IT STARTED WITH A“PHONE CALL”

IT STARTED WITH A “PHONE CALL”• Early 2009, it all started with a discussion with Ms. Donna Frett-Gregory• Introduced her to the concept of Energy Services Companies, (ESCO) and

Performance Contracting.• Used “buzz words” like;

– No Risk….– No cost assessment…– Paid for from savings….– Single source responsibility….– Guarantees, Guarantees and more Guarantees……– Positive Cashflow…..– Gov’t keeps excess savings…..– Local participation– Economic Development Opportunity– Enhancing the learning environment……– TRUST ME!!!!!!!

2

IT STARTED WITH A “PHONE CALL”

• Ms. Gregory’s response “YEA RIGHT”…..• Actually she said “we have to get this done”• DOE gave us a commitment to provide;– Information, Resources and access to facilities to start

Phase 1 of our discovery effort.

• Mid 2009, ESG received a letter from DOE asking WAPA to release utility information to our team for a “utility analysis”

3

4

IT STARTED WITH A “PHONE CALL”

• Upon conclusion of this high level “Utility Analysis” we proceeded to Phase 2, “Technical Analysis”.–Mobilized team of Energy Engineers to assess

the physical conditions of the facilities.– Site conditions confirmed that energy related

improvements could be provided thru a cost effective approach

5

IT STARTED WITH A “PHONE CALL”• Lighting systems were primarily;

• Inefficient fluorescent• High Intensity Discharge (HID)• Incandescent lamps• High Pressure Sodium exterior• Switching was manual• Most exit signs were converted to LED

• Plumbing fixtures were primarily;• Toilets, some used up to 4gpf• Urinals, over 1gpf• Hand and Kitchen sinks, mostly without aerators or touch buttons• Showers, some used most not.

• Other observations;• AC inefficient, bldg envelope not sealed, renewables not active, No bldg controls,

inefficient domestic hot water, Roofs, Insulation, transformers, Computer Power mgmt.

6

Executive Summary• Master Energy Services Agreement (MESA)

– Authorized November 19, 2010

• Task Order Schedule (TOS) No. 01– Letter of Agreement Dec 17, 2010– TOS No. 01 authorized January 21, 2011 – Energy conservation improvements in 11 Dept. of Education schools– $6.8M investment, financed 100% thru ARRA funds– $1,088k in Annual Guaranteed energy savings

• TOS No. 01– Total estimated energy savings at 2.7M kWh and 5.9M Gallons per year – Effective payback of 6.0 years– Started work on March 24, 2011 – All work completed and accepted on November 17, 2011 – M&V reports show positive savings above original estimates

7

Executive Summary

• Task Order Schedule (TOS) No. 02 – Letter of Agreement Authorized March 31, 2011– TOS No. 02 authorized Feb 21, 2013– Energy conservation improvements in 34 Dept of Education facilities.– $10.8M investment, Bond financing– $1,069k in Annual Guaranteed energy savings

• TOS No. 02 – Total estimated energy savings at 3.6M kWh and 6.7M Gallons per year – Effective payback of 5.8 years – Started work on May 15, 2013 – STT and STJ fully completed October 30, 2013 (turnover training held November 12th)– STX completion date expected March 2014

• Combined– 6.3M kWh and 12.6M Gallons of water per YEAR

8

Utility Rates

Phase 1 - M&V savings report calculations use the contracted baseline rates or the current actual utility rates whichever is higher.

9

Baseline Rates Current RatesElectricity $ .2914 per kWh $0.5500 per kWhWater $27.50 per kGal $32.70 per kGal

First Guarantee Year Savings

EnergyTOS #1Guaranteed Energy Savings $1,088,884.00Savings Report – Energy Savings,(Actual) $1,261,664.00Savings Report – Construction Period Savings $195,280.00Savings Report Total

TOS #2 Guaranteed Energy SavingsKWH = 3,666,150Gallons = 6,782,000

$1,456,944.00

$1,694,429.00

10

How do We KnowLighting Retrofit

Phase 1 -Baseline data was established and agreed to for relevant parameters. As examples, occupancy numbers and hours of operation were established for the schools, and manufacturer’s data was used to establish the operating characteristics of the different fixture types. As validation, ESG collected pre and post-construction electrical readings. The results of the M&V savings report analysis show that the energy savings for the lighting retrofits over the course of the first full year of operation is as follows.

TOTAL kWh Guaranteed – 2,783,213

Actual kWh Achieved – 2,820,081

11

How Do We KnowWater Retrofit Calculations

Phase 1 Baseline plumbing data was established and agreed to as part of the contracted energy savings calculations. As examples, occupancy numbers, hours of operation, and the annual number of flushes (uses) for each school were established. The results of the M&V savings report analysis show that the water related energy savings over the course of the first year is as follows:

Guaranteed Gallons – 5,952,389

Actual Gallons Saved – 6,293,389

12

Government of the Virgin IslandsDepartment of Education

Economic Development and Work Force Development• Local Spending, approximately 40% to 45% :

– Employee salaries and wages– Taxes, (GRT) Permits– Contract supply purchases– Housing/Warehousing– Food– Contractor infrastructure

• Job creation, 27 FTE’s • On the job training for both installation and post construction for maintaining the

systems. Training is video recorded for new employee orientation and refresher courses.

• Created intern positions for UVI students to be involved for validating the savings.• We remain committed to the long term success of the Governors commitment to

job creation and the reduction of fossil fuel dependency by 60% by 2025

13

For consideration - Phase 3

14

• High Efficiency Air Conditioning• Energy Management System• Solar Domestic Hot Water Heaters• Solar PV• Computer Power Mgmt System

• ECONOMICS = $80M investment, $11.5M in annual savings, 7 yr. simple return

• Annual cashflow of $2M

Has the program been a success?

September 2012 a Survey was sent to the Principals of the TOS 01 schools. Primary question “Would you recommend the VIEO continue this program”?

– Woodson Mr. Hewitt = Project has been extremely positive, security cameras can see areas better at night because of new lights. Teachers feel safer.

– Lockhart Elementary Ms. Sarauw = The staff is extremely pleased. The rooms are bright and they like the fact of not turning the light switches on and off.

– Lew Muckle, Ms. Wilson-Williams = Yes, a successful program– CAHS, Joel Buchanan = Yes, Definitely. Real potential towards the contribution of

green systems and energy efficiency– EBO, Dr. Lois Hassell-Habtes = I definitely recommend this program continue for the

betterment of the learning environment for the children of the Virgin Islands– BCB, Mr. Carver Farrow = Most definitely, Highly recommend.

15

Thank you!