FREMONT UNIFIED S C H O O L D I S T R I C T Solar Feasibility - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
fremont unified
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

FREMONT UNIFIED S C H O O L D I S T R I C T Solar Feasibility - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 02, 2023 459 likes •726 views

FREMONT UNIFIED S C H O O L D I S T R I C T Solar Feasibility Study Results Vanir Construction Management, Inc. & Newcomb | Anderson | McCormick (NAM) December 13, 2017 1 Why are we here? Create energy and cost savings for Fremont

slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

FREMONT UNIFIED

S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

Solar Feasibility Study Results

Vanir Construction Management, Inc. & Newcomb | Anderson | McCormick (NAM) December 13, 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Why are we here?

  • Create energy and cost savings for Fremont USD
  • California Public Utility Commission (PUC) opportunity

that expires at the end of 2017

  • Solar systems work well at school districts
  • 126 schools serviced by PG&E have implemented solar
slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

NAM Overview

  • 30 years experience in professional energy management activities and direct program management and

technical consulting work with PG&E and other utilities statewide

  • NAM was founded in San Francisco in 2005 specifically to meet the challenge of designing and

managing statewide IOU energy efficiency partnership programs

  • 22 full-time employees, including 9 Professional Engineers (P.E.), 5 Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professionals and 1 LEED Accredited Green Associate, has the requisite in-house expertise, experience, and resources to perform all phases of renewable and advanced energy generation projects

  • Long history of energy efficiency program design, implementation, and evaluation for utilities and local

governments in California – including many of the largest and most innovative programs in the state

Who we are Who we are not

  • We are not a manufacturer or installer of solar panels
  • We do not have a vested interest in a particular manufacturer, installer or procurement method
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Case for Solar

  • Cost Benefits

– Potentially 5.24 megawatts (MW) of solar across 10 secondary sites resulting in

~$36.2 million reduced utility costs over 25 years ($58.5 million in reduced utility bills minus $22.3 million installed cost) – Energy independence with more consistent and predictable utility expenditures

– Favorable rate structure available until December 24, 2017

  • Community Benefits

– Increased community and political awareness surrounding renewable energy and sustainability – Reduced carbon footprint – Renewable curriculum can be implemented

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Assumptions

  • Solar arrays sized to offset ~ 90% of site’s annual load
  • Utility rate escalation at 3.5% every year, based on PUC historical

data

  • Predicted cumulative utility expenditure over 25 years is $77.6

million (1)

  • With solar, cumulative utility expenditure over 25 years is $19.2

million

– Solar creates $58.5 million in general fund savings

  • Assumed rate switch to solar friendly rate for all sites
  • Grandfather into current rates for 10 years

– Resulted in $6.4 million in additional savings

  • Additional assumptions in appendix

1American and Mission San Jose High load to be verified

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Incentive Programs/Funding Mechanisms

  • Opportunities for low interest loans, competitive Power Purchase

Agreements (PPAs), or state wide grants available

– California Energy Commission (CEC) Loans

  • $0.7 million, 0% interest loans as of 8/3/17
  • Approximately $1.0 million expected to be available during fiscal year

2017-2018 – Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs)

  • Low interest funds available to public entities
  • Used to pay for renewable energy projects
  • NAM has successfully obtained a CREBs award in the past

– Funding through California Lending for Energy and Environmental Needs (CLEEN) Center

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Solar Benefits Summary

System Size Annual Generation Offset Total Installed Cost Bill Savings 25-year Net Benefit kW DC MWh % $M $M Ownership 4.5% Loan PPA Centerville Jr. High 286.4 447 89% $1.2M $3.4M $2.2M $1.3M $2.0M Hopkins Jr. High 271.3 435 91% $1.2M $3.4M $2.2M $1.4M $2.1M Horner Jr. High 210.2 340 90% $0.9M $2.8M $1.9M $1.3M $1.8M Thornton Jr.High 316.2 492 92% $1.3M $3.3M $1.9M $1.0M $1.8M Walters Jr. High 187.9 306 89% $0.8M $2.3M $1.5M $1.0M $1.4M American High School 2 842.9 1,319 TBD $3.6M $9.1M $5.5M $3.1M $5.2M Irvington High School 768.2 1,247 91% $3.3M $9.5M $6.2M $4.0M $5.8M Kennedy High School 677.0 1,072 90% $2.9M $7.5M $4.6M $2.7M $4.3M Mission San Jose High School 2 898.4 1,418 TBD $3.8M $8.8M $5.0M $2.4M $4.6M Washington High School 781.2 1,246 80% $3.3M $8.4M $5.1M $2.9M $4.7M TOTAL 5,240 8,320 $22.3M $58.5M $36.1M $21.1M $33.9M

2Load data not available at American and Mission High. Assumed to be greater than solar generation; to be verified.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Cumulative Net Benefit (savings minus cost)

$36.2 M $33.2 M $21.1 M $33.9 M

  • $20 M
  • $10 M

$0 M $10 M $20 M $30 M $40 M 5 10 15 20 25 US Dollars (Millions) Year

Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Portfolio Fremont USD (5.24MW)

Ownership Loan 1% Loan 4.5% PPA

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Procurement Strategies

Panel Ownership

  • Pros

– Greatest lifetime savings

  • Cons

– Highest upfront cost for procurement and installation – Maintenance and repair performed by owner

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

  • Pros

– Lowest upfront cost – Maintenance and repair performed by vendor – Locks in utility rates for life of PPA – this will protect the District from volatility in utility rates from PG&E – Needs to analyze historical trend carefully to make PPA favorable

  • Cons

– Reduced savings compared to panel ownership – Locks in utility rates for life of PPA – this is not favorable to the District if the utility rates from PG&E are in the downtrend. – Rates are locked in with escalation

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Solar PV Procurement Process

Feasibility

(In Progress)

  • Utility Data Analysis
  • System Sizing,

Location and Type Analysis

  • Financing Options
  • Economic Modeling
  • Feasibility Report
  • Interconnection

Application

Procurement

(4 months)

  • RFP Creation
  • Site Walk
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Vendor Interviews
  • Vendor Selection
  • Vendor Negotiations

Construction (8-12 months)

  • Project Management
  • Design Review
  • Technical Oversight
  • Construction

Management

  • Project Closeout
  • Performance

Management Today

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Next Steps

  • Staff seeks directions from the Board for possible next

steps such as:

– Submit solar interconnection application – Develop RFP package to solicit bids – Identify funding options – Other

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Questions?

Thank you!

Amy C. Chiang, EIT Energy Engineer amy_chiang@newcomb.cc 415-230-8412 Kyle B. Manahan, P.E. Director kyle_manahan@newcomb.cc 415-230-8423

Newcomb | Anderson | McCormick 201 Mission Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

APPENDIX

For Additional Reference

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

NAM Experience

  • Reviewed, analyzed, developed or designed over 25,000 energy projects in over 10,000 buildings in the

past 30 years

– These projects have resulted in annual energy savings of over 300 million dollars

  • Our work developing renewable generation projects (200 MW over the last three years) for public sector

clients includes feasibility studies, economic and engineering analysis, technical review, permitting, utility interconnection, public relations, RFP development and review, site investigative field work, and subsequent construction management and commissioning

  • Provided our services to five college districts, resulting in 11.5 MW of successful solar installations
  • Assisted in the procurement and management of over $40 million in renewable construction costs for

college districts

  • Represent purchasers of renewable & self-generation systems – we have no affiliation with any system

integrators or suppliers

  • Develop projects that are economically & environmentally beneficial, supporting clients across the entire

project lifecycle

What we do

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Additional Assumptions

Solar Performance

  • Solar arrays sized to off-set ~ 90% of

site’s annual load

  • Systems’ performance was modeled

utilizing local weather data Economics

  • Loan rate equal to 4.5% with a 25-year

term

  • PPA rate (escalates 0% annually)

– $0.12 per kWh

  • Guarantee cost – guarantees 95% of

the solar bill savings payable by vendor

Solar System Assumptions Panels Trina 310W Inverters Fronius 24kW Panel tilt 7o Solar panel degradation 0.5% Useful life 25 years Total Installed Cost Construction Costs3 $3.75 per Watt Project management & contingency 8% (ownership) 5% (PPA) O&M Costs $50 per kW per year (3% annual escalation) Guarantee Costs $0.12 per Watt

3 Division of the State Architect (DSA) pre-check solutions assumed

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

American High School Solar PV

American High 843 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (2,719) Fronius 24kW Inverters (29) (5) Carports 64,000 ft2 Annual Production: 1,319 MWh Total Installed Cost: $3.6 Million Load Offset: Unknown 25-year Potential Net Benefit Ownership: $5.5 Million Loan: $3.1 Million PPA: $5.2 Million Potential General Fund Savings: $9.1 Million *Load was assumed to be greater than annual generation and in a similar profile as Irvington, Kennedy, and Washington High *System can be adjusted for added buildings

*New buildings to be added here

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Irvington High School Solar PV

Irvington High 768 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (2,478) Fronius 24kW Inverters (26) (5) Carports 55,000 ft2 Total Annual Production: 1,247 MWh Total Installed Cost: $3.3 Million Load Offset: 91% 25-year Net Benefit Ownership: $6.2 Million Loan: $4.0 Million PPA: $5.8 Million General Fund Savings: $9.5 Million

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Kennedy High School Solar PV

(7) Carports 48,000 ft2 Annual Production: 1,072 MWh Total Installed Cost: $2.9 Million Load Offset: 90% 25-year Net Benefit Ownership: $4.6 Million Loan: $2.7 Million PPA: $4.3 Million General Fund Savings: $7.5 Million Kennedy High 677 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (2,184) Fronius 24kW Inverters (23) *Layouts are preliminary and will be refined based

  • n future facility plans

(i.e. future building)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Mission San Jose High School Solar PV

Mission San Jose High 898 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (2,898) Fronius 24kW Inverters (30) (6) Carports 64,000 ft2 Annual Production: 1,418 MWh Total Installed Cost: $3.8 Million Load Offset: Unknown 25-year Potential Net Benefit Ownership: $5.0 Million Loan: $2.4 Million PPA: $4.6 Million Potential General Fund Savings: $8.8 Million *Load was assumed to be greater than annual generation and in a similar profile as Irvington, Kennedy, and Washington High *Layouts are preliminary and will be refined based on future facility plans (i.e. future play fields)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Washington High School Solar PV

Washington High 781 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (2,520) Fronius 24kW Inverters (27) (12) Carports 56,000 ft2 total Annual Production: 1,246 MWh Total Installed Cost: $3.3 Million Load Offset: 80% 25-year Net Benefit Ownership: $5.1 Million Loan (4.5% interest): $2.9 Million Power Purchase Agreement (PPA): $4.7 Million General Fund Savings: $8.4 Million *Equipment & layouts are preliminary and subject to change throughout procurement & design process

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Centerville Junior High School Solar PV

Centerville Jr. High 286 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (924) Fronius 24kW Inverters (10) (5) Carports 20,700 ft2 Annual Production: 447 MWh Total Installed Cost: $1.2 Million Load Offset: 89% 25-year Net Benefit Ownership: $2.2 Million Loan: $1.3 Million PPA: $2.0 Million General Fund Savings: $3.4 Million *Layouts are preliminary and will be refined based on future facility plans (i.e. future play fields)

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Hopkins Junior High School Solar PV

Hopkins Jr. High 271 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (875) Fronius 24kW Inverters (10) (3) Carports 20,000 ft2 Annual Production: 435 MWh Total Installed Cost: $1.2 Million Load Offset: 91% 25-year Net Benefit Ownership: $2.2 Million Loan: $1.4 Million PPA: $2.1 Million General Fund Savings: $3.4 Million

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Horner Junior High School Solar PV

Horner Jr. High 210 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (708) Fronius 24kW Inverters (8) (3) Carports 16,000 ft2 Annual Production: 340 MWh Total Installed Cost: $900,000 Load Offset: Unknown 25-year Potential Net Benefit Ownership: $1.9 Million Loan: $1.3 Million PPA: $1.8 Million Potential General Fund Savings: $2.8 Million *Layout of solar PV based on proposed new campus layout *System currently sized based on existing load; can be adjusted for new construction

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Thornton Junior High School Solar PV

Thornton Jr. High 316 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (1,020) Fronius 24kW Inverters (11) (4) Carports 22,000 ft2 Annual Production: 492 MWh Total Installed Cost: $1.3 Million Load Offset: 92% 25-year Net Benefit Ownership: $1.9 Million Loan: $1.0 Million PPA: $1.8 Million General Fund Savings: $3.2 Million

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Walters Junior High School Solar PV

Walters Jr. High 188 kW Trina Solar 310W Modules (606) Fronius 24kW Inverters (7) (2) Carports 14,000 ft2 Annual Production: 306 MWh Total Installed Cost: $800,000 Load Offset: 89% 25-year Net Benefit Ownership: $1.5 Million Loan: $1.0 Million PPA: $1.4 Million General Fund Savings: $2.3 Million *System currently sized for existing load; can be adjusted for new construction

*New buildings to be added here