085/kWh PPA price =$0.075/kWh PPA escalator = 0% Current power price = $0.105 First year savings = $35,000 Projected lifecycle savings = $1,000,

56 9/26/ String Inverters 8 4

57 9/26/2014 In a Nutshell. The SIR is about savings being at least slightly greater than costs A well crafted PPA will generate net benefits for school districts Inherently, the SIR should be positive. In fact, solar PPAs could really help a site portfolio of measures a Form B achieve or exceed the 1.05 threshold But wait that s not the computation

58 9/26/2014 The Current Computation for Solar PPAs Using Prop 39 Funds SIR = Net Present Value of LEA Cost Savings from PPA Discount Net Present Value of LEA Electricity Cost Paid under PPA (including P39 contribution) Let s clarify the numerator and denominator The numerator is unique And that the denominator is fine Digging in Ted Flanigan contacts CEC hotline Ted Flanigan speaks with program expert at the CEC Expert interprets and TF writes to verify understanding CEC confirms; TF writes policy brief to spread word 6

59 9/26/2014 SIR Numerator: Net Present Value of LEA Cost Savings from PPA Discount. CEC clarified that the numerator is the discount one gets from a PPA... the difference between the current rate and the PPA rate. The Numerator: The PPA Discount Grid Price PPA Price Discount Cents/kWh Scenario Scenario Scenario For efficiency measures, the savings value is based solely on the avoided grid price cost. SIR Denominator: Net Present Value of LEA Electricity Cost paid under PPA (incl. Prop 39 contribution) Valid as is. This is the PPA cost to an LEA. Examples: 13.1 cents/kwh with a 4% escalator 7.5 cents/kwh with a 0% escalator SIR = Net Present Value of LEA Cost Savings from PPA Discount Net Present Value of LEA Electricity Cost Paid under PPA (including P39 contribution) 7

60 9/26/2014 SIR Scenarios Current Methodology Grid Price PPA Price Discount Simple SIR SIR with EB Cents/kWh Scenario Scenario Scenario Note that the 5% Environmental Adder is applied to the Simple SIR Getting it Right NPV of avoided power costs over PPA costs Grid Price PPA Price Discount Simple SIR SIR with EB Cents/kWh Scenario Scenario Scenario Note that the 5% Environmental Benefit is applied to the Simple SIR The Bottom Line Anything short of a 50% discount from a PPA provider falls short of the SIR threshold The CEC does allow for a blended rate to define the avoided cost. This too is questionable, but supports the equation for those trying to make it pencil Solar PPAs are being put to a test that is more rigorous than solar purchases and all efficiency projects. 8

61 9/26/2014 Marc Roper s Analysis Solar PPAs and Prop 39 50% discounts on Solar PPAs are unlikely. Unless bundled with other measures with high SIR Values, few LEAs will be able to use Prop 39 funds for solar projects financed solely with a PPA. Climate Smart Schools suggests a change to the statue and the current interpretation. The avoided cost is the savings that should be the numerator. We thank Marc Roper, Rick Brown and others for presenting this to Commissioner McAllister 9

62 9/26/2014 Why Solar Now? Prop 39 funding available for purchases PG&E Customers can still leverage solar investments with the A-6 rate tariff Limitations by year end under discussion Our Asset Management Service report on 73 schools Production and Savings Targets met or exceeded Illustrates a well designed and acquired system pays off Interest Rates at historic lows Reduced rates on solar PPAs and debt financing Recent PPA price of $ CA USD, all carports, 9 sites SCE and PGE Rates up another 5% - 10% again this year 20 10

63 9/26/2014 Battery Storage Advanced Storage Solutions now commercially viable As utilities implement rate reform Demand Charges will become an increasingly large portion of your bill Prop 39 rules for how Storage System benefit due December Storage coupled with Solar Reduce both the Demand and Usage components of bill Use Prop 39 cash for Storage and PPA for solar Four current TerraVerde Projects receiving Storage Advantage Bids support year one savings Healthy incentives available now 21 Battery Storage Paired With Solar Commercial electric customers (e.g., schools), typically pay for peak demand (kw) charges in addition to energy (kwh) charges. The peak demand charge is normally calculated as the highest peak demand during the monthly billings cycle based on a 15 minute sample interval. Adding local photovoltaic generation to a commercial building reduces utility energy (kwh) charges, but often has little effect on peak demand (kw) charges. Summer peak demands often occur during the late afternoon and early evenings just when the PV generation is sharply dropping. (Note: Summer utility rates apply from April1-Ocotber 30) For many commercial customers the peak demand part of their utility bill can be percent of their total electric bill. Source: Solar White Paper: Peak Demand Reduction Using Battery Storage, Kathleen Zipp, SolarWorld, 2/15/

64 9/26/2014 Ted Flanigan Project Director Climate Smart Schools (949) N. Alameda St., Suite 240 Los Angeles, CA Rick Brown President TerraVerde Renewable Partners (707) Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 155 Larkspur, CA

65 10/1/2014 Prop 39 Proposed Draft Revisions and SEC Survey Results October, 2014 New Changes to Proposition 39 Guidelines Issued September 26, 2014 In mid September SEC wrote a letter to CEC in anticipation of revisions to the Prop 39 Guidelines In your packet feel free to use the SEC letter as a template The Energy Commission begins comprehensive substantive changes cycle for the Proposition 39: California Clean Energy Jobs Act 2015 Program Implementation Guidelines. Proposed draft revisions are now available online at: The CEC has invited the public to provide comments through October 27,2014, by ing docket@energy.ca.gov. In the subject line, please indicate Prop CCEJA 01. 1

66 10/1/2014 New Definition of Eligible Energy Projects CEC accepted SEC s recommendation to expand the definition of an eligible energy project. If approved, would allow LEAs to bundle projects together from more than one school site LEA wide to be considered in the Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) formula Will give schools a broader reach in layering projects to meet that required 1.05 minimum for the SIR Should also be very helpful in meeting that requirement and also in accounting for projects that may be installed LEA wide such as lighting Simplification of the SIR Formula: New Appendix D (formerly Appendix E) CURRENT LANGUAGE: The SIR is calculated based on present value of savings divided by project installation cost subtracting project rebates and other grant fund sources REMOVED: (If total project installation cost are greater than the Prop 39 program award and additional financing is required, such as bond funds or private capital funds, this financing is to be considered part of the total project installation cost and is not deducted from the total project installation cost like a project rebate or other grant funding source.) NEW LANGUAGE: The total Prop 39 award amount is the Project Installation Cost minus rebates and other non repayable funds CEC has made clear: non repayable funds includes bond funds 2

67 10/1/2014 Clarifies Rules About Multi Year (Bundled) Award EEPs CURRENT LANGUAGE: An LEA may submit an Energy Expenditure Plan (EEP) that includes a bundled multi year award up to the full five year estimated amount Clarifies that because Fund revenue is appropriated annually by the Legislature, LEAs are NOT guaranteed to receive the total estimated amount calculated in its multiple year award approximation. Will receive the Prop 39 program award funding annually and not one multi year lump sum The LEA s annual Prop 39 award allocation for multi year plans will be distributed from the SPI every January, after award calculations are announced in November of the preceding year The LEA and CEC will review the multi year plans annually to ensure projects are on track and will adjust the plan, if necessary Online EEP Reporting Annual Reports: LEAs must use online annual progress status reporting portal now available on the CEC Prop 39 webpage Completed Project Reports: CEC will be adding an online tracking system in partnership with the California Workforce Development Agency for reporting on all completed projects within months of completion Final Reports: CEC will be adding an online system that will require information such as final gross project cost, energy savings and intensity, jobs created, amount of time the project took to complete 3

68 10/1/2014 Funding Audits CURRENT STATUTE LANGUAGE Public Resources Code Section 26206(e) states, All projects shall be subject to audit. Public Resources Code, Section 26240(h)(1) states that the SPI shall require LEAs to pay back funds if they are not used in accordance with statute or regulations, if a project is torn down or remodeled, or if the property is deemed to be surplus and sold prior to the payback of the project. Funding Audits (Cont.) Proposed Prop 39 Audit Clarifying Language: LEAs can only use Prop 39 funding for the eligible energy projects approved in its EEP. LEAs must not sell or demolish the approved energy measure installed with Prop 39 funding prior to payback. The payback is calculated by dividing the total energy measure cost by the total annual energy savings: Payback = Total Energy Measure Cost ($) / Annual Energy Savings ($/yr) The property is considered the facility or building where the energy measure is installed. A copy of the audit guide can be found at: guide/current audit guide booklet/ 4

69 10/1/2014 Other Revisions to CEC Guidelines Schools Should Be Aware of To Be Approved Interest Earned on Prop 39 Funds: Only expended on Prop 39 projects. If not expended, shall be returned to General Fund Removal of Appendix B on Energy Efficiency Measures & Calculators and Appendix F from Guidelines: They will be located in Prop 39 Handbook Format for ASHRAE Level 2 audits Documentation required and recommended format in Handbook Utility Data Release Authorization Form: Must Use CEC Utility Data Release Authorization Form and not a utility form Reporting Job Creation Benefits: Data to be obtained by Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and with Guidance from CA Workforce Investment Board and Labor and Workforce development Agency Public Works Project Notification Changed to reflect the new DIR rules and should be reported online using the PWC 100 form CEC Process for Comment and Approval The public is invited to provide comments through October 27,2014, by ing docket@energy.ca.gov. In the subject line, please indicate Prop CCEJA 01 In November, a 15 day public notice of the proposed substantive changes will be posted. These substantive changes will be considered at the Energy Commission's December 10, 2014, Business Meeting. 5

70 10/1/2014 SEC Proposition 39 Survey 6

71 10/1/2014 7

72 10/1/2014 8

73 10/1/2014 9

74 10/1/2014 Q9: Filling the Gap Primarily through local bonds Coupled with State Bond Funding General Fund Financing/Loan Deferred Maintenance ECAA, CCC, Rebates, & Other Programs (QZAB) Not Sure Prop 39 Will Cover the Project (or adjust so it will) Q 10: Summary of Guideline Experiences Not Started Yet or In Beginning Stages Confusing/Complicated Guidelines and Process Difficulty Reaching Required SIR Number Using Outside Consultants Process is Slow and Bureaucratic Already Completed Efficiency or Solar Projects Waiting for ECAA, CCC, and Utilities Need to Find Staff Time to Do Need to Change Master Plan 10

75 10/1/2014 Contact Information Anna Ferrera (916) Executive Director of the School Energy Coalition. A former appointee and Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of Energy and former staff to the California State Senate on energy issues

76 September 19, 2014 The Honorable Andrew McAllister Commissioner California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-29 Sacramento, CA Dear Commissioner McAllister: On behalf of the School Energy Coalition (SEC), an organization made up of K-12 schools, community colleges, school construction and energy consultants focused on energy efficiency and renewable generation projects for California s students, I am writing to share our support for the Proposition 39 Program and some suggestions as you begin the process of revising the program s Guidelines over the next few weeks. Since the California Energy Commission s (CEC) Proposition 39 Guidelines were approved in December 2013, SEC has worked to assist school districts, county offices of education and charter schools to stay up-to-date on the information changes and meeting the requirements for Energy Expenditure Plan (EEP) approval. SEC has held over nine workshops and two webinars addressing energy issues of importance to schools, most with a Proposition 39 focus. We have also surveyed our schools specifically regarding the Proposition 39 program and the challenges schools are facing in meeting the requirements for approval. Overall, schools appreciate the flexibility in the energy project funding program and appreciate that the Commission has listened to Local Education Agencies (LEA) concerns, making adjustments where needed and warranted over the past year as individual schools have moved through the approval process. As the Commission is contemplating a more whole scale review of the guidelines, we would like to offer the following input and comments to identify areas that remain of concern for your further consideration: Definition of Cost Effectiveness After gathering data and benchmarking their sites, the required Savings-to-Investment-Ratio (SIR) of 1.05 is the most challenging part of the approval process for schools. We would suggest the following: In order to allow for the most flexibility in reaching this number, we suggest that each individual school site, be changed to LEA. That schools may apply the SIR over multiple years if they have a multi-year plan. Please clarify how planning funds that rollover to the actual project are accounted for in the SIR.

77 Page 2 of 3 Credit for Recent Efficiency Installations Many schools have already been proactive on energy efficiency and have installed new lighting and sensors over the past few years. We would suggest some consideration for energy installations and savings that have occurred within the past three years prior to Guideline Approval. In some cases LEA s have completed extensive energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to the degree that they do not have any upgrades left to complete that would meet the SIR requirements. We suggest that there be a process identified for allowing LEA s in this situation to fund projects of a lesser SIR than Solar Schools would support more options to do solar projects with Proposition 39 funding should they choose to do this, especially when efficiency measures have been already installed. SEC supports the solar industries suggestions to change the way the SIR is calculated for Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) to allow these projects to better go forward under the Proposition 39 Program. SEC supports revisions to the solar calculator that better match industry standards for such variables as solar panel life span, inverter life span and solar panel degradation. SEC would like the CEC to make the details of their solar SIR calculation available to LEA s so that it can be compared to calculations completed by solar companies and consultants. Proposition Funding Relationships between LEAs Clarify how LEAs may show that funding has been pooled for the purposes of the Program, for example an energy manager or other planning fund uses. Is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other type of documentation required? Existing relationships between LEAs. How might Charter Schools document compensation to school districts, or vice versa, with Prop 39 funding for energy assistance to meet program requirements? Please clarify whether sole source language applies to work provided between COEs or Districts and charters. There are some charter schools which do not have school facilities, but operate on-line. How are these funds to be allocated? May they be accessed by the chartering LEA? Correlating with Other Energy Programs Schools have other state energy programs and regulations they must comply with. It would be useful to have guidance on how schools may integrate the changes to the state s Green Codes and Title 24 requirements for schools with Proposition 39 projects. Due to the recent 2013 CA Energy Code incentive programs across the state are in the process of being re-calculated to align with the new code requirements. In some cases these changes in incentive calculations may have a significant impact on SIR calculations. However, the updated incentive calculations are not expected to be available until early in What will be the requirements for LEA s to update incentive calculations in their SIR once the programs are updated?

78 Page 3 of 3 Disapproval Process SEC appreciates that CEC staff has stated in outreach meetings that the goal is not to disapprove proposals, but to work with LEAs to move toward approval. However, the specificity of the Disapproval Process has raised some concerns with our members. It appears that once you move to this correction and resubmission docket it is a very formal and bureaucratic process. Given that a plan can be returned and for resubmission, is a disapproval process even necessary? We appreciate the ability to share our concerns with you. Please do not hesitate to contact me ( or aferrera@m-w-h.com) with any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. Sincerely, Anna Ferrera Executive Director AF:ad c: Robert B. Weisenmiller, Ph.D., Commissioner Karen Douglas, J.D., Commissioner David Hochschild, Commissioner Janea A. Scott, Commissioner Hazel Miranda Elizabeth Shirakh Marcia Smith Rob Oglesby Grant Mack

79 Proposition 39 Guideline: Substantive Changes Summary of Proposed Changes Topic Guideline Revision Issue Page # Minor word changes/edits Revised minor wording for clarity Provides clearer understanding. Various Updated Guidelines to reflect their adoption in December 19, Changed verbs from future tense to past tense. The Guidelines were originally written in anticipation of their adoption at the December 19, 2013 Energy Commission Business Meeting. Various Fiscal year 2013/14 appropriations moved. Fiscal year 2014/15 appropriations added. Relocated the historical 2013/14 fiscal year appropriations from page 1 to Appendix A. The new fiscal year 2014/15 will now be on page 1, but the historical appropriations information will remain in the document, under Appendix A 1 and Appendix A California Community College Chancellor s Office CCCCO is exempt from the requirements of the Proposition 39 Guidelines for the five year program. The CCCCO program will continue as a separate program. 3 Definition of Eligible Energy Project Revised the definition of an eligible energy project. Changed from a bundled group of energy efficiency measures and/or clean energy installations in or at a school site to efficiency measures and/or clean energy installations within an LEA. An eligible energy project must achieve a minimum savings to investment ratio (SIR) of LEAs now can bundle energy efficiency measures and/or clean energy installations (in or at one or more school sites) within an LEA. 6, 23, 24 and Appendix G Schedule Added date for SSPI to begin allocationing awards for approved multiple year energy expenditure plans. In the second year of the Proposition 39 program and moving forward, many LEAs will be receiving their annual allocations based on a multiple year energy expenditure plan approved in a prior fiscal year. SSPI will allocate these awards starting in January 2015 (annually). 9 Page 1

80 Proposition 39 Guideline: Substantive Changes Topic Guideline Revision Issue Page # Interest Earned on Proposition 39 Funds Added a new subcategory within the Award Allocation section regarding interest earned. Provides new guidelines to LEAs on how the interest earned on Proposition 39 funds can be expended. 11 Two year Combined Award Option Added clarification language. LEAs in Tier 1 and Tier 2 can select this option twice during the five year Proposition 39 program. 11 Energy Planning Funds Reservation Option Added clarification language. Provides clarification on energy planning fund eligibility for LEAs whose first year of program eligibility occurs after fiscal year and 12 Energy Survey and ASHRAE Level 2 Energy Audit Requirements Added the sentence: Additional information on energy project supporting documentation is included in the Energy Expenditure Plan Handbook. In an effort to expedite the review and approval of energy expenditure plans, the Energy Expenditure Plan Handbook provides a recommended format to use when submitting energy audits as back up documentation. 22 Multiple year (Bundled) award energy expenditure plan Added clarification paragraph. Provides clarification on when LEAs will receive yearly allocations approved in a multiple year energy expenditure plan. 25 Energy Expenditure Plan Content Utility Data Release Authorization Form Removed option for LEA to use a utility authorization form. LEAs must use the Energy Commission s Utility Data Release Authorization form when consenting the LEA s utility provider(s) to release historic and ongoing billing data to the Energy Commission. 26 Energy Project Tracking and Reporting Added various edits and clarification language. Provides clarification that the Energy Commission will add an online program reporting system to the Proposition 39 Web page Job Creation Benefits Added various edits and clarification language. Provides clarification on certified payroll and LEA self reported employee wage records needed for reporting job creation benefits of funded projects. 33 Audit Added clarification paragraphs. Provides clarification on payback, project and property related to PRC 26240(h)(1). 34 Also provides web link to CDE s current audit guide booklet. Page 2

81 Proposition 39 Guideline: Substantive Changes Topic Guideline Revision Issue Page # Energy Expenditure Plan Implementation Changes Deleted Relocating an energy measure to a different school site. For example, retrofitting HVAC units at School A, when the energy expenditure plan indicated the HVAC units for School B. This will not be allowed for amendments. A new energy expenditure plan will need to be submitted to the Energy Commission if an energy measure is relocated to a different school site. 35 Contracts Added clarification language. Added clarification that the no sole source applies to all Proposition 39 program award funding, including energy planning funds. 36 Added Reference to PCC Section Public Works Project Award Notification and Payroll Reporting Removed original section and replaced with updated section. Provides updated information and clarification on current Department of Industrial Relations requirements Appendix B: Energy Savings Calculators Removed original Appendix B: Energy Savings Calculators from the Guidelines. This information is also in the Energy Expenditure Plan Handbook. B 1 Appendix D: Savings toinvestment Ratio (SIR) Calculation Revised leveraged funding that can be subtracted from the project installation cost in the SIR calculation. Removed grants and added non repayable funds such as bond funding, deferred maintenance, general operation budgets and other funds used to finance the project. D 1 Appendix F: Effective Useful Life of Energy Measures in Years Removed from Guidelines. This information is better placed in the Energy Expenditure Plan Handbook. F 1 Page 3

82 Local Education Agency Name County Code District Code School Code Date Submitted Single Or Multiple Year Number Of Schools Planning Fund Budget EEP Grant Amount Approved Date Approved Fiscal Year Report Date Acalanes Union High School District /14/2014 Multiple Year 3 $130, $897, /10/ /29/2014 Alameda County Office of Education Single Year 1 $56, $84, /18/ /29/2014 Alta Vista Elementary School District /01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $204, /27/ /29/2014 Anderson Union High School District /25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $376, /18/ /29/2014 Antelope Valley Union High School District /27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $310, $1,144, /11/ /29/2014 Big Creek Elementary School District /04/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $72, /21/ /29/2014 Big Springs Union Elementary /25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $58, /13/ /29/2014 Blackford Elementary School /01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $174, /29/ /29/2014 Bonsall Union Elementary School District /12/2014 Single Year 1 $20, $86, /08/ /29/2014 Campbell Union School District /20/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $186, /21/ /29/2014 Capri Elementary School /04/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $120, /07/ /29/2014 Castle Rock Union Elementary School District /10/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15, $28, /08/ /29/2014 Castlemont Elementary School /18/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $272, /12/ /29/2014 Cecil Avenue Math & Science Academy /17/2014 Multiple Year 1 $60, $243, /19/ /29/2014 Central Unified School District /24/2014 Multiple Year 19 $215, $3,379, /01/ /29/2014 Central Union Elementary School District /29/2014 Multiple Year 3 $0.00 $459, /03/ /29/2014 Central Union High School District /29/2014 Multiple Year 4 $130, $843, /09/ /29/2014 Chino Valley Unified School District /15/2014 Single Year 3 $335, $1,000, /02/ /29/2014 Chowchilla Elementary /04/2014 Single Year 1 $9, $81, /11/ /29/2014 Chowchilla Union High School District /04/2014 Multiple Year 1 $9.00 $293, /18/ /29/2014 Classical Academy /10/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15, $452, /26/ /29/2014 Coachella Valley Unified School District /11/2014 Multiple Year 7 $0.00 $4,638, /23/ /29/2014 Columbine Elementary School /15/2014 Multiple Year 1 $7, $172, /17/ /29/2014 Corning Union High School District /19/2014 Multiple Year 1 $60, $243, /05/ /29/2014 Del Vista Math & Science Academy /17/2014 Multiple Year 1 $58, $233, /19/ /29/2014 Delano Union Elementary School District /17/2014 Multiple Year 5 $130, $1,126, /20/ /29/2014 Delphic Elementary /13/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $30, /08/ /29/2014 Desert Sands Unified School District /05/2014 Multiple Year 7 $0.00 $6,203, /04/ /29/2014 Dixie Elementary /14/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $91, /18/ /29/2014 East Oakland Leadership Academy /18/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15, $132, /24/ /29/2014 East Whittier City School District /18/2014 Multiple Year 15 $130, $1,944, /17/ /29/2014 Escalon Unified School District /07/2014 Multiple Year 1 $126, $589, /18/ /29/2014 Escondido Charter High /27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $28, $261, /09/ /29/2014 Escondido Union High School District /02/2014 Multiple Year 3 $105, $1,556, /31/ /29/2014 Escondido Union School District /30/2014 Single Year 6 $256, $597, /05/ /29/2014 Esparto Unified /30/2014 Multiple Year 1 $60, $325, /08/ /29/2014 Eureka City Unified /23/2014 Single Year 1 $130, $24, /07/ /29/2014 Exploer Elementary /25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $10, $169, /19/ /29/2014 Forest Hill Elementary School /01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $146, /30/ /29/2014 Forks of Salmon Elementary /28/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15, $60, /25/ /29/2014 Fountain Valley School District /28/2014 Multiple Year 10 $0.00 $1,330, /06/ /29/2014 Glendale Unified School District /11/2014 Single Year 3 $359, $837, /10/ /29/2014 Grant Elementary School District /09/2014 Single Year 1 $14, $35, /03/ /29/2014 Grenada Elementary School /11/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $103, /08/ /29/2014 Hacienda La Puente Unified School District /11/2014 Multiple Year 4 $335, $5,309, /27/ /29/2014 Hanford Elementary School District /06/2014 Single Year 4 $130, $287, /18/ /29/2014 Hanford Joint Union High /24/2014 Single Year 3 $130, $158, /11/ /29/2014 Happy Camp Union Elementary School District /13/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $184, /18/ /29/2014 Heritage K /27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $31, $268, /08/ /29/2014 Hesperia Unified School District /02/2014 Multiple Year 12 $260, $4,798, /15/ /29/2014 High Tech High Media Arts /25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $10, $169, /19/ /29/2014 High Tech Middle Media Arts /25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $176, /20/ /29/2014 HighTech High International /25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15, $246, /23/ /29/2014 HighTech Middle /25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15, $246, /23/ /29/2014 Imperial Unified School District /06/2014 Multiple Year 6 $130, $706, /01/ /29/2014 Kern County Superintendent of Schools /26/2014 Single Year 5 $129, $128, /11/ /29/2014 Keyes to Learning Charter School /25/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50, $93, /23/ /29/2014 Keyes Union School District /25/2014 Multiple Year 2 $62, $120, /23/ /29/2014 La Habra City School District /28/2014 Multiple Year 2 $130, $496, /08/ /29/2014 Lake Elementary School District /21/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $149, /24/ /29/2014 Lakeport Unified School District /12/2014 Single Year 3 $0.00 $217, /27/ /29/2014

83 Lennox SD /28/2014 Multiple Year 3 $130, $1,198, /20/ /29/2014 Lennox SD - LMSTA /28/2014 Multiple Year 1 $57, $284, /12/ /29/2014 Little Shasta Elementary School District /14/2014 Multiple Year 1 $2, $27, /05/ /29/2014 Lodi Unified School District /04/2014 Single Year 8 $134, $1,220, /17/ /29/2014 Lompoc Unified School District /02/2014 Multiple Year 16 $131, $2,244, /22/ /29/2014 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT /30/2014 Single Year 2 $5,679, $4,695, /01/ /29/2014 Los Olivos Elementary Multiple Year 1 $50, $200, /28/ /29/2014 Los Olivos Elementary Multiple Year 1 $50, $253, /28/ /29/2014 Lucerne Elementary School District /27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $53, $225, /23/ /29/2014 Lynwood Unified School District /13/2014 Multiple Year 7 $0.00 $3,789, /25/ /29/2014 Marshall Lane Elementary School /18/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50, $196, /03/ /29/2014 Menlo Park Elementary School District /17/2014 Single Year 1 $75, $16, /26/ /29/2014 Milpitas Unified School District /22/2014 Single Year 2 $149, $339, /12/ /29/2014 Monroe Middle School /01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $7, $255, /29/ /29/2014 Monterey Bay County Office of Educatio - Monterey Bay Charter /24/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $97, /26/ /29/2014 Moson-Sultana Joint Union Elementary School District /01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $16, $264, /11/ /29/2014 Mt. Shasta Union Elementary School District /12/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $197, /26/ /29/2014 Nevada County Office of Education /26/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $77, /15/ /29/2014 Nevada Joint Union HSD /08/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $266, /26/ /29/2014 Newark Unified School District /28/2014 Single Year 1 $130, $28, /15/ /29/2014 Nueva Vista Language Academy /17/2014 Multiple Year 1 $62, $248, /19/ /29/2014 Oakley Union Elementary School District /10/2014 Multiple Year 7 $0.00 $1,059, /18/ /29/2014 Pacheco Union Elementary School District /25/2014 Multiple Year 2 $54, $274, /05/ /29/2014 Palmdale Elementary School District /13/2014 Multiple Year 8 $215, $4,452, /16/ /29/2014 Placer Hills Union Elementary /07/2014 Multiple Year 2 $0.00 $115, /04/ /29/2014 Placer Hills Union Elementary /07/2014 Multiple Year 1 $9, $121, /19/ /29/2014 Pleasant Ridge Union Elementary /14/2014 Multiple Year 3 $0.00 $500, /22/ /29/2014 Pleasant View Elementary /05/2014 Multiple Year 1 $58, $233, /22/ /29/2014 Redding Elementary School District /13/2014 Multiple Year 5 $130, $679, /12/ /29/2014 Reef Sunset Unified School District /08/2014 Multiple Year 7 $42, $644, /22/ /29/2014 Rialto Unified School District /18/2014 Multiple Year 1 $390, $1,357, /22/ /29/2014 Richfield Elementary School District /12/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50, $101, /15/ /29/2014 Richgrove Elementary /21/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $121, /29/ /29/2014 Riverside Unified School District /24/2014 Single Year 3 $597, $1,015, /18/ /29/2014 Rolling Hills Middle School /01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $129, /12/ /29/2014 Rosemary Elementary School /24/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $142, /29/ /29/2014 Roseville City Elementary /25/2014 Single Year 1 $58, $245, /29/ /29/2014 Santa Ana Unified School District /16/2014 Single Year 3 $819, $1,608, /27/ /29/2014 Santa Rita Union Elementary /25/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $115, /18/ /29/2014 Sausalito Marin City School District /21/2014 Multiple Year 2 $51, $163, /11/ /29/2014 Seiad Elementary School District /24/2014 Multiple Year 1 $3, $27, /18/ /29/2014 Sherman Oaks Elementary School /01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $142, /25/ /29/2014 Sherman Thomas Charter School /03/2014 Multiple Year 1 $51, $97, /11/ /29/2014 SIATech /16/2014 Multiple Year 1 $63, $328, /16/ /29/2014 Snelling Merced Falls Union Elementary /12/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50, $93, /11/ /29/2014 Snowline Joint Unified School District /21/2014 Single Year 2 $130, $228, /02/ /29/2014 Southern Trinity Joint Unified School District /30/2014 Multiple Year 2 $6, $73, /25/ /29/2014 Stellar Charter School /27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $50, $202, /25/ /29/2014 Stellar Secondary Charter High /27/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15, $61, /25/ /29/2014 Sunnyside Union Elementary /15/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $76, /15/ /29/2014 Temecula Preparatory /19/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $50, /17/ /29/2014 Temecula Valley Charter School /19/2014 Single Year 1 $0.00 $50, /18/ /29/2014 Terra Bella Union Elementary School District /04/2014 Multiple Year 3 $64, $256, /05/ /29/2014 Traver Joint Elementary /26/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $198, /18/ /29/2014 Village School /01/2014 Multiple Year 1 $6, $175, /05/ /29/2014 Vista Unified School District /06/2014 Multiple Year 25 $310, $4,773, /21/ /29/2014 Weed Union Elementary School District /19/2014 Multiple Year 1 $0.00 $100, /04/ /29/2014 Williams Unified School District /08/2014 Multiple Year 2 $115, $461, /07/ /29/2014 Willows Unified School District /09/2014 Multiple Year 2 $21, $552, /13/ /29/2014 Woodland Joint Unified /28/2014 Multiple Year 1 $15, $44, /25/ /29/2014 TOTAL 322 $14,451, $82,284,123.28

84 Thanks our Sponsors for their committment to School Energy Projects Riverside Fall Forum October 6, 2014 Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP Kathy McKee Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad, California Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP represent nearly 500 of California s educational institutions and related agencies. These institutions include school districts, community colleges, SELPAs, county offices of education and public agencies. The firm is guided by a desire to assemble the most knowledgeable and skilled attorneys in the Nation to represent our current and future clients. F3 attorneys have extensive experience in land transactions, business and facilities matters and they are recognized leaders in energy conservation and alternative energy matters. Schneider Electric Mike O Brien mike.obrien@schneider-electric.com Scenic Avenue Costa Mesa, California As a global specialist in energy management with operations in more than 100 countries, Schneider Electric offers integrated solutions across multiple market segments, including leadership positions in Utilities and Infrastructure, Industries and Machines Manufacturers, Non-Residential Buildings, Data Centers and Networks and in Residential. Focused on making energy safe, reliable, efficient, productive and green, the company s 150,000 plus employees achieved sales of 31 billion US dollars in 2013, through an active commitment to help individuals and organizations make the most of their energy.