Lccc Campus Strategic Energy Plan Presentation 120408

Lorain County Community CollegeIntegrated Pre-Feasibility Assessment Campus Strategic Energy Master Plan

Preliminary RecommendationsBoard of Trustees Workshop

Elyria, OH5th December 2008

Garforth International llcEnergy Productivity Solutions

© Garforth International llc

Campus Strategic Energy Plan Core Team Structure

Global Perspective – Local ExpertiseGlobal Perspective – Local Expertise

Garforth International llcEnergy Productivity Solutions


New Global Energy RealitiesGrowing Impacts on USA

Highest energy prices in history Sustained volatility with upward trend Globalizing prices

Dependence on imports US – Oil (70%) and natural gas (16%) EU – more than 50% of all energy

Concern over climate change Global regulatory framework emerging Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill narrowly defeated – 2009? Uncertainty over compliance costs or opportunities

Underinvested North American energy infrastructure Electricity grid Rail for coal transport Natural gas terminals

China and India major new energy customers Major impacts on primary fuel prices

Trigger events – blackouts, hurricanes, tornados ….Fundamentally different from pastFundamentally different from past


Perfect Energy Storm When fears collide…

Growing awareness – Growing OpportunityGrowing awareness – Growing Opportunity

Rising PricesRising Prices AvailAvailability

Climate ChangeClimate Change


What we pay for What we pay for Gas, Electricity,Gas, Electricity,

Petrol....Petrol....

Energy weEnergy weuseuse

Energy weEnergy wewastewaste

11% of World GDP11% of World GDP

Global Cost of Energy

$ 7.0 Trillion$ 7.0 Trillion

USA about $2.0 Tn (14% of GDP)


Energy ProductivityUS Total Energy Costs ~ $2 Trillion

*Various US/EU Sources – 2006 sources

Key to Competitiveness Key to Competitiveness and and SecuritySecurity

Region Population GDP Energy Energy/Capita

Energy/GDP

USA 4.6% 25.9% 20.5% 100 100EU 7.5% 31.1% 15.9% 47 65

Japan 1.9% 8.1% 4.6% 54 72China 20.0% 6.1% 15.0% 17 312India 17.1% 2.0% 4.7% 6 291World 100% 100% 100% 22 81


Total US Energy Use

Source: US DoE EIA

Buildings38.7%

Industry33.25%

Transport27.79%

Coal

Gas

Domestic Oil

Import Oil

Uranium

Renewable

Homes

Commercial

Industry

Transportation

Buildings largest energy consumerBuildings largest energy consumer


Effectiveness by SectorHow well do we use our energy?

Most energy lost in range of inefficiencies Only 5% to 15% used productively

Major potential for efficiency gains!Major potential for efficiency gains!*Indicative ratio of US average to global best practice

Sector EnergyShare

Energy Use IndexUSA/EU

Industry 33% 1.2

Buildings* 39% USA 2.5CALIF 1.8

Transportation* 28% 1.4


Lorain County Community CollegeCampus Strategic Energy Plan

Improve energy efficiency Reduce impact of future energy pricing Improve energy supply reliability Flexibility to grow with the anticipated build-out Flexibility to add new technologies as they emerge Minimise direct and indirect greenhouse gas creation Role model for Students, Community and Ohio Exceed requirements of Ohio House Bill 251 Long-term horizon through 2030 Final report & presentations within agreed timeline Potential new academic programmes based on

energy productivity and climate change mitigation

Wider perspective than HB 251Wider perspective than HB 251

Agreed ObjectivesAgreed Objectives


Campus Strategic Energy PlanRecommendations vs Working Goals

Energy efficiency gain Working target 30% Preliminary Recommendation 37%%

50% Greenhouse gas reduction Working target 50% Preliminary Recommendation 39%

Internal Rate of Return Working target >15% Conservative Price Scenario 7.6% Climate Risk Price Scenario 14.7%

2007 Energy Costs $ 1,717K2007 Energy Costs $ 1,717KCarbon FootprintCarbon Footprint~ 19,600 MT Campus Ops~ 19,600 MT Campus Ops

Culture of Continuous ImprovementCulture of Continuous Improvement


Lorain County Community College2007 vs 2004 Energy Overview

2007 relative to 2004 Electricity use 9.1% higher Gas use 6.3% lower Electricity cost 18% higher Gas cost 20% higher Total indexed energy use 2.3 % lower

First Energy price freeze ends 2008

Utility used 2004$K

2004kWhe

2007$K

2007kWhe

2014kWhe Target

Gas $ 507 20,609,535 $ 609 19,330,432 NA

Electricity $ 947 12,635,513 $ 1,108 13,821,165 NA

Total $ 1,454 33,245,048 $ 1,717 33,151,597 NA

Index / ISO $17.33/m2 384 kWhe/m2 $19.37 /m2 375 kWhe/m2 307 kWhe/m2

Index / US $1.61/ft2 125,561 Btu/ft2 $1.80/ft2 118,865 Btu/ft2 100,449 Btu/ft2

Carbon Footprint 19,600 Metric TonsCarbon Footprint 19,600 Metric Tons


LCCC Energy Use BenchmarksAustrian and Ohio Colleges

LCCC total energy index 375 kWhe/m2/year 79% higher than Austria average

Terra Community College 285 kWhe/m2/year 24% less than LCCC

Lakeland Community College 377 kWhe/m2/year 1% higher than LCCC

Owens Community College 438 kWhe/m2/year 17% higher than LCCC

Substantial Energy Efficiency PotentialSubstantial Energy Efficiency Potential

Lorain County CC

ElectricityHeat

Average


Campus Strategic Energy Plan FrameworkFrom Application to Fuel

Questions “How much energy do I need?” “Which renewable energy choices are viable?’” “Is on-site cogeneration a good choice?” “How can I team with the existing grid?” “What is best balance of investment in efficiency and

supply?” “How might these choices change in the future?” “What is impact of possible greenhouse gas regulation?”

Application Buildings Distribution Conversion Fuel

Decision Basis for Integrated Energy PlanDecision Basis for Integrated Energy Plan


LCCC Campus overview

Buildings from 1966 to 2008 Networked heating and cooling

for most buildings New Library islanded building No centralized automated

building management system Limited scheduling and

occupancy management No sub-metering for gas or

electricity Significant plug loads likely


Building Management System and MeteringGain Campus-wide Control

Recommend immediate installation in 2009 Integrates all Control Systems

Heating, cooling, air handling, lighting etc Systematic energy optimization Sub-metering across entire campus Extensive reporting capability Schedule and weather management

Transparency of energy use Communication and data basis to engage

staff, students and faculty

Prerequisite for all other optionsPrerequisite for all other options


Evaluating energy needsEight Buildings Modeled in Detail


Current BuildingsIdentifying Efficiency Opportunities

Base year 2007 Base & Efficient cases done for key buildings

AT – Nord Advanced Technology Center BU – Business Building PE – Physical Education Building LR – Multipurpose Center SC – C. Paul Stocker Humanities & Fine Arts Center SP – John A. Spitzer Conference Center UC – University Center PS – Physical Sciences Building

Other Buildings prorated by type/age/use Recommendations

Efficiency retrofits Efficiency investments Energy performance standards for new buildings


Building EfficiencyMany Opportunities Identified

Building operation Heat and cool areas only when needed Pre-condition areas according to weather Night and low-occupancy set back of thermostats Only light occupied areas Utilize daylighting wherever feasible Manage exterior lighting for real usage patterns Reducing miscellaneous electrical loads

Building Structure Roof insulation Reduction of thermal bridges Selective window replacements Reduce unwanted air infiltration

Improved control and metering is a MustImproved control and metering is a Must


Typical Efficiency Measures Examples from multiple buildings

Upgrade roof insulation to at least R25 Eliminate thermal shorts in roof

structure and window sills Selectively replace windows Install occupancy sensors Implement daylighting control in

atrium, corridors, classrooms, labs… Realign and repair doors to reduce

infiltration Selectively add vestibules to high

usage doors Reduce plug load with staff/student

awareness program Manage heating, cooling and lighting

according to scheduled needs

Behavioral and Investment BasedBehavioral and Investment Based


Establish BaselineExample – University Center

Develop Energy End-Use Profiles Develop Energy End-Use Profiles

End UsesEnd UsesNeedsNeeds

SeasonalSeasonalPatternsPatterns

Spot anomaliesSpot anomaliese.g. high plug loadse.g. high plug loads

EnergyEnergyIndexesIndexes

http://www.greenmountaincoffee.com/Keurig/Keurig-B40-Single-Cup-Brewer


Base-to-Efficient Case ComparisonEnergy End-Use

Energy efficiency increased by 37% Energy efficiency increased by 37%

Seasonal DemandSeasonal Demand

Base CaseBase Case Efficient CaseEfficient Case

BaseLine Case: Campus Consumption Simulated

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

5000000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months

kWhr

equ

ival

ent

Hot WaterSpace Heat Nat GasArea LightsTask LightsMisc. Equip.Pumps & Aux.Vent. FansSpace Heat ElectricHeat Reject.Space Cool

Energy Efficient Case: Campus Consumption Simulated

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

5000000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months

kWhr

equ

ival

ent

Hot WaterSpace Heat Nat GasArea LightsTask LightsMisc. Equip.Pumps & Aux.Vent. FansSpace Heat ElectricHeat Reject.Space Cool


New Buildings and ExpansionsMinimum Energy Efficiency Standards

Recommended Building Code Equal or better than California Title 24 (2005) Similar to EU 2001 Energy Efficiency in Buildings Directive

Typical energy performance 150 kWhe/m2/year ~ 47,566 Btu/ft2/year 60% over baseline

Typical heating demand 75 kWhe/m2/year ~ 23,783 Btu/ft2

66% over baseline ~ 40% over efficient case Typical electrical demand

75 kWhe/m2/year ~ 23,783 Btu/ft2

38% over baseline ~ 16% over efficient case

Aim should be to exceed these levels Aim should be to exceed these levels


Energy Supply and DistributionMultiple Choices Evaluated

Energy Distribution Steam only Islanded buildings Upgrade heating network

Steam to hot water Extend to new buildings and

LC and SP Upgraded cooling

On-Campus Generation Combined heat and power

Engines Turbine

Existing gas boilers Biomass heating Solar Photovoltaic Wind energy


Energy DistributionPossible Expansion and Conversion to Hot Water


Steam to Heat Conversion Efficient and Simple

Why convert? Reduced heat losses Reduced maintenance costs Enables use of higher efficiency heat generation including

combined heat and power generation Installation alternatives

Heat pipes in the tunnel Heat pipes buried directly in the ground - preferred

Other Additional Measures Heat exchangers on existing boilers for mid and peak load New Substations in individual mechanical rooms Replacement of steam to air pre-heaters - acceleration of

planned measures Installation of gas-fired engine (CHP) in the boiler house


Options Assessed and Rejected

Wind power generation Poor wind quality Low economic returns Include for educational or outreach reasons

(engineering already planning small unit) Solar Photovoltaic

Poor sun quality Very low economic returns Could include for educational or outreach reasons

Extensive Wall Re-insulation Unacceptable returns

Geothermal Heating and Cooling Not cost effective on existing buildings Could be integrated in future to campus heating

Ice Storage Unattractive due to current low electricity costs Supplementary peaking chiller for Spitzer/Stocker

recommended

Should be regularly reassessed Should be regularly reassessed


Scenarios evaluatedInvestments in $ 000’s

BMS / Meters implemented in 2009 Upgrades of College Center included in Base Case except Roof Building Efficiency measures phased from 2009 to 2013 CHP / Biomass plus Steam implemented in 2010 CHP / Biomass plus Hot Water implemented 2012 Scenarios 7-9 include $250K for additional steam to hot water coil

conversion

# Scenario BMS Meters Efficiency DH Net CHP Biomass Totals

1 Base Case

2 Gain Control 1,485 270 $1,755

3 Add Efficiency 1,485 270 6,400 $8,155

4 Turbine + Steam 1,485 270 6,400 1,100 $9,255

5 Biomass + Steam 1,485 270 6,400 1,890 $10,045

6 Biomass/Abs + Steam 1,485 270 6,400 2,080 $10,235

7 CHP Engine + HW 1,485 270 6,650 1,170 840 $10.415

8 Biomass + HW 1,485 270 6,650 1,170 1,760 $11,335

9 Biomass/Abs + HW 1,485 270 6,650 1,170 1,985 $11,560


Analysis ResultsConservative Scenario

3 to 9 meet HB 251 efficiency requirements None meet 15% IRR Hurdle 5 through 9 approach greenhouse gas goals

Is there another picture? Is there another picture?

# Scenario Invest$M

NPV$M

IRR%

CO2 MT

CO2 % reduce

1 Base Case 19,600

2 Gain Control $1.755 $1.14 9.8% 16,800 20%

3 Add Efficiency $8.155 $2.08 7.9% 13,900 28%

4 Turbine + Steam $9.255 $0.62 6.0% 13,600 29%

5 Biomass + Steam $10.045 $0.99 6.5% 11,700 40%

6 Biomass/Abs + Steam $10.235 ($0.32) 4.8% 11,400 42%

7 CHP Engine + HW $10.415 $2.43 7.6% 12,000 39%

8 Biomass + HW $11.335 $0.07 5.3% 11,500 41%

9 Biomass/Abs + HW $11.560 ($1.52) 3.7% 11,200 43%


Assumptions for Financial Assessment “Climate Risk” Scenario

Electricity gains 10%in 2009 then 8 % per year Gas increases by 7% per year CO2 allowances (NAIM Mid-Estimates)

2009 $ 8.00 2012 $ 32.22 2030 $143.95

Biomass Zero carbon fuel of choice – hits $20/MWh in 2009 Price increases by 10% per year

CHP electricity is net metered Follows electricity retail pricing

Discount rate remains 5.25%

Many anticipate even greater impactsMany anticipate even greater impacts


Analysis ResultsClimate Risk Scenario

3 to 9 meet HB 251 efficiency requirements 2,3 and 7 approach 15% IRR Hurdle 7 has attractive returns and greenhouse gas reductions

Recommendation Basis Recommendation Basis

# Scenario Invest$M

NPV$M

IRR%

CO2 MT

CO2 % reduce

1 Status quo 19,600

2 Gain Control $1.755 $5.05 18.5% 16,800 20%

3 Add Efficiency $8.155 $9.37 14.2% 13,900 28%

4 Turbine + Steam $9.255 $10.03 13.6% 13,600 29%

5 Biomass + Steam $10.045 $10.57 13.8% 11,700 40%

6 Biomass/Abs + Steam $10.235 $9.08 12.7% 11,400 42%

7 CHP Engine + HW $10.415 $13.89 14.7% 12,000 39%

8 Biomass + HW $11.335 $10.00 12.5% 11,500 41%

9 Biomass/Abs + HW $11.560 $8.40 11.4% 11,200 43%


Investment Cash Flows

Conservative Climate Risk

Control Control and and

EfficiencyEfficiency

Hot water DHHot water DHwith CHPwith CHP

-4,500,000 US$

-2,500,000 US$

-500,000 US$

1,500,000 US$

3,500,000 US$

5,500,000 US$

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Total Investment Annual service costsBMS Accompanying management and energy saving promotion Energy savings

IRRNPV $2,080,000

7.9%

-4,500,000 US$

-2,500,000 US$

-500,000 US$

1,500,000 US$

3,500,000 US$

5,500,000 US$

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Total Investment Annual service costsBMS Accompanying management and energy saving promotion Energy savings

IRRNPV $9,370,000

14.2

-4,500,000 US$

-2,500,000 US$

-500,000 US$

1,500,000 US$

3,500,000 US$

5,500,000 US$

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Total Investment Annual service costs Accompanying management and energy saving promotion Energy savings

7.6%IRRNPV $2,430,000

-4,500,000 US$

-2,500,000 US$

-500,000 US$

1,500,000 US$

3,500,000 US$

5,500,000 US$

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Total Investment Annual service costs Accompanying management and energy saving promotion Energy savings

14.7IRRNPV $13,890,000


Creating an Energy Efficient Culture

Establish Staff-Student Energy Programs Very low cost efficiency opportunity Basis for continuous improvement Examples to reduce energy use

Personal space heaters, refrigerators and fans Vending machines Computer lab equipment Turning off lights! Using available daylight Plan schedules with energy use in mind Commuting …..

Extend to include recycling?Additional 5% to 10% Efficiency Gain!Additional 5% to 10% Efficiency Gain!


Preliminary RecommendationsEnergy and Climate

Total Investment - $10.4 M from 2009 to 2013 BMS, Meters and Building Measures Convert Steam network to hot water Extend to Spitzer Conference Center and new buildings Install 2 x 300kW CHP engines Mothball / eliminate one steam boiler

Active energy management Scheduling and occupancy Weather predictive management Staff/Student engagement Visible, frequent communication and reporting

Recognize educational opportunity Design installations with outreach in mind Add visible elements to initial budget Consider LED street lighting and signage Explore changed curriculum

Prepare for Climate Legislation Register 2004 - 2007 baseline with The Climate Registry


Campus Strategic Energy Plan2014 Indications Exceed HB 251

Efficiency and Financial Indications Energy efficiency gain ~ 37% Greenhouse gas reductions ~ 39% Internal Rate of Return (IRR) ~ 8% to 15%

Basis for new academic programs Potential for wider community engagement

Culture of Continuous ImprovementCulture of Continuous Improvement


Thank you!