HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-2018 Item 01 - Water Treatment Plant Energy Efficiency Project
Meeting Date: 4/3/2018
FROM: Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Aaron Floyd, Deputy Director Water
Jason Meeks, Water Treatment Plant Operator
SUBJECT: WATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution to consider the following:
a. Authorizing the City to enter into an agreement to participate in Pacific Gas and Electric
Company’s (PG&E) Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program for the Water Energy
Efficiency Project; and
b. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a service agreement, in a form subject to the
approval of the City Attorney, for the Water Energy Efficiency Project pursuant to
Government Code section 4217.10 et seq; and
c. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Work Order to implement the Investment Grade
Audit for the Water Energy Efficiency Project with the Work Order amount not to exceed
$860,000; and
2. Approve the transfer of $280,000 of unreserved working capital to fully fund the Investment
Grade Audit.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In support of the City’s Climate Action goals, environmental stewardship and operational
efficiency, the Utilities Department participated in an energy assessment of its water operations,
including the water supply, treatment, and distribution systems. Leveraging the successful
public/private partnership established by the City’s previous 2012 Energy Efficiency Project at
the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), the Utilities Department engaged staff from
PG&E’s Sustainable Solutions Turnkey (SST) program to evaluate the feasibility of an energy
efficiency project focused on Water Division operations that would reduce energy consumption,
optimize the control of energy-consuming systems, and generate energy on-site from renewable
sources.
PG&E’s SST program is divided into four phases.
Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program Phases Complete
1 Feasibility Discussion
2 Preliminary Energy Assessment
3 Investment Grade Audit
4 Finance and Implementation
To date, the City has participated with PG&E in the first two phases of the program at n o cost to
the City. Phase 3, the Investment Grade Audit (IGA), would provide the City further engineering
calculations and includes roughly 30 percent design of the identified projects in Phase 2.
Packet Pg 7
1
“To effectively address the immediate and long-term energy requirements of water infrastructure in urban
environments, a paradigm shift toward more sustainable management of water and energy use is critical.”
- American Water Works Association Journal, February 2018
Participating in Phase 3 would require an investment from the City of $860,000 and requires
Council approval of expenditures and an agreement with PG&E (Attachment A).
The proposed agreement with PG&E is atypical of the City’s contracting procedures defined in
Article IX, Section 901 of the City’s Charter. However, the City’s Charter, Article IX, Section
907 exempts energy projects and California Government Code Section 4217.10 et seq. allows the
City to forgo standard procurement processes for certain conservation energy projects if it finds
it best serves the City’s interest.
The City’s cost for the IGA will not exceed $860,000 and is proposed to be funded through the
transfer of funds from the appropriated Energy Efficiency project, the Water Treatment Plant
Major Equipment Maintenance account, and unreserved Water Fund working capital in order to
proceed with the Phase 3, 30 percent design of the Water Energy Efficiency Project.
The City identified Climate Action as one of its four Major City Goals in its 2017-2019 Financial
Plan. A “Major City Goal” is defined as the most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over the next two years. The key elements stated for this goal include implementing
the 2012 Climate Action Plan, assessing the requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City”
target, and implementing cost-effective measures. Documents and policies that support the City’s
participation in the SST Program include the Climate Action Major City Goal in the City’s 2017-
19 Financial Plan, policies from the General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space Element, 2012
Climate Action Plan, and the Utilities Department Strategic Plan.
DISCUSSION
Background
In 2017, the City spent over $2 million on electricity. For its
part, the Utilities Department spends approximately $1.2
million each year for electricity; one of the largest users being
the Water Division. The Water Division treats and delivers an
average of 4.9 million gallons of water each day at an annual
electricity cost of $625,000. The City Council has previously
supported actions to reduce energy usage, and associated costs,
throughout the Utilities Department. The City’s focus on
continuous improvement supports this holistic approach to
environmental and fiscal sustainability of the City’s provision
of utilities.
Inspired by information received at several conferences, trade
Packet Pg 8
1
journals, and the successes of the (WRRF) SST project in 2012, staff realized the potential to
achieve greater energy efficiency within the Water Division. An
underlying factor is the desire of staff to create sustainable
facilities within the Water Division that could showcase the
commitment to the triple bottom line as identified in the
Utilities Department Strategic Plan and aligned with the
City’s commitment to Climate Action.
Focused on putting together a project that reflected the
City’s fiscal, social, and environmental
commitment to sustainability, staff began
gathering information on ways to lower energy
costs and air pollution emissions associated with
treating and delivering water. All operations
staff were included at the origin of this project,
therefore information from a wide array of
sources and experience was brought to the
discussion table. Through extensive professional
networking, staff met with several leaders in the utilities
energy field. These meetings helped to determine what was proving most effective in meeting
the goals of sustainability in the water industry.
In July 2016, Utilities staff contacted PG&E to investigate the City’s potential opportunity to
renew participation in the SST program and other available program funds or incentives. This
action resulted in various groups touring and commenting on potential projects at the Water
Treatment Plant and Water Distribution facilities. PG&E (2016), San Luis Obispo County
Energy Watch (2017), and Southland Energy (2017) were some of the entities that performed
assessments. The information provided by this diverse group of experts allowed staff to develop
an understanding of the potential for future energy upgrades to Water Division faci lities.
Equipped with the information from the various energy efficiency evaluations, City staff and
PG&E began the process of looking for opportunities to simultaneously lower energy demands,
take advantage of energy efficiency knowledge, address aging and inefficient infrastructure, and
build upon the success realized in the 2012 WRRF project using PG&E’s SST program.
The SST program is a turn-key design, construction, and financing program which had initially
only been available to federal institutions. In 2012, PG&E was looking for an opportunity to
expand the successful program to the municipal sector through a partnership with a motivated
city, such as San Luis Obispo. The City’s 2012 WRRF project was PG&E’s inaugural
implementation of the SST program at the municipal level and has been at the forefront of this
program's successful expansion to other municipalities throughout PG&E’s service territory.
From the successful foundation established with the City of San Luis Obispo, the SST program
continues to offer turn-key energy projects for cities and Counties territory-wide. As of January
2018, PG&E has completed a master contract with the State Department of General Services
(DGS) to provide comprehensive energy services to qualifying state agencies. Notable SST
engagements include cities such as San Rafael, Santa Maria, Orange Cove and the counties of
San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 9
1
PG&E SST Program Overview
PG&E’s SST program involves a unique approach that allows streamlined solutions for
implementing energy conservation projects. The goal of the SST program is to implement energy
saving projects at facilities and use the money saved from reduced energy consumption and
operational maintenance costs to pay the debt service for the design and construction of the
project. The SST program would allow the City to finance the entire project by this method or to
pay for part of it out of existing funds and/or finance the remainder.
The SST program is divided into four phases described in Table 1. The first two phases of the
Program are provided at no cost to the participant. After each phase, participants determine if the
Program meets the organization’s objectives and a decision is made on whether to continue to
the next phase.
Table 1. Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program Outline
Public/Private Partnership
There are advantages to partnering with PG&E for an energy efficiency project. As the City’s
local energy provider, it has access to all relevant billing rate structure information and available
incentives. PG&E benefits from these projects by being able to add renewable/sustainable
projects to its energy portfolio which defers the expense of building future electricity sources.
Packet Pg 10
1
City Participation to Date
With its previous work at the federal, state and local level, PG&E has gone through a thorough
selection process to contract with experts related to the energy field. As engineering firms with
expertise in water utilities, and with a focus on energy efficiency, Southland Energy and Michael
K. Nunley and Associates (MKN), were selected by PG&E to provide the engineering services
required for these projects. In July of 2016, staff from the City initiated Phase 1 of the program
by meeting with PG&E and the project team to discuss the feasibility of partnering on another
energy project. In discussions, City staff shared their desire to meet several citywide and Utilities
Department goals and objectives (discussed in more detail later in the report), elements of the
Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan (Water Master Plan) and identified
Water Treatment Plant capital improvement projects with an energy efficiency nexus which
could be addressed as part of the evaluation process.
Based on the Feasibility Discussion (Phase 1), the City, PG&E, Southland Energy, and MKN
began Phase 2 by developing a Preliminary Energy Assessment (Attachment B) to identify the
most economical and viable energy projects for the City to undertake. The assessment process
was strengthened by the institutional knowledge of City staff from all the Utilities Department’s
Water Division facilities, the City’s Sustainability Manager, and SLO County Energy Watch.
Based on the assessments, City staff, PG&E, Southland Energy, and MKN worked together to
identify potential energy efficiency projects at the Water Treatment Plant and Water Distribution
facilities. To be considered viable, a potential project was required to meet the following criteria:
1. Projects must adhere to the concepts of being both environmentally and
fiscally sustainable.
2. Projects must target upgrades and retrofits for the Water Treatment Plant and
Water Distribution facilities that reduce energy consumption, improve the
condition of the facilities and infrastructure, and improve operational
resiliency and efficiency.
3. Projects needed to be evaluated on their impact to the entire water treatment
and distribution process, as opposed to being studied individually, so that
maximum efficiency could be realized.
4. Identify paths and solutions that move the City toward its Climate Action
goals and being a Zero Net Energy (ZNE) utility consumer.
City staff assisted in data collection for the draft Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA) and
reviewed the report for accuracy. Completed in March of 2018, the PEA identified the most
viable projects in a package type proposal. The final PEA includes 12 individual projects varying
from replacement of the primary water disinfection system (ozone generation) at the Water
Treatment Plant, installation of electricity hydro-generation on the Nacimiento Reservoir water
supply line, and the installation of photovoltaic generation sites. The majority of the projects
being considered for incorporation into the proposed Water Energy Efficiency Project have been
previously identified and budgeted for as Capital Improvement Projects as part of the 2017 -19
Financial Plan. Based on the estimated costs identified in the PEA, final project costs are
projected to be between $15 to $20 million dollars. It is important to note that not all identified
PEA projects can be expected to be included in the final proposed project list. The final list of
proposed projects will be vetted through the Triple Bottom Line and comprised of thos e Energy
Packet Pg 11
1
Conservation Measures that provide the greatest efficiencies, address failing infrastructure issues
critical to supplying drinking water to the community, and are within a cost range that can be
supported by the Water Fund.
The finalized PEA document completed Phase 2 of the SST Program. This proposal was
prepared at no cost to the City and provided a comprehensive review of potential energy
reduction strategies by experienced and highly qualified engineering firms in the utilities
industry. Typically, feasibility study costs related to any design and construction project would
be incurred by the City.
Next Steps
Participation in Phase 3 of the SST Program would involve the City entering into an agreement
and negotiating the terms of a Work Order with PG&E to fund the development of the
Investment Grade Audit (IGA). Based on the initial proposal (Attachment C) provided by
PG&E, the City’s portion of the cost for an IGA will not exceed $860,000. The overall cost of
the IGA is in line with industry standards (10 to 15 percent of project cost) related to design. The
proposal will be used to develop the Work Order which will include the final scope and the terms
and conditions for the work to be performed.
This phase of the program, and the associated costs, would provide further engineering
calculations and would include a 30-percent design of the identified projects. The IGA would be
a more in-depth evaluation of the implementation costs of the project, including utility rebates
and incentives, and potential energy savings. This part of the program is considered a partial
design and a final project proposal, a typical step in any construction project. The IGA will
require City funding to complete but does not commit the City to the final design and
construction component of the SST Program.
Once completed, the City would own the 30-percent design documents generated during this
phase, thereby creating a tool to assess the individual components of the energy project. The IGA
can also serve as a marketing tool to secure outside funding if necessary. In addition, the IGA
would provide the City with a set of documents that could be used for the energy efficiency
component of the Water Master Plan and identified Water Treatment Plant Capital Improvement
Projects should the Council elect not to continue to Phase 4 of the SST program. The IGA can be
used on a stand-alone basis or used as a comparison and value-added feature for the future design
and upgrades at the facility.
Phase 4 of the program would involve making a final decision on which of the proposed projects
to move forward with based on the IGA. The final design and construction would be included in
the Phase 4 costs. Staff would return to the City Council with a complete Phase 4 project
package proposal including funding options for the Council’s consideration. If approved, sub-
contractors would be hired on a bid for proposal basis and construction of the accepted projects
would commence.
Alternate Procurement Process for Energy Services
The proposed agreement with PG&E is atypical of the City’s contracting procedures which are
defined in the City’s Charter in Article IX, Section 901, and Municipal Code Chapter 3.24. In a
Packet Pg 12
1
typical scenario, the City would identify a project, solicit proposals for project design, bid the
project, then award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
California Government Code 4217.10 et seq. however, provides a separate statutory basis for
alternate delivery for certain energy conservation project services if the City finds it best serves
the City’s interest. Based on the cost and payback period on investment and the long-term benefit
to the City’s water ratepayers, it is recommended the City Council adopt such findings to support
the continued participation in the SST Program (Phase 3).
Included in this report is a proposed resolution (Attachment D) and service agreement that
supports energy efficiency and energy upgrades utilizing the procurement process allowed by
California Government Code 4217.10.
Supporting Policies and Documents
The City has guiding policies that set the course for the organization in terms of energy
efficiency and conservation. The proposed Water Energy Efficiency Project is supported by
several of these guiding documents.
City Goal:
Climate Protection: Implement greenhouse gas reduction and Climate Action Plan. Conduct
energy audits of all city facilities, increase energy conservation, invest in infrastructure which
will save energy and funds in the future.
General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policies:
COSE 4.3.1: The City will employ the best available practices in energy conservation,
procurement, use and production, and will encourage individuals, organizations and other
agencies to do likewise.
COSE 4.3.2: City Buildings and facilities will be operated in the most energy-efficient manner
without endangering public health and safety and without reducing public safety or service
levels.
COSE 4.3.3: The City will continue to identify energy efficiency improvement measures to their
greatest extent possible, undertake all necessary steps to seek funding for their implementation
and, upon securing availability of funds, implement the measures in a timely manner.
COSE 4.6.11: The City will actively seek all available sources of funding for implementing
energy efficiency improvement and utilities infrastructure renewal projects, including federal
and state budget appropriations, federal, state and private sector grant opportunities, utilities
and other unique public/private sector financing arrangements.
2012 Climate Action Plan:
The City’s Climate Action Plan in response to AB 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act. The
Climate Action Plan contains a strategy directing energy efficient improvements be made to the
City’s Utilities infrastructure. In addition to this work effort, the City is also implementing new
Title 24 Energy Efficient Standards and CALGreen Building Standards; making upgrades to City
Packet Pg 13
1
facilities such as the Water Treatment Plant and Water Distribution Facilities; and participating
with the Local Government Commission to develop strategies to adapt to climate change in the
future.
Utilities Strategic Plan – Outcome Oriented Goals:
Infrastructure
Goal: The Department will have a clear understanding of its long-range infrastructure
requirements and a plan to address them.
Objective: Increase planning efforts that identify and address infrastructure improvements
considering impacts to economic, environmental, and long-term factors.
Stewardship
Goal: The Department will be recognized by regulators, the public, and all stakeholders as an
effective steward of natural and fiscal resources.
Objective: Expand the identification and implementation of practices that increase the
conservation of all-natural resources.
CONCURRENCES
The Finance Department and City’s Sustainability Manager concur with the contracting
procedures recommended in this report. This report has also been reviewed by the San Luis
Obispo County Energy Watch Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Participation in the Water Energy Efficiency Project’s Investment Grade Audit is exempt from
environmental review as a Statutory Exemption under Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning
Studies (CEQA Guidelines). Projects identified in the Investment Grade Audit will need future
authorization and environmental review prior to actual project funding and construction.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to proceed with the IGA (Phase 3 of the SST Program) will not exceed $860,000.
Many of the ECMs identified are components of the Water Treatment Plant Energy Efficiency
Project and Water Treatment Plant – Major Facility Maintenance projects adopted as part of the
2017-19 Financial Plan such as:
• ECM 1 – Hydropower Generation
• ECM 2 – Ozone System Upgrade
• ECM 3 – Transfer Pump Station Backup Power
• ECM 4 – Transfer Pump Station Upgrades
• ECM 11 –SCADA Controls and Upgrades
• ECM 13 –Water Distribution System Upgrades
Packet Pg 14
1
As this project will result in upgrades and efficiencies of the processes and equipment at the
Water Treatment Plant and Water Distribution facilities, it is recommended that funding
associated with the IGA is allocated from the following three sources.
1. Previously appropriated $447,500 capital funding for Water Energy Efficiency Project
study and design identified in the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
2. Transfer of $132,500 of available budget from the Water Treatment Plant Major
Equipment Maintenance account identified in the 2017-19 Financial Plan. The
recommended funds were programmed for the replacement of the existing ozone
compressor. It had been anticipated in the 2017-19 Financial Plan that a cost savings
could be recognized if this project were to be included as part of the proposed energy
efficiency project. The WTP Major Equipment Maintenance account has an available
balance of $395,999.
3. Allow the use of $280,000 of working capital to fully finance the project.
2017-2018 Financial Plan
Available
Budget
Funding
Request
Water Energy Efficiency Project Study and Design $447,500 $447,500
Water Treatment Plant Major Equipment Maintenance $395,999 $132,500
Unreserved Working Capital $9,217,105 $280,000
Additional ECMs in this project associated with Phase 3 are related to the implementation of
energy efficiency elements identified in the Water Master Plan and anticipated Water Treatment
Plant capital improvement projects that will accelerate critical infrastructure replacement. This
will allow the City to start receiving financial benefit from reduction in energy use more rapidly
if incorporated into the broader Water Energy Efficiency Project, as opposed to being broken
into smaller projects to be accomplished at a later point in time.
If the City opts to not continue with additional stages of the SST program beyond the IGA, the
City will maintain ownership of the 30% design documents and may proceed with conventional
project delivery methods.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the request to participate in the PG&E Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program.
Council should only select this alternative if it feels this public/private partnership will not
provide a quality, cost effective project and is not in the best interest of the community. The
recommended action will allow the City to operate its enterprise fund in a successful business
model and pursue projects it already needs to accomplish in partnership with private
companies.
2. Pursue a standard engineering services procurement process. If the Council agrees with
Packet Pg 15
1
the preliminary scope of the project, it could direct staff to pursue a standard engineering
services procurement process. This action would delay energy cost savings as project
implementation would be deferred while a project package for bidding purposes was
developed. A significant amount of quality design work has been accomplished at no cost to
the City up to this point. As a reminder, in order to realize energy savings as soon as possible
through these types of programs, California Government Code Section 4217 supports
forgoing standard procurement processes for energy services.
Attachments:
a - SST Master Services Agreement (June 2016)
b - Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA)
c - Investment Grade Audit (IGA) Scope
d - Resolution
Packet Pg 16
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 1 of 13
SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Services Agreement is made and entered into as of ______________, ______ (“Effective
Date”) by and between ________________________, a ___________________with offices at
________________ (“Customer”) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California corporation, with
offices at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105 (“PG&E”). Customer and PG&E shall each
individually be referred to as a “Party” and together constitute the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Customer desires assistance in implementing energy conservation and management
services and other energy-related projects and services at one or more of its facilities located in PG&E’s
service territory;
WHEREAS, PG&E desires to assist Customer implement the energy conservation measures as
more fully set forth herein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements
set out in this Agreement, Customer and PG&E agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS. In addition to those definitions set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, the following
capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
1.1 “Agreement” shall mean this Agreement, and all such Agreement’s Exhibits, Work Orders and
Change Orders, all of which are incorporated herein; as such Agreement, Exhibits, Work Orders or
Change Orders may be amended, changed or modified from time to time.
1.2 “Change” shall mean: (a) any material addition to, deletion from, suspension of or other
modification that materially affects the design, configuration, quality, or function of the Project or the
Services; (b) a change or modification to or repeal of an applicable law after the Effective Date, (c) delay
or other demonstrable material adverse impact to the Work Order resulting from a Force Majeure Event,
or (d) any applicable performance or compliance requirement which Customer may newly articulate or
revise during the Term.
1.3 “Change Order” shall mean a written document signed by the Parties that describes a Change to
the Scope of Work or Work Order, and authorizes and directs PG&E to perform such Change. The
Change Order may also authorize the additional compensation, if any, to be paid PG&E to perform such
Change.
1.4 “Energy Conservation Measures” or “ECM” means an energy conservation measure which may
include a feasibility study, engineering and design (e.g., IGA), operation and maintenance.
1.5 “Investment Grade Audit” or “IGA” shall mean the detailed analysis of all or a portion of a
Facility to determine the technical and financial feasibility of implementing, operating and maintaining
one or more ECMs at such Facility.
1.6 “Equipment” shall mean all of the equipment, machinery, technology and other items described
in the applicable Work Order.
Packet Pg 17
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 2 of 13
1.7 “Facility(ies)” shall mean the above-ground buildings and related premises owned or leased by
Customer as set forth in the applicable Work Order.
1.8 “Force Majeure Event” shall mean any cause, act, event, condition or other occurrence materially
impacting the Services or the Project Schedule not caused by the Party asserting the Force Majeure Event
and that is beyond the control of such Party to avoid, overcome or re medy through the exercise of due
diligence and reasonable efforts. Without limiting the foregoing, the following are examples of Force
Majeure Events: acts of God and the public enemy; the relocation, repair, shut down, or construction of
PG&E transmission or distribution facilities; flood, earthquake, tornado, storm, fire, power failures,
epidemics, civil disobedience, labor disputes, shortage of components and supplies.
1.9 “Hazardous Materials.” Any hazardous, toxic or dangerous wastes, substances, chemicals,
constituents, contaminants, pollutants, and materials, including without limitation, asbestos -containing
equipment or materials, lead-based paint, ozone depleting refrigerants, fluorescent tubes, fluorescent
magnetic core and coil ballasts, carcinogenic, corrosive, ignitable, radioactive, and reactive or otherwise
hazardous substances or mixtures (whether solids, liquids, or gases) now or at any time subject to
regulation, control, removal, remediation or otherwise addressed under applicable law or under PG&E's
CPUC-approved rules.
1.10 “Material Changed Condition” shall mean the unforeseeable or unanticipated discovery of the
presence of Hazardous Materials or other unanticipated or unforeseeable condition or circumstance, at or
near a Facility or Project site that has occurred or has been discovered after the Services has commenced
that materially impacts the Schedule, the Services or PG&E's costs to perform the Services, was not
caused by PG&E and that PG&E could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable due
diligence. Only by way of example, a Material Changed Condition includes but is not limited to (i)
Hazardous Materials or other differing and unexpected site conditions, surface or subsurface conditions,
(ii) adverse weather conditions unusual to the area where the Services is to be performed and that could
not have been anticipated and that materially impacts the Services or Project Schedule; or (iii)
unforeseeable material delays in Equipment, material deliveries or the availability of labor that materially
impacts the Services or Project Schedule.
1.11 “Project” shall mean energy efficiency, energy conservation, energy management, energy
production or other energy-related measures or projects; or any other energy-related matter, measure or
project that is, or will become, the subject of a Work Order.
1.12 “Project Schedule” shall mean the estimated commencement date, sequence, duration, and, if
appropriate, milestones, for Substantial Completion of the Project as set forth in the Work Order.
1.13 “Services” mean, collectively all activities to be performed by PG&E pursuant to this Agreement
to complete a Project, including, without limitation, preliminary and/or IGA, design, Equipment or
materials procurement, construction, installation, testing, completion, maintenance and operation of a
Project. Services shall also include all labor, work, Equipment fabrication, assembly, modification, repair
and replacement, and other activities as the Parties may agree upon and are set forth in a Work Order.
1.14 “Scope of Work” shall mean all of the Services to be performed by PG&E and/or its
Subcontractors pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Work Order, and any Change Orders to a Work
Order, as well as all other efforts of PG&E and other entities with respect to such Work Order, for the
implementation of an ECM alone or as part of a Project pursuant to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and as specifically described in each Work Order and applicable Change Orders.
Packet Pg 18
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 3 of 13
1.15 “Subcontractor” shall mean any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, association,
or individual hired by PG&E to perform Services.
1.16 “Substantial Completion” shall mean the Project is generally capable of being used for or of
achieving the purpose intended by the Work Order.
1.17 “Work Order” means the document executed by both Parties to complete the Services identified
in such Work Order. Each Work Order shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
the terms and conditions set forth in such Work Order. If there is a conflict between the Work Order or
Change Orders and the terms and conditions of this Agreement, such Work Order/Change Order shall
take precedence and shall establish the Scope of Work of each Project.
2. SCOPE. This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which PG&E may assist
Customer implement ECMs at one or more of Customer’s Facilities through Work Orders. This
Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which Work Orders may be entered into by the
Parties. All Work Orders shall be subject to and governed by this Agreement.
3. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES.
3.1 Independent Contractors. The Parties are independent contractors. Nothing herein shall
be construed as creating any agency, partnership, or other form of joint enterprise between the Parties and
neither Party may create any obligations or responsibilities on behalf of the other Party.
3.2 Subcontractors. PG&E may subcontract its obligations hereunder to other persons or
entities in order to perform the Services hereunder. PG&E agrees to impose on its Subcontractors
obligations consistent with those set forth in this Agreement with respect to safety, security,
confidentiality, insurance and indemnification. The fees and costs billed to Customer shall be inclusive of
any and all fees and compensation due to any Subcontractors.
3.2.1 Subcontractor Selection. PG&E may perform some or all of the Services under a
Work Order itself or through Subcontractors. Subcontractor selection shall be based on cost, experience,
past performance, reliability and such other factors as practicably related to the Customer’s needs.
3.3 Project Management.
3.3.1 Authorized Persons. Customer and PG&E will each designate an employee who
is sufficiently experienced to provide the information and support necessary to the other party for the
performance of this Agreement (the “Authorized Person”). The Authorized Person for each party shall be
the primary point of contact for inquiries and requests. Each such Authorized Person shall provide the
other with such information and assistance as may be reasonably requested by the other from time to time
for the purpose of the performance of this Agreement.
3.3.2 Approvals. The Authorized Person for each party will have the authority to
issue, execute, receive, grant and provide any and all approvals, requests, notices and other
communications permitted, required or requested by the other party; provided, however, that neither
Customer nor PG&E shall rely for any purpose on any oral communication not confirmed in writing by
an Authorized Person within twenty-four (24) hours, and provided however, that neither Customer nor
PG&E shall rely for any purpose on any oral communication which would have the effect of amending
this Agreement.
Packet Pg 19
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 4 of 13
4. SERVICES.
4.1 General. Customer may request that PG&E assist Customer in the implementation of one
or more of the ECMs at set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference
herein.
4.1.1 Preliminary Audit. At Customer’s written request, PG&E or its Subcontractor
will conduct, at no cost to Customer, a preliminary audit consisting of an on-site building investigation and
evaluation for a mutually agreeable Facility to determine if any significant energy conservation
opportunities exist and whether a further IGA is needed.
4.1.2 Investment Grade Audit. After reviewing the Preliminary Audit, the Parties may
enter into a Work Order setting forth a Scope of Work for an “IGA to determine whether the ECMs
proposed in the Preliminary Audit are feasible. The Work Order for the IGA shall specify the terms for
completing the IGA and establish a price for the IGA. Customer shall pay for the IGA in accordance with
the payment terms of this Agreement and the applicable Work Order. Unless otherwise agreed upon in the
Work Order for the IGA, Customer shall provide PG&E, at Customer’s sole cost and expense, legible and
complete copies of all floor plans, drawings and any other documents deemed necessary by PG&E in order
to provide the IGA.
4.1.3 Design and Implementation Phase. Upon completion of the IGA, PG&E will
provide an ECM implementation proposal, which would include additional design, engineering and
construction services (the “Proposal”). Customer shall evaluate the Proposal for technical and price
reasonableness. If Customer elects to proceed with the ECM, the Parties will agree upon a Scope of Work
with specifications, time of performance, ECM cost, source and cost of capital or financing, payment
terms, amortization schedule and termination schedule which shall be set forth in a Work Order. If
required, PG&E will provide acceptable payment and performance bonds.
4.1.4 Assumptions. Customer understands that performance of the Services is
dependent upon Customer’s cooperation. Therefore, Customer agrees to use its best efforts to cooperate
with PG&E in the performance of the Services and shall provide PG&E with timely access to, during
normal business hours, and use of Customer’s personnel, facilities, data, Equipment, materials and
information to the extent necessary for PG&E to perform the Services. Customer acknowledges and
agrees that Work Orders may set forth additional details regarding PG&E’s access to and use of the
foregoing as well as Customer’s computer systems and networks.
4.2 Changes and Change Orders. If a Change has occurred the Parties shall, if reasonably
possible, agree on a Change Order. If the Parties are unable to agree on a Change Order, PG&E shall
suspend its performance of the Services including the Change, until such time as the Parties’
disagreement has been resolved pursuant to Section 11 (Dispute Resolution).
4.2.1 Material Changed Condition. PG&E will give written notice to Customer of the
discovery of Hazardous Materials on or near a Facility, or other condition or circumstance PG&E or its
Subcontractor believes to be a Material Changed Condition. Neither PG&E nor its Subcontractor will
remove, remediate, repair or otherwise disturb any site, soil, subsurface conditions, Hazardous Materials
or other adverse impacts on the Services or the Facility until Customer has had a reasonable opportunity
to investigate to determine whether a Material Changed Condition has occurred. If Customer reasonably
determines a Material Changed Condition has occurred, the Parties will, if reasonably possible, agree on a
Change Order with respect to such Material Changed Condition. If the Parties fail to agree on a Change
Packet Pg 20
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 5 of 13
Order relating to a Material Changed Condition, PG&E shall suspend Services until such time as the
Parties have resolved the disagreement pursuant to Section 11 (Dispute Resolution).
(a) Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Customer acknowledges and
agrees that PG&E has no obligation to investigate or inspect the Facility for the presence of Hazardous
Materials, or to identify, remove, dispose of, abate, or remediate Hazardous Materials. Customer shall
have sole responsibility for the identification, removal, disposal, abatement or remediation of Hazardous
Materials, and for the clean-up, transport and disposal of any fixtures, materials, Equipment, or
substances containing, exposed to or contaminated by Hazardous Materials, all in accordance with
applicable laws.
4.2.2 Unanticipated Conditions. If any unusual or unanticipated conditions exist or
arise at the Site (such as Hazardous Materials, environmental conditions or pollution), which conditions
would involve the incurrence by PG&E of any expenses to correct such conditions, PG&E shall submit a
written request to Customer for Customer’s prior written approval of the corrective work and payment of
the related expenses. The additional Services resulting therefrom will be set forth in a Change Order
signed by both Parties.
4.2.3 Safety Waiver and Repair Services. If in the process of performing the Services,
a condition is discovered at the Facility that, in the sole judgment of PG&E, (a) represents an extreme
safety hazard to its worker’s safety or other personnel, (b) may cause operational failure of the Equipment
comprising the Facility, or (c) may cause damage to other Equipment being served by the Facility, PG&E
will immediately notify Customer in writing of such condition and the Services necessary to remedy the
condition. Customer will be asked to sign this written notification in the form of Exhibit B (Safety
Waiver). Failure or refusal to sign the Safety Waiver will relieve PG&E and its Subcontractors of any
responsibility to perform the Services.
4.2.4 Customer Delay. If the performance of particular Services by PG&E depends
upon approvals or other decisions by Customer, or Customer furnishing particular data, drawings,
documents or other information, and Customer does not timely perform or provide the same, the
minimum time estimate for PG&E's completion of the particular Services which are dependent thereon
shall be extended by the period of Customer's delay with respect thereto.
4.2.5 Change Costs. Customer shall reimburse PG&E for those reasonable costs
incurred by PG&E or its Subcontractor(s) to implement a Change in accordance with the Change Order.
These costs include, but are not necessarily limited to, increased costs for design and other professional
services, expenses and taxes, if any.
4.2.6 With respect to any Change Order made in accordance with this Section 4,
Customer acknowledges that PG&E and its Subcontractors shall not be obligated to commence and/or
perform any Services pursuant to a Change Order unless and until PG&E has received the signed Chan ge
Order and Customer has issued PG&E a Work Order for such Change Order.
4.3 PG&E’s Utility Obligations. Customer acknowledges that PG&E has an obligation to
maintain, repair and service its own facilities, including those under the operation and control of the
California Independent System Operator, in order to perform its duties as a public utility, which
obligation takes precedence over any obligations undertaken in this Agreement. Accordingly, if PG&E
determines at any time, in its sole discretion, that it requires any personnel or resources previously
committed to the performance of Services under a Work Order in order to maintain adequate service to
PG&E’s other customers or to fulfill its duties as a public utility, then PG&E shall have the right to divert
Packet Pg 21
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 6 of 13
the use of such personnel or resources to satisfy such requirements. If as a result of such ac tion, PG&E is
unable to perform its obligations under this Agreement and is unable to procure a third party to perform
the Services (or a portion thereof), then PG&E shall be excused from the performance of the Services
affected by such action to the extent so affected. In that event, PG&E shall have no liability to Customer,
and shall not be considered in default under this Agreement, for such failure to perform.
5. FACILITY SAFETY AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
5.1 Facility Safety. Customer shall be responsible for ensuring that the Facilities are safe for
PG&E personnel and Subcontractors performing Services at Customer’s facilities. Customer shall also
cooperate with PG&E personnel working on-site and shall promptly take such actions that may be
requested by PG&E personnel to help ensure a safe working environment.
5.2 Hazardous Materials. Prior to performing any Services at a Facility, Customer will
inform PG&E and Subcontractors of the presence of any Hazardous Materials of which Customer is
aware exist inside the Facility (e.g., asbestos). If PG&E or its Subcontractor discovers any Hazardous
Materials at or around the Facility after commencement of the Services, the procedures specified below in
Section 5.3 shall apply. Neither PG&E nor its Subcontractors shall handle, remove, dispose of or
remediate any Hazardous Materials absent Customer’s prior written instructions and the execution of a
Change Order.
5.3 If, during performance of the Services, PG&E or a Subcontractor reasonably believes
that it has encountered or detected the presence of Hazardous Materials, PG&E will promptly stop
performing the Services and notify Customer of such Hazardous Materials or conditions. Customer will
promptly investigate for the presence of Hazardous Materials and inform PG&E of the results of this
evaluation. PG&E will not resume the performance of the Services until the Hazardous Materials have
been removed, disposed of, abated or remediated to PG&E’s reasonable satisfaction. Any delay or
increase in the Services or costs as a result of the testing, presence, removal, disposal, abatement or
remediation of Hazardous Materials shall be grounds for a Change Order.
6. COMPENSATION.
6.1 Payment Terms. Customer shall pay PG&E for the Services performed in accordance
with payment terms set forth in the applicable Work Order. Unless otherwise set forth in the Work Order,
each payment made by Customer must reference this Agreement, the Work Order and invoice number
and be mailed to PG&E to the attention of Accounts Payable.
6.2 Late Payments. All late payments shall be subject to an interest charge, which is the
greater of: (i) one and one half percent (1.5%) per month, or (ii) the maximum legal rate. In the event that
any unpaid amounts are referred to collection, including but not limited to any applicable late fees,
Customer shall reimburse PG&E for all costs and expenses of collection, including all reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs related thereto.
6.3 Expenses. Customer agrees to reimburse PG&E for all expenses incurred in connection
with PG&E’s performance of the Services, including but not limited to all travel and lodging expenses.
Expenses shall be invoiced at their actual cost and will be reflected on PG&E’s invoices and shall be paid
in accordance with the payment terms set forth in the applicable Work Order.
6.4 Taxes. Customer shall be solely responsible for the payment of any and all sales, use,
transfer, and other taxes and duties, whether state, federal, national or international, however designated,
Packet Pg 22
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 7 of 13
which are levied or imposed on PG&E because of the Services performed under this Agreement (other
than taxes based on PG&E's net income) ("Taxes"). If PG&E has the legal obligation to pay or collect
Taxes for which Customer is responsible under this Section 6.4, the appropriate amount shall be invoiced
to and paid by Customer unless Customer provides PG&E with a valid tax exemption certificate
authorized by the appropriate taxing authority verifying that Customer is not required to pay those Taxes
and is legally exempt.
7. WARRANTIES AND WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS
7.1 Customer Warranties. Customer represents and warrants to PG&E that: (a) it has the full
corporate right, power, and authority to enter into the Agreement and to perform its obligations
hereunder; (b) the terms of the Agreement and the performance by such Party of its duties and
obligations hereunder, do not violate and will not cause a breach of the terms of any other a greement or
any applicable law to which such Party is a party or by which it is subject or bound; (c) when executed
and delivered by such Party, the Agreement will constitute the legal, valid and binding obligation of such
Party, enforceable against such Party in accordance with its terms; and (d) it is either the owner or lessee
of the Facility and has all necessary rights to allow PG&E and Subcontractors access to such Facility so
that they may perform the Services.
7.2 PG&E Limited Warranties.
7.2.1 PG&E warrants that the Services will be performed in a commercially reasonable manner
consistent with the level of care and skill exercised by others when performing Services of a similar
nature under similar circumstances. Unless otherwise agreed to by PG&E in writing, the warranty period
for Services furnished hereunder shall be for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of Substantial
Completion (“Service Warranty Period”).
7.2.2 Remedies. Customer must notify PG&E of any non-conformity or defect in the Services
within the Service Warranty Period. If Customer notifies PG&E within the Services Warranty Period,
and PG&E confirms the Services were not performed in accordance with Section 7.2.1, then PG&E, in its
sole discretion, will either re-perform the non-conforming Services within a commercially reasonable
period of time at PG&E’s cost and expense or (b) refund the applicable fees paid to PG&E by Customer
for the non-conforming Services. THIS SECTION 7.2.2 STATES CUSTOMER’S SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND PG&E’S SOLE LIABILITY FOR A BREACH OF THE SERVICE
WARRANTIES SET FORTH ABOVE IN SECTION 7.2.1. THE SERVICE WARRANTIES EXTEND
TO CUSTOMER ONLY AND CANNOT BE ASSIGNED BY CUSTOMER.
7.3 Third Party Warranties. PG&E shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain from all
manufacturers, Customers and distributors standard guarantees and warranties (“Third Party Warranties”)
on the Equipment used in the Services or in an ECM, and any warranty for the Equipment shall be limited
to the Third Party Warranties provided by manufacturers, Customers, and distributors. All such Third
Party Warranties, including without limitation those for defects, whether latent or patent, in Equipment
shall terminate upon the conclusion of each such applicable Third Party Warranty period. Neither PG&E
nor its Subcontractors shall have any liability for breach of a Third Party Warranty, whether express or
implied, or for any latent or patent defect of any kind. PG&E shall assign all Third Party Warranties
directly to Customer.
7.3.1 The Third Party Warranty expressly excludes any remedy or liability for damage or
defect caused by the improper use, or improper or inadequate operations or maintenance of Equipment or
for the Services by users other than the Customer; corrosion, erosion, deterioration, abuse, modifications
Packet Pg 23
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 8 of 13
or repairs not performed by an authorized subcontractor; or for wear and tear under normal usage. At
Customer’s option, Customer may contact the Equipment manufacturer, Customer or distributor directly
to resolve any Third Party Warranty issues and Customer acknowledges that Customer and Equipment
manufacturer, Customer or distributor shall have sole responsibility for such issues.
7.4 No Guarantee of Energy Savings. PG&E DOES NOT WARRANT OR GUARANTEE ANY
LEVEL OF ENERGY, WATER SAVINGS, COST REDUCTIONS OR EQUIPMENT OR ECM
PERFORMANCE.
7.5 Disclaimer. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION 8, CUSTOMER
EXPRESSLY AGREES THAT PG&E MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES AND ASSUMES NO
OTHER LIABILITIES, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
AUDIT, DESIGN, ENGINEERING, EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT, CONSTRUCTION,
IMPLEMENTATION, OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, SERVICES, EQUIPMENT OR ECMS
HEREUNDER WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN LAW, IN EQUITY OR IN
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PG&E AND CUSTOMER. PG&E SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. CUSTOMER SHALL HAVE NO REMEDIES AGAINST PG&E FOR ANY DEFECTIVE
SERVICES, INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, OR OPERATION OF AN ECM EXCEPT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE WARRANTY SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 7 OR AS THE PARTIES
MAY EXPRESSLY AGREE IN ANY WORK ORDER OR AMENDMENT TO THIS AGREEMENT.
8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
8.1 IF PG&E IS HELD TO BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER OR TO ANY PARTY
CLAIMING BY OR THROUGH CUSTOMER BY REASON OF PG&E’S PERFORMANCE OF
SERVICES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, PG&E’S TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY WITH
RESPECT TO DAMAGES AND LOSSES RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED
TO THE LESSER OF: (A) THE PRICE FOR THE SERVICES UNDER THE WORK ORDER GIVING
RISE TO THE CLAIM; OR (B) THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY CUSTOMER TO PG&E FOR THE
SERVICES UNDER THE WORK ORDER GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM.
8.2 IN NO EVENT SHALL PG&E BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD
PARTY FOR INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF USE, COST OF DELAYS, REPLACEMENT OF
POWER, OR LOSS OF PROFITS, EVEN IF PG&E IS ADVISED BY CUSTOMER OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
8.3 THE ABOVE LIMITS OF LIABILITY ARE EXCLUSIVE AS TO ALL REMEDIES
AND THE LIABILITY CAP SHALL NOT BE COMBINED WITH ANY OTHER LIMITS OF
LIABILITY SO AS TO INCREASE THE CAP VALUE IN ANY PARTICULAR INSTANCE OR
SERIES OF INSTANCES. THE PARTIES AGREE THE ABOVE SECTIONS 7 - 9 REPRESENT THE
BASIS OF THE BARGAIN AND A FAIR ALLOCATION OF RISK BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
8.4 Basis of the Bargain. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THE
FOREGOING SECTIONS ON WARRANTIES, WARRANTY DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY IN THE AGREEMENT FAIRLY ALLOCATE THE RISKS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AND ARE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN THE PARTIES
SUCH THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT
WITHOUT SUCH SECTIONS.
Packet Pg 24
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 9 of 13
9. INDEMNIFICATION. Customer covenants and agrees that Customer will indemnify, defend and hold
harmless PG&E, its affiliates, and PG&E’s and its affiliates’ respective directors, officers, employees,
agents, successors and assigns (collectively, the “PG&E Indemnitees”) from and against any and all
claims, damages, costs, expenses, (including attorneys’ fees and court costs) and liabilities (including
settlements) brought or asserted by any third party against the PG&E Indemnitees resulting from, arising
out of or related to any claim: (i) for personal injury, including death, or property damage, including theft,
caused to any of the PG&E Indemnitees, Subcontractors or a third party by Customer’s action or inaction,
whether negligence or intentional misconduct; and (ii) resulting from Customer’s breach of any
representations, warranties or covenants contained above in Sections 7.1 or 7.2; and (iii) any data,
Equipment, information, software or other property provided to PG&E hereunder or any elements
embodied therein, or that any of the PG&E Indemnitees’ use of any of the foregoing infringe or
misappropriate the intellectual property rights of any third party (each of the foregoing (i) through (iii) are
referred to as a “Claim”). PG&E shall promptly notify Customer of any Claim and shall (at Customer’s
sole expense) reasonably cooperate with Customer to facilitate the settlement or defense of such Claim.
Customer shall, at its own expense, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the PG&E Indemnitees from
and against all costs of defending the Claim, including attorneys’ fees and court costs (including those
incurred by the PG&E Indemnitees in enforcing this provision). Customer shall keep PG&E Indemnitees
informed of, and consult with PG&E Indemnitees in connection with the selection of counsel to defend
the Claim and the progress of such litigation or settlement. Customer shall not have any right to settle
any such Claim without the specific prior written approval from a designated legal representative of the
PG&E Indemnitees.
10. TERM, SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION
10.1 Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate upon
later of: (a) three (3) years from the Effective Date, or (b) the Final Completion of all then-outstanding
Work Orders, unless otherwise terminated earlier pursuant to this Section 10 (the “Initial Term”). This
Agreement may be renewed, upon thirty (30) days prior written notice, for two (2) additional one (1) year
periods upon the mutual written agreement of the Parties (each a “Renewal Term”). The Initial Term and
all Renewal Terms shall be collectively referred to as the “Term”.
10.2 Termination for Cause. If either Party materially defaults in the performance of any of
its duties and obligation hereunder, or such material default is not cured within thirty (30) days after
written notice thereof, this Agreement may be terminated by the non-defaulting party for cause as of the
date specified in the notice. In addition, a Party may be entitled to terminate the Agreement immediately
if a Party files a petition in bankruptcy, makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, becomes
insolvent, fails to do business in the ordinary course, shall have or suffer the appointment of a receiver or
trustee for its business or property, or be adjudicated bankrupt or insolvent, or bankruptcy proceedings are
commenced by or against such Party.
10.3 PG&E’s Additional Termination Rights.
10.3.1 Change in Law. In the event legislation or governmental regulations would
prohibit PG&E from providing the Services under this Agreement (in whole or in part), PG&E
may terminate the Agreement or any Work Order (without any liability or penalty) upon thirty
(30) days' notice. Upon the effective date of PG&E’s termination notice under this Section,
Customer will pay PG&E for all of the Services provided to Customer as of the effective date of
the termination notice.
Packet Pg 25
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 10 of 13
10.3.2 Program Change. PG&E may terminate this Agreement immediately and
without prior notice in the event the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) issues a
ruling or order prohibiting or otherwise preventing PG&E from fulfilling, or substantially
interfering with PG&E’s ability to fulfill, its obligations under this Agreement, or finding that this
Agreement is contrary to the policies of the CPUC. .
10.4 Suspension of Service. PG&E reserves the right (in addition to any and all other rights
and remedies PG&E may have) to suspend the performance of the Services, including those performed by
Subcontractors, without any penalty or liability to Customer, if any invoice remains unpaid (in whole or
in part) after the date payment is due until such invoice (including late penalties) is paid in full.
10.5 Effect of Termination. Upon any expiration or termination of this Agreement, PG&E’s
obligations to Customer shall be to continue to perform the Services until the effective date of such
termination (except as otherwise instructed in writing by PG&E), to wind down and terminate the
Services in an efficient, workmanlike and cost-effective manner, and to cooperate with PG&E in the
transition to third parties or employees designated by PG&E.
10.5.1 Effect of Customer’s Termination.
(a) If Customer terminates a Work Order for cause pursuant to Section 10.2 and
prior to Substantial Completion, Customer may do so by giving written notice to PG&E at least
thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such termination. In that event, Customer shall pay
PG&E the amount set forth in the termination schedule set forth in the applicable Work Order.
(b) If Customer terminates a Work Order for cause pursuant to Section 10.2 and after
Substantial Completion, Customer may do so by giving written notice to PG&E at least thirty
(30) days prior to the effective date of such termination. In that event, Customer shall pay PG&E
the amount set forth in the termination schedule set forth in the applicable Work Order.
10.6 Survival. The following Sections of this Agreement shall survive expiration, cancellation
or other termination of this Agreement: 1, 6, 7through 9, 10.5, 10.6 and11 through 13. Any other
provisions of this Agreement that would generally be construed as intended to survive the expiration,
cancellation or other termination of this Agreement shall also survive such expiration, cancellation or
other termination.
11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. If any dispute, excluding payment defaults or delinquencies, arises under
the Agreement that is not settled promptly in the ordinary course of business, the Parties shall first seek to
resolve any such dispute between them by negotiating promptly in good faith in face -to-face negotiations.
These face-to-face negotiations shall be conducted by the respective designated senior managers of each
Party responsible for their relationship, and shall be escalated internally by each Party as reasonably
necessary to seek resolution of the dispute. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute between them
through these face-to-face negotiations within thirty (30) business days following their commencement
(or within such other period as the parties may otherwise mutually agree upon), then the parties shall
escalate the dispute to their most senior executives within their organization. If the Parties’ most senior
executives are unable to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) business days or such other period as they
ma y mutually agreed, then either Party may pursue available legal and equitable remedies.
12. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of California, excluding any choice of law rules that may direct the application
of the laws of another jurisdiction. Any controversy or claim arising out of or in any way relating to this
Packet Pg 26
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
Ver 3.0 (April 2014)
Page 11 of 13
Agreement shall be litigated in a California Superior Court of competent jurisdiction; or if jurisdiction
over the action cannot be obtained in a California Superior Court, in a Federal District Court of competent
jurisdiction situated in the State of California, and Customer hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction
of such courts.
13. FORCE MAJEURE. A Party will be excused from a delay in performing, or a failure to perform, its
obligations under this Agreement (excluding Customer’s payment obligations) to the extent such delay or
failure is caused by the occurrence of a Force Majeure Event. In such event, the performance times shall
be extended for a period of time equivalent to the time lost due to the Force Majeure Event. However, if
a Force Majeure Event (excluding any affecting Customer’s payment obligations) continues more than
ninety (90) days, the party not relying on the excusable delay may, at its option, terminate the affected
Product Order Form or Work Order, in whole or in part, upon notice, without penalty or obligation to the
party suffering under the Force Majeure Event.
14. GENERAL TERMS. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties regarding the
Services and supersedes any other prior oral or written agreements. In the event of any conflict or
inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and any Work Order, such Work Order shall control.
Any different or additional provisions in purchase orders, invoices or similar documents issued by
Customer are hereby deemed refused by PG&E and such refused provisions will be unenforceable. Any
modifications hereto must be in writing and signed by the parties. A waiver by any party of any breach
will not constitute a waiver of any different or subsequent breach. If any part of this Agreement is invalid,
illegal or unenforceable for any reason, that portion shall be replaced with a valid provision appropriate to
the parties’ original intent and the remainder shall be enforced.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the
Effective Date first set forth above.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
245 Market Street MC N10D
San Francisco, CA 94105
By:
(Signature)
Name: Roxanna Fong
Title: Manager
Date:
CUSTOMER
By:
(Signature)
Name:
Title:
Date:
Packet Pg 27
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
EXHIBIT A
POTENTIAL ECMS
Potential ECMs that may be included in a Work Order are set forth below:
a) Hydro-Electric Power Generation on the Nacimiento raw water transmission line,
b) Water Treatment Plant Ozone Generation System Upgrade
c) Water Treatment Plant Transfer Pump Station Back-up Power
d) Water Treatment Plant Transfer Pump Station Upgrades
e) Water Treatment Plant Photovoltaic (solar) Power Generation
f) Water Treatment Plant Photovoltaic (solar) Shade Canopy for Actiflo and Filter Basins
g) Water Treatment Plant Lighting Improvements
h) Water Treatment Plant HVAC and HVAC Control Improvements
i) Water Treatment Plant Service Water System Upgrades
j) Water Treatment Plant SCADA/Controls Upgrades
k) Reservoir #1 Photovoltaic (solar) Power Generation
l) Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades,
m) Any other cost-effective ECM, including those that reduce Customer’s energy consumption,
energy demand or energy costs, provide energy savings, improve energy reliability, and other
energy infrastructure improvements, and water conservation.
n) Design and/or scoping efforts in support of Authorization(s) other than the Authorizati on in
which such design and/or scoping efforts are ordered and under which they are compensated.
13
Packet Pg 28
1
Agreement No: SST-XXXXX
(Customer name)
EXHIBIT B
SAFETY WAIVER
PG&E has informed the Customer’s on-site representative of the following condition(s) which, in
the opinion of PG&E’s on-site representative, should be remedied before the Services may be resumed at
the Facility. Customer recognizes that if the below-listed condition at the Facility is not remedied as
recommended by PG&E, an accident may occur causing damage to the Facility, Equipment and/or injury
to persons, including but not limited to, the employees of Customer, PG&E and Subcontractors.
By signing this waiver, Customer acknowledges and accepts all liability associated with this
condition
Description of condition:
Equipment ID#: _____________________ (If applicable)
Executed this ___ day of ___________________, _______
Facility name: ____________________________________
CUSTOMER
Sign: ____________________________________________
Name (print): ______________________________________
Title ____________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Sign: ___________________________________________
Name (print): ____________________________________
Title: ___________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________________
14
Packet Pg 29
1
Preliminary Energy Assessment Report for:
WATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
March 7, 2018
Prepared by:
Southland Energy
a Division of Southland Industries
7390 Lincoln Way
Garden Grove, CA 92841
1.800.613.6240
P +714.657.1500
southlandindenergy.com
Packet Pg 30
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Key Objectives and Goals ......................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Summary of Findings and Benefits ........................................................................................... 6
1.3 Financial Summary .................................................................................................................... 9
2 APPROACH TO PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 11
2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Facilities Included .................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Achieving Climate Action and Zero Net Energy Goals ............................................................ 12
2.4 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 14
3 UTILITY DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 15
4 ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES ......................................................................................... 22
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 22
4.2 Discussion of ECMs ................................................................................................................ 22
5 SST PROGRAM OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 54
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................. 57
APPENDIX A – WTP ENERGY ALLOCATION DETAILS ......................................................................... 58
Packet Pg 31
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
AFY Acre-feet Per Year
ATS Automatic Transfer Switch
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
ECM Energy Conservation Measure
ESCO Energy Services Company
FA Feasibility Assessment
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
GHG Green House Gas
GPM Gallons per minute
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IGA Investment Grade Audit
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt Hour
MCC Motor Control Center
MG Million gallons
MGD Million gallons per day
mg/l Milligrams per liter
M&V Measurement and Verification
Packet Pg 32
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4
Acronym Definition
MW Megawatt
NOE Notice of Exemption
NWP Nacimiento Water Project
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PEA Preliminary Energy Assessment
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PSI Pounds per square inch
PV Photovoltaic
Res-1 Reservoir No. 1
Res-2 Reservoir No. 2
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCFM Standard cubic feet per minute
SST Sustainable Solutions Turnkey
TOU Time of Use
TPS Transfer Pump Station
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
WDS Water Distribution System
WR Whale Rock
WTP Water Treatment Plant
ZNE Zero Net Energy
Packet Pg 33
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) focus on reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions is a
continuation of its commitment to improving the quality of life in the City, and enhancing the public trust.
The Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)/Southland Energy team is excited about this partnership with the
City’s Utilities Department to help it meet its vision and obligations to its citizens by reducing energy use
and spending and increasing environmental responsibility. This Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA)
identifies solutions and associated savings that continue the City’s path to sustainability, resilient facilities,
and zero net energy use in a fiscally and socially responsible way by reducing energy consumption and
implementing renewable energy responsibly. The benefits are aligned with the City’s vision to create
community assets that provide economic, social, and environmental value for the community, which
includes the following:
· Environmental
o Develop and implement a holistic strategy to maximize sustainable resource recovery
o Prioritize responsible use of water resources
o Incorporate sustainability practices in planning, design, construction, and operation
o Maintain compliance and minimize impacts to operations and the community during
construction
o Sustain reliable compliance during post-construction operation and maintenance
· Social
o Create and sustain diverse partnerships that add value to the community
o Provide opportunities to engage and educate the community
o Be a good neighbor
o Engender the trust of project stakeholders
o Support the development and empowerment of City employees
· Economic
o Optimize capital investment and life cycle cost
o Maximize value for ratepayers’ investment
o Incorporate flexibility and scalability to adapt to future conditions
o Simplify process flow and make treatment more robust
o Embrace new technology in a practical and disciplined manner
Packet Pg 34
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6
1.1 Key Objectives and Goals
The City/PG&E/Southland team was guided by the following mutually agreed upon goals set during the
Feasibility Assessment and the Kickoff meeting for the PEA:
· Refine the evaluation of implementing hydro power generation from the high-pressure Nacimiento
Water Project (NWP) raw water supply to the Water Treatment Plant (WTP).
· Identify upgrades and retrofits for the Utilities Department’s facilities that reduce energy
consumption, improve facilities and infrastructure, and enhance operational resiliency and
efficiency.
· Investigate the viability of implementing solar photovoltaic (PV) energy generation and other
renewable energy technologies.
· Identify paths and solutions that move the Utilities Department and the City toward its energy
goals identified in the General Plan, Climate Action Goals, and being a Zero Net Energy (ZNE)
utility consumer.
· Identify potential funding sources for a Sustainable Solutions Turnkey (SST) project including low
and no interest financing sources, traditional financing opportunities, and utility rebates,
incentives, and grants.
· Identify an economically viable project to move to the Investment Grade Audit (IGA) phase of the
SST program that is aligned with the City’s objectives.
1.2 Summary of Findings and Benefits
In July 2016, PG&E/Southland presented a Feasibility Assessment (FA) of several preliminary Energy
Conservation Measures (ECM) for the City’s consideration. Based on the City’s feedback from the FA,
this PEA has been performed to further explore the viability and merit of the ECMs in the FA and identify
additional energy conservation opportunities. The ECMs and their key benefits are summarized in Table
1.1, and the energy and financial elements for the ECMs are summarized in Table 1.2 in Section 1.3.
The recommended measures also provide significant progress towards the City’s efforts to achieve its
Climate Action goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the 1990 level by 2020, and being a
Zero Net Energy (ZNE) utility consumer. Implementation of the identified measures will reduce GHG
emissions by City operations by 764 MTCO2e (Metric Tons CO2 equivalent). This is 99% of the reduction
target of 770 MTCO2e identified for Government Operations in the Climate Action Plan (see Figure 1.1
below) and 1.9% of the Community Wide GHG reduction target (15% of the 2005 baseline of 264,230
MTCO2e). Additionally, the reduced energy use created by the proposed efficiency ECMs combined with
the energy generated by the identified renewable energy systems will exceed all of the City’s water
Packet Pg 35
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7
utility’s current annual electricity consumption by 775,000 kWh or 24%, signifying that the water utility will
be a net exporter of electricity. This is illustrated in Figure 1.2 below.
Table 1.1 Energy Conservation Measures and Key Benefits
Benefit Impact Legend: Significant Moderate Minor None
KEY BENEFITS
Social Environment Economic
ECM ECM Description Facility Water Quality Human Health Supply & Resiliency Operations Renewable Energy Zero-Net Energy Energy Savings Infra- structure Cost Reduction 1 Hydro Power Generation WTP
2 Ozone System Upgrade WTP
3 Transfer Pump Station Backup
Power WTP
4 Transfer Pump Station
Upgrades WTP
5 Photovoltaic Energy Generation
(Solar) WTP
6 Photovoltaic Shade Canopy for
Actiflo and Filter Basins WTP
7 Lighting Improvements WTP
8 HVAC and HVAC Control
Improvements WTP
9 Plant Service Water System
Upgrades WTP
10 Filter Backwash Tank Filling
Improvements WTP
11 SCADA/
Controls Upgrades WTP
13 Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps
& Altitude Valve for Ferrini Tank
Water
Dist.
15 Photovoltaic Energy Generation
(Solar) Res-1
16 Whale Rock Pump Station
Upgrades
Whale
Rock
17 Whale Rock Renewable Energy
Generation
Whale
Rock
Packet Pg 36
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8
Figure 1.1 GHG Forecast and Target for Government Operations (from Climate Action Plan, Aug. 2012)
Packet Pg 37
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9
Figure 1.2 Zero-Net Energy - SST Project's Impact on Water Utility’s Energy
1.3 Financial Summary
The PG&E/Southland team identified and evaluated multiple ECMs that are supported by a combination
of utility cost savings, operation and maintenance cost reductions, and Capital Improvement Project
funding. The table below summarizes the costs and savings of the measures considered.
Packet Pg 38
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10
Table 1.2 ECM Financial Summary
Notes for Table 1.2: 1) The ECM’s identified with “*” are identified in the City’s 2017-2019 Financial Plan.
2) ECMs in gray are discussed in this report, but costs and/or savings have not been generated for these
ECMs.
ECM
ID ECM Description Facility ID
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
ECM Cost
Annual
Utility Cost
Savings
Annual
O&M
Savings
Total
Annual
Cost
Reduction
1 Hydro Power Generation *WTP 1,320,875 1,774,000$ 193,327$ (5,000)$ 188,327$
2 Ozone System Upgrade *WTP 185,971 7,000,000$ 30,685$ 50,000$ 80,685$
3 Transfer Pump Station Backup Power *WTP - 500,000$ -$ -$ -$
4 Transfer Pump Station Upgrades *WTP - 350,000$ -$ -$ -$
5 Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar)WTP 341,189 1,093,000$ 56,296$ -$ 56,296$
6
Photovoltaic Shade Canopy for Actiflo and
Filter Basins WTP 100,806 390,000$ 16,633$ -$ 16,633$
7 Lighting Improvements WTP 28,417 59,000$ 3,801$ 250$ 4,051$
8 HVAC and HVAC Control Improvements WTP - -$ -$ -$ -$
9 Plant Service Water System Upgrades WTP 38,680 102,000$ 6,382$ 250$ 6,632$
10 Filter Backwash Tank Filling Improvements WTP - -$ -$ -$ -$
11 SCADA/Controls Upgrades *WTP - 851,000$ -$ -$ -$
13
Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps & Altitude
Valve for Ferrini Tank *Distr.- 159,000$ 5,000$ 8,000$ 13,000$
15 Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar)Res-1 1,860,000 5,960,000$ 199,000$ -$ 199,000$
16 Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades WR 75,570 993,000$ 17,683$ -$ 17,683$
17 Whale Rock Renewable Energy Generation WR - -$ -$ -$ -$
-CEQA Activities Budget Multiple - 500,000$ -$ -$ -$
3,951,508 19,731,000$ 528,808$ 53,500$ 582,308$
Packet Pg 39
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11
2 APPROACH TO PRELIMINARY ENERGY
ASSESSMENT
2.1 Methodology
During the development of this PEA, the PG&E/Southland team interviewed relevant stakeholders,
reviewed design documents and system operational data, performed comprehensive analysis of utility
data and bills, performed on-site audits, analyzed data for key systems, and utilized existing data to gain
a thorough understanding of the energy consumption and load profiles. This information was used to
further evaluate the ECMs identified in the Feasibility Assessment.
2.2 Facilities Included
The following City facilities are included in the PEA.
W ater Treatment Plant Pacific Beach Well
Bressi Pump Station Madonna PRV
Reservoir No. 2 Edna Saddle
Ferrini Pump Station Terrace Hill PRV
McCollum Pump Station Fire Station #4 Well
Reservoir No. 1 Whale Rock Pump Station A
Rosemont Pump Station Whale Rock Pump Station B
Corp Yard Well Whale Rock Shop
Bishop Tank Whale Rock SCADA Repeater
Bishop Pump Station Whale Rock Streetlights
Alrita Pump Station
Packet Pg 40
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12
2.3 Achieving Climate Action and Zero Net Energy Goals
The City has identified Climate Action as one of its four Major City Goals in its 2017-2019 financial plan.
Major City Goals are defined as the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over
the next two years. The key elements of this goal include implementing the Climate Action Plan (CAP)
that was adopted by the City in 2012, assessing the requirements to achieve a “net-zero carbon City”
target, and implementing cost-effective measures. This PG&E Sustainable Solutions Turnkey (SST)
project will directly contribute to achieving this Major City Goal by:
· Performing energy assessments/audits at the City’s water utility facilities.
· Implementing energy and cost saving measures identified in the energy assessments that are
aligned with the goals and strategies in the CAP including:
o Government Operations Strategy GO-1 – City Energy Conservation
o Government Operations Strategy GO-2 – City Renewable Energy
o Government Operations Strategy GO-5 – Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
· Implementing renewable energy systems that reduce the City’s utility costs and consumption of
fossil fuel based energy.
· Significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from City operations toward the goals of
being 15% below the City’s GHG baseline by 2020, and being a “net-zero carbon City.”
The recommended measures provide significant progress towards the City’s efforts to achieve its Climate
Action goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the 1990 level by 2020, and being a Zero
Net Energy (ZNE) utility consumer. Implementation of the identified measures will reduce GHG emissions
from City operations by 764 MTCO2e (Metric Tons CO2 equivalent). This is 99% of the reduction target of
770 MTCO2e identified for Government Operations in the Climate Action Plan (see Figure 2.1 below) and
1.9% of the Community Wide GHG reduction target (15% of the 2005 baseline of 264,230 MTCO2e).
Additionally, the reduced energy use created by the proposed efficiency ECMs combined with the energy
generated by the identified renewable energy systems will exceed all of the City’s water utility’s current
annual electricity consumption by nearly 775,000 kWh or 24%, signifying that the water utility will be a net
exporter of electricity. This is illustrated in Figure 2.2 below.
Packet Pg 41
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13
Figure 2.1 GHG Forecast and Target for Government Operations (from Climate Action Plan, Aug. 2012)
Packet Pg 42
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14
Figure 2.2 Zero-Net Energy - SST Project's Impact on Water Utility’s Energy
2.4 Acknowledgements
The PG&E/Southland team would like to express our gratitude to the City for committing its valuable team
members to the PEA process, and for the opportunity to present our findings to the City Council. A special
thank you goes out to Aaron Floyd, Dean Furukawa, Jason Meeks, Miguel Barcenas, and Marcus
Henderson of the City of San Luis Obispo, and John Griesser and Chris Read of the County of San Luis
Obispo Energy Watch for their significant contributions to this PEA.
Packet Pg 43
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15
3 UTILITY DATA ANALYSIS
The utility analysis is a key, fundamental element of the PEA that is used to gain a deeper understanding
of utility consumption and costs for each of the City’s facilities. The results of the analysis provide the
foundation for all subsequent steps in the PEA including comparison and benchmarking of facilities,
allocation of energy and cost to systems within individual facilities, and savings calculations.
The City of San Luis Obispo receives electric utility service for its facilities from PG&E. PG&E provided 36
months of electrical use and cost data (Sept. 2014 – Sept. 2017) and 12 months of 15-minute interval
data to the SST team for the Utilities Department’s water utility facilities and the Whale Rock raw water
system facilities1. A summary of the annual electric consumption and costs for each facility is captured in
Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 below. Analysis of this data reveals that the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and
the two Whale Rock pump stations account for 96% of the total annual energy use and 94% of the cost.
This insight will help focus the efforts of the SST team during the IGA to areas where the greatest impact
on energy use, demand, and related costs can be made.
1 Whale Rock facilities are jointly owned by the City of San Luis Obispo, the California Men's Colony, and
the California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo. These three agencies form the Whale
Rock Commission which is responsible for operational policy and administration of the reservoir. Day-to-
day operation is provided by the City.
Packet Pg 44
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16
Table 3.1 Annual Electric Consumption and Costs
Facility Name
PG&E Meter
#
Total
Annual Use
(kWh)
Annual
Electricity
Cost ($)
Max
Billing
Demand
(kW)
Total
Annual
Cost ($)
% of Total
Electric
Use
% of
Total
Cost
Water Treatment Plant 1010078556 2,100,124 345,695 499 346,304 66.1% 55.1%
Whale Rock Pump Station #2 1010002034 487,690 126,038 390 126,183 15.4% 20.1%
Whale Rock Pump Station #1 1010027122 467,245 118,397 406 118,533 14.7% 18.9%
Bressi Pump Station 1006909621 31,679 6,992 48 7,001 1.0% 1.1%
Reservoir No.2 1010116728 23,782 5,616 4 5,623 0.7% 0.9%
Ferrini Pump Station 1009500372 21,325 11,962 79 11,968 0.7% 1.9%
McCollum Pump Station 1006472096 14,408 3,268 37 3,272 0.5% 0.5%
Reservoir No.1 1009921396 10,834 2,604 0 2,608 0.3% 0.4%
Whale Rock Shop 1008718720 10,585 2,628 9 2,632 0.3% 0.4%
Rosemont Pump Station 1005529721 1,558 439 11 440 0.0% 0.1%
Whale Rock Streetlights 1006875451 1,382 442 0 442 0.0% 0.1%
Corp Yard Well 1009608623 1,287 534 0 534 0.0% 0.1%
Bishop Tank 1009657691 1,060 331 0 331 0.0% 0.1%
Bishop Pump Station 1006909452 1,037 443 47 443 0.0% 0.1%
Alrita Pump Station 1006708574 734 377 1 377 0.0% 0.1%
Pacific Beach Well 1004497758 415 328 8 328 0.0% 0.1%
Madonna PRV 1008780550 410 204 0 204 0.0% 0.0%
Edna Saddle 1010262147 344 315 0 315 0.0% 0.1%
Terrace Hill PRV 1009488291 249 171 0 171 0.0% 0.0%
Fire Station #4 Well 1009568491 77 256 0 256 0.0% 0.0%
Whale Rock SCADA Repeater 1008718721 75 139 3 139 0.0% 0.0%
Totals => 3,176,300 627,178 628,104
Packet Pg 45
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17
Figure 3.1 Annual Electric Use for Water Utility Facilities
Water Treatment Plant Energy Allocation
Using the utility data and our current understanding of the systems and operation of the WTP, we
performed an initial allocation (breakdown) of the WTP’s annual energy use to the equipment and
systems in the WTP to gain an understanding of where the energy is used. Based on this analysis, the
top five energy consuming systems in the WTP (accounting for more than 96% of the annual energy) are
shown in Figure 3.2. The detailed list of significant systems and equipment evaluated in the allocation
analysis, and the estimated energy use for each is shown in Table 3.2. Note that the air compressors
shown within the Disinfection process in Table 3.2 are the prime components in the air-preparation
system for the ozone generators and are integral to the ozone system. The process of determining the
breakdown of the annual electrical energy use for the WTP included:
· Identify the primary energy consuming systems and equipment and their ratings.
· Determine the annual operating hours for the equipment.
Packet Pg 46
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18
· Estimate the average power draw for the equipment over the course of a year of operation.
· Calculate the annual energy use for the equipment.
· Calculate the total annual energy use for all the equipment in the allocation analysis and
compare the total to the annual use in the utility bills.
During the PEA effort, the inventory of the primary energy consuming systems and equipment and their
ratings was identified through site visits, review of WTP drawings and documentation, and discussions
with WTP personnel. The equipment inventory is entered in the analysis spreadsheet including the
associated WTP system/process, equipment type, and electrical rating for each piece of equipment
(typically motor horsepower). This information is the foundation for the analysis and summarizing the
results.
The next step involved estimating the average power draw in kilowatts (kW) for the equipment during its
operation over the course of a year. The estimated power draw (or load) was determined by using the
equipment’s electrical rating as the maximum possible power draw and then applying a load factor (0% -
100%) to the rating to arrive at the value for the analysis. The load factors used in the WTP analysis were
influenced by one or more factors including method of motor control (constant speed or variable speed),
typical operating speed if variable, observed operating conditions (including actual operating power draw
from a submeter or equipment controller, flowrate, pressure, etc.), input from WTP operating staff, and
professional opinion based on prior experience.
The last element of determining the energy use for the equipment is to determine the annual operating
hours and apply that to the average power draw. The process of determining the operating hours was
similar to determining power draw and primarily utilized observed operating conditions, input from WTP
operating staff, and professional opinion based on prior experience. It’s important to note that many
processes/systems in the WTP have redundant equipment that do not operate simultaneously with the
lead equipment. In most of these cases, operation of the lead and backup equipment will be switched to
distribute the annual run time across the equipment. To simplify the calculations for redundant equipment,
all of the annual operating hours are attributed to the lead machine(s) and the backup will have zero
hours.
The equipment inventory with the associated electrical ratings, load factors, power draw, operating hours
and calculated energy use is included in Appendix A.
Packet Pg 47
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19
Figure 3.2 WTP Top Five Energy Consuming Systems
Packet Pg 48
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20
Table 3.2 WTP - System and Equipment List and Energy Use
Major Process/Top Energy Use Systems
Electric
Energy
Use (%)
Electric
Energy Use
(kWh)
Electric
Energy
Cost ($)
Disinfection
Blower - Ozone Destruction Unit #1 0.54% 10,892 $1,776
Blower - Ozone Destruction Unit #2 0.00% 0 $0
Compressor - AC-1 11.51% 233,003 $37,987
Compressor - AC-2 5.76% 116,502 $18,994
Compressor - AC-3 2.01% 40,735 $6,641
Other kW Load - Ozone Gen-1/PSU 13.06% 264,363 $43,100
Other kW Load - Ozone Gen-2/PSU 13.06% 264,363 $43,100
Other kW Load - Ozone Gen-3/PSU 0.00% 0 $0
Distribution Pumping
Pump - Transfer Pump 1 12.24% 247,668 $40,378
Pump - Transfer Pump 2 12.24% 247,668 $40,378
Pump - Transfer Pump 3 12.24% 247,668 $40,378
Pump - Transfer Pump 4 0.00% 0 $0
Flocculation / Sedimentation
Mixer - Coagulation Basin Mixer CMX-1 1.23% 24,960 $4,069
Mixer - Coagulation Basin Mixer CMX-2 0.00% 0 $0
Mixer - Flash Mixer #1 1.23% 24,960 $4,069
Mixer - Flash Mixer #2 0.00% 0 $0
Mixer - Injection Basin Mixer IMX-1 1.23% 24,960 $4,069
Mixer - Injection Basin Mixer IMX-1 0.00% 0 $0
Mixer - Maturation Basin Mixer MMX-1 0.84% 17,018 $2,775
Mixer - Maturation Basin Mixer MMX-2 0.00% 0 $0
Packet Pg 49
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21
Major Process/Top Energy Use Systems
Electric
Energy
Use (%)
Electric
Energy Use
(kWh)
Electric
Energy
Cost ($)
Pump - Sand Pump SP-1A 1.85% 37,440 $6,104
Pump - Sand Pump SP-1B 1.85% 37,440 $6,104
Pump - Sand Pump SP-1C 0.00% 0 $0
Pump - Sand Pump SP-2A 0.00% 0 $0
Pump - Sand Pump SP-2B 0.00% 0 $0
Pump - Sand Pump SP-2C 0.00% 0 $0
Internal Plant Pumping
Pump - Plant Service Water Skid Pump #1 3.04% 61,477 $10,023
Pump - Plant Service Water Skid Pump #2 0.25% 5,105 $832
Lighting
Other kW Load - All Outdoor Lighting 0.97% 19,710 $3,213
Other kW Load - Control/Ozone Bldg Lighting 1.40% 28,382 $4,627
Other kW Load - Lab/Filter Bldg Lighting 0.24% 4,800 $783
Non Process HVAC
Other kW Load - Control/Ozone Bldg HVAC 0.66% 13,315 $2,171
Other kW Load - Lab/Filter Bldg HVAC 0.50% 10,074 $1,642
Sludge Handling
Pump - Wash Water Reclaim Pump PMP-3 1.85% 37,440 $6,104
Pump - Wash Water Reclaim Pump PMP-4 0.00% 0 $0
Estimated Annual Electric Use & Cost 2,019,942 $329,317
Actual Annual Electric Use & Cost 2,024,181 $330,008
Difference Between Billed and Identified -4,239 -$691
Percent of Site Electrical Energy Identified 99.79%
Packet Pg 50
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22
4 ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES
4.1 Introduction
The Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) were developed through a combination of meetings and
interviews with on-site staff, field visits of facilities, analysis of utility and benchmark data, and energy and
economic analysis of potential ECM opportunities. A discussion of the existing conditions, identified
solutions, and estimated benefits for each ECM, or group of ECMs is presented in this section.
4.2 Discussion of ECMs
4.2.1 ECM-1 Hydro Power Generation at WTP
Existing Conditions
The Nacimiento Water Project (NWP) is a regional raw water transmission facility that delivers water from
Lake Nacimiento to communities in San Luis Obispo County. The City of San Luis Obispo has secured an
allocation of 5,482 acre-feet per year (AFY) of NWP water. NWP water is delivered to the City through a
pipeline that passes through the Cuesta Tunnel. The City also has water rights to the Salinas Reservoir,
the conveyance of which also passes through the Cuesta Tunnel. The NWP and Salinas Reservoir
pipelines extend from the tunnel to the City Water Treatment Plant (WTP), passing adjacent to the City
Reservoir No. 2 (Res-2).
Historically, the City operated a small Pelton Wheel hydropower facility associated with the Salinas
Reservoir pipeline. The utilization of this facility resulted in disruptions to plant operations caused by the
fluctuations in water delivery rates to the plant. Staff was able to minimize fluctuations by attenuating
flows through the forebay, but when the City switched to ozone disinfection in 1994, it became evident
that the ozone disinfection process could not tolerate variations in delivery rates. Coordinating deliveries
from the Salinas Booster Pump Station which delivers water from the Salinas Reservoir, surcharging the
Cuesta tunnel, and simultaneously meeting City demands became prohibitively complex and unreliable.
Additionally, power surges associated with electrical deliveries from the hydro-generator would frequently
disrupt the power and control systems at the WTP. For these reasons, the City discontinued use of this
hydro-generation equipment.
Measure Description
The objective of this ECM is to examine the feasibility of constructing a turbine-generator on the NWP
pipeline. The City is now receiving deliveries from the NWP, with an allocation of 5,482 AFY. Water from
the NWP is delivered to the WTP via a 12-inch diameter ductile iron pipe.
Packet Pg 51
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23
Given that the turbine can be located “in-line” (water flowing through the turbine will exit into a pipe under
pressure), a Francis turbine or a pump-type turbine would be most appropriate for this application. The
Francis turbine can accommodate a greater range of flows and has higher efficiencies.
With consideration of the flow to be delivered to the plant via the NWP, the turbine could have an
estimated rated output of 125-300 kW, depending on the water delivery schedule. The turbine could be
located near the original hydro-generation equipment site (near Res-2), on City property at the WTP, or
potentially on property adjacent to the plant. To maximize power production, a constant flow rate may be
recommended so that the turbine can run at the best efficiency or at a fixed discharge rate. The length of
time each day that the turbine will run will be determined by optimization of water deliveries, hydraulic
limitations, plant staffing and operational strategies, and system demands. If there is more demand than
the turbine can accommodate, surplus flows will be conveyed via bypass valve into the forebay or storage
tank.
A number of alternatives to recovering energy from the City’s water supply sources were evaluated.
These alternatives included:
1- Reuse/Rehab Existing Pelton Wheel
2- Combine Salinas and NWP line, New Francis Turbine at WTP
3- Combine Salinas and NWP line at Res-2, Construct new dedicated fill to Res-2. Reuse or replace
existing pipeline as Res-2 fill line, New Francis Turbine at WTP
4- New Francis Turbine on NWP Line at WTP
The project team convened workshops to evaluate these alternatives and to identify the preferred solution
for further evaluation. Alternatives 1 through 3 were rejected due to a number of factors, including the
need to surcharge water in the gravity pipeline upstream of the facility, and potential disruption to plant
operations, and the unknown ability of the Salinas Reservoir pipeline to support the envisioned
operational change. It was determined that the risk of damage to the aged Salinas pipeline would be
significant if operated in the high-pressure conditions typical of the NWP line.
Based on minimizing risk of disruption to plant operations, and maximizing the generation potential,
Alternative 4 was identified as the preferred approach.
NWP Raw Water Turnout at WTP (T11)
Based on data obtained for this report, static pipeline pressure at the WTP exceeds 400 psi. Pressure is
currently being reduced through a pressure reducing valve. Figure 4.1 below presents the pressure
available at the WTP Raw Water Turnout as a function of flow.
Packet Pg 52
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24
Figure 4.1 – T11 Turnout Pressure vs. Flow
Flow Considerations
The City has an allocation of up to 5,482 AFY from the NWP. In order to evaluate variable delivery rates
from the NWP and variable daily operational time, flow scenarios were developed to represent the most
feasible range of long-term deliveries. These flow scenarios were evaluated on their ability to maximize
deliveries from the NWP, meet City water demands, meet WTP current hours of operation and staffing
constraints, and operate within the hydraulic limitations of the NWP pipeline. For fiscal years 2016 and
2017, average annual delivery from the NWP was approximately 3,600 AFY. This annual average
delivery volume was selected as the basis for the hydropower calculations as it represents current
conditions (2016 was also a drought year). This delivery scenario also allows the City to operate below
the hydraulic limitations of the NWP pipeline assuming operation 335 days per year2, for a minimum
duration of 16 hours per day. The City WTP is currently staffed for approximately two shifts
(approximately 17 hours per day), with a single-shift shut down during nighttime hours. If future conditions
2 Since the NWP can be offline for up to one month per year for maintenance, it was assumed that the
flow from the NWP would be available 335 days per year.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
-500 500 1500 2500 3500 4500Pressure (psi)Flow (gpm)
Packet Pg 53
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25
change, the City may elect to revise the balance of deliveries between the City’s raw water sources. A
summary of the delivery conditions can be seen in Table 4.1 below.
It is important to note that the existing NWP pipeline feeding the WTP (NWP Unit 1) has a maximum
instantaneous design flowrate of 5.4 MGD, or 3770 GPM. Under the 17-hour WTP staffing scenario (335
days per year), the maximum flowrate that the pipeline can deliver is 3,700 AFY (average) over a duration
of 17 hours per day.
Scenario
Annual
Delivery
(AFY)
NWP Flowrate During WTP
Operational Hours (Note 1)
Flow (MGD) Flow (GPM)
Instantaneous Design Max (Unit H1) 5.4 3,770
Maximum Annual NWP Allocation 5,480 8.0 5,223
FY 2016 3,841 5.6 3,664
FY 2017 3,372 4.9 3,205
Average 2016-2017 3,600 5.2 3,429
Note 1: 335 days per year, 17 hours per day
Table 4.1 – Scenarios and Hydraulic Conditions Summary
Utility Analysis
Detailed electrical usage data was obtained and analyzed from the electrical utility (PG&E). The data
indicates that on a demand basis, a hydro-generation system up to 400 kW could be warranted. For the
fiscal years 2014 -2017 analyzed, the average cost of electricity purchased was $0.165/kWh. This
average rate will be used in this analysis to determine the financial benefits associated with the turbine’s
energy production.
Equipment Sizing Based on Flow Options
Turbine equipment was evaluated using the average annual delivery of 3,600 AF, utilizing the three
scenarios developed for plant operating hours (12, 17, and 24-hour operation). Two vendors were
contacted to provide preliminary information on equipment: Canyon Hydro of Deming, WA, and Gilkes
North America of Tacoma, WA. Table 4.2 below summarizes the various alternatives.
Packet Pg 54
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26
Table 4.2 – Summary of Alternatives
Review of Table 4.2 indicates that under the selected conditions, the Gilkes Francis Turbine has the
greatest potential power production at the WTP’s current operating schedule when compared to other
options. It can also be seen that the potential power production would only increase slightly with 24-hour
plant operation. The City will need to further evaluate the financial and non-financial issues associated
with 24-hour operation that may impact the decision.
Licensing and Permitting
Since the proposed project involves rehabilitation/replacement of existing hydro-generation infrastructure,
it is anticipated that the hydrogeneration project will be determined to be exempt from CEQA
requirements under Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Article 19, Section 15000. When a project is
Categorically Exempt, no permitting or filing of Notice of Exemption (NOE) is required. However, if an
NOE is filed with the State Clearinghouse, there is a shorter statute of limitations of 35 days (vs. 180
days) for any challenge to the agency decision.
A crucial element to moving forward with the project is the City’s ability to obtain an extension of the City’s
permits and licenses associated with the existing facilities. Under the Federal Power Act (FPA), The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates non-federal hydropower resources. FERC
issues three types of development authorizations: conduit exemptions, 10-megawatt (MW) exemptions,
and licenses. FERC approval is required to construct and operate small/low-impact projects while
assuring adequate protection of environmental resources. The FERC Small/Low-Impact Hydropower
Projects program is intended for small projects that would result in minor environmental effects (e.g.,
projects that involve little change to water flow and use and are unlikely to affect threatened and
Equipment
NWP
Annual
Delivery
Hours of
Operation
Flowrate
During
Operational
Hours
(Note 1)
Head
Required
after
Hydro.
Available
Head
Output
Power
Annual
Power
Generation
Annual
Utility
Savings
AF (hr/day) (gpm) (psi) (ft) (ft) (ft) (kW) kWh $
Canyon Hydro 3600 12 4858
(2x) 5TR3 17 3429 250 578 80 498 180 951,030 143,457$
5TR4 24 2429 340 785 80 705 125 1,001,875 124,576$
Gilkes 3600 12 4858
230G100 17 3429 250 578 80 498 250 1,320,875 203,502$
230G100 24 2429 340 785 80 705 200 1,603,000 206,431$
Note 1: 335 days per year
Head at
WTP
EXCEEDS PIPELINE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY
EXCEEDS PIPELINE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY
Packet Pg 55
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27
endangered species). To meet the City’s financial and construction deadlines, an extension of the existing
license is required for the hydrogeneration project to be viable.
Recommendations
Based on this preliminary analysis, the potential to avoid up to $200,000 per year in electrical costs exists
(based on the historical average electrical cost of $0.165/kWh and without changing WTP operational
hours). To maximize electrical production even further, the City would need to receive higher annual
volumes from the NWP, which would require the City to change its operating hours to avoid hydraulic
limitation of the NWP pipeline. With the data that has presented itself during this preliminary analysis, and
based on input from staff, we would recommend further evaluation of the Gilkes 250 kW option operated
within the City’s current operating and staffing schedule, and receiving 3,600 AF annually from the NWP.
During the IGA process the SST team will continue working with turbine manufacturers to further refine
the selected equipment, and to optimize the water delivery schedule.
Prior to further design, it is recommended that the City obtain confirmation that the FERC licensing and
permitting associated with the existing facility can be extended and applied to the proposed new
equipment. Alternatively, it is recommended that FERC be consulted to determine if the project would
qualify for a Conduit Exemption. Our initial investigation into applicable FERC filing and licensing fees for
a 250 kW hydropower project under the Small/Low-Impact Hydropower Projects program found that there
are no filing fees and no annual fees for projects less than 1.5MW. See the table below which is an
excerpt from the Project Comparison Chart on FERC’s website (found at the following web address):
https://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/small-low-impact/get-started/exemp-
licens/project-comparison.asp
Qualifying Conduit
Hydropower
Facility
Conduit Exemption 10-MW Exemption License
Installed
Capacity
Limitations
5 MW or less 40 MW or less 10 MW or less Unlimited
Filing Fees None None None None
Annual
Charges Not Applicable
Currently projects up
to 1.5 MW not
charged
Currently projects up
to 1.5 MW not
charged
Currently projects up
to 1.5 MW not
charged
Packet Pg 56
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Significant reduction of electric utility costs and return on investment resulting from self-
generation of energy.
· Beneficial utilization of a renewable energy source that is currently wasted.
· Significant reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
4.2.2 ECM-2 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Ozone System Upgrade
Existing Conditions
The WTP treats raw water from the Whale Rock Reservoir, the Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake),
and the NWP. The existing treatment process includes pre-ozonation, coagulation, ballasted flocculation,
and filtration through a process, followed by disinfection with hypochlorite for inactivation of 3 log for
Giardia and 4 log for virus. For 2016, the average daily production was 4.4 MGD. The design treatment
capacity of the plant is 16 MGD.
Previous pilot testing and operational experience has shown that ozonation is a very effective disinfectant
and oxidant for the City. The ozonation process has allowed the City to meet primary disinfection and
minimize formation of regulated disinfection byproducts, while providing taste and odor control, color
reduction, and enhanced filtration performance. Other disinfectants such as chlorine, chloramines, and
chlorine dioxide were considered in the past; however, ozonation was deemed the best alternative. UV
disinfection has been considered as a viable alternative because of its effectiveness for inactivation of
Giardia and Cryptosporidium, but it does not provide the other process and water quality benefits that
ozonation provides. Therefore, ozonation is preferred by the WTP operators.
The existing ozonation system, which consists of air-preparation, generation, addition, and destruction,
was installed in 1994. The air-preparation system is made up of air-fed compressors, aftercoolers, and
dryers.
The ozonation, air-preparation and ozone destruction equipment is
over 23 years old, which is causing increased need for investment
in service and repair. This is reflected in the City’s 2017-2019
financial plan where at least $133,000 per year has been budgeted
for maintenance of the ozone and air-preparation systems in fiscal
years 2017-18 through 2021-22. Additionally, the City has
budgeted for the replacement of one air compressor in the 2017-
Figure 4.1 Ozone Generator and
Power Supply Unit
Packet Pg 57
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29
2018 fiscal year to address the aging compressors. The most challenging and costly maintenance is for
the ozone generators (OGs) since the supplier (Emery-Trailigaz) is no longer in the municipal drinking
water market, the OGs are obsolete products, replacement parts are scarce, and the pool of qualified and
experienced service providers is very limited.
The basic design parameters for the existing ozonation facilities are summarized below.
Parameter Design
Maximum flow, MGD 16
Design ozone dose (transferred), mg/L 3.4
Max dosage, mg/L 4.0
Design contact time, minutes 11.4
Air compressors, each 3
Air compressor capacity, CFM, each 236
Aftercoolers, each 2
Aftercooler capacity, SCFM, each 480
Air receivers, each 2
Air receiver capacity, gallons, each 650
Compressed air dryers, each 2
Dryer capacity, SCFM, each 480
Generators, each 3
Generator capacity, ppd 250
Total generator capacity, ppd 750
Contact basin diffuser type Ceramic disc
Off-gas destruct 2
Off-gas destruct capacity, SCFM 231
Table 4.3 – Existing Ozone System
Packet Pg 58
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30
Variability of Ozone Demand
In 1994, ozone was incorporated as the primary disinfectant at the WTP to minimize the formation of
disinfection byproducts during the treatment process. At the time, the WTP treated water from two
sources: Whale Rock Reservoir (WR) and the Salinas Reservoir. In 2007, prior to the introduction of
water from the NWP, the City performed an evaluation of ozone demand as a function of various blend
ratios of the two water sources. Data from the months of February, May, and August (2001 to 2006) were
selected to represent the periods when the WTP operated with the Salinas supply only, Whale Rock (WR)
supply only, or with a combination of the two supplies. The ozone demand was calculated based on the
gas flow rate, ozone weight percent, and plant influent flow rate.
Since the WTP was operated as a blended system between raw water supplies, the ozone dose generally
varied as the source rates varied. For example, the required ozone dose generally increased as the flow
rate from the Salinas Reservoir increased. The ozone dose was lowest when only water from the WR
Reservoir was used. Figure 4.6 below shows the historical ozone dose as a function of the WR Reservoir
flow contribution, and is shown to demonstrate the variability in ozone demand.
Figure 4.6 – Historic Ozone Dose
Packet Pg 59
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31
Review of Figure 4.6 indicates that when the WR Reservoir contribution was 31 to 40% and the Salinas
Reservoir contribution is 60 to 69%, the required average ozone dose was 3.7 mg/L. When the flow
contributions were reversed and the WR Reservoir contribution was 75% and the Salinas Reservoir
contribution was 25%, the required average ozone dose was 3.58 mg/L.
The historical data shows that there is not a strong correlation between ozone dose and source water
blend when blending two source waters. This demonstrates the need to obtain additional data to establish
this correlation now that the City relies on a blend of three source waters. A comprehensive ozone dose
piloting program is recommended to determine required ozone dose under various blending conditions,
and to assist in selection of replacement ozone equipment.
Ozone Piloting
Obtaining additional ozone dosing data from full-scale operation of the WTP is difficult, since the WTP
must remain in continuous operation and the source blend is variable. Obtaining data at various blends
would be best accomplished by operating a pilot ozonation system at low flow rates. The blending ratio
could then be easily changed without affecting overall WTP operation.
The primary objective of the ozonation pilot would be to identify maximum ozone demand for various
blend ratios of the three primary water sources supplying the WTP to assist in proper equipment sizing.
The pilot would operate at low flow rates (e.g. approximately 10 GPM), with a target ozone dose of 3-5
mg/L. This is equivalent to ozone production of approximately 11.4 grams/hr (0.6 lb/day) at 5 mg/L. Pilot
ozone systems of this capacity are available from multiple vendors.
While a full pilot protocol is beyond the scope of this document, the pilot program could be expected to
consist of:
1. Design the pilot facilities, including contact chamber, residence chamber, and ozone destruct
system. Typical pilot systems would require less than 10 GPM water feed. Water supply to the
pilot system should be taken from the various sources prior to any treatment at the WTP. Effluent
from the pilot test should be returned to the filter washwater treatment system for reuse.
2. Procure pilot test from one or more vendors. Provide online ozone analysis after the contact
chamber to allow automated data collection during the pilot test.
3. Install and test the pilot system(s) at varying blend rates. These should include:
a. Single-source test for each of the water sources
b. Binary blends for all three combinations, at prescribed increments
c. Trinary blends at prescribed increments
4. Each blend rate should be maintained for a duration sufficient for determining the ozone residual.
If automatic ozone analysis is provided, record effluent ozone concentration at 10-minute
Packet Pg 60
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32
intervals. If not, perform manual ozone analyses at the maximum practical rate. The data from the
pilot system should be compared with the parallel data from the existing plant to evaluate
correlation.
5. Determine the optimal ozonation rates to achieve 0.5 log inactivation of giardia for each of the
blending rates, and verify sufficient data is available to predict ozonation concentrations. If not,
repeat any test runs necessary to fill in data gaps.
6. Receive pilot report, with recommendations for ozone system configuration and operation.
The pilot system should be designed to mimic the existing ozone contact basin as much as possible. At
current typical flows, the existing process achieves the required contact time (CT) from contact cells #1
and #2. It may be possible to achieve the target CT in cell #1 alone. The pilot should be designed to
evaluate a variety of dosing concentrations and a variety of contact durations to identify the best
approach to meeting the target log inactivation for the ozone pretreatment process.
Measure Description
The focus of this measure is to replace the existing ozone system with a new system that is appropriately
sized, reliable, maintainable, and uses less energy to operate when compared to the existing system. As
part of this ECM, a variety of replacement alternatives will be evaluated to identify the preferred approach.
Scope of Work
· Develop and perform an Ozone Pilot study to determine the ozone demand of a variety of source
water blends. The pilot study will evaluate the best use of the existing contact basins to inform the
selection of generator capacity for best efficiency and permit compliance.
· Evaluate feed gas options including Liquid Oxygen and ambient air. Evaluation criteria may
include energy consumption, lifecycle costs, capital expense, maintainability, etc.
· Develop recommendations for ozone production capacity to meet variable ozone demands.
· Develop recommendations for number of generators to meet maximum and variable ozone
demands, while providing sufficient redundancy.
· Coordinate ozone generator selection with Division Drinking Water permit requirements and
evaluate approaches to meeting CT compliance (e.g. Meeting CT in cell 1 alone vs. several
cells).
· Develop cost estimates for construction, operation, and maintenance. Utilize these costs to
estimate lifecycle costs.
Packet Pg 61
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced energy consumption.
· Replacement of aging, obsolete ozone equipment and components.
· Improved ability to perform maintenance.
· Potential improvement in achieving permit compliance.
· Increased reliability and redundancy.
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
4.2.3 ECM-3 WTP Transfer Pump Station Backup Power
Existing Conditions
The existing Transfer Pump Station (TPS) located at the South end of the Stenner Creek Road facility is a
purpose-built cinder block structure which houses four 75hp pumps that transfer treated water from the
plant Clearwell to Res-2 which in turn provides water to the high-pressure distribution system throughout
the city. To serve the electrical loads, the TPS is equipped with a 600 amp motor control center (MCC-6)
that distributes power to the four existing pumps as well as building lighting, ventilation, and control
systems. This motor control center is equipped with a manual transfer switch, which in the event of a
power outage, allows the facility operators to connect a portable generator to run one of the four booster
pumps. When this happens, a generator must be retrieved and transported from an offsite location,
connected to the MCC, manually operated and eventually brought back to its offsite location. It should be
noted that Res-2 has two to three days of storage capacity to meet the city’s high-pressure zone
demands. This gives the plant staff ample time to arrange for a backup generator if it may be needed.
The future plans for the plant may include Res-2 being taken offline for an extended period of time for
rebuilding or replacement. The existing configuration will not provide proper emergency back up to serve
the high-pressure zones.
Measure Description
We recommend the City consider augmenting the TPS electrical infrastructure by installing a new
permanent diesel or propane fueled backup power generator and the addition of a new auto transfer
switch (ATS) to automatically provide power to MCC-6 during a loss of power.
Scope of Work
· Provide a new 300kW/375kVA backup generator located on the North-West side of the existing
TPS building.
Packet Pg 62
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34
· Replace the existing manual transfer switch with a new auto transfer switch.
· Provide all infrastructure necessary to integrate the new generator/ATS system in the existing
power distribution system.
· Provide interface with the existing SCADA system for remote generator status and alarm
monitoring.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Allow for the operation of all four Transfer pumps during a power loss.
· Provides water supply security for the city’s high-pressure service.
· Provide for fire protection needs during a power loss.
· Reduce health /safety concerns during power outage by providing continuous positive pressure in
the high-pressure system.
· Reduced maintenance efforts and cost related to back up electrical service needs.
· Provides water supply security and flexibility during Res-2 construction.
4.2.4 ECM-4 WTP Transfer Pump Station Upgrades
Existing Conditions
As discussed above, the TPS houses four (4) transfer pumps that ultimately
provide treated water to the city’s high-pressure distribution system. This is
accomplished by pumping water from Clearwell #1 to Res-2 which in turn
gravity feeds the high-pressure system. The high-pressure system can be
directly served from the transfer pumps in the event Res-2 is taken offline.
The only event in which the high-pressure system would be directly
pumped is if Res-2 would be taken offline for maintenance or to be rebuilt
as recommended in the city’s 2015 Water Master Plan. If the high-pressure system is directly fed and
demand is fluctuating, there is no way to regulate the system flow other than manually turning system
pumps on and off.
For system control, the TPS building is currently equipped with a Bristol Babcock 3300 Distributed
Process Controller (DPC) that is integrated into the facility wide SCADA system. For operation and
monitoring of the four transfer pumps, each is currently set up for remote starting, and alarm monitoring
via the SCADA system. In addition to pump control and monitoring, the system supply pressure and flow
is monitored by the SCADA system. Because Res-2 has a storage capacity to serve the City’s high-
pressure system for 2 to 3 days (depending on demand) there is currently not an automated process
Figure 4.2 TPS Controller (CSP)
Packet Pg 63
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35
utilized through the SCADA system to operate the Transfer pumps. On average three pumps are
operated manually by the plant operators based on when the plant is in operation which averages 16
hours a day.
Measure Description
As the City’s primary mission in the operation of the plant is providing reliable safe water service, careful
consideration should be given to determine the most effective approach to modifying and controlling the
TPS. The primary options under consideration for evaluation and inclusion in this program are: the
addition of Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) to each of the four existing transfer pumps and improved
pump sequencing – the combination of which is expected to improve overall system efficiency.
The two primary benefits include the ability to slowly ramp up each pump when they are brought online to
eliminate pressure spikes and the ability to continually modulate the pump speed to meet varied demands
of the high-pressure system.
Another recommendation to manage the operational costs of the TPS is to integrate level sensing at
Clearwell #1 and pump sequencing to minimize the energy consumption related to serving Res-2. This
would include the strategic operation of pumps based on energy usage, energy rates, and tank levels.
Scope of Work
· Add VFDs to each of the four existing transfer pumps and integrate into the existing SCADA
system.
· Add a remote pressure sensor or tank level sensor at Bishop Storage tank to monitor the high-
pressure system.
· Add sequence of operation in the SCADA system to allow for automatic operation of the Transfer
pumps to directly serve the high-pressure system.
· Add programming to the TPS control system with logic to optimize the operation of the pumps
when serving Res-2 based on Clearwell Levels, Res-2 levels and Time-of-Use (TOU) electric
rates.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Optimized system sequencing and function with or without Res-2 online.
· Reduced staff requirements for manual operation.
· Reduced electrical use, demand, and related costs.
· Provide the ability to reduce disinfection by-products related to water age issues in the Water
Distribution System.
Packet Pg 64
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36
4.2.5 ECM-5 WTP Photovoltaic Power Generation
Existing Conditions
The WTP currently does not utilize renewable energy resources to displace grid supplied energy and
reduce the WTP’s utility costs.
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the City’s consumption of energy from its
utility provider and the related costs by installing photovoltaic (PV) generation systems at the WTP.
The initial solution considered for this site is the installation of two ground-mount PV arrays, one 100
kW DC array to the northwest of the forebay and a second 130 kW DC array between the forebay and the
idle sedimentation basin. This system will be able to produce approximately 341,000 kWh annually which
will offset approximately 16% of the WTP’s current consumption. Since this and the other proposed PV
systems would generate more than 15% of the WTP’s current consumption it would enable the use of
Option R for Solar in the PG&E E-19 time-of-use tariff for the WTP. This optional rate reduces demand
rates in exchange for higher energy rates and is typically economically beneficial for sites with PV. The
initial evaluation of Option R for the WTP after implementation of the SST project shows that it will reduce
utility costs compared to E-19 without Option R.
One of the challenges for locating PV systems at the WTP is dedicating the site’s limited land to PV
systems so as to not interfere with WTP operations or future plant modifications. Close coordination with
WTP staff will be required to identify areas that are suitable to plant operations while providing good PV
system performance and cost-effective system installation.
Additional Considerations
· Potential locations for several additional PV arrays have been identified and are described below.
If all of the additional arrays are able to be installed, that would increase the PV capacity by 260
to 320 KWDC and generate an additional 400,000 – 495,000 kWh annually (approximately 20-25%
of the WTP’s current use).
o Two additional small arrays of roughly 20 kW DC each might be located along the fence
line near the wash water tanks (Arrays #3 and 4 shown in Figure 4.3 below).
o The rooftops of the Control, Lab, and Chemical buildings might accommodate small PV
systems totaling 70-80 kW DC (Arrays #7, 8 and 10 shown in Figure 4.3 below).
o A PV system could also be located on the land being considered for the hydrogeneration
system (to the southeast of Clearwell #2 and the Transfer Pump Station). If the entire pie-
Packet Pg 65
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37
wedge shaped area is available to the City, this area could accommodate a PV system of
150-200 kW DC (Array #9 shown in Figure 4.3 below).
· PG&E has proposed changes to its time-of-use (TOU) structure and rates, including E-19, that
will ultimately reduce utility cost savings for PV systems relative to the existing rates. On
October 26, 2017 the CPUC approved Decision 17-01-006 that provides “grandfathering” of the
current TOU rate periods for public agencies who submit a solar PV interconnection application
(IA) prior to December 31, 2017. The grandfathering extends the current TOU periods to July 31,
2027. In order to secure TOU grandfathering for PV at the WTP, Southland submitted an IA to
PG&E on behalf of the City on December 22, 2017 for PV systems with a total capacity of 624
kWAC (approximately 780 kWDC). This application also covers the PV systems discussed in ECM-
6.
· Energy generated by PV systems directly connected to the WTP has the best economic value
($/kWh) versus utilizing bill credit transfers (BCT) from excess generation at another of the City’s
sites.
· The WTP experiences periodic power quality type issues that affect systems in the WTP and
could affect the electronics in PV system inverters. Further investigation to understand and
characterize the issues will be required.
· Investigate the benefits and costs of utilizing a battery storage system with the PV systems in the
IGA.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Significant reduction in electric utility costs.
· Renewable generation of up to 41% of the WTP’s current consumption if all identified arrays are
installed.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) resulting from the City’s operations.
Packet Pg 66
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 Figure 4.3 - Water Treatment Plant Potential PV Locations Packet Pg 671
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39
4.2.6 ECM-6 WTP Photovoltaic Shade Canopy for Actiflo and Filter Basins
Existing Conditions
The WTP currently does not utilize renewable energy resources to displace grid supplied energy and
reduce the WTP’s utility costs. Additionally, the Actiflo and filter basins are exposed to the sun for most
daylight hours which can promote algae growth in these systems.
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the City’s consumption of energy from the
utility and the related costs by installing photovoltaic (PV) generation systems at the WTP. An additional
goal of this measure is to reduce exposure of the Actiflo basins and filters to the sun to reduce conditions
for algae growth and algae related disinfection byproducts in these areas of the process.
The initial envisioned solution is the installation of two canopy mounted PV arrays, one 30 kWDC array
over the Actiflo basins and a second 35 kWDC array over the Filters (see PV arrays #5 and #6 shown in
Figure 4.3 in ECM-5 above). This system will be able to produce approximately 100,000 kWh annually
which will offset approximately 4.7% of the WTP’s current consumption.
Additional Considerations
· Energy generated by PV systems directly connected to the WTP has the best economic value
($/kWh) versus utilizing bill credit transfers (BCT) from excess generation at another of the City’s sites.
· The WTP experiences periodic power quality type issues that affect systems in the WTP and
could affect the electronics in PV system inverters. Further investigation to understand and
characterize the issues will be required.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced electric utility costs.
· Renewable generation of 4.7% of the WTP’s current consumption.
· Improved water quality and human health due to reducing the potential for algae growth.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
Packet Pg 68
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40
4.2.7 ECM-7 WTP Lighting Improvements
Existing Conditions
Our brief site visits and examination of the site’s drawings indicate that the interior spaces throughout the
WTP are equipped primarily with linear fluorescent light fixtures utilizing T8 lamps. There are a variety of
exterior fixture types (wall mount and pole mount) and technologies (high pressure sodium (HPS),
induction, metal halide (MH)).
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the energy consumption of the WTP’s indoor
and exterior lighting systems, improve their efficiency and life-cycle costs, and standardize the
components of these systems as much as is reasonable within the goals and constraints of the project.
In general, the indoor lighting systems will be improved through application of LED technology. The
envisioned solutions include:
· Linear fluorescent to LED upgrade by modifying existing fixtures with LED retrofit kits. The
existing lamps and ballasts will be removed and replaced with new tubular LED lamps and a LED
driver to power the lamps. The existing fixture housing and power wiring to the fixture will remain
in place.
· In situations where the existing fixture housings are in poor condition or otherwise not suitable for
a retrofit solution, the luminaire will be replaced with a new LED luminaire.
· Install new lighting controls (such as occupancy sensors) where required to comply with Title-24.
· Conversion of the fluorescent systems to LED typically reduces energy consumption by at least
50%.
In general, the outdoor lighting systems will be improved through application of LED technology. The
envisioned solutions include:
· Replacement of existing exterior luminaires with new high-efficiency LED luminaires. The
applications at the City’s facilities typically include parking area lights, building wall packs, pole-
mounted area lights, and flood lights.
· A retrofit solution of removing the ballast and installing a LED lamp and driver may be proposed
in situations where the existing fixture housing is in good condition and suitable for the retrofit
solution.
· Installation of Title-24 compliant controls for the new exterior lighting systems as required.
· Conversion of HPS and MH fixtures to LED typically reduces energy consumption 60%-70%.
Packet Pg 69
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced electric utility costs.
· Reduced maintenance efforts for the lighting systems resulting from the longer operating life of
the LED fixtures.
· Enhanced safety in exterior areas resulting from improved color rendering delivered by LED
fixtures.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
4.2.8 ECM-8 WTP HVAC and HVAC Control Improvements
Existing Conditions
The primary HVAC systems at the WTP consist of the following:
· A 3-ton packaged rooftop heating and cooling system with programmable thermostat for the
control room in the Control Building.
· A 5-ton packaged rooftop heating and cooling system with programmable thermostat for the
offices, Facility Room, and common areas on the second floor of the Control Building.
· A 5-ton packaged heating and cooling system (heat pump) with programmable thermostat for the
lab and office areas in the Lab Building.
· Exhaust systems for the ozone air preparation room and the ozone generator room in the Control
Building.
· Exhaust systems with fractional horsepower exhaust fans for the Transfer Pump Station building,
Chemical Building, and Pretreatment Building.
Due to the relatively small size of the WTP’s HVAC systems and San Luis Obispo’s mild climate, the
estimated annual electric energy use for the WTP’s HVAC systems is small at 37,600 kWh (about 1.8% of
the WTP’s use) and the resulting cost is roughly $6,200/year.
Based on our understanding of the configuration and operation of these systems, the opportunity to
meaningfully and cost effectively reduce the energy use of these systems is small, and additional study of
these systems is not recommended.
Packet Pg 70
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42
4.2.9 ECM-9 WTP Plant Service Water System Upgrades
Existing Conditions
The Plant Service Water System (PSWS) provides treated water to a number of processes and uses in
the WTP including cooling water for equipment, plant water, irrigation, fire hydrants, and fire suppression.
The PSWS consists of a Flowtronex packaged booster pump system (BPS) located in the Pump Station
building near Clearwell #1, a network of distribution piping in the WTP downstream of the booster pump
system, and an 8” pipe connection to the High-Pressure Zone that is the source of treated water to the
system. The Flowtronex BPS is designed to deliver 550 GPM at a discharge pressure of 90 psig and
includes a skid with two constant speed 30HP end-suction centrifugal pumps, a constant speed 3HP
vertical turbine pump (“jockey” pump), suction and discharge piping, pump discharge pressure control
valves, electric power control components, and instrumentation and controls.
The predominant service water use appears to be the cooling water (CW) system that provides cooling for
the ozone generators (OG), ozone power supply units (PSUs), air compressors for the ozone system
(AC), and compressed air aftercoolers (AFC). When equipment connected to the CW system is operating,
its CW valve is opened allowing CW to flow from the CW supply piping through operating equipment,
removing heat. The equipment’s CW valve is closed when the equipment is off. The CW leaving the
equipment flows into the CW return piping and is ultimately sent to the plant for re-treatment via
connection to the filter inlet channel.
Typically, one 30 HP pump operates during normal plant operation and the
“jockey” pump operates when service water demands are low (usually when
the water treatment process is off). The operator’s logs for January 2017
through October 2017 show the service water flow rate averages roughly 280
GPM during plant operation and the average suction pressure at the pump
skid is approximately 65 psig. Based on the pump curve for the main pumps,
one of the main pumps will produce 152 feet of head (65.8 psi) at 280 GPM
which results in a pump discharge pressure of 130.8 psig. This is significantly
more than the 90 psig PSWS pressure set-point that the booster pump
package is attempting to satisfy. As a result, the excess 40.8 psi of pressure
is throttled (wasted) down to the set-point by the pump’s discharge pressure
control valve. That generation of excess pressure wastes of 62% of the
energy used by the pump. The estimated power draw for a main pump at the
280 GPM operating condition is 10.2 kW and its resulting annual electric use
is 61,434 kWh.
Figure 4.4 Plant Service Water
System Booster Pumps
Packet Pg 71
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43
An ongoing problem with the BPS is an electric “phase fault” that causes the booster pump system to
shut down approximately 10-12 times per year. This failure causes the loss of cooling water to key ozone
system equipment that usually results in shut down of the ozone system, and ultimately the water
treatment process. The phase fault is internal to the BPS controls and utilizes a 3-phase voltage sensor to
monitor multiple aspects of the voltage to the BPS. If conditions are outside the set-points in the monitor,
the monitor provides a single contact output to the BPS controller that in turn generates the fault and
shuts down the system. The specific electrical condition that triggers the phase fault is not yet known.
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the energy consumption of the main PSWS
pumps and to eliminate the phase faults that cause the BPS and the WTP to shut down. The energy
reduction will be achieved by installing a variable frequency drive (VFD) for each of the two main pumps,
eliminating the discharge pressure control valves for the main pumps, and implementing controls that will
control the speed of the pumps to maintain the pump discharge pressure at the 90 psig set-point required
for the PSWS. This will minimize generation and throttling of excess pressure by the pumps and is
expected to reduce the BPS energy use by approximately 60%.
The solution for eliminating the phase faults will require additional study during the IGA to understand the
specific condition causing the fault and the root cause of that condition.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced electrical use, demand, and related costs.
· Increased operational reliability of the WTP.
· Reduced maintenance efforts resulting from eliminating the pump discharge pressure control
valves (Cla-Val valves).
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
Packet Pg 72
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44
4.2.10 ECM-10 WTP Filter Backwash Tank Filling Improvements
Existing Conditions
The WTP’s filters are backwashed periodically each
day to clean the media to maintain their
effectiveness. The Wash Water System (WWS)
utilizes treated water to backwash the WTP’s filters
and consists of two atmospheric wash water tanks
to the northwest of the Chemical Building, wash
water piping between the filters and the tanks,
wash water drain piping from the filters to the wash
water reclamation basins, automated valves and
controls for controlling backwash operations, and treated water piping (supply) from the Plant Pump
House (PPH) to a connection on the wash water piping between the tanks and filters that is used to fill the
tanks. When a tank needs to be filled, an automated valve is opened in the PPH and treated water flows
from the High-Pressure Zone through an 8” line to the Pump House (same pipe that supplies the plant
Service Water System) to the wash water supply piping.
Prior to the 2006 WTP upgrade project, there were dedicated wash water pumps in the Pump House that
drew treated water from the storage tank where Clearwell #1 is now located. During a site visit, it was
confirmed that the piping between Clearwell #1 and the Pump House is no longer in place.
The current tank filling method from the High-Pressure Zone is simple and effective, but utilizes more
energy than would be required to fill the wash water tanks by directly pumping water from Clearwell #1.
The excess energy results from using the high-pressure water created by the transfer pumps (requiring
approximately 141 feet of pump head) compared to the estimated pump head of 60 feet needed to fill a
wash water tank from Clearwell #1. If the typical time to fill a 75,000 gallon wash water tank is 60 minutes,
the resulting flowrate is 1,250 GPM and the estimated transfer pump motor power draw for that flow is
37.7 kW. On average, the backwash tanks are filled twice per day and the resulting annual electric use is
27,533 kWh.
Measure Description
The concept of this energy conservation measure is reducing the energy used to fill the backwash tanks
by only creating the head needed to fill the backwash tanks from Clearwell #1 versus throttling of the
excess pressure generated by the transfer pumps. Filling the tank from Clearwell #1 at 1,250 GPM using
a pump developing 60 feet of head would result in an estimated motor power draw of 17.8 kW, and
annual energy use of 12,988 kWh (a 52% reduction).
Figure 4.5 Wash Water Tanks
Packet Pg 73
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45
This measure requires the installation of a new pump (in or near the Pump House) for filling the wash
water tanks, power for the pump, suction and discharge piping, controls, and piping connection to
Clearwell #1. The existing method of filling the tanks from the High-Pressure Zone can remain as a back
up to the pump, and allows wash water tank filling if Clearwell #1 is offline.
Since a suitable piping connection does not exist between Clearwell #1 and the Pump House, and is
expected to be costly to install, it is our opinion that the cost to implement this measure makes it
economically unattractive.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduced electrical use, demand, and related costs.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) resulting from the City’s operations.
4.2.11 ECM-11 WTP SCADA/Controls Upgrades
Existing Conditions
The WTP is equipped with an existing SCADA system which is utilized by the City’s staff to monitor and
control key equipment and processes at the WTP. This system is equipped with 10 Control System
Processors (CPS) which are Bristol Babcock DPC RTU controllers of varying vintage (1994–2008). These
controllers located at multiple locations around the plant are networked back to operator workstations in
the WTP’s control room via Cat-5 or Fiber optic cabling. The main operator workstation is equipped with
iFIX interface software as well as historian for trending and archiving key parameters needed for system
operation and regulatory compliance.
The existing system as described above is confined to the WTP at Stenner Creek Road and currently has
no capability for remote access or interface with systems outside of the plant. In addition, the existing
Bristol Babcock system controllers are an aging platform with limited availability of spare parts and
service providers which is accompanied with rising maintenance costs.
The City is currently moving forward on a project to upgrade the SCADA control components associated
with the Water Distribution System (WDS), which is fed from the WTP, to an Allen Bradley family of
controllers. After the project is complete, the entire WDS will have the ability to be monitored and
controlled systematically on a unified platform. The WTP is not part of this migration and will not have the
ability to send or receive information on the system as a whole.
Packet Pg 74
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46
Measure Description
The objective of this measure is to improve the existing SCADA system at the WTP by upgrading the
existing controllers to a platform that is compatible with the system being installed for the WDS. This
would provide the ability to monitor the connected systems that make up the WDS, which will provide the
ability to monitor and optimize the control of the WTP and WDS as a system.
Scope of Work
We recommend the City consider the replacement of the existing Bristol Babcock controllers with
CompactLogix and/or ControlLogix PLCs by Allen-Bradley. Compact Logix and Control Logix represent
small and large PLCs from the same family. They are fully compatible with each other and use the same
programming software. The description of the system replacements/upgrades is described below.
· At the Ozone building CSP-1 and CSP-7: replace with new PLC in the existing cabinet and
location.
· At the Ozone contact basin CSP-2: replace with new PLC in new cabinet at or near the existing
location.
· At the Filter Building CSP–3 and CSP-4: replace with new PLCs in the existing cabinets and
location.
· At the Chemical Building CSP-5: replace with new PLC in the existing cabinet and location.
· At the Plant Water Service Pump Station CSP-6: replace with new PLC in the existing cabinet
and location.
· At the Transfer Pump Station CSP-8: replace with new PLC in the existing cabinet and location.
· All of the upgraded PLCs will be reprogrammed to optimize system operation.
· All of the upgraded PLCs will interface with the site wide SCADA system.
As the existing Actiflo System controllers CSP 9 and CSP10 are the newest and were provided and
programmed by the manufacturer as a system package, it is recommended that these remain in place. A
small number of interface points on this system were integrated into the SCADA system at CSP-3 from
the Actiflo system. These interface points would be re-established as part of the CSP-3 upgrade.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Providing a robust SCADA system that utilizes a centralized communication and control protocol
will provide the City the ability to monitor the potable water system (treatment and distribution)
and optimize operation as a connected system.
· Providing critical process information of connected systems to evaluate and improve process
operations and efficiency.
Packet Pg 75
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47
· Providing a PLC and associated communication specification for future upgrades or expansion
which will avoid the costs associated with integrating mismatched systems.
· Allowing the City to consider PLC related services from multiple vendors as the Allan Bradley
product is one of the most common in the industry.
4.2.12 ECM-13 Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps and Eliminate Fel Mar Pump Station
Existing Conditions
In 2010, the City removed the Highland Tank and replaced the Rosemont Pump Station. The following
additional projects were recommended for improving fire protection, system pressures, reliability, and
redundancy:
· Raise operating level in Ferrini Tank to one foot from the overflow elevation.
· Reverse Patricia Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) to flow from Ferrini to Highland.
· Abandon the Fel Mar Pump Station and rely on Patricia and Skyline/Mira Sol PRVs to provide
water to Highland Zone.
· Combine the Highland and Ferrini Pressure Zones.
The City also planned to modify the Ferrini Pump Station to allow the pump station to provide service to
the combined Highland/Ferrini Zone when the Ferrini Tank is out of service. These modifications were
anticipated to include a pressure relief valve and bypass piping located within the Ferrini Pump Station.
The Fel Mar pump station was scheduled for removal once the Highland tank was removed. During
hydrant tests performed by City staff on September 19, 2008, it was found that the Fel Mar pump station
(rated at 600 GPM at 170’ TDH) contributes slightly to the fire flows available at the Rosemont pump
station. It was estimated that the Fel Mar pump station contributes approximately an additional 100 GPM
to the Rosemont pump station. However, since the Fel Mar pump station pumps directly into the Highland
zone, it was found that the pressure provided by the Fel Mar pump station causes the PRVs at Patricia
and Skyline to close, thereby eliminating the benefit of the Ferrini tank and pump station in an emergency
(Fel Mar pumps from the Patricia zone which is supplied by the small Serrano tank). Several strategies
involving the Fel Mar pump station were considered such as leaving it in service as backup to the Ferrini
tank to supply the Highland zone, or as a future dedicated booster pump station to provide fire flow to the
Rosemont pump station. Ultimately, the Fel Mar pump station was taken out of service.
Subsequently, the 2015 Water Master Plan recommended that a new Rosemont Pump Station be
eliminated, and a new Fel Mar Pump Station be constructed, and fitted with a new fire pump and backup
generator. The recommendation was based on a stated requirement to fill a future Rosemont Tank in
Packet Pg 76
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48
eight hours, and “low suction pressures at Rosemont Pump Station that impact the ability to meet fire flow
requirements in the Highland Zone.” Additional pipeline upgrades were also recommended.
Measure Description
The focus of this measure is to evaluate the benefit of modifications to the distribution system to improve
operations and reduce planned CIPs. Specifically, the ECM will evaluate the potential to install VFDs at
the Ferrini Pump Station, and an altitude valve at the Ferrini Tank. With VFDs integrated into the new
SCADA system, the Ferrini Pump Station could potentially be used to increase the hydraulic grade at the
Rosemont BPS, thus eliminating the need to construct a new Fel Mar pump station.
Additionally, based on utility records from 2015-2017, the electrical costs associated with the Ferrini
Pump Station have increased 140%, though the energy use (kWh) has remained nearly identical. This
increase appears to be due to the change in rate tariff from A1 to A10 (Effective November 1, 2012,
Schedule A-1 is closed to customers with a maximum demand of 75 kW or greater for three consecutive
months in the most recent twelve months). The peak demand at Ferrini was at 79-81 kW for a number of
months, which initiated the A-10 Tariff. For the period of late 2016 thru most of 2017, the peak demand
has been 48-49 kW. For this ECM, VFDs and other instrumentation/controls will be evaluated to control
the pumps in a way to keep the demand below the 75-kW threshold and maintain the A-1 tariff.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Elimination of new Pump Station and Pipeline CIPs.
· Reduced pumping costs through VFD control, and reduced “double pumping.”
· Reduced pumping costs through maintaining a lower tariff.
· Retaining full life-expectancy of existing Rosemont Pump Station (built in 2010) resulting in
avoided capital costs of $745,000.
· Improving fire protection.
· Reduced operations and maintenance (O&M) by consolidating existing facilities, resulting in
reduced O&M costs of $8,000 per year.
4.2.13 ECM-15 Reservoir No.1 Photovoltaic Energy Generation
Existing Conditions
The City’s Water Distribution System (WDS) facilities currently do not utilize renewable energy resources to
displace grid supplied energy and reduce the Utilities Department’s utility costs. The Reservoir No.1 site has
a large amount of open area surrounding the reservoir that could be utilized for a solar photovoltaic system.
Packet Pg 77
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49
Measure Description
The focus of this energy conservation measure is to reduce the City’s consumption of energy from the
utility and the related costs by installing a photovoltaic (PV) generation system at Reservoir-1.
The initial solution explored for this site is the installation of a large, 1,200 kWDC, ground-mount PV array
in the open area to the north and east of the reservoir (see Figure 4.6 below). This system will be able to
produce approximately 1,860,000 kWh annually which is significantly more than the 10,800 kWh that is
consumed at Reservoir-1. The excess (exported) energy generation will be used to reduce electric utility
costs at other Utilities Department and City facilities through PG&E’s Renewable Energy Self-Generation
Bill Credit Transfer (RES-BCT) rate schedule for local government. The output from this PV system will
offset approximately 58.5% of the total electric consumption for all of the Water Utility’s facilities (water
supply, treatment and distribution).
Additional Considerations
PG&E has proposed changes to its time-of-use (TOU) structure and rates, including A-1 that applies to
Res-1, that will ultimately reduce utility cost savings for PV systems relative to the existing rates. On
October 26, 2017 the CPUC approved Decision 17-01-006 that provides “grandfathering” of the current
TOU rate periods for public agencies who submit a solar PV interconnection application (IA) prior to
December 31, 2017. The grandfathering extends the current TOU periods to July 31, 2027. In order to
secure TOU grandfathering for PV at Reservoir No. 1, Southland submitted an IA to PG&E on behalf of
the City on December 22, 2017 for PV systems with a total capacity of 960 kW AC (1,200 kWDC).
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Significant reduction in electric utility costs.
· Renewable generation that replaces approximately 58.5% of the total electric consumption for all
of the Water Utility’s sites.
· Significant contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and significant advancement toward Zero
Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
Packet Pg 78
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 Figure 4.6 Reservoir-1 PV Site Plan Packet Pg 791
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51
4.2.14 ECM-16 Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades
Existing Conditions
One of the raw water sources for the WTP is Whale Rock Reservoir (WRR). WRR is located on Old
Creek Road approximately one-half mile east of the community of Cayucos. The project was planned,
designed, and constructed under the supervision of the State Department of Water Resources.
Construction took place between October 1958 and April 1961. The reservoir is jointly owned by the City,
the California Men's Colony (CMC), and the California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo
(Cal Poly). These three agencies form the Whale Rock Commission which is responsible for operational
policy and administration of the reservoir. Day-to-day operation is provided by the City of San Luis
Obispo.
The conveyance system delivers water from the reservoir to the Whale Rock Commission member
agencies located between the reservoir and the WTP. Outlets from the pipeline exist for water deliveries
to Chorro Reservoir and water treatment plant (operated by the California Men's Colony), Cal Poly State
University, the Cayucos water treatment facility and the City's Water Treatment Plant. In addition, water
can be delivered to the Dairy Creek Golf Course under terms of an agreement between the California
Men’s Colony and the County of San Luis Obispo. Currently, deliveries are regularly made to Cayucos,
the CMC, Cal Poly, and the City’s WTP.
The Whale Rock (WR) pipeline is approximately 17 miles long, connecting the reservoir to the member
agencies, and terminates at the City's WTP. The design capacity of the pipeline is 18.94 cubic feet per
second (approximately 8,500 gallons per minute). The line consists of modified prestressed concrete
cylinder pipe at most locations. Cement mortar lined steel pipe is used at creek crossings and junctions.
The pipeline has surge protection consisting of eight-inch, globe type, diaphragm-actuated pressure relief
valves which protect the line from excessive pressures.
Two pump stations, arranged in series, move the water through the pipeline to the delivery points. The
first pump station (Pump Station A) is located in Cayucos at Chaney Avenue. The second (Pump Station
B) is located near Camp San Luis Obispo, approximately six miles southeast of Morro Bay. Each station
has five, parallel, constant speed 200 horsepower pumps. Upgrades to both pump stations, including the
addition of two pumps at each station, were completed in August 1993. Six pumps and motors were
replaced in 2004.3 (Note – the two pumps installed at each station in 1993 are equipped with VFDs, but
the VFDs are not used, and is not yet clear if they are operable). The SCADA system for the pump
3 City of San Luis Obispo 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
Packet Pg 80
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52
stations is in the process of being upgraded, including new networked communications, as part of broader
City SCADA upgrade project.
When deliveries are made to member agencies, both pump stations operate simultaneously utilizing the
same quantity of pumps in each pump station. A single pump, or multiple pumps at each station may be
operated depending on the flow required to satisfy the requested deliveries.
The CMC typically requests deliveries daily and requires a flowrate of approximately 2,200 GPM for four
to six hours. This flowrate can be satisfied by operating one pump at each station (a pump set). However,
the capacity of one pump set exceeds the flow taken by the CMC during CMC only deliveries, and since
the WTP cannot control or limit the flow from the WR pipeline, the excess flow is delivered to the WTP.
Recent measurements at the WTP have determined that approximately 650 GPM is delivered to the WTP
during CMC deliveries. When WR water is not desired at the WTP during CMC deliveries, the pump
energy associated with the extra flow is wasted and the City is forced to receive water from its storage in
WR reservoir.
Measure Description
The focus of this measure is to reduce energy use and improve the operation of the WTP by minimizing
or eliminating unneeded WR water deliveries to the WTP during CMC deliveries, and provide the control
of the flow to the WTP during specified WTP deliveries. The envisioned solution includes:
· Replacement of the two pump VFDs at each pump station, integration of the VFDs to the new
SCADA system at the pump stations, and implementation of new control logic/programming for
control of the pumps.
· Installation of a control valve in the 30” WR pipeline at the WTP, upstream of the connection to
the forebay. The new control valve will give the WTP the ability to prevent deliveries from the WR
pipeline when desired and control the WR delivery flowrate when deliveries are desired.
· Integration of the new control valve with the WTP’s SCADA system and implementation of new
control logic/programming for control of the valve. Ideally, key status points for the valve would be
visible to the WR SCADA system for coordination of pump operation with the valve.
Benefits
The expected benefits of this ECM include:
· Reduces or eliminates unneeded WR deliveries at the WTP during CMC operation.
· Allows the WTP to specify a desired WR delivery flowrate that is less than the capacity of a whole
pump set.
Packet Pg 81
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53
· Reduced electrical use, demand, and related costs resulting from eliminating unneeded flow and
controlling the pumps to only produce the head needed for a given flowrate.
· Contribution to the City’s sustainability goals and advancement toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE).
· Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the City’s operations.
4.2.15 ECM-17 Whale Rock Renewable Energy Generation
The WR facilities currently do not utilize renewable energy resources to displace grid supplied energy and
reduce the Whale Rock Commission member agencies’ utility costs. A factor that likely contributes to this
condition is that the WR sites that use the most energy (Pumps Stations A and B) are small and do not have
the space to accommodate a meaningfully sized renewable energy system.
The opposite condition exists at Whale Rock Reservoir (WRR), (which is the
water source for the WR conveyance system), where there is very little if
any energy use, but the reservoir’s large water surface might be utilized
(conceptually) for a large floating solar photovoltaic (FPV) system, or
“Floatovoltaic” system. Since there is very little or no electric use at WRR for
a FPV system to offset, excess (exported) energy generation could be used
to reduce electric utility costs at other WR facilities through PG&E’s
Renewable Energy Self-Generation Bill Credit Transfer (RES-BCT) rate
schedule for local government.
Figure 4.7 Whale Rock Reservoir
Packet Pg 82
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 54
5 SST PROGRAM OVERVIEW
For over 40 years, PG&E and our fellow California utilities
have been recognized leaders in the advancement of
energy efficiency programs and technologies. In
collaboration with the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) and the Governor’s office, California
utilities have been able to maintain pre-1980’s per capita
energy consumption in the face of unprecedented
population and economic growth. More recently, we have
risen to the challenge of increasing generation from
renewable sources in our energy portfolio. As a result of
this historic collaboration, PG&E customers enjoy one of
the cleanest energy supplies in the country.
While we are proud of our collective successes, the
State, PG&E and our customers are facing a new set of
challenges arising from the interrelated effects of Climate
Change, severe drought, and worldwide goals to reduce
the carbon impact of everything we do. Addressing these
most pressing challenges in a timely and viable way calls
for creative thinking and an innovative response.
PG&E’s Utility Energy Services Contract (UESC) is a
prime example of doing things differently through
collaboration and creativity. Through a Public-Private Partnership with the United States Department of
Energy (DoE), UESC authorizes both civilian and military branches of the Federal government to engage
their local serving utility for the turnkey delivery of energy-related projects. Through this program, PG&E
provides all of the services required to identify and complete comprehensive energy projects, including
assessment, development, financial analysis, design, construction, commissioning and acceptance/turn-
over. Since the goal of these projects is to reduce energy and water consumption (and the related
operating cost), the capital cost of UESC projects is funded from the savings generated – either through
financing, incentives, grants or a combination thereof. PG&E provides end-to-end implementation
including all elements of assessment, development, design and construction for projects. Since its
PG&E’s Unique Qualifications
− PROVEN TRACK RECORD. PG&E has
successfully administered, developed,
and executed hundreds of millions of
dollars’ worth of energy efficiency
projects.
− LOCAL PRESENCE & LONG-TERM
PARTNER. With over 150 years’
experience serving Northern and
Central California, PG&E has
extensive local resources that will
support the project’s development,
engineering, implementation, and
service requirements
− VENDOR NEUTRAL. PG&E does not
make or sell equipment. Our project
development and solutions are guided
exclusively by the unique needs of
each individual customer.
− INDUSTRY-LEADING PROJECT
RESOURCES. PG&E assembles a
qualified and experienced team of
best-in-class energy, design and
construction professionals for each
customer project.
Packet Pg 83
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 55
inception, the UESC program has delivered an impressive scorecard of results for Federal facilities
across our service territory including NASA, FAA, US Army, GSA, IRS and VA.
Building on the success of the Federal UESC program, PG&E developed the Sustainable Solution
Turnkey (SST) Program to offer non-Federal customers the same ability to engage PG&E for the
implementation of comprehensive efficiency and renewable energy projects across their facilities.
Modeled on the rigorous development and accounting requirements of UESC, the SST Program provides
customers the same transparency, open-book cost development, and warranties offered to our largest
most discriminating customer.
PG&E strongly encourages customers to take a comprehensive and strategic approach to energy
planning, sustainability initiatives, and related project implementation. The SST Program defines and
supports a process that considers a design-build approach, takes advantage of streamlined procurement
through California Government Code Section 4217 and properly prioritizes and bundles deep energy-
saving retrofits, with renewable generation to achieve overall energy, sustainability, operational, and
financial goals.
Importantly, the SST methodology, described below, is designed to support the customer’s decision-
making process and is comprised of several steps to ensure that projects meets the customer’s unique
priorities and needs.
1) Preliminary Energy Assessment: Establish customer goals and objectives. Identify opportunities
and project viability through data analysis, interviews and benchmarking. Determine key opportunities
based on customer goals and define the associated technical and financial components:
a) Advance customer’s sustainability & climate action goals
b) Assess current baseline and opportunities for improvement
c) Reduce utility and operating costs
d) Address aging building systems or facility infrastructure
e) Demonstrate a potential project size that fits the SST program
f) Determine potential GHG savings and environmental impact
g) Produce recurring annual savings to support financing
2) Investment Grade Audit: Finalize technical solution and financial details
a) Detailed Audit
b) Engineering and Economic Analysis
Packet Pg 84
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 56
c) Project Pricing and Financing Plan
d) Monitoring and Verification Plan
e) Equipment specification and subcontractor bid packages
f) IGA Report Preparation
g) Firm, fixed “not to exceed” construction cost/project proposal
3) Implementation: Deliver complete design/build construction of project, start-up and testing and final
commissioning.
4) Acceptance, Turnover and Closeout: O&M manuals, training, incentive/rebate procurement and
M&V.
It is noteworthy that the first SST Project was developed and completed through a Public-Private-
Partnership with the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department. The SST project at the Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF) successfully delivered needed improvements at the facility that, while reducing
energy consumption, also enhanced operations, reduced O&M burdens, ensured permit requirements,
provided co-generation of heat and electricity from digester gas, and reduced GHG emissions.
Extending the Public Private Partnership, PG&E and City of San Luis Obispo Public Works collaborated
to replace all of the city-owned High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) cobrahead street lights with energy efficient
LED fixtures. As street light energy represents nearly a third of all electricity consumed in a city, replacing
the incumbent technology with state-of-the art LED fixtures can deliver energy savings exceeding 50%.
The City of San Luis Obispo project replaced over 2,100 cobrahead street lights, delivering annual energy
cost savings right at $100,000 (~ 66% savings) and reducing CO2 equivalents by approximately 400,000
pounds per year. Working together, the City and PG&E were able to secure a low-interest energy
efficiency loan from the California Energy Commission (CEC) and electric utility rebates of nearly
$150,000 which together covered the entire capital cost of the project requiring no City capital or
operating funds.
Since the inception of our Turnkey Programs, PG&E has completed projects with government and
commercial customers throughout our service territory – many leveraging multiple phases as done in San
Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 85
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 57
APPENDIX
Packet Pg 86
1
PRELIMINARY ENERGY ASSESSMENT REPORT • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 58 APPENDIX A – WTP ENERGY ALLOCATION DETAILS EPA Energy Use Assessment Tool for Drinking Water SystemsEquipment Electrical Energy InventorySystem TypeEquipment Type Equipment DescriptionMotor Size (hp)Motor Efficiency (%)Motor Full Load Amperage (FLA)Operating Hours (Hrs/Yr)Average Load Factor (%)Average Electric Load (kW)Estimated Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)Estimated Percent of Site Electric Use (%)Distribution Pumping PumpTransfer Pump 175 94.0 % 965,201 80.00% 47.62 247,668 12.24%Distribution Pumping PumpTransfer Pump 275 94.0 % 965,201 80.00% 47.62 247,668 12.24%Distribution Pumping PumpTransfer Pump 375 94.0 % 965,201 80.00% 47.62 247,668 12.24%Distribution Pumping PumpTransfer Pump 475 94.0 % 960 75.00% 44.640 0.00%DisinfectionOther kW Load Ozone Gen-1/PSUN/A N/A N/A 6,023 55.00% 43.90 264,363 13.06%DisinfectionOther kW Load Ozone Gen-2/PSUN/A N/A N/A 6,023 55.00% 43.90 264,363 13.06%DisinfectionOther kW Load Ozone Gen-3/PSUN/A N/A N/A0 100.00% 79.810 0.00%DisinfectionCompressor AC-175 94.0 % 966,023 65.00% 38.69 233,003 11.51%DisinfectionCompressor AC-275 94.0 % 963,011 65.00% 38.69 116,502 5.76%DisinfectionCompressor AC-375 94.0 % 962,738 25.00% 14.88 40,735 2.01%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerCoagulation Basin Mixer CMX-1 10 90.0 % 146,023 50.00% 4.14 24,960 1.23%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerCoagulation Basin Mixer CMX-2 10 90.0 % 140 50.00% 4.140 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerInjection Basin Mixer IMX-1 10 90.0 % 146,023 50.00% 4.14 24,960 1.23%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerInjection Basin Mixer IMX-1 10 90.0 % 140 50.00% 4.140 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerMaturation Basin Mixer MMX-1 7.5 90.0 % 116,023 45.45% 2.83 17,018 0.84%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerMaturation Basin Mixer MMX-2 7.5 90.0 % 110 45.45% 2.830 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-1A15 90.0 % 216,023 50.00% 6.22 37,440 1.85%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-1B15 90.0 % 216,023 50.00% 6.22 37,440 1.85%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-1C15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-2A15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-2B15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%Flocculation / Sedimentation PumpSand Pump SP-2C15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%Internal Plant Pumping PumpPlant Service Water Skid Pump #1 30 94.0 % 406,023 42.88% 10.21 61,477 3.04%Internal Plant Pumping PumpPlant Service Water Skid Pump #2 3 90.0 % 4.8 2,738 75.00% 1.87 5,105 0.25%Sludge HandlingPumpWash Water Reclaim Pump PMP-3 15 90.0 % 216,023 50.00% 6.22 37,440 1.85%Sludge HandlingPumpWash Water Reclaim Pump PMP-4 15 90.0 % 210 50.00% 6.220 0.00%LightingOther kW Load Control/Ozone Bldg Lighting N/A N/A N/A 5,840 100.00% 4.86 28,382 1.40%Non Process HVACOther kW Load Control/Ozone Bldg HVACN/A N/A N/A 5,840 30.00% 2.28 13,315 0.66%LightingOther kW Load Lab/Filter Bldg LightingN/A N/A N/A 2,400 100.00% 2.00 4,800 0.24%Non Process HVACOther kW Load Lab/Filter Bldg HVACN/A N/A N/A 5,840 30.00% 1.73 10,074 0.50%LightingOther kW Load All Outdoor LightingN/A N/A N/A 4,380 100.00% 4.50 19,710 0.97%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerFlash Mixer #110 90.0 % 146,023 50.00% 4.14 24,960 1.23%Flocculation / Sedimentation MixerFlash Mixer #210 90.0 % 140 50.00% 4.140 0.00%DisinfectionBlowerOzone Destruction Unit #13 90.0 % 4.8 8,760 50.00% 1.24 10,892 0.54%DisinfectionBlowerOzone Destruction Unit #23 90.0 % 4.80 50.00% 1.240 0.00%2,019,942 99.79%2,100,124Total ==>Total from Utility Data ==>Packet Pg 871
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
March 7, 2018
Mr. Aaron Floyd
Deputy Director – Water
Utilities Department
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
879 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Water Energy Efficiency Project – (DRAFT) Proposal for Investment Grade Audit
Aaron:
On behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), I am pleased to provide The City of
San Luis Obispo with this proposal for professional consulting and engineering services
required to complete an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) of energy conservation and renewable
power generation opportunities at the City of San Luis Obispo’s (SLO) Water Division facilities.
The services as defined below are being offered through PG&E’s Sustainable Solutions Turnkey
(SST) Program and are intended to fully characterize opportunities within the subject facilities
that, when implemented, will significantly advance the City’s Zero Net Energy (ZNE) and
Sustainability goals. The proposed services reflect our current understanding of the City’s
facilities and goals as identified during the Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA) phase of the
Program.
SCOPE OF WORK
PG&E will provide Investment Grade Audit (IGA) services for the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO)
as described below.
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES (ECMs)
PG&E will evaluate the twelve (12) ECMs shown in the table below. These ECMs are described
in the 100% Preliminary Energy Assessment (PEA) Report titled: “Water Energy Efficiency
Project for the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department” submitted on March 7, 2018.
ECM ID Facility ECM Description
ECM-1 Water Treatment Plant Hydro Power Generation
ECM-2 Water Treatment Plant Ozone System Upgrade
ECM-3 Water Treatment Plant Transfer Pump Station Backup Power
ECM-4 Water Treatment Plant Transfer Pump Station Upgrades
Packet Pg 88
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
ECM-5 Water Treatment Plant Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar)
ECM-6 Water Treatment Plant Photovoltaic Shade Canopy for Actiflo
and Filter Basins
ECM-7 Water Treatment Plant Lighting Improvements
ECM-9 Water Treatment Plant Plant Service Water System Upgrades
ECM-11 Water Treatment Plant SCADA/Controls Upgrades
ECM-13 Water Distribution
System
Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps & Altitude
Valve for Ferrini Tank
ECM-15 Reservoir #1 Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar)
ECM-16 Whale Rock Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades
The deliverables associated with this effort are described below:
1. General IGA Planning, Management and Report Delivery
• Conduct meetings to discuss project goals, scope, process and schedule
• Conduct site activities necessary for evaluation of existing site conditions necessary in
developing final ECMs
• Conduct equipment selection and design workshops
• Conduct planning and coordination meetings with engineers, contractors, and the City
• Conduct site activities necessary in developing final ECMs costing, savings, and design
• Progress workshops at 50% and 90% to discuss the findings and recommendations in the IGA
• Final IGA report which will include
o Executive Summary
o Updated Utility Analysis
o Updated Energy Allocation Analysis
o Final detailed Energy Conservation Measures
o Cost Benefit Analysis
o Project Cost Estimates
o Project Design and Construction Schedule
o Environmental permitting evaluation
Cost Associated with this ECM ……………………………………..$120,000
2. ECM-1 Hydro Power Generation
• Environmental Permitting Constraints Analysis for CEQA report
• Topographical and Boundary Survey report for proposed site
• Geotech analysis of proposed site
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
• Note: Easement acquisition and/or property valuation by others
Cost Associated with this ECM ……………………………………....$82,900
Packet Pg 89
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
3. ECM-2 Ozone System Upgrade
• Pilot test protocol development and collaboration review with City
• Pilot test performed by third party
• Pilot test observation and data evaluation report
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Develop construction sequence/coordination to maintain service during construction
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ………………………..…………..$223,000
4. ECM-3 & 4 Transfer Pump Station Back Up Power and Transfer Pump Station
Upgrades
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Develop construction sequence/coordination to maintain service during construction
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM …………………..…..….…………..$66,000
5. ECM- 5 & 6 Photovoltaic Energy Generation and PV Shade Canopies (Solar) at WTP
• Environmental Permitting Constraints Analysis for CEQA
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Geotech analysis of proposed site
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
• Pre-Interconnection coordination
Cost Associated with this ECM ……………………………………..$115,400
6. ECM-7 Lighting Improvements
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Design effort adequate for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ………………………………………..$6,300
7. ECM-9 Plant Service Water System Upgrades
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
• Power Quality Study to mitigate equipment phase fault trips
Cost Associated with this ECM ……………………..………………..$67,400
Packet Pg 90
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
8. ECM-11 SCADA/Controls Upgrades
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ………………………………………..$24,300
9. ECM-12 Install VFDs for Ferrini Pumps & Altitude Valve for Ferrini Tank
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ………………………………………..$25,800
10. ECM- 15 Photovoltaic Energy Generation (Solar) at Reservoir #1
• Environmental Permitting Constraints Analysis for CEQA
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• Geotech analysis of proposed site
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
• Pre-Interconnection coordination
Cost Associated with this ECM …………………….…………………..$98,400
11. ECM- 16 Whale Rock Pump Station Upgrades
• Contractor outreach
• Vendor coordination
• 30% Design effort sufficient for construction pricing
Cost Associated with this ECM ..………………………………………..$30,500
The Total Cost for the Items Listed Above ..…………………….………………$860,000
ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
The following assumptions and clarifications apply to the scope and costs presented in this
proposal.
• PG&E assumes that certain facility data/information will be made available in a timely
fashion including utility bills, facility construction drawings, equipment data, and
operations and maintenance data.
• PG&E will require close coordination with facility staff and other SLO personnel in order
to successfully complete the IGA.
• PG&E assumes that appropriate personnel will be available during the site visits and
meetings, and will also be available by email and telephone for follow-up consultations.
Packet Pg 91
1
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Business Development
245 Market Street
Mail Code N10D
San Francisco, CA 04105
• SLO will arrange and provide access for PG&E personnel to all facility areas and
equipment as needed to complete the work, including accompaniment by staff as
necessary.
SCHEDULE
PG&E is prepared to begin work immediately upon being provided a Notice to Proceed (NTP).
Upon receipt of the NTP we will provide a schedule for the IGA work and arrange the kick-off
meeting.
Thank you for the continued opportunity to be of service to the City of San Luis Obispo. We
look forward to working with you and the entire Utilities Team on this important project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Respectfully submitted
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
Brent
Brent Patera
Senior Business Development Manager
Packet Pg 92
1
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 4217.10 ET SEQ., FOR THE CITY’S
WATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to install certain energy efficiency
upgrades; and
WHEREAS, Section 907 of the City Charter exempts energy projects from the
requirements of Article IX of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Government Code 4217.12 authorizes local
municipalities to enter into energy services and financing agreements, outside of the adopted
procurement process, that the governing body finds best serves the public agency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to use the California Government Code 4217.10 as
a basis to negotiate contracts and possible financing for certain energy efficiency upgrades and
to utilize programs offered by its energy provider Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”);
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the aforementioned contracts with PG&E at a
public hearing during a regularly scheduled meeting on April 3, 2018, public notice of which was
given at least two weeks in advance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings: Based upon the City’s Council Agenda Report, which included
projections for electrical energy rates from PG&E which provides electricity to the City of San
Luis Obispo, and other evidence presented at the public hearing, the Council hereby finds:
a) The Water Energy Efficiency Project is subject to Government Code
section 4217.10 et seq. and Article IX Section 907 of the City Charter
and provides unique and provide benefits to the public;
b) The anticipated cost to the City under the contract with PG&E will be less
than the anticipated marginal cost to the City for the electrical energy that
would have been consumed by the City in the absence of those purchases;
c) The project is exempt from Article IX Section 901 of the City Charter and is
allowed by Government Code section 4217.10 as an energy efficiency project.
Packet Pg 93
1
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby determines that the
Investment Grade Audit of the Water Energy Efficiency Project’s is statutorily exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) consistent with Section 15262, Feasibility and
Planning Studies. Once individual projects come forward, further environmental assessment will
be performed.
SECTION 3. The City approves the agreement substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. The City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute the Service
Agreement and the Work Order with PG&E for the Investment Grade Audit of the Water
Energy Efficiency Project, subject to the City Attorney’s approval as to the form of the
agreements.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Pg 94
1
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
R ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
Acting City Clerk
Packet Pg 95
1
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 96
1
4/3/2018
1
WATER ENERGY
EFFICIENCY PROJECT
City Council
April 3, 2018
1
2
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
2
Energy Costs
Green House Gas (GHG)
3
22%
26%
13%
40%
2017 City Electricity Expenditures
Water Division
Wastwater Division
Whale Rock Reservoir
Other City Use
“To effectively address the immediate and long‐term energy requirements of
water infrastructure in urban environments, a paradigm shift toward more
sustainable management of water and energy use is critical.”
‐ American Water Works Association Journal, February 2018
Capital Project Needs
Capital Improvement Plan
Award Winning WRRF SST
What is possible?
4
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
3
Project Components
5
Resiliency
Treatment
Optimize
Systems
Renewable
Energy
6
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
4
7
8Sustainable Solutions Turnkey
Program
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
5
Investment Grade Audit
Advantages
Confirms Viability
Managed Risk
Employee Involvement
9
Investment Grade Audit
Deliverables
City Owns Design
Fixed Costs to Complete
Funding Analysis
Tool for Assessment
10
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
6
Triple Bottom Line
11
Social
(People)
Economic
(Prosperity)
Environment
(Planet)
Public Private Partnership in
Energy Efficiency
12
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
7
Questions
13
Recommendations
Consider a resolution authorizing the City to enter into an
agreement to participate in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s
(PG&E) Sustainable Solutions Turnkey Program for the Water
Energy Efficiency Project.
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
service agreement for the Water Energy Efficiency Project pursuant
to Government Code 4217.
Authorize the City Manager to execute a Work Order, upon
approval of the City Attorney as to form, to implement the
Investment Grade Audit for the Water Energy Efficiency Project with
the Work Order amount not to exceed $860,000.
Approve the transfer of $280,000 of unreserved working capital to
fully fund the Investment Grade Audit.
14
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
8
Supporting Policies and
Documents
15
City Goal
General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element
Climate Action Plan
Utilities Strategic Plan
16
Feasibility
Discussion
• City and SST team
discuss program
• City expresses
interest, shares
previous energy
audits
• PG&E prepares
feasibility audit
based on energy
use and metrics
• Review feasibility
Preliminary
Energy
Assessment
• PG&E prepares
PEA based on site
investigation at no
cost to City
• PEA lists potential
Energy
Conservation
Measures (ECM)
• PEA identifies
potential energy
savings and cost to
implement
Investment
Grade Audit
• PG&E and City
enter into
agreement
• IGA lists ECMs
energy savings,
preliminary
engineering of
measures, costs to
implement , and
payback
• IGA identifies
utility rebates and
incentives
Finance &
Implementation
• City selects ECMs
and decides to
proceed
• PG&E provides
assistance for 3rd
party financing if
needed
• Agreements put in
place
• PG&E provides
engineering and
design for ECMs
• Contractor builds
ECMs
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
9
Fiscal Impact
2017-2018 Financial Plan
Available
Budget
Funding
Request
Water Energy Efficiency Project Study and Design $447,500 $447,500
Water Treatment Plant Major Equipment Maintenance $395,999 $132,500
Unreserved Working Capital $9,217,105 $280,000
17
Alternatives
Deny the request to participate in the PG&E Sustainable Solutions
Turnkey Program.Council should only select this alternative if it feels this
public/private partnership will not provide a quality, cost effective project
and is not in the best interest of the community. The recommended action
will allow the City to operate its enterprise fund in a successful business
model and pursue projects it already needs to accomplish in partnership with
private companies.
Pursue a standard engineering services procurement process.If the
Council agrees with the preliminary scope of the project, it could direct staff
to pursue a standard engineering services procurement process. This action
would delay energy cost savings as project implementation would be
deferred while a project package for bidding purposes was developed. A
significant amount of quality design work has been accomplished at no cost
to the City up to this point. As a reminder, in order to realize energy savings
as soon as possible through these types of programs, California Government
Code Section 4217 supports forgoing standard procurement processes for
energy services.
18
Item 1, Presentation
4/3/2018
10
Government Code 4217
City’s contracting procedures in City’s Charter in Article
IX, Section 901, and Municipal Code Chapter 3.24.
California Government Code 4217.10 et seq. provides a
separate statutory basis for alternate delivery for certain
energy conservation project services if the City finds it
best serves the City’s interest.
Based on the cost and payback period on investment
and the long-term benefit to the City’s water ratepayers,
it is recommended the City Council adopt such findings
to support the continued participation in the SST
Program.
19
20
Item 1, Presentation