The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/16/1991, C-5 - RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT, ADOPT RESOLUTION APPLYING TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FOR PARTICIPATION IN ITS ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM �`� Iwllll��l=l�lll City of sa i lui s oBi spo July 1 GATE u1 16, 1991 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MM NUMBER:^_� FROM: David F. Romero, Public Works Director f /� SUBJECT: Energy Conservation Program CAO RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report, adopt resolution applying to the California Energy Commission for Participation in its Energy Partnership Program BACKGROUND: At its meeting of May 21, 1991 the City Council, in response to a communication from Councilperson Penny Rappa, directed staff to bring back a resolution authorizing the filing of an application with the California Energy Commission for participation in its Energy Partnership Program. The attached resolution and application are submitted in response to that direction. Staff felt that this application presented an ideal opportunity to inform the Council of energy conservation programs taking place within the Public Works Department since the late 1970 's. Tom Harrington, Energy Coordinator for the City, has prepared the attached report giving a chronology of projects (past, present, and future) regarding the energy program. You will note that in the late 1970's, the City received the first energy audit and has had ongoing projects in one form or another since that time. Tom Harrington was hired by the City approximately 6 months ago under a 2 year contract. Projects which he is now reviewing, and proposes to conduct in the future the City, will save many times his salary in reduced energy use. Should the Council have any questions regarding any programs, please give Tom a call at 549-7220. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report, adopt resolution applying to the California Energy Commission for participation in its Energy Partnership Program. Attachments: resolution application Harrington report energy/dfr#30 RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FOR PARTICIPATION IN ITS ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM WHEREAS, SB 880 has provided funds to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for energy support to local governments through the Energy Partnership Program; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo qualifies to participate in the CEC's Energy Partnership Program; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo recognizes that assistance will allow better use of limited staff resources and expertise to deal with energy matters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby authorizes and directs the City of San Luis Obispo to file an application with the California Energy Commission for participation in its Energy Partnership Program. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1991. MAYOR RON DUNIN ATTEST: CITY CLERK PAMELA VOGES Resolution No. (1991 Series) APPROVED: City inistrative Officer Att' me c� Public Works Director energyres/dfr#29 C- S #o�3 ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM [Date CECuse only. APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE ject Number Received now AGENCY City of San Luis Obispo ADDRESS 990 Palm Street (Mailing Address) San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CONTACT PERSON Tom Harrington TITLE Energy Coordinator PHONE (805)549-7220 Applicants: A resolution from your governing board authorizing you to apply to the Energy Partnership Program must be Included with this application. Please answer the following questions clearly and succinctly. 1. What kind of assistance are you requesting, and what do you expect to accomplish using this assistance? Energy element for General Plan staff training loans technical assistance, design, consultation for ongoing programs; 250,000 - 500,000 annual XLT savings, $25M - $50M annual cost savings 2. At what stage are you? x We would like assistance in analyzing our energy options. X We have completed some analysis and would like assistance in identifying and/or comparing options. X We are developing a project and would like assistance in overcoming a barrier preventing us from moving forward. Other �. Have any studies, relevant to this request, been previously conducted? X Yes No If yes, please include a copy of all studies. Newcomb/Anderson study on file w/CEC C-S- 4. Have you implemented any of the recommendations in the studies identified in item 3? X Yes No If yes, please list the things you have done. See attachments (study on file with CEC) 5. Have you had an energy conservation audit? x Yes No If yes, please list the measures implemented and enclose a copy of the audit. See attachments (audit on file with CEC) 6. Have you had a vehicle fleet analysis? Yes g No 7. Name your electric utility. Pacific Gas & Electric Name your gas utility. Southern California Gas 8. For energy production projects, identify how you will use the energy produced by the project. Use at facility to displace energy purchases Sell to utility Sell to local industrial or institutional customer Undecided 9. Explain how you plan to provide the 25 percent match contribution for eligibility under this program. Via in place funding of current Energy Coordinator C 5�5 ►JtidOK TABLE 1.1: RECOMMENDED PROJECT SUMMARYE:: Annual Savings Simple Electric Gas Monetary Cost Payback -- (kWh/yr) (th/yr) ($/yr) ($) (yr) CITY HALL Disconnect Ballasts from 3,848 0 366 Delamped Fixtures 0 Immediate gvfle Modify Exterior 1,866 0 151 840 + 2 Light Fixtures 5.6 Install Occupancy Sensors 894 0 72 480 6.7 .w% �ULv+C9,�o FACILITY TOTAL 6,608 0 $589 $1,320 i POLICE STATION Reduce HVAC Timeclock 964 604 411 ,,D Settings 0 Immediate Increase Chilled Water 3,422 0 281 Temperature 0 Immediate Repair Economizer for the 57,545 1,599 5,598 20,070 3.6 Old Wing I CflPirnr� Convert Old Wing to VAV 38,129 6,911 6,927 45,800 7.2 gw�G2 T' q�-92 FACILITY TOTAL 100,060 9,114 $13,217 $65,870 1-2 TABLE 1.1: RECOMMENDED PROJECT SUMMARY (continued) i Annual Savings Simple Electric Gas Monetary Cost Payback (kWh/yr) (th/yr) ($/yr) ($) (yr) CORPORATION YARD Delamp Fluorescent Fixtures 3,684 0 338 0 Immediate Use Low Wattage 7,059 0 688 0 Immediate Fluorescent Lamps Modify EMS Operation 1,946 539 471 300 0.6 Install Occupancy Sensors 14,331 0 1,161 5,375 4.6 IN Replace Exterior MV Fixtures 15,637 0 1,267 6,100 4.8 p2we'5 CApITM Replace Interior MH Fixtures 10,897 0 1,160 8,930 7.7 guD42 with HPS FACILITY TOTAL 53,554 539 $5,085 $20,705 1.9 RECREATION CENTER Replace Auditorium Lights 11,970 0 1,185 3,180 2.7 1 N P90:ftS with Fluorescent Lights 412eoQbe and Install Photocell and "'7 Occupancy Sensor Control FACILITY TOTAL 11,970 0 $1,185 $3,180 I . I 1� C-5-7 TABLE 1.1: RECOMMENDED PROJECT SUMMARY (continued) Y. Annual Savings Simple Electric Gas Monetary. Cost Payback (kWh/yr) (th/yr) ($/yr) ($) (yr) y SINSHEIMER POOL Modify Operation Procedures 0 33,858 17,606 0 Immediate17 0 N 2 Replace Incandescent Fixtures 2,759 0 138 950 6.9 170 N e with HPS Fixtures Nbl Dual Flow Pumping 30,496 0 1,525 11,190 7.3 =eRS1t3C2 FACILITY TOTAL 33,255 $33,858 $19,269 $12,140 STREET LIGHTING Change in Ownership and See Section 10.0 "141 ri Rate Structure 114 PAQW5 w TRAFFIC SIGNALS u Use Energy Saver Lamps 66,226 0 4,480 0 Immediate FACILITY TOTAL 66,226 0 $4,480 $0 M GRAND TOTAL 241,177 43,511 $42,300 $92,025 u r• ■ 1-4 C-s -� ENERGY RELATED PROJECTS CITY OF SLA .fix. yywAmr.T, FACIISIY COST KWHSV S THRMS S TOTSV BATES PAYBK.<;o-?`';i;'4:#'�#;:.:;<?k?:::e: .'<:;:!:;bxti3':":.#:";i::s`:.•':x:a•M ]I)EIM BUDGE DESIGN CONTR BUILD EVALU FuuCh hvae 150,000 95,674 9,567 8,510 5,106 14.673 5,740 8 Jan91 July 91 Fall 91 Water 91 5 rng92 S rng92 0 0 0 POOL 0 0 0 filter 78,099 98,350 9,835 0 9,835 5,416 6 Jan 91 July 91 Fall 91 Water 91 Sprng 92 Sammr9 comm 1,750 0 29,358 15,766 15,266 0 Jan 91 Mar 91 Mar 91 Aril 91 Ma 91 June 91 •ozonator 26,450 (5,756) (576) 0 (526) (50) Jan 91 July9l Summr9 Smaut 92 Fall 92 Water 92 "motor 0 0 0 Summr9 July 91 Fall 91 Water 91 S rug92 Smma9 @recrot (5,056) (506) 0 (506) 0 Feb 91 Slang 91 Slang 91 Slang 91 Smmer 9 Sall 91 *P0011011 RECCIR remodel fl 3,726 373 12 0 373 3,875 (10) Jan 91 Spruix 91 Smmer9 Fail91 rh t 7 7,500 12,186 1,219 0 0 L219 L648 5 June 90 Mar 91 Aril 91 June 91 Fall 91 Water 91 CITY HAIL 0 0 0 boilermtr 280 2,730 273 0 273 163 0 Mar 91 Mar 91 Mar 91 May 91 Sumer 9 li litf 10,000 16,618 1,662 0 L662 913 5 Smmer 9 Slang 91 Smmer 9 Smmer 9 Smmer 9 Fail 91 newhall f3 0 0 0 0 0 0 CORPYARD 0 0 0 adm bl 5,375 14,331 1,433 0 1,433 859 3 Smmer 9 July 91 Smmer 9 Fail 91 Fall 91 W Water 91 mm bid 8.930 10,897 1,090 0 1,090 653 8 Smmer 9 July 91 Fall 91 Winter 91 S rag 91 Smmer 9 0 0 MARSHPARK 0 0 rewire 3000 29,779 2,977 24977 1,786 .41 Aril 91 June 91 July 91 Aug91 Aug91 Fall 91 0 0 PALMPARK rewire 2,500 35,398 3,539 3639 2,123 .10 Aril 91 June 91 July 91 Aug91 Aug91 Fall 91 STREETLIGHTS re arch 1990 TRAFFIC SIGNALS relam 0 54480 $4480 1990 1990 1990 1991 BRACKETED PROJECTS ARE THOSE RECOMMENDED IN CECMEWCOMB ANDERSON REPORT note:added energy use,but savings of 55466 annually in maintenance and chemical& note:not yet budgeted due to incomplete information tante:added energy use mimed due to early pian review f 1 norr.lighting improvement coats unknown till wort completed f2 note:thaw savings due to h, rcapec Hkely but unimown, rebates available 0 note.CEC funded eomulumt worU g on efficiency plan. C-5-� ��I IIIIIIII ►IIIIIIIIIIIIIIlpl1°�� '° II II 1 cityo san lugs oBispo 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 MEMO TO: Dave Romero FROM: Tom Harrington RE: Energy Management, City of San Luis Obispo July 2, 1991 Here is the report you requested. As you are aware, Public Works staff have been addressing the issue of energy efficiency in City facilities since the decade of the 170 's. The CHRONOLOGY section highlights those efforts. The GENERAL ENERGY USAGE section describes past and current usage and costs, and gives a general view of past, current and future use according to end use and time. The section CURRENT ENERGY MANAGEMENT adresses the major facets of exisiting and future Energy Management work to be completed by the Energy Coodinator. Attachments at the end, with explanations, give more detail to each of these sections. t� Attachments wp/[th/romeroen 6/91 C-5-10 CITY OF SAN LUIS ENERGY MANAGEMENT REPORT June 1991 CHRONOLOGY DECADE OF 701S Energy audits, employee education, monitoring usage, equipment maintenance done by Phil Leo and Lane Wilson of Public Works, working with Gas and Electric Utilities SUMMER 1979 City Hall energy analysis conducted by Farbstein associates, lighting, HVAC, insulation and infiltration heat loss improvements completed during 1979 - 1980 (att. A) SPRING 1981 Police Station analysis and recommendations by Gurries and Okamoto. Work not completed pending further studies and budgeting. Project included in 91-93 capital budget, as per completed Newcomb/Anderson report. Costs and savings shown in attachment C. SUMMER 1982 Methane generator and micro-hydro plants in place at Prado Road Wastewater Plant (120) , Whale Rock Reservoir (58 KW) , Stenner Creek Hydro (750 KW) (Average home 1-2 KW demand) SPRING 1986 City contacts League of California Cities, California Energy Commission, to initiate City's participation in Energy Partnership Program SUMMER 1987 Joint City and PGE participation in Water/Energy Conservation Program for residents. 6000 homes retrofitted with conservation devices at no charge to residents SUMMER 1987 Energy Coordinator position approved for 1987- 1989 SUMMER 1988 ENACT energy accounting program for tracking 150 City utility accounts and 100 facilities purchased and database begun by Public works staff. SUMMER 1988 City Council passes resolution approving participation for technical assistance with Energy Partnership Program .2 C-5- 11 CITY OF SAN LUIS ENERGY MANAGEMENT REPORT CHRONOLOGY, con'td. FALL 1989 Newcomb/Anderson completes major portion of audit and recommendations for City facilities with exception of Utilities department. Project cost ($35, 000 estimated) covered by California Energy commission under Energy Partnership Program SPRING 1990 Low cost, no cost recommendations from N/A report being implemented; ie. , delamping, disconnect unused ballasts, reduce. timeclock settings, capital projects included in 91-93 budget (app. B) FALL 1990 Further studies of Police Station HVAC and Sinnsheimer Pool requested of Newcomb/Anderson WINTER 1991 Energy Coordinator Position filled, two year contract; completion of Sinnsheimer Pool study in March 1991. SPRING 1991 Remaining projects outlined by Newcomb/Anderson report scheduled and budgeted. Additional Energy and cost saving projects identified and begun. See attatchments for details and timetable of current andproposed projects. (att. C) 3 C-S -1� CITY OF SAN LUIS ENERGY MANAGEMENT REPORT June 1991 GENERAL USAGE/COST BACKGROUND In 1990 the City energy costs were $ 887, 835 broken down as follows: Gas 118,505 Therms $ 68, 732 Electricity 81324, 143 KWH $ 819, 121 Charts (att. D ) show end use for electric and natural gas consumption/costs for the year ending December 1990. Historical usage and costs for the last 4 years are shown in Attatchment E. New Water and Wastewater treatment plants will potentially add 6. 16 million KWH (from Utility department figures used in SCWTP EIR proposal) to existing electrical energy consumption, a 74% increase that will cost $615, 000 annually at today' s rates. Currently accepted electric energy cost escalation rates are in the range of 5-7%. Gas rates are expected to level for the next 1-7 years. (California Energy Commission figures) 4 C-5- 13 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENERGY MANAGEMENT REPORT June 1991 CURRENT ENERGY MANAGEMENT Energy Management Plan (General Plan Element) To mitigate current and future demands, a comprehensive Energy Management Plan will be developed during the course of the Energy Coordinator's contract. (1/91 - 12/92) Projects currently underway plus new projects will be included, as well as cohesive City policy directions for Municpal and Community energy efficiency. Specific long term goals will be established with strategies for achieving those goals. Such a plan may include departmental energy budget incentives based on efficiency performance standards for each type of City facility. Performance standards for buildings are now being developed by several agencies, much like MPG ratings for cars. Pumping facilities can each be tracked in terms of KWH/MG. These and other standards will be included in the Plan. One overall goal is for the City to both model and encourage exceptional and cost-effective energy efficiency in City facilities as well as the community. Such a plan may include community based efficiency incentives in conjunction with Utilities. Fleet standards for vehicles would also likely be included. Anticipated completion of the Citywide Energy Management Plan for CAO and Council Approval is January 1992 . Drafts will be made available for review by departments, as being developed. Energy Resource Information Reporting Regular informational updates on the City's energy picture will be printed in newsletters and in management reports. Measurement and recognition of performance, reported regularly to participants and public, will be critical to the ongoing change in behaviors and technologies that will be necessary for continued success. 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENERGY MANAGEMENT REPORT CURRENT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, con'td . . . Energy Related Projects Stenner Canyon Water Treatment Plant EIR Focusing on the specific needs of the SCWTP EIR with Community Development, redefining the scope of work and list of available consultants, saved the CITY $15, 000 in consulting fees. It is likely that the remaining Consultant's fee will be offset through energy costs savings in the first year of plant operation, with continued accrued savings thereafter. Street Light Purchase Analysis Purchase of the Streetlighting system from PGE may offer annual savings to the City in excess of $50, 000. (Newcomb/Anderson Report) A financial analysis of the purchase and operation of the Street Lighting system, in view of current circumstances, is being conducted by the Energy Coordinator as part of the overall Energy Management program. Recent Successes Measurement In measuring energy efficiency improvements it is important to remember the difference between identified, estimated, and verified energy or energy cost savings. There are also energy related savings such as rate schedule changes and Utility rebates that effect costs, that can represent substantial additional Listed here are some current projects, completion date, and financial impacts: Energy efficiency savings , annual TRAFFIC SIGNAL RELAMPING, Fall 1990, verified . . . . . . . . $ 7 , 023 (app. F) SANTA ROSA PARK RELIGHTING, Spring 1991, verified . . . . 227 SINNSHEIMER POOL CONTROLLER, Spring 1991, verified. . . . $28 , 698 6 C-5- 15 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENERGY MANAGEMENT REPORT Recent Sucesses, con'td . . . Rate savinas.annual TIME OF USE METERS, Phase one, Summer 1991, estimated . $30, 000 PGE standard analysis figures used (att. H) Rebates. one time PENDING UTILITY REBATES: gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0 electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17, 042 These are applied for, approved, pending project completion. POTENTIAL REBATES: (est) gas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17, 500 electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7, 506 These are potentially available, based on planned projects, but differ in that the work must be completed first. Larger amounts may be available based on projects not yet considered. 7 C~5' 1(,7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENERGY MANAGEMENT REPORT June 1991 LIST OF ATTATCHMENTS 1979 FARBSTEIN ENERGY STUDY & RESULTS A NEWCOMB ANDERSON PROJECT SUMMARY & PROJECT STATUS B CURRENT AND FUTURE ENERGY PROJECTS DATA C ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY END USE D FOUR YEAR TOTAL ENERGY COST GRAPH E ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE F TIME OF USE ESTIMATED SAVINGS TOTALS, PHASE ONE G 8 .% w / S o k k / k � / � - q n & c z . . < m 3 / \ 2E CO o00 2 « I Cl) am � w am Q 0) 0) 0) o00) M 0) LU = @m / o0) o0) o CL SS S zww SSS 0 0 coo 000 cc = E � O \ w \ 0) C) C) � CD \ 0) � F- LU . 2 I - - - - - - - - - LL M www wuw www 2w 0 222 222 222 OQ n Q = 0 .� _ _ = _ _ = Ou E w � n � inn inn CLL CC f) $ wE u = Q Cr WX = 221 Z \ n 3 O < ¥ ZX 2 W 00z Jkw ESE LU F ` -1F 2 LU (L w 0 > M SZ Lu 0 - Lam / � ECr 22E = Qu < o CL < w LL « � w % / � � i I ¢ @ 0 CO > / w SCO / < Z] / , fn LU / W a � k � O cc > % O \ RE 3: w ww � 7 CL 2b2 CC Qe � _ _ � wO = $ � (D w II w < U) (D < � CL 0 - _ u = � kk _ = 2 Q - c-5- 0 NEWCOMB/ANDERSON H TABLE ,.1: RECOMMENDED PROJECT SU,...JIARY J 0. Q, z � w Annual Savings Simple W Electric Gas Monetary Cost Payback J Z J (kWh/yr) (th/yr) (Styr) ($) (yr) w Ow4a UaUO CITY HALL Disconnect Ballasts from 3,848 0 366 0 Immediate ✓. . �qc Delamped Fixtures •Modify Exterior 1,866 0 151 840 5.6 Light Fixtures Install Occupancy Sensors 894 0 72 480 6.7 ` FACILITY TOTAL 6,608 0 $589 $1,320 1 POLICE STATION Reduce HVAC Timeclock 964 604 411 0 Immediate �• 9 Settings a Increase Chilled Water 3,422 0 281 0 Immediate Temperature Repair Economizer for the 57,545 1,599 5,598 20.070 3.6 1 Old Wing Convert Old Wing to VAV 38,129' 6,911 6,927 45,800 7.2 1. FACILITY TOTAL 100,060 9,114 $13,217 $65,870 NOTE: 1 After further studies, an alternative recommendation, based on building requirements and savings was chosen. See attachment C. 2 Metal halide gymnasium lights chosen In place of fluorescents for safety and better light quality. Combined with fixture remodel for rear section of building; cost, $7,500, savings $1,219. See attachment C. 3 Project canceled due to new type of filter being installed, which will allow for total pump shutdown during nighttime. Cost, $78,099, savings $9,835. Additional benerd of better filtration. See attachment C. J NEWCOMB/ANDERSON W TABL, 1.1: RECOMMENDED PROJECT SL..,MARY (continued) WO aZ 5W Dow Annual Savings Simple W U N Electric Gas Monetary Cost Payback (� (kWh/yr) (th/yr) ($/yr) ($) (yr) J Z W aovu 0UJ4a UaUc J CORPORATION YARD Delamp Fluorescent Fixtures 3,684 0 338 0 Immediate %9 Use Low Wattage 7,059 0 688 0 Immediate '/ • • ,9 Fluorescent Lamps Modify EMS Operation 1,946 539 471 300 0.6 Install Occupancy Sensors 14,331 0 1,161 5,375 4.6 • ✓• 'q Replace Exterior MV Fixtures 15,637 0 1.267 6,100 4.8 • y0ee • q J Replace Interior MH Fixtures 10,897 0 1,160 8,930 7.7 with HPS y FACILITY TOTAL 53,554 539 $5,085 $20,705 1.9 RECREATION CENTER Replace Auditorium Lights 11,970 0 1,185 3,180 2.7 z ,C with Fluorescent Lights and Install Photocell and 7 Occupancy Sensor Control FACILITY TOTAL 11,970 0 $1,185 $3,180 NOTE: 1 After further studies, an alternative recommendation, based on building requirements and savings was chosen. See attachment C. 2 Metal halide gymnasium lights chosen In place of fluorescents for safety and better light quality. Combined with fixture remodel for rear section of bullding;- cost, $7,500, savings $1,219. See attachment a 3 Project canceled due to new type of toter being Installed, which will allow for total pump shutdown during nighttime. Cost, $78.099, savings$9,835. Additional benefit of better filtration. See attachment Q NEWCOMB/ANDERSON w H TABLL 0: RECOMMENDED PROJECT SUMMARY (continued) a Z 5- W W Annual Savings Simple W U N Electric Gas Monetary Cost Payback 1 j a _ (kWh/yr) (th/yr) ($/yr) ($) (yr) J Z W G. F3UW 0 LU U a C� o SINSHEIMER POOL Modify Operation Procedures 0 33,858 17,606 0 Immediate ✓ • • ,9� Replace Incandescent Fixtures 2,759 0 138 950 6.9 r • ' ,9' with HPS Fixtures Dual Flow Pumping 30,496 0 1,525 11,190 7.3 •9 FACILITY TOTAL 33255 $33,858 $19,269 $12,140 STREET LIGHTING Change in Ownership and See Section 10.0 Rate Structure TRAFFIC SIGNALS Use Energy Saver Lamps 66.226 0 4,480 0 Immediate 9' FACILITY TOTAL 66,226 0 $4,480 $0 GRAND TOTAL 241,177 43,511 $42.300 $92,025 NOTE: 1 After further studies, an alternative recommendation, based on building requirements and savings was chosen. See attachment C. 2 Metal halide gymnasium lights chosen In place of fluorescents for safety and better light quality. Combined with fixture remodel for rear section of building; cost, $7,500, savings $1,219. See attachment C. C-5—al 3 Project candled due to new type of Ater being installed.which will allow for total pump shutdown during nighttime. Cost, $78,099, savings$9,835. Additional benefit of better filtration. See attachment C. RENT AND FUTURE ENERGY PROJECTS,CITY OF SLO,1990(till) FACILITY COST SAVNGSR '€ .�,?i< RATES SCEDULE : vFM KWH S THRMS S TOTAL] I IDEN-n!IBUDGn DESIGN I BUILD IEVALUA4 POLICE - hvac 150,000 95,674 9,567 8,510 5,106 14,673 5,740 8 1 Jan 91 1 Jul -91-T-F-a-11 91 1 S�rnqz POOL filler 78,099 98,350 9,835 9,835 5.416 6 Jan 91 July 91 Fall 91 Sprng92 -Sommr;� control 1,550 47,045 28,698 28,698 0 Jan 91 Mar 91 Mar 91 May 91 June 91 'ozonator 26,450 (5,256) (526) (526) Jan 91 Jul 91 Summr 91 Fall 92 Wnter 9-7-7 motorS!EML11MnIr 91 July 91 Fail 91 Sprng 92 Smmer 9 -1- @react (5,056) .(506) (506) Feb 91 Sprng 91 Sprng 91 Smmer 91 Fall 91 #poolughts RECCTR remodel fl 3,726 373 f2 373 10,455 Jan 91 Sprng 91 S m:M:C:r 9�, rlights, 1 7500 1,)186 1,219 1,219 1,9.74 5 June 90 Mar 91 April 91 Fall 91 1 Wnter 911 CITY HALL timer 280 1,358 136 136 82 1 Mar 91 Mar 91TMar 9-1 - Smmer 911 1 lightra/scm; 1 10,000 14,924 1,492 1,492 895 6 1 Smmer 901 Sprng 911 Smmer 91 Smmer 91 newhail 0 Sprng 91 CORPYARD adm bIdX 5,375 14= 1,433 1,433 859 3 1 Smuner 901 July 91 1 Smmer 91 JF211 91 W I Water 911 ,i bIdgl2mps 8,930 10,897 1,090 1,090 653 8 1 Smmer 901 July 91 1 Fail 91 1 Sprng 911 Smmer 911 MARSHPRK 3,000 29,779 - 2,977 2,977 1,786 .41 April 91 1 June 91 July 91 Aug 9-1- FaB 91� PALMPRK 2500 35,398 3539 3539 2,123 .10 April 91 June 91 July 91 Aug 91 Fall 91 STREEILIGH 1.990 TRAFFIC SIG 2500 60,000 6,714 7,000 1990 1990 1990 1991 SROSAPRKLTS 3,184 ',1178 227 227 1.000 10 April 91 Mav91 May 91 July 91 Au 91 STADIUMLTS 38,800 17,758 1,775 1,775 1.065 21 1 F21190 1Summr91j Summr91 I Fall 9 TOU METERS 45,380 45-380 Sg 91 N/A I N/A 1 Sumr91j Ongoingl TOTALS 338,168 386.347 39,345 55,555 33,804 118,815 32 018 BRACKETED PROJECTS ARE THOSE RECOMMENDED IN CECINEWCOMB ANDERSON REPORT Snote:added energy use,but savings of 55466 annually in maintenance and chemicals. �note:not yet budgeted due to incomplete information @note:added energy use minimized due to early plan review fl note:lighting improvement costs unknown till work completed f2 note:therm savings due to beater respec likely but unknown, rebates available. f3note:CEC funded consultant working on efficiency plan. note:savings do not reflect o&m costs for labor savings ding rebates underlined,potential not note:indicates completed projects C omo0m (00) mT sMMMMm (DON N \ (0V) N(0mNN6 +3 ED G � �" .GI OOOOOOOQ O Ox 6� (DmfV)NN0) T 00 mnm --4NT (D --4 M_ 04 OM--I 7NNNN N T r. r. m r � 0 U th 42 H -a � Cf g- � tmx 0 O _ C4 A f. bLu0x (..G Z +3 � +iL0XG+} V/ y. 0 0 �, c. NOmom7n0ONMM 0 J * # 0 f 0 # * f N \ n (DN(DNNNO 0 +) ILI 9) N° ° � NO °° `D 007 .� E U N � (N(DMV)n0NWN N 0 TON (DO0 (ON m -4 u NONMU) MNN T [� ;T - V) N N N (D 0 N T - -� a0 � Q U a U Q Ccs Z -P� -P 11 0lx 0� W 3 4 3 H D_D_D_O D ...� (NDNO) O ......._..... . .............. ...... _ ... _...._...... .. _.._. _ . ._. _... .......__...._... ..__ .. .._. ........ — _.... .._.._..... .__ _. (8 U) T (D O E N -4mm cD l.. . . . . . a o 0. U °o F" Q: d (� th F-4 �► F4 r+ bf x O W aLOZ30- 0 H mMWT x . 0 a nm (DT (D d InmOT m U N ofMMN m •-+ (D 0 M ;V O °om m �. O .. U Fes. as w -P O U) E H r-4rn x a 060 Z Or-441 U W D-M31 i I � �I 1 O � 7 I.J 0 O V) 0 d co O U 0 O 7 (7) 0 0 0 0 0 w T N O 0� Ao .� � eacn � E c-s-as w .a T [Z Z W a Md C4 > O z ww � � r� Z � wzw own o c¢i� ZC] 1�nLlC✓ LT. x. n [. Ca UUU ACCOUNTS FOR CHANGOVER TO TOU(A 11) Phase L March 1991 ACI'#/LOC PEAK PART OFF TOTAL COST/NOW COST/IOU PG INS VE wbv 7927501 S 500 5000 3224 $ ? ' MDWPRKLT CS 545 415 180544 3 676'::<'' } 1466.044 my 24H491 W 0 7500 6500 CS 465 351 s# {1Gq?R xbv 8266301 S 0 3000 10000 :«< MSPLAZALT CS 0 249 560 <'??7 {i 4 >' 1793568 my 8D5507 W 0 5000 12492744 CS 310 674.5688 3$ xbv 8637301 S 0 10000 5000 € ;>>:3tl40€ SINNSTDML CS 830 280 2891.404 mtr T87437 W 0 20000 1OV-6 CS 1240 541.4047b' .................... xbv 8637201 S 0 4000 3000 SINNSOBAL CS 332 168 "`Er3U5>0 <. 1283.064 mtr 721927 W 0 8000 5316 'xf33 ' CS 496 287.064flG' ybv 9960601 S 0 4000 SROSASOBA CS 332 448 7 '> 43 <>„?€; 1035 my 58828T W 0 1500 3000 :r' d�1E1 CS 93 162 '>'3 " x: ................. 9523951 S 5000 10000 65000 ; .............. PALMPRKL CS 545 830 3640 r>72(1> '> > $41?4<` < 10251 mtr62868T W 0 20000 74000 CS 0 1240 3996 z<a7A4>>i .................... xbv 4316211 S 4000 12000 65000 i; 81#lOEf;€; MARSHPRK CS 436 996 3640 10578 mtr R91226 W 0 20000 79000y fX .................... CS 1240 4266 kbv 8058001 S 69998 77776 241106 WASTEPLT CS 7629.782 6455.408 13501.94 ;3&i9J° 47269.288 mtr 38T733 W 0 139384 204451 €;:;;:3835:>i'. CS 8641.808 1104035 ................... kbv 8057541 S 23064 28830 63426 „aI53?A>: CORPYARD CS 2513.976 2392.89 3551.856 ' 15$ > t1 15826.914 mtr 30..M W 0 57564 70356 2D>< CS 3568.968 3799 224 1+3 ybv 9982201 S 113287 92506 113287 ?i i I.............. POLICE CS 12348.28 7675786344.072 <8 $ "�`: <<>S#>15Gt 40204353 my T43950 W 0 89000 154000 a......t ” CS 5518 8316 '3888i' TOTALS CS €>' 7Tt3 132598.635 SAVINGS 45380525 PROPOSED PGE SAVINGS ESTIMATE,$30,000 Cay �M� G C 's c 7