Successful Small Projects Using ESPC ENABLE: Case Studies … · 2017-08-29 · SoCal ESPC ENABLE...

Tampa Convention Center • Tampa, Florida

Successful Small Projects Using ESPC ENABLE: Case Studies from US Forest Service Region 5

Selecting a Contracting Vehicle

Lara Y. BuluçUSDA Forest Service

August 15, 2017

Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve2

Session Overview

Background & Drivers

Case Study #1: SoCal ESPC ENABLE Project

Case Study #2: Off-Grid ESPC ENABLE Project

Common Themes & Lessons Learned



#1. Like many land management agencies, the Forest Service is highly decentralized and operates primarily in rural locations.



#2. U.S. Forest Service Region 5 includes roughly 3,300 sites and 5,000 facilities. Of these, 18 (0.4%) are “Covered” and 98 (2.0%) are High Performance Sustainable Buildings (HPSBs).

Facility Type Definition Ownership Evaluation/ Assessment

“Covered”Meaning covered

under EISA

Facilities in USDA using top 75% of all

building energy

Owned or FS pays utilities

directly

Energy and water evaluation every 4 years

High Performance and Sustainable Buildings Eligible

(HPSB)

5,000 GSF and greater

(or uses 45,000 BTU/GSF annually)

Owned or leased

Assessment every 5 years

All other facilities, FA&O and Recreation

— Owned or leased

Condition survey every 5 years



#3. EO 13693 (Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade) substantially increases requirements for facility efficiency.

At least 25% of building electrical and thermal energy will be clean (renewable and alternative) by 2025

At least 30% of building electric energy will be renewable by 2025

Reduce potable water consumption intensity by 36% by 2025 (2% per year)

Starting in 2020, all new buildings >5000 GSF will be designed to “achieve energy net-zero and, where feasible, water or waste net-zero” by 2030



#4. Increased efficiency and installation of renewable energy aligns with the agency’s safety journey and emphasis on resiliency.

Fuel purchase and delivery costs will be reduced, as will the environmental risks associated with fuel delivery to remote locations and storage of fuels at remote sites which are not always

manned year-round.

Renewable energy systems will eliminate the need for running

inefficient and breakdown-prone generators.

Expand the use and knowledge of how to efficiently, economically, and securely operate renewable energy systems at

remote locations for increased sustainability and operational flexibility.


Case Study #1: SoCal ESPC ENABLE

Location: San Bernardino and Los Padres National Forests

9 sites 63 facilities

102,770 Square Feet

Type IV or Type V

Construction (1920s – 1980s)

Energy Exchange: Connect • Collaborate • Conserve

SoCal ESPC ENABLE project overviewNet Energy Metering (NEM) Aggregation allows a single customer with multiple meters on the same property, or on adjacent or contiguous properties, to use renewable generation (e.g. solar panels) to serve the aggregated load behind all eligible meters.

The ground mounted PV system at Lytle Creek Ranger Station will be sized to exceed the electricity demands of the facilities located at the Lytle Creek Ranger Station site.

The excess energy produced by this PV system will be used to offset the electricity usage of other Forest Service facilities located miles away from Lytle Creek.

The Lytle Creek RS PV system is sized to offset the electricity demand of 26 additional SCE accounts including 2 Work Centers, 10 Fire Stations, and several campgrounds, picnic sites, and lookout towers.

Criteria: - All accounts must be owned by the same customer of record- All facilities on the agreement must be linked by contiguousproperty ownership

PV NEM Aggregation

*Proposed Layout for the Lytle Creek Ranger Station PV System



SoCal ESPC ENABLE project overviewLytle Creek PV NEM Aggregation

*Not all facilities on the Lytle Creek NEM Aggregation agreement are shown.



Project Data/Savings EstimatesData Description*** Amount

Total Energy Savings (Million BTU/year) 5,068Total Water Savings (thousands of gallons per year) 49Percent Energy Reduction (%) 83%Percent Water Reduction (%) 49%Total Dollar Value of Plug-in Equipment (Whole $) $591,531 Total Dollar Value of On-Site Renewables (Whole $) $2,079,167 Total GSF of Project 102,770Total Number of Buildings 63

Project Savings Description*** AmountCost / Benefit Ratio 0.98Discount Rate 2.49Energy Escalation Rate 2.1

***Figures Based on Final Proposal

Project Data/Savings Estimates



Final Proposal ECM Estimates

Conservation Measures

Net Estimated Cost ($)

Estimated Savings ($/yr)

Simple Payback (yr)

1 - Lighting $ 479,892 $ 62,000 7.7

2/3 - HVAC System / Controls $ 111,639 $ 22,226 5.02

4 - Solar Photovoltaic $ 2,128,330 $ 162,903 13.1

Total $ 2,719,861 $ 247,129 11.0

SoCal ESPC ENABLE project overview

Simple payback period does not include project

financing

Financing Rate = 5.1% Total Payback Period =

17 years

Task Order Award = October 2016

Project Implementation = Estimated Completion by

August 2017 (with exception of Lytle

Creek RS)

Energy savings ~2,000 MMBTU annually, a reduction of 1/3.



A Picture’s Worth 1,000 Words!



Case Study #2: Off-Grid ESPC ENABLE

• The DOE AFFECT FOA provided direct funding to U.S. Federal agencies for the development of combined heat and power or renewable energy capital projects at agency facilities.

• The total funding level for AFFECT was $5 million, with approximately $50,000 and $1 million per award.

Lewis Mill Fire Station Site VisitNovember 2013

AFFECT = Assisting Federal Facilities with Energy Conservation Technologies


• Title: Mobile Off-Grid Energy for USDA Forest Service Prototype Locations

• Project Location: Five (5) Sites on Five (5) National Forests within Region 5 (California)

• Project Budget: – Total = $2,757,384 – EERE = $850,000– Leverage Amount = $1,902,383 (69%)

• Simple Payback Period: 17 years

• Key Partners: DOE FEMP, DOE NREL, USFS WO ETG, USFS MTDC & USFS CIO


112 kW Proposed



Systematically investigate off-grid solutions

Reduction in energy costs and use

Projects intended to be prototypes (formation of inter-agency work group)

Generators account for a large percentage of the agency’s fossil fuel use at these remote locations; running breakdown-prone generators results in unpredictability of operations and costs.

With the extensive review and evaluation already accomplished, the off-grid projects are now shovel-ready. FY17 funds can be obligated towards the existing contract to cover future year payments.

Expand the use and knowledge of how to efficiently, economically, and securely operate renewable energy systems at remote locations for increased sustainability and operational flexibility.

Project Benefits


5 Forests / 5 Sites

(3 Lead-Acid, 2 Lithium-Ion)

Total Project with Financing (after Grant): $2,725, 325

Payback including Interest:

17.06 years (25 years is the

term limit)

Annual Energy, Service and

Replacement Savings:

$159,787

Annual Estimated Payment including Financing: $160,313

The DOE Grant funds ~offset the cost of financing.

Treating this as an annual payment from off-the-top funds is a

USFS R5 decision.

Final Recommended Scope



Common Themes & Lessons Learned

It isn’t easy being green…but it’s possible with committed partners.

Be curious like George & flexible like Gumby.

Look for opportunities to creatively utilize OPM (other people's money)

Crossing silos pays dividends.

Money doesn’t grow on trees…but a reduction in appropriations does not have to halt efficiency work.


Questions

Date post:	21-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Successful Small Projects Using ESPC ENABLE: Case Studies … · 2017-08-29 · SoCal ESPC ENABLE...

Documents