GREENHOUSE GAS

REDUCTIONS THROUGH
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING
UNDER EPAS CLEAN
POWER PLAN

NOVEMBER 26, 2014

PREPAREDBY:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Executive Summary

iii
ES-1

1. Performance Contracting
Overview

1
1

A. What Is Performance Contracting?

B. Rigorous Measurement and Verification
Is Integral to Performance Contracts
4
C. The Market for Performance Contracting 6
D. 111(d) Could Expand or Contract the
Quantity of Energy Efficiency Delivered by
Performance Contracting Projects
8
E. State Performance Contracting
Program Examples
9

56

Appendix B
Matrix of Performance Contracting in States
Appendix C
Performance Contracting Project Summaries
Appendix D
Federal, State, and Local Performance
Contracting Directives

10

Appendix E
Energy Performance Contracting in State
Facilities, U.S. EPA, April 2008

11
21

Appendix F
Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance
Contracting State Agency Manual, Georgia
Environmental Finance Authority, March 2014
Appendix G
Sample M&V Reconciliation Report

29
30

Appendix H
Comparison of Methods for Estimating the NOx
Emission Impacts of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Projects: Shreveport,
Louisiana Case Study, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Revised July 2005

30

31
33

Appendix I
FEMP Reporting Guidance for Federal Agency
Annual Report on Energy Management,
September 2013

41

4. State Pathways for Performance

Contracting to Contribute
to 111(d)
43
A. Synthesizing State 111(d) Plans with
EPA Requirements

C. State Activities to Increase GHG

Reductions Through Performance
Contracting Project Activity

Appendix A
Performance Contracting Contribution to State
Compliance with 111(d) Goals

3. EPA Actions Needed for

Performance Contracting to
Contribute to 111(d)Comments
29
on EPAs Proposed Rule
A. Overview
B. Need For EPA Action
C. Multiple GHG Benefits of Performance
Contracting
D. Recommended M&V Approach to Enable
Performance Contracting to Contribute to
State Compliance
E. Actions to Facilitate Use of
Performance Contracts
F. Alternate Approach to the Best System of
Emission Reduction

46

Appendices

2. Benefits of Including Performance

Contracting in the Clean Power
Plan
10
A. Performance Contracting Will Increase
Energy Efficiency Delivered under the
Clean Power Plan
B. Primary Benefits of Performance
Contracting in 111(d) Programs
C. Additional Benefits of Performance
Contracting in 111(d) Programs

B. State Pathways to Establish a 111(d)

Compliant Performance Contracting
Program

Appendix J
Resources for Crediting EE Emissions Reductions
in Regulatory Compliance Programs

43

ii

To download: http://www.ajw-inc.com/pc/

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASHRAE

BAU
BSER
C&I
CAA
CHP
CO2
CPP
DOE
DSM
ECM
EE
EERS
EGU
EM&V
EPA
EPC
ESC
ESCOs
ESPC
EVO
FCM
FEMP
FPCC
GHG
GWh
HRI
IGA
IPMVP

ISO
LBNL

American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers
business as usual
Best System of Emission
Reduction
commercial and industrial
Clean Air Act
combined heat and power systems
carbon dioxide
Clean Power Plan
U.S. Department of Energy
Demand-side Management
energy conservation measure
energy efficiency
energy efficiency resource
standard
electric generation unit
evaluation, measurement and
verification
Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Performance Contract
Guaranteed Energy Savings
Contract
private sector energy service
companies
Energy Savings Performance
Contract
Efficiency Valuation Organization
forward capacity market
Federal Energy Management
Program
Federal Performance Contracting
Coalition
greenhouse gas
gigawatt hour
heat rate improvement
investment grade audit
International Performance
Measurement and Verification
Protocol
independent system operator
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory

M&V
MUSH
MWh
NAAQS
NAESB
NAESCO
NCSL
NGCC
NIST
NOPR
ORNL
PACE
PC
PJM

PUC
RE
REC
RGGI
RPS
SEE
SEO
SIP
TIP

iii

measurement and verification

municipal, university, school, and
hospital buildings
megawatt hour
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
North American Energy Standards
Board
National Association of Energy
Service Companies
National Conference of State
Legislatures
natural gas combined cycle
National Institutes for Standards
and Technology
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Property Assessed Clean Energy
performance-based contract or
performance contracting
Regional transmission
organization that coordinates the
movement of wholesale electricity
in all or part of 13 states and DC
Public Utility Commission
renewable energy
Renewable Energy Credit
Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative
renewable portfolio standard
State and local Energy Efficiency
Action Network
state energy office
state implementation plan
tribal implementation plan

Executive Summary
The Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan is commendable
for its flexible design that will enable states and market actors to utilize the most costeffective options to reduce power sector greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including efforts
to increase demand-side energy efficiency (EE). Demand-side energy efficiency can be
deployed in a variety of ways, through utility programs, state led programs and third-party
energy efficiency projects delivered by private-sector energy service companies (ESCOs).
This paper discusses the ways in which performance contracting (PC) projects can support
compliance with the Clean Power Plan (CPP). PC projects are one of many highly-verifiable
methods for implementing GHG-reducing demand-side EE and renewable energy projects.
Much of the private-sector EE work is done through
performance-based contracts for energy savings, in which
the ESCO reduces energy consumption of its customers by
installing new energy efficient equipment at their facilities.
This investment is paid off over time by the resulting
savings in the customers utility bill. The performance of
the newly installed energy conservation measures, and the
resulting energy savings for its customer, is contractually
guaranteed by the ESCO. The performance of the project is
measured and verified (M&V) by experienced
professionals, using internationally established protocols.
This rigorous level of M&V is the foundation of the
performance contracting guarantee.
It appears that the energy efficiency elements of the Clean
Power Plan were developed primarily with utility energy
efficiency programs in mind, despite the fact that energy
efficiency investments through performance contracting approximate those made through
utility programs. For example, performance contracting projects and utility programs saw
around $12 billion of investment in 2012, with approximately half coming from performance
contracting projects. Expressly allowing performance contracting to be a compliance option
in the Clean Power Plan would significantly enhance state options for low-cost and
rigorously verified GHG reductions. It would also bring into the effort those companies most
focused on producing energy efficiency results.
Including performance contracting projects as an allowable compliance option for state plans
is straightforward and consistent with the Clean Power Plan. It builds upon past inclusion of
performance contracting projects in approved state implementation plans for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. In addition, all 50 states have adopted performance
contracting enabling legislation, which provides states with an excellent platform on which to
build an effective compliance plan. However, additional guidance is needed for states to
have confidence that EPA will recognize energy efficiency savings and distributed renewable
ES-1


energy generation delivered by performance contracting projects, and approve state plans that
include them. The guidance should provide states with needed clarity on the following items:
1. Identify Approvable Pathway. Without limiting state flexibility, EPA can offer clarifying
guidance to enable states to include performance contracting project-related emission
reductions in their 111(d) compliance plans. [p. 33]
2. Recognize All Existing Programs. EPA should acknowledge as it did with energy
efficiency resource standards, etc. that existing state performance contracting activities
provide a potentially substantial contribution to 111(d) compliance. [p. 34]
3. Targeting Sources of Energy Savings. EPA should clarify how this requirement applies to
performance contracting projects. We recommend that the states be required only to identify
building types (e.g. state-owned, hospitals, universities etc.) targeted for performance
contracting and a reasonable estimate of savings to be achieved from anticipated PC projects.
[p. 34]
4. Aggregation of PC-Created Emission Reductions. EPA should describe approvable
approaches for aggregation of PC project-related GHG reductions for use in 111(d)
compliance. A national registry could serve this purpose, providing efficiency and the
greatest degree of consistency in all aspects of inclusion of project-related GHG reductions in
111(d) compliance. Alternately, a state energy office (or another designated Agency) can
collect (directly or via a third party) data from all PC projects in the state and determine the
avoided emissions achieved. [p. 34]
5. Clarify Approvable Approach for Key Compliance Criteria. EPA can assist states by
identifying approvable approaches for key compliance criteria that will facilitate inclusion of
performance contracting project-related emission reductions. Key compliance criteria for
which EPA should identify approvable approaches include M&V protocols, auditing
requirements for state performance contracting projects, performance contracting program
evaluation methods, and corrective measures. [p. 35]
6. Existing Facilities/Installations. Emissions reductions from performance contracting
projects that are validated by an approved M&V approach and persist into the compliance
period should be eligible to contribute to 111(d) compliance regardless of when the measure
was installed. [p. 36]
7. Create Incentives for Immediate Action to Reduce Emissions. EPA should provide states
with flexibility to take credit for actions taken after the Clean Power Plan was proposed and
before the interim compliance period begins (2020) and count that credit toward achievement
of the state's compliance obligation. This early-action provision would help ensure that the
states have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions prior to 2020 and eliminate an
unintentional incentive to delay EE projects until after 2020. [p. 37]

ES-2


8. Contributions to Future Avoided Emissions. Avoided electricity consumption should be
allowed to count toward 111(d) compliance for performance contacting projects subjected to
proper M&V. [p. 37]
9. Identify Remedies for the 111(d) State Energy Efficiency Penalty. EPA should address
and resolve the energy efficiency penalty created when energy efficiency projects are
implemented in electricity-importing states. As proposed, the rule would leave stranded and
uncounted the emission reductions created by energy efficiency in an importing state because
neither the importing state, nor the generating state, could claim credit for emissions
reductions equal to 100% of those created by the energy efficiency program or project.
[p. 37]
10. Encourage the Use of Tradable Credits. EPA should support the development and use of
single-state and multi-state credit programs and other market-based systems. This will
encourage the use of the least-cost compliance options, which, in many cases, will involve
comprehensive energy retrofits. [p. 39]

ES-3

1. Performance Contracting Overview

A. What Is Performance Contracting?
EPA and other federal agencies are using a funding mechanismenergy savings
performance contracts (ESPCs)to achieve environmentally preferable objectives
at no additional cost. An ESPC is a form of third-party financing that funds energysaving upgrades using the savings from future utility bills. This funding mechanism
allows federal agencies to obtain energy-efficient technologies without having to
commit capital funds. Contractors fund, install, operate, and maintain the energyefficient upgrade projects. Based on the contractual agreement, the federal agency
pays a portion of its annual energy cost savings to the contractor for the duration
of the contract.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1

Performance-based contracting for energy savings, also known as Energy Savings

Performance Contracting (ESPC), Energy Performance Contracting (EPC), and/or
Guaranteed Energy Savings Contracting (ESC), provides a one-stop procurement
process that enables building owners to use savings from avoided energy
consumption to pay for new energy-efficient equipment and services.2
Performance contracting (PC) is widely regarded as a turnkey mechanism to
complete energy-savings projects without reliance on
capital funds.
Under a PC, a facility owner will enter into a
guaranteed energy savings contract with an ESCO.
The ESCO will conduct a comprehensive energy audit
of the buildings owners facility or facilities and will
identify potential Energy Conservation Measures
(ECMs) geared toward achieving maximum costeffective energy savings. In consultation with the
building owner, the ESCO will design and construct a
project that saves energy and meets the energy and
facility needs of the building owner. The project will
bundle multiple ECMs, which individually have
varying paybacks and together achieve energy savings, and cash flow, by an
agreed-upon and allowable contract term. The ESCO guarantees that the
comprehensive energy savings improvements will generate sufficient energy cost
savings to pay for the project over the term of the contract. After the PC, all cost
savings accrue to the building owner (See Figure 1). The building owner benefits

EPA website on Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/case/espc.htm

For a more detailed overview of performance contracting, Appendix E contains EPAs report entitled, Energy
Performance Contracting in State Facilities, EPA Clean Energy-Environment Technical Forum, April 2008.


from the reductions in energy consumption and the significant equipment upgrades
made to the building(s), which improve functionality, performance, and overall
energy management.
Nomenclature
Performance-based
contracting for energy
savings (PC) is also
commonly referred to as
Energy Savings
Performance Contracting
(ESPC), Energy
Performance Contracting
(EPC), and/or Guaranteed
Energy Savings
Contracting (ESC). While
different states or
programs may use slightly
different terminology, we
use PC as an umbrella
term describing the
performance-based
contracting for energy
savings routinely
undertaken by ESCOs.

Energy Conservation
Measure (ECM)
Following are some
examples of ECMs which
may be bundled together
within a PC project:
Lighting
Improvements
Building
Management
Systems
HVAC Controls
Efficient Boilers
Efficient Chillers
Electric Motors and
Drives
Building Envelope
Improvements
(windows &
insulation)
Co-generation
Systems
Renewable Energy
Water Conservation

For more than a quarter-century, this market-based mechanism has historically

achieved significant but discreet gains in energy efficiency across the U.S.
buildings sector. At the federal level, Congress authorized federal agencies use of
PC in 1986. Today, federal agencies use a standardized process and contract
overseen by the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Federal Energy Management
Program (FEMP).3 According to FEMP, ESPCs have saved the federal
government more than $8 billion by eliminating wasteful energy practices.
While PC projects are designed to save energy, they also often incorporate RE such
as solar, geothermal and biomass. Increasingly, PC projects include on-site
distributed generation such as rooftop solar, ground mount solar, solar thermal and
geothermal heat pumps. The nature of the energy savings achieved within the
building or campus of buildings may present opportunities to reduce the upfront
cost of renewable measures. Additionally, PC projects may include combined heat
and power systems (CHP) in addition to building efficiency improvements. At the
federal level, some PC contracts have been used exclusively for RE purposes to
construct solar, landfill gas-to-energy, wind, and biomass. Distributed RE
generation delivered through PC yields GHG benefits similar to EE savings since it
reduces the customer electricity load that must otherwise be met through large
electric generation units (EGUs) connected to the grid.
States are well positioned to capitalize on emissions reductions achieved by PC
projects since PC authorities or PC programs exist in every state in the nation (see
Appendix B). PCs are an effective tool for reducing energy consumption by
redirecting wasteful utility spending toward often long-overdue investments in new
building systems and equipment. Since PCs create savings used to repay the
ESCO for the purchase and installation of new equipment, they are used as much
for their ability to address deferred maintenance and replace deteriorating
equipment as they are for their ability to help an organization meet energy or
environmental goals. Every PC project produces multiple measurable benefits for
the building owners, spanning energy, environmental, and economic attributes.
The co-benefits of including implementation of PC projects in EPAs CPP are
discussed more fully in Section 2C.

DOE. 2014. DOE IDIQ ESPC Awarded Projects Summary. 5/7/2014.

http://energy.gov.eere/femp/downloads/doe-idiq-espc-awarded-projects-summary

Energy Service Companies

BEYOND GUARANTEED
SAVINGS: ADDITIONAL COST
SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH
ESPC PROJECTS
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
The main conclusion of this report
is that significant cost savings do
accrue to the government. These
savings come about because (1)
the ESCO does not guarantee all
of the savings it estimates; (2) the
useful life of the equipment
extends beyond the performance
period of the ESPC; (3) National
Institutes for Standards and
Technology (NIST)/Energy
Information Administration
projections for energy price
escalation have been very
conservative with respect to
actual price increases; and (4)
the baseline case that forms the
basis of the guaranteed savings
calculation assumes that the
baseline equipment would
maintain the same efficiency and
require the same level of
maintenance for a period of time
equal to the performance period
of the ESPC. More realistic
assumptions indicate that for a
representative project, the federal
government receives nearly twice
the level of cost savings
guaranteed by the ESCO.
Source: Beyond Guaranteed
Savings: Additional Cost Savings
Associated with ESPC Projects,
March, 2013. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Prepared by
John Shonder.

PC projects are developed and installed by ESCOs, and tend to be focused on

achieving significant energy reductions (typically between 15-30% and in some
cases 30-60%) through comprehensive energy retrofit projects usually at multibuilding facilities. Growing rapidly in the past few decades, the U.S. ESCO sector
is now a mature industry that provides EE savings via market based, third-party
delivered and verified projects. ESCO industry leaders include Ameresco,
Honeywell, Johnson Controls, NORESCO, Schneider Electric, Siemens, and
Trane. ESCO engineers are experts in building system installation, operation and
integration as well as methods and protocols for measuring and verifying project
results. ESCOs provide world-class engineering solutions that take into
consideration the potential for multiple energy systems to be optimized to
maximize energy and water savings through comprehensive energy retrofits.

What are Guaranteed Energy Savings?

The energy savings guarantee is unique to performance-based contracting for
energy savings. Federal and state PC laws require ESCOs to guarantee that
improvements will generate sufficient energy cost savings to pay for the project
over the term of the contract. The nature of the guarantee is commonly referred to
as guaranteed energy savings. In practical terms, this requires the ESCO to
annually validate all savings through strict M&V protocols. The guarantee is an
integral aspect of PC as the ESCO bears the risk for the performance of the project.
If a shortfall of the guaranteed energy savings were to occur, the ESCO bears
financial responsibility.

How Are Performance Contracting Projects Financed?

There are various financing mechanisms utilized for implementing a PC. This
includes, for example, low-interest financing options and various types of bond
issuances. At the federal level, PCs utilize competitive third-party financing
provided by well-established financiers. For municipalities and state governments,
projects can be financed through tax-exempt bonds. For school projects, the most
common form of financing are bonds and tax-exempt lease purchase agreements.
Other financing mechanisms have been utilized for PCs in the public sector
including Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds. Additionally, Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE) financing can be utilized for commercial buildings. The cost
savings associated with the PC are sufficient to cover the project investment and
financing costs.

B. Rigorous Measurement and Verification Is Integral

to Performance Contracts
EM&V vs. M&V
The terms evaluation,
measurement and verification
(EM&V) and measurement and
verification (M&V) are often used
interchangeably in the EE
context, although there are
important distinctions in the
meaning of each.
EM&V refers to analyses used to
assess EE programs. The goals
of EM&V include: determining
whether overall objectives are
being achieved; identifying any
necessary program
improvements; assessing
program cost-effectiveness;
estimating impacts and their
persistence over time; and
capturing energy and demand
impacts in energy planning.
M&V describes the activities
used to determine projectspecific savings resulting from
installation of ECMs. An M&V
plan may include a single option
that addresses all the measures
installed at a single facility or it
may include several M&V
options to address multiple
measures installed at the facility.

Overview
The PC is named for its most essential feature, namely the contractual performance
guarantee made by the ESCO that the project, once installed, will deliver the
expected energy savings. The guaranteed energy savings delivered via this
contractual arrangement necessitates a high degree of proof of savings. To
accomplish this, rigorous M&V using established protocols (e.g. International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP)) is conducted on all
installed ECMs and retrofitted buildings in a project. ESCOs and their customers
rely upon the use of well-established, and internationally approved, M&V
protocols implemented by experienced professionals.
Prior to the installation of any ECMs under a PC, the ESCO performs an
investment grade audit (IGA), which includes extensive evaluations of how and
when energy and water are used at the project site. The IGA provides measurespecific and time of day information needed for the detailed engineering and cost
estimates upon which the ESCO bases the savings guarantee. Once the project
ECMs are installed, their performance is measured and compared with the savings
estimated by the IGA. Annual reconciliation reports, often reviewed and approved
by third-party consultants on behalf of the customer, are used to compare actual
and guaranteed savings (See Appendix G for a sample M&V reconciliation report).
Savings shortfalls, if any, are usually remedied by having the ESCO repair a piece
of malfunctioning equipment or having the ESCO supply additional retrofits. Once
the guarantee period of the contract is complete, ongoing persistence of savings
may be ensured by on-site inspections to determine that equipment remains in
place, and is properly maintained and operated. The results of PC M&V are highly
standardized and therefore highly replicable and can be easily and efficiently
audited.
The typical rigor of M&V performed under a PC is entirely consistent with the
level of rigor EPA may want to require for EE programs under the CPP. It will
provide performance data for each ECM, building, and project. This data can be
aggregated by states and can provide standardized, replicable, and auditable
information regarding avoided electricity consumption. The high degree of
accuracy provided by PC M&V protocols can provide states with certainty
regarding the CO2 reductions associated with PC projects.

Comparing Performance Contracting Energy Efficiency Projects to

Utility- and State-Run Energy Efficiency Programs

These energy efficiency

investments by state and local
governments using private and
other nonratepayer financing
operate outside of utility
evaluation processes, but
arguably have more stringent,
sustained measurement and
verification (M&V) of savings on
a project-by-project basis, with
financial penalties if those
savings are not realized over the
life of the project. Further, many
ESPC programs are operated on
a statewide basis by state
energy offices or other state
agencies and include
standardized contracts and
audits, nationally recognized
M&V protocols, and contractor
certification preapproval
programs.
The Potential Value of ESPC
Energy Efficiency Savings Under
EPAs Pending 111(d) Standard
for Existing Power Plants, by
David Terry, Executive Director
of National Association of State
Energy Officials.

EE projects through the PC model are what private sector companies deliver to
customers on a daily basis. The projects supported in this capacity are delivered to
large single buildings or multi-building complexes for public and private sector
end-users. Traditional utility EE programs, by contrast, focus on entire portfolios
of individual measures (e.g. 4,000 air conditioner replacements in a utility service
territory). These programs have long endured both regulatory approval and
scrutiny, and often are used to meet various policy goals. Thus, EE programs have
a history of being counted within policy, whereas comprehensive EE projects,
delivered by private entities largely outside of any regulated process, have not
been. Policies implementing the 111(d) rule should support both EE programs and
EE projects as valuable tools that can be used for compliance.

Comparing M&V: Performance Contracting and Utility- and StateRun Programs

In general, the most common way to estimate the efficiency savings created by
utility- and state-run EE programs is to conduct a statistical analysis comparing
energy used among a representative sample of program participants and a control
group of non-participants. This is seen as the most cost-effective approach for
determining efficiency gains from large deployments of a single ECM used in
multiple, dispersed buildings which is the focus of many EE programs. These
programs do not have visibility into the performance of every specific installation
of an energy conservation measure.
By contrast, PC projects are optimized installations of multiple ECMs at a single
site. To determine energy savings in a typical PC project, each ECM and building
system is measured and its performance is
compared with the project baseline obtained during
the IGA of the project site. This approach provides
accurate data specific to the use of energy at the PC
project site and offers increased rigor and certainty
regarding efficiency savings compared with M&V
based primarily on the statistical analysis of limited
measurement samples.

Performance Contracting is Complimentary

to Utility-Delivered EE Programs
While the development and implementation of PC
projects is not administered by utility-delivered EE programs, PC is a
complementary mechanism to utility-delivered energy efficiency programs. PC
5


projects may incorporate, for example, utility-provided rebates and incentives for
some EE and RE measures, and can leverage and maximize such incentives in a
comprehensive project that delivers significantly more savings in a single facility
than the utility measure-based programs.

Persistence of Savings and Auditing Performance Contracting

Projects
The standard data collection and savings calculation protocols of PC M&V
activities have been replicated in thousands of projects and enables PC projects to
be efficiently audited to ensure the quality of the data regarding savings. Recently,
separate audits of federal ESPC projects have been conducted by both Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL) (See Figure 2). The LBNL study analyzed the savings delivered by PC
projects during the life of the contract and found that 102% of the expected savings
was realized compared with EE projects conducted by using appropriated funds,
which delivered only 67% of anticipated savings.4
ORNL examined the persistence of savings of federal PC projects and found
lifetime savings of PC projects were 141% of guaranteed savings.5 Among the
reasons for this are both that ECMs operate long after the ESCO is fully paid and
the contract expires, and that ESCOs tend to deliver more savings than they
guarantee by contract. While the length of a typical performance contract ranges
from 10-20 years, the useful life of many of the installed measures (e.g. chillers,
and water fixtures) can be several decades.

C. The Market for Performance Contracting

Approximately 85% of ESCO revenue comes from a combination of what is
known as the MUSH market (63%), and the federal buildings market (21.4%).6
The MUSH market is comprised of buildings owned by municipalities,
universities, schools, and hospitals, as well as state government and public
agencies, which collectively own and occupy billions of square feet of building
space. Commercial and industrial (C&I) buildings comprise 8.1% of the ESCO
market (See Figure 3). PC projects are usually focused on large buildings or
campuses of buildings since the scale of energy and water consumption at large

Coleman,Phillip; Earni, Shankar and Williams, Charles. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2014. Could What
That ESCO Sales Rep Said Really Be True? Savings Realization Rates in ESPC versus Bid-to-Spec Projects 2014.
Page 5-74. http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2014/data/papers/5-1278.pdf
5 Shonder, John. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 2013 Beyond Guaranteed Savings: Additional Cost Savings Associated
With ESPC Projects March, 2013. Page 11. http://btric.ornl.gov/publications/Publication%2041816.pdf
6 Stuart, Elizabeth; Larsen, Peter, H.; Goldman, Charles, A.; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Gilligan, Donald.;
National Association of Energy Service Companies. Prepared for the United States Department of Energy.2013. Current
Size and Remaining Market Potential of the U.S. Energy Service Company Industry. September, 2013. Page 17.
http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6300e_0.pdf
6


facilities create opportunities for large savings that justify employing
comprehensive analysis and integrated engineering solutions.
ESCOs have historically had greater uptake in the MUSH market than the C&I
market due to a variety of structural issues, such as:
Minimal complexity regarding tenancy and split
incentives
Long-term occupancy
Strong credit worthiness
However, if the CPP is successful in expanding the market
demand for technologies and projects that reduce generation
and emissions from EGUs, there may be significant increases
in demand for PC in the C&I sector. For example, certain
emerging financing mechanisms, such as PACE, show promise
in potentially addressing some of these hurdles.7 PACE
financing for commercial buildings has grown dramatically in
recent years, from no projects in 2010 to over $250 million in
PACE deals closed or in the pipeline nationwide. Effective
111(d)-related policies are likely to unlock more of this
potential.

According to
NAESCO, those
projects have resulted
in a reduction of 470
million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) at little or
no cost to the public.

The National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO) reports that

since 1990, ESCOs have executed $45 billion in projects, producing $50 billion in
guaranteed and verified energy savings.8 According to NAESCO, those projects
have resulted in a reduction of 470 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) at little or
no cost to the public.
LBNL has estimated that ESCOs have delivered PC retrofit projects for a total of
4.9 billion square feet of space in the MUSH, federal, C&I and public housing
market segments from 2003-2012.9 LBNL estimates an additional 17 billion
square feet is immediately available in ESCO-addressable buildings, which
represents the near-term untapped market potential for PC. These estimates were
developed prior to EPA proposing its CPP. LBNL projects that annual aggregate
ESCO industry revenue will be approximately $7.5 billion by 2014 and projects
that ESCO industry annual revenues will range between $10.6 and $15.3 billion by
2020.10

In Connecticut, for example, the C-PACE program allows property owners to access financing to undertake qualifying
EE and clean energy improvements on their buildings and repay the investment through an additional charge
("assessment") on their property tax bill. Capital provided under a C-PACE program is secured by a lien on the owner's
property tax bill and paid back over time.
8 NAESCO. 2013-2014. What is an ESCO? http://www.naesco.org/what-is-an-esco
9 Stuart, et al., p.33.
10 Ibid. p. 13-15.
7

D. Section 111(d) Could Expand or Contract the

Quantity of Energy Efficiency Delivered by
Performance Contracting Projects
The CPP is likely to have a significant influence on the future of the EE market.
On the one hand, implementation of the CPP could encourage the market to
increasingly seek to implement EE projects with rigorous M&V, and, therefore,
choose to both install more ECMs, and utilize ESCOs as highly trained, third-party
project implementation and verification experts.
Additional clarity and recognition of PC programs from EPA stipulating how states
can use PC projects for CPP compliance would allow states to factor these savings
into compliance plans. This could lead to a significant expansion of EE delivered
through PC projects and overall EE projects in those states. Comprehensive
energy retrofits of large facilities require significant at-risk investment in project
development work over 12-30 months. The complex engineering challenges
associated with these projects are generally beyond the scope of utility- and staterun EE programs.
On the other hand, if states are not clear on the steps needed to include GHG
emission reductions from PC projects into their compliance plans and reporting
under the CPP, it should be expected that these projects are more likely to be
excluded from state planning activities. The CPP, even as nothing more than a
proposed rule, is already driving significant activity at the state and local level to
re-examine energy plans, policies and incentives. It stands to reason that attention
will be most likely focused on those activities that include the benefit increasing a
states ability to comply with the CPP. If EPA does not help states understand how
GHG emission reductions driven by PC projects can be counted toward CPP
compliance, they will tend to focus on other compliance activities and neglect PC
opportunities. This could inhibit demand for PC projects in many states. Absent an
active ESCO market, large quantities of EE opportunity will remain beyond reach
and untouched.

E. State Performance Contracting Program Examples

States can authorize ESPCs for state agencies, counties, municipalities, school districts, state colleges and
universities, and public agencies. As state energy codes typically focus on new construction or significant
renovations, ESPCs can help fill the gap by allowing owners of existing buildings to reap the economic and
comfort benefits of efficiency.
Some states have taken steps to ensure the success of performance contracting by identifying and
prescreening eligible ESCOs, establishing offices or programs to monitor ESPCs, connecting ESCOs with
building owners and offering outreach, education and support. ESCO-driven investments in 10 states resulted
in more than $3.4 billion of investments and reduced carbon emission by 488,000 tons. Below are examples of
state initiatives that work to ensure successful performance contracting programs.

The Colorado Energy Office has supported more than 146 completed projects and 26 active projects,
for a total of $294 million in construction as of late 2012. The office provides technical assistance to
public agencies, monitors and establishes standards for ESCOs, maintains contract documents, and
provides education and outreach.

In 2013 Hawaiis performance contracting program drove more than $171 million in energy efficiency
investments, the most of any state, according to the Energy Services Coalition. The performance
contracting program, housed in the State Energy Office, offers technical assistance and maintains a
list of pre-qualified ESCOs and educational documents.

Massachusetts Leading by Example and Green Communities programs in the Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affairs, Department of Energy Resources helps state and local government
realize savings through ESPCs. The Division of Capital Asset Management and the Department of
Housing and Community Development also oversee ESPC projects. The states Energy Performance
Contracting Program lists current and completed projects.

Utahs efforts have resulted in more than $165 million of investments in ESPC projects through the
leadership of the Division of Facilities Construction and Management. The program is now directing its
focus on large state university and college campuses. The states comprehensive program was
initiated by legislation directing the state to undertake "aggressive programs to reduce energy use in
state facilities in order to reduce operating costs of government and to set an example for the public.

The Washington state Department of Enterprise Services is responsible for overseeing ESPCs. As of
2012, the state ESPC program has been involved in more than $300 million of energy construction
projects since its 1986 inception, resulting in a $15 million a year reduction in utility costs for public
facilities. In addition to state agencies, counties, municipalities, school districts, state colleges and
universities, and public agencies, the Department of Enterprise Services specifically advertises
technical assistance for port districts, libraries, hospitals and health districts.

SOURCE: National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) webpage on State Energy Savings Performance
Contracting, dated November 15, 2013. http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-energy-savingsperformance-contracting.aspx.

2. Benefits of Including Performance

Contracting in the Clean Power Plan
Including PC projects in the CPP is straightforward and consistent with the
requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d). EPA should be
commended for the open and flexible approach it has proposed, and should
take action to ensure that the low-costs benefits of PC projects are incorporated
in state compliance plans. EE savings associated with PC projects can provide
benefits under any approach adopted by states, significantly reduce emissions
of GHGs and criteria pollutants, and provide states with low-cost compliance
options that can contribute in a meaningful way to compliance with 111(d)
goals.

A. Performance Contracting Will Increase Energy

Efficiency Delivered Under the Clean Power Plan
Ratepayer-funded electric EE programs approved and overseen by the states
and operated by utilities invest more than $6 billion annually and typically
have energy savings verified through sampling and modeling protocols unique
to each state. These traditional ratepayer programs were referenced by EPA as
an option for providing EE to meet the EPAs
proposed CPP under Section 111(d) of the CAA.
PC projects contribute a nearly equal amount of
investment as ratepayer-funded programs (See
Figure 4). The volume of PC projects is large
because PC delivers comprehensive EE projects in
times of tight budgets. EPA should consider ways
to encourage states to include in their CPP
compliance plans those EE savings created and
verified by PC projects. Several actions suggested
below would increase the likelihood that states
would be willing and able to utilize PC projects as
part of their CPP compliance.
By supporting the inclusion of EE delivered by PC
to be used to satisfy state compliance requirements
under the CPP, EPA could significantly accelerate
growth in the demand for PC projects and thereby increase the deployment of
more efficient building systems. In turn, that would result in more rapid
reductions of GHG emissions than would have otherwise occurred without
reliance upon PC in state plans. Greater reliance on the GHG savings
10


delivered through EE projects would delay, or entirely displace, the need for
some of the most expensive 111(d) compliance actions by utility generators
and reduce the overall costs of implementation. As an example, PC projects
could enable a utility to avoid expensive upgrades on a coal-fired power plant
that is slated for closure but still meet its GHG reduction targets (See State
111(d) Compliance Flexibility in Section 2C and Appendix A).

ESPCs are a critical tool

that will enable the Federal
government agencies to
meet statutorily-mandated
energy reduction goals at
no upfront cost to
taxpayers. If utilized to their
full potential, ESPCs can
create tens of thousands of
full-time jobs.
Testimony of William L.
Kovacs, Senior Vice
President, Environment,
Technology and Regulatory
Affairs, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce before the
Committee on Science,
Space and Technology
Subcommittee on
Investigations and
Oversight, U.S. House of
Representatives, April 13,
2011.

By taking the actions recommended in this paper, EPA would facilitate an

increase in the volume of GHG emission reductions delivered by PC projects
where the ESCO market is well-established. States with robust PC programs,
would see greater benefits as the savings from PC projects grows. States that
have not fully utilized the potential of their PC programs would likewise see
greater energy savings and GHG reductions as more PC projects are
implemented in their states.
In addition to expanding the number of states aggressively utilizing PC, the
CPP could create market demand outside of the traditional MUSH building
market that has pioneered PC project use. The portion of the built environment
owned and operated by the private sector dwarfs the public sector. With
support from EPA and state implementers of section 111(d), private sector
building owners could see increased value in implementing comprehensive
energy retrofits that save money, energy, water, and reduce GHG emissions.

B. Primary Benefits of Performance Contracting in

111(d) Programs
Performance Contracting Projects Are Consistent with the CPP
Goals
EPAs proposed CPP creates a flexible design that will enable states and
market actors to utilize the most cost-effective options to reduce GHG
emissions from the nations power generation sector. PC projects complement
and support the objectives of the CPP by reducing electricity demand. Energy
savings guaranteed and delivered through PC projects already help states
achieve energy savings, reduce the environmental impacts (including CO2
emissions) of meeting energy needs, save money for taxpayers and energy
consumers, and provide a significant resource for meeting power system
capacity requirements.
The standard protocols already in use by PC projects to accurately measure and
verify savings also can be used to measure CO2 savings. The high level of
rigor associated with the M&V of savings under PC projects is a chief reason
why PC is a desirable and complementary tool to achieve the EE savings

11


sought by the CPP. States will benefit from PC in either a rate-based approach
or a mass-based approach.

Assessing the
permanence of the
emissions reduction is
another key issue. A high
level of project certainty
and permanence is
required for SIP planning
purposes. In the
Shreveport project, there is
a high level of certainty that
permanent emissions
benefits will result from this
project due to the longevity
and nature of the
Performance Contract
between [the ESCO] and
the City of Shreveport. The
20-year Performance
Contract provides details of
the expense, duration, and
magnitude of the lighting
system upgrades,
mechanical system
upgrades, control system
upgrades, water
conservation upgrades,
and other miscellaneous
upgrades, and guarantees
the energy performance of
the overall system.
Source: Comparison of
Methods for Estimating the
NOx Emission Impacts of
Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
Projects: Shreveport,
Louisiana Case Study,
National Renewable
Energy Laboratory,
Technical Report
NREL/TP-710-37721
Revised July 2005.

While the EE elements of the CPP appear to have been developed primarily
with utility EE programs in mind, the CPP can rely on EE delivered through
PC projects to achieve the same or greater EE results. PC is legally authorized
in every state in the nation (see Appendix B) and more states each year are
recognizing that aggressive PC programs are an effective and sustainable way
to make buildings more efficient. Thus, the CPP has the potential to capitalize
on a foundation already in place in states to deliver low-cost, rigorous projectbased EE.

Universal Applicability
PC projects can be used in every state, and by nearly any EGU, to deliver EE
savings and GHG reductions with rigorous verification. EE savings and GHG
reductions achieved by PC projects can be universally incorporated into all four
of the likely state plan pathways identified by the EPA:
Rate-Based Emission Limits: The avoided generation and emissions
resulting from PC projects could be used to adjust the CO2 emission rate of
affected EGUs. The adjustments would be based upon protocols either
pre-approved by EPA or reviewed by the Agency as part of its
consideration of a state's proposed plan. The rigorous M&V will provide
enforcement agencies with high quality data to assess generation and
emissions outcomes.
Mass-Based Emission Limits: PC projects fit EPA's concept of
complementary measures that can help states meet a mass emission limit at
lower cost. States will value the relative certainty associated with
reductions that are backed-up by a series of contractual obligations.
State-Driven Portfolio Approach: PC projects provide large reductions in
emissions at little or no net cost after factoring in their energy savings.
They are therefore likely to become key components of states plans. The
PC measures could be incentivized (or required) and tracked by a
designated state agency and/or a state could utilize project data provided to
a state, regional or national project registry.
Utility-Driven Portfolio Approach: Since PC projects are extremely costeffective compared to most other GHG control measures, public utility
commissions could incentivize or require their use as part of a utility
control program (e.g. improving energy efficiency in power plants).
Alternatively, a state could decide to undertake a PC program separately
and use the results to reduce the compliance burden on the state's electric
utilities.

12

Greenhouse Gas Benefits Resulting from Performance

Contracting

The Federal government has

made great progress in
achieving savings through
performance contracting
ESPCs offer a great deal of
flexibility to Federal agencies
by allowing them to perform
significant energy and water
management upgrades to their
facilities without significant
upfront costs when
appropriated funds for capital
investments are not available.
By engaging private sector
financing and ESCO expertise,
ESPCs provide multiple
benefits to both the Federal
government and the American
public. By making the use of
ESPCs, agencies will be able
to incorporate more energy
and water conservation
measures to maximize savings
and meet their statutory and
Administration energy and
sustainability goals.
Testimony of Dr. Kathleen
Hogan, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy before the Committee
on Science, Space and
Technology Subcommittee on
Oversight and Subcommittee
on Energy, U.S. House of
Representatives, June 27,
2013.

The GHG benefits of EE savings from PC projects are identical to the GHG
benefits of utility EE programs as articulated by EPA in the CPP. Namely,
those benefits are reducing emissions from affected EGUs in the amount that
results from the use of demand-side EE that reduces that amount of generation
required.11 Investment in PC has delivered low-cost, rigorously measured
and verified energy savings leading to large scale GHG reductions from the
power sector (in addition to GHG savings from outside the power sector).
Given the growth in the ESCO industry projected by LBNL, PC projects can
achieve substantial potential reductions in GHG emissions from the utility
sector.
The carbon intensity of the power supply has undergone significant changes as
older coal plants have been retired, natural gas, wind and solar have been
deployed at much greater rates, and demand-side EE has grown. The GHG
profile of the power sector is further complicated because the carbon intensity
of electricity is affected by time-of-day and location, although GHG reductions
associated with curtailed use of EGUs must be calculated in a way that is not
overly burdensome and does not create barriers to GHG-reducing offerings.
In this paper, we use a basic approach to estimate the amount of GHG
reductions that can be achieved through PC. Based on data described below
(See Section on Potential PC Contribution to 111(d) Compliance) the
cumulative energy savings of the PC market in 2030 will range between 104
and 190 million megawatt hours of electricity avoided. Using one-half ton of
carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity as a proxy metric for carbon
intensity, PC projects may avoid GHG emissions from the electricity sector in
the range of 52 million to 95 million tons in a single compliance year (2030).
Additional GHG benefits follow the reduced onsite fossil fuel consumption and
reduced water consumption often associated with PC projects (but will not be
eligible for credit under 111(d)). In light of this potential, EPA should be
interested in policies that unleash the full potential of this market.

Rigor of Measurement & Verification

In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for the CPP, EPA raised
appropriate questions regarding the rigor of measuring the GHG impact of EE
projects. The well-established M&V protocols followed in PC projects to
substantiate the contractual savings guarantee make PC projects ideally suited
to produce the necessary M&V rigor to demonstrate CO2 savings that can

11 EPA, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,
Proposed Rule, June 18, 2014, p.34836.

13


contribute to state compliance with 111(d) emission guidelines. In fact, in its
Technical Support Document on State Plans Consideration, EPA recognizes
the M&V protocols most often used in PC projects, including the International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP)12 and the FEMP
M&V Guidelines.13

Performance contracts drive

economic development, utilize
private sector innovation, and
increase efficiency at minimum
costs to the taxpayer, while also
providing long-term savings in
energy costs. In coming months,
the Administration will take a
number of actions to strengthen
efforts to promote energy
efficiency, including through
performance contracting.
The Presidents Climate Action
Plan, June 2013, p.11.

The elements described in EPAs Roadmap for Incorporating Energy

Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal
Implementation Plans14 provide a precedent for what EPA would consider an
acceptable level of M&V under the CAA. A small number of EE measures
have been incorporated into approved state implementation plans (SIPs),
confirming the ability of EE to facilitate compliance with the CAA. If
included in state CPP projections, calculating both the CO2 and the criteria
pollutant emission reductions could easily become standard practice for PC
project M&V activities.
Given that PC projects incorporate M&V protocols that would meet EPAs
requirements for inclusion in SIPs, they should also be acceptable as an
element of an approvable state plan under 111(d). State plans can easily utilize
existing state PC programmatic frameworks to facilitate compliance and ensure
that all GHG savings associated with PC projects are quantifiable, nonduplicative, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable.

Performance Contracting is a Low Cost Greenhouse Gas

Mitigation Tool
By redirecting future energy spending into more productive uses, including the
replacement of outdated equipment, PCs achieve environmentally preferable
objectives at no additional cost.15 The costs of making EE improvements
under PC are more than paid for by future energy savings contractually
guaranteed by ESCOs. Over the life of a project, the cost is that of any
incentive, rebate, or other taxpayer or ratepayer assistance that is utilized
within the cash flow of the project. Most often, no such incentives are used in
PC projects. Some states may bear some limited programmatic costs if the
CPP identifies PC projects as an eligible compliance mechanism in a manner
consistent with the recommendations in Section 3 of this paper.

12

Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO), International Performance Measurement and Verification

Protocol (2012), available at: http://www.evo-world.org/.
13 FEMP, M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects, Version 3.0 (April 2008),
available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_guidelines.pdf.
14 Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal
Implementation Plans available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/eere/manual.html.
15 EPA website on Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/case/espc.htm.
14


State uptake costs would likely range from de minimis to low if a state air
agency were to work with its states energy office and/or another applicable
agency currently responsible for overseeing the states performance contracting
program. An energy office, for example, could assist the air agency in
determining a reasonable estimate of the potential PC that could contribute to a
states compliance plan. Administrative costs could further be reduced before
and during the compliance period by utilizing PC project information provided
by a national project registry. For example, in 2017 FEMP will track federal
PC projects in a national PC project registry. This data could be made
available for states to utilize in determining the amount of federal PC projects
(occurring within their respective state) a state could incorporate into their
compliance plans.
In the proposed rule, EPA identifies the cost of heat rate improvements at coal
fired power plants to be $6-12 per ton of CO2 reduced.16 The cost of
redispatching coal-fired generation to natural gas combined cycle facilities is
$21-40 per ton of CO2 reduced.17 Under building block 3, the cost of
deploying new renewable generation is estimated to cost $10-40 per ton of CO2
reduced.18 EPA estimates that the cost of preserving at-risk nuclear capacity
will cost $12-17 per ton of CO2 reduced.19 In calculating Best System of
Emission Reduction (BSER) for EE, EPA relied exclusively on EE programs
administered by utilities and states, which were estimated to cost $16-24 per
ton of CO2 avoided.20 Utilization of all four building blocks can achieve
greater overall CO2 emission reductions from affected electric generating units
than building blocks 1 and 2 in isolation. Given the low cost of PC projects,
significant utilization of EE through PC will create the most robust opportunity
for low-cost compliance with the section 111(d) rule.
The 111(d) NOPR provides insight regarding how to consider the cost of GHG
reductions achieved through PC. In discussing the cost of heat rate
improvements at coal-fired power plants, EPA acknowledges that the best
practices pay for themselves at least in part through reductions in fuel costs.
This is consistent with the economics of PC in which EE retrofits pay for
themselves since upfront investment is repaid with future energy savings
achieved over the life of the project (See Section 1A for further discussion). In
addition, the proposed rule assumes that the cost of reducing GHGs from atrisk nuclear capacity is the cost of incentives that will be needed to make these
facilities economical. Similarly the limited public investment of ratepayer or
taxpayer dollars used to establish a state PC program or used sometimes to

16

EPA, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,
Proposed Rule, June 18, 2014, p.34856.
17 Ibid. p.34857.
18 Ibid. p. 34858.
19 Ibid. p. 34871.
20 Ibid. p. 34858.
15


achieve more comprehensive energy savings or to make marginal projects
more economical makes the use of PC very low.

Potential PC Contribution to 111(d) Compliance

Carbon reduction
strategies initiated by cities
and counties that utilize PC
for demand-side EE can be
easily incorporated into
state 111(d) plans, so long
as the PC projects adhere
to the EPAs recommended
M&V protocols. These
municipal-led programs
and projects could report
their applicable PCdelivered annual carbon
reductions to their
respective state energy
office. These projects
would augment state
demand-side EE efforts
and further incorporate the
use of utility-delivered
energy efficiency incentives
and rebate programs
across large building
owners in the state.

Given the large scale of potential electricity savings generated through PC,
their utilization can be an important compliance tool for states to meet their
111(d) goals. As Figure 4 illustrates, utility EE programs and PC projects have
very little overlap, and building block four of the 111(d) proposed rule was
exclusively predicated on EE programs administered by utilities and states.21
Therefore, electricity savings generated by PC projects create a significant
opportunity for states to comply with their emission guidelines from a source
that is largely distinct from the four building blocks used to set the 111(d)
goals. As a result, EE savings generated by PC can be seen as separate from
the EE savings that EPA anticipates will be achieved through utility and state
administered EE programs. As a result, EE savings from PC projects can be an
immediate source of EE savings in states that do not have energy efficiency
resource standards (EERS) or advanced utility EE programs.
While state policies will ultimately guide how successful these programs can
be, states should view PC as a cost-effective compliance tool that can increase
compliance flexibility. In order to better understand the extent to which the EE
savings generated through PC can help states comply with the 111(d) goals, we
have examined the PC market potential through 2030, estimated how much
electricity those investments may avoid, and projected how PC project EE
savings translate to numerical compliance with rate-based 111(d) final goals.

As noted earlier, LBNL has conducted comprehensive analyses of the ESCO

industry, focusing on the current size of the market and its future potential.
LBNL noted that the size of the market in 2013, which is indicative of
investment in PCs, was more than $6 billion. LBNL further estimated a high
end and low end scenario for the potential size of the ESCO market through
2020. Full implementation of 111(d) regulations could support market
developments that could enable the ESCO industry to reach or exceed the high
case estimate. LBNL calculated the low case growth rate of the ESCO
industry with 8.3% compounded annual growth, based on actual industry
growth from 2008-2011. Using this approach, LBNL estimates that the PC
market will be $10.6 billion in 2020. The high case growth rate is calculated at
12.6% compounded annual growth, based on ESCOs projected growth from
2012-2014. LBNL estimates that the high case scenarios for the ESCO market
in 2020 is $15.3 billion.

21

Ibid. p. 34872. These [demand-side energy efficiency] savings levels are realized exclusively through the adoption
and implementation of energy efficiency programs and that the energy savings data underpinning these analyses
are derived from energy efficiency reports required by state public utility commissions and other entities with a similar
oversight role.
16

LBNLs analysis is a snapshot of

potential size of the PC market at the
beginning of the 111(d) interim
compliance period (2020). In order to
understand how the PC market may
contribute to state compliance with
111(d) goals, existing research is used
to extrapolate the size of the industry
through 2030. LBNL has not
published work estimating the market
size in the 2020-2030 time period. In
the absence of such data, LBNLs high
and low case growth rates through
2020 is assumed to persist through
2030. As LBNL indicated in their study, there is tremendous remaining market
potential, much of which will not be addressed prior to 202022. Assuming that
PC is included as a compliance option in the final 111(d) rules, the ESCO
industry may grow at least at the same rate in 2020-2030 as currently projected
for 2014-2020. Therefore, for the purposes of determining how PC will
potentially contribute to 111(d) compliance, LBNLs low-case scenario growth
rate of 8.3% is continued through 2030, and their high-case scenario growth
rate of 12.6% is continued through 2030. Under these scenarios, ESCO
industry market size may range between $23.6 and $50.5 billion in 2030 (See
Figure 5).
While 111(d) focuses on the GHG reductions associated with avoided fossil
fuel-fired electric generation, PCs typically provide multiple forms of energy
savings. Many PCs reduce electricity,
onsite fossil fuel, and water
consumption all under one project and
contract. These GHG reductions could
make a meaningful contribution to state
compliance under either a rate-based or
mass-based approach.
Using industry data established through
a sampling of projects, we calculate
how much electricity is typically
avoided per year in relation to PC
investment and apply it to future market
projections. For purposes of this

22

The savings potential may be greater since LBNL anticipates neither future advances in technology nor additional
PCs at sites that have undertaken prior PC projects.
17


Figure 7: State % of U.S.
Electricity Consumption (U.S. EIA)

illustration, we utilize an average project savings lifetime of eleven years, with

savings evenly distributed over those eleven years. This is consistent with the
comprehensive energy retrofits using rigorous M&V associated with typical
PC projects and is conservative since savings historically persist well beyond
the contract term. Using this methodology, we estimate that cumulative
electricity savings achieved by PC projects in 2030 will range between 104
million and 190 million megawatt hours (See Figure 6). This number is
illustrative of the relative scale of electricity savings associated with PC and is
not intended to be an estimate of future performance.
Next, we disaggregate national electricity savings estimates by state, which has
not been done by any of the major studies of the ESCO industry. We
considered three different options to apportion national level investment (and
therefore electricity savings) to states: according to past ESCO investments, on
a per capita basis, and proportionate to energy consumption. Every state in the
nation can take advantage of PC if it has the right policies and programs in
place. All states have PC-enabling legislation in place for state and local
government buildings, but few states are exploiting the potential for PC as fully
as possible. One could argue that the states with historically aggressive PC
programs will be leaders in the future. On the other hand, states that have been
less aggressive may see the 111(d) compliance benefits of pursuing PC with
more vigor. Since historical industry data is retrospective, and no studies have
estimated which states will be most active in the future, we assume that each
state will reduce electricity through PC in proportion to the amount of energy
that state consumes (See Figure 7).23
For purposes of this analysis, we inserted each states cumulative electricity
savings attributable to PC in EPAs goal computation spreadsheet,24 which was
modified to calculate the pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour
reduction in each states carbon intensity rate as a result of PC. We calculated
this in the same manner that EPA calculated the goals for EE programs under
building block four. The cumulative avoided electric consumption is
multiplied by 1.0751 to estimate the amount of generation that was avoided by
reducing consumption (taking into account the estimated 7.51% transmission
and distribution loss prior to consumption). In addition, only the percentage of

23

Figure 7 is calculated using EPAs State Goal Data Computation Spreadsheet. The figure reflects each states
electricity sales as a percentage of the total national electricity sales.
24 EPA Goal Computation Technical Support Document, State Goal Data Computation Spreadsheet. For the
purposes of determining the contribution of PC projects to states compliance obligations, the goal computation
spreadsheet was modified to determine how much the state goal would have been reduced if the avoided electricity
consumption attributable to PC projects were added to the denominator of a states rate-based carbon intensity
equation in the same manner as avoided electricity consumption attributable to EE programs. The reduction in a
states carbon intensity attributable to PC projects is the difference between the final goal and what the final goal
would have been if PC projects were BSER. However, we are not recommending that PC projects be included as
BSER. This illustrates the potential contribution of PC projects to state compliance without prejudging the exact
method by which a state would determine compliance with final goals.
18


EE savings equal to the states percentage of consumption generated in that
state (up to 100%) was credited.25
The potential for PC to contribute to state
compliance with 111(d) goals is confirmed by the
results of this calculation. The average reduction in
a states carbon intensity is 27 lbs CO2/MWh in the
low-case scenario and 48 lbs CO2/MWh in the highcase scenario. The potential for PC to contribute to
a states total compliance obligation26 averages
7.1% nationally in the low-case scenario and 12.5%
nationally in the high-case scenario.
We further analyzed the data to determine the
impact of PC in states with 1) higher overall
reduction obligations, 2) lower overall compliance
reduction obligations, and 3) relatively low numeric
final goals. The data was aggregated across three
states in order to ensure a representative sample and
to reduce confusion about the purpose of this data.
We do not intend to predict future PC investment or
electricity savings in any particular state. Rather,
we illustrate how PC may contribute to state 111(d) compliance and in what
proportion. The data is summarized in Table 1 and suggests that PC at the
illustrated levels will achieve larger impacts in states with lower overall
reduction obligations. In three states with an average overall 111(d) reduction
of 49.2%, PC could contribute in a range of 3.1-5.5%. In three states with an
average overall 111(d) reduction of 18.0%, PC could account for reducing that
compliance obligation between 14.3-25.0%. The impact of PC in the three
states with final goals averaging 590, correlated more with the average overall
reduction of 29.7% rather than the numeric value of the final goal. In those
three states, PC could contribute in a range of 7.6-13.5%.
For the 49 states with 111(d) goals, Figure 8 illustrates the range of
contribution that PC projects may make to compliance in 2030. While the
average contribution is 27 lbs/MWh in the low-case scenario and 48 lbs/MWh
in the high-case scenario, there is significant variability among states.
However, the points on this graph are not static. The contribution of PC
projects to state compliance will increase with implementation of more
aggressive policies. Figure 8 supports the conclusion that robust PC programs

25 See Section 3A for comments on how EE savings should be handled between electricity importing and exporting
states.
26 The following is an example of how to calculate contribution to a states total compliance obligation. If a state is
required to reduce its carbon intensity from 1,000 lbs/MWh in the 2012 baseline to 500 lbs/MWh by 2030, a 50
lb/MWh reduction attributable to PC would be 10% of the states total reduction obligation.

19


can contribute significantly to state compliance obligations with section 111(d)
final goals and should be considered a valuable tool in each states compliance
toolbox.

Surplus
GHG reductions from PC projects are surplus emissions reductions under
section 111(d) of the CAA. These emission reductions are not mandated by, or
credited in, any other CAA program and are, therefore, entirely additional in
the context of CAA compliance. EPA should treat PC project-derived GHG
reductions in the same manner that EPA proposes to treat GHG reductions
created by utility-scale RE generation. As with PC projects, many RE projects
were built prior to EPAs proposed CPP was made public, and many more will
be built and installed going forward. Multiple market factors will influence the
timing, size and location of both additional RE and PC projects. All installed
RE and PC projects, once operational, will contribute to rigorously verified
GHG reductions in the need for fossil powered electricity generation. There is
no basis for EPA to treat RE- and PC- related GHG emission reductions
differently.

20

Enforceability
GHG reductions from PC projects support an enforceable state compliance
plan. The contractually guaranteed energy savings provided by the ESCO, and
the applicable M&V which occurs to ensure the performance of that guarantee,
supports EPA requirements for enforceability. Examples of PC projects being
included in enforceable SIPs are included in this paper and are described in
detail in Appendix H. For further explanation of how PC projects can fit into
an enforceable state 111(d) plan, see Section 4 of this paper.

Corrective Measures
Since ESCOs guarantee that improvements performed through PCs will
generate sufficient energy savings to pay for the project over the term of the
contract, PC projects contain inherent corrective measures that can ensure
111(d) compliance. The contract requires the ESCO to annually validate all
savings through strict M&V protocols and, in the event of a shortfall, the
ESCO will perform corrective measures at the project level to deliver the
guaranteed energy savings, which make PC projects robust and reliable
compliance mechanisms designed to deliver long-term energy savings and
emission reductions.

C. Additional Benefits of Performance Contracting in

111(d) Programs
General
Improving energy efficiency through PC is one of the most beneficial and cost
effective ways to address the challenges of high energy prices, energy security
and independence, air pollution, and global climate change. Examples of
additional benefits include substantial reductions in GHG emissions from fossil
fuel use at facilities at no cost to ratepayers, avoiding taxes required to
modernize public facilities, avoiding or deferring costly transmission and
distribution upgrades, avoiding the electricity losses associated with
transmission and distribution, comfort, health, productivity, energy security,
limiting water use associated with electricity generation (and vice versa),
lowering baseload and peak demand, and reducing the need for additional
generation and transmission assets.

21

SIP Credit Given for PC-Driven Emission Reductions

PC projects have been included in some EPA-approved SIPs. As noted in an
NREL report regarding a PC project in Shreveport, LA27 (See Appendix H), A
high level of project certainty and permanence is required for SIP planning
purposes. In the Shreveport project, there is a high level of certainty that
permanent emissions benefits will result from this project due to the longevity
and nature of the Performance Contract between [the ESCO] and the City of
Shreveport. The 20-year Performance Contract provides details of the expense,
duration, and magnitude of the lighting system upgrades, mechanical system
upgrades, control system upgrades, water conservation upgrades, and other
miscellaneous upgrades, and guarantees the energy performance of the overall
system.
Third-party delivered EE projects produce significant non-GHG air quality
benefits by reducing the level of needed electric generation and, therefore, the
associated emission of criteria pollutants. EPA has identified EE as an eligible
tool to be used in SIPs to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). As NAAQS are tightened in future years, and more areas are
placed in nonattainment, the co-benefit of reducing criteria pollutants via PC
will be highly valued. For example, the Delaware Department of Correction
engaged in a $39 million ESPC project that guaranteed more than $80 million
in energy savings. In addition to saving nearly 21 million pounds of carbon
dioxide emissions in the first year, the project also had first year emissions
savings of 20,400 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 21,200 pounds of nitrogen
oxides (See Appendix C). Whether projects are pursued for cost savings, GHG
reductions, or energy savings, the benefits of reducing criteria pollutants are
always present. The following excerpts from EPAs Roadmap for
Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs
into State and Tribal Implementation Plans demonstrate how well emissions
reductions from PC projects align with EPAs requirements for including EE
into SIPs. (See Appendix H for a case study on a PC project that was
incorporated in a state SIP).

27

Comparison of Methods for Estimating the NOx Emission Impacts of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Projects: Shreveport, Louisiana Case Study, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical
Report, NREL/TP-710-37721 Revised July 2005.

22

Table 2
Excerpts from: EPAs Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy
Policies and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Plans28
Table 2A: Baseline Emission Projection Pathway: Qualifying Criteria
EPA ROADMAP

ADVANTAGES FOR PC UNDER 111(d)

State, Tribal and local agencies can include a specific

EE/RE policy in the future SIP/TIP attainment year
baseline if:

If a state adopts a plan (policy) to implement PC across

a defined building fleet (e.g. all public buildings in the
state)

It has already been adopted by a governing

body in a jurisdiction, AND
The effects of the policy have not already
been accounted for in the SIP/TIP (no doublecounting)

Policy test will be met, AND

Double counting is addressed by:
o 111(d) discount for EE in electricity
importing states
o Reduce PC project contribution by
appropriate amount for EE savings
funded by other state programs (e.g.
state- and utility-run EE program) or
RECs generated under state RPS

Table 2B: Baseline Emission Projection Pathway Checklist

EPA ROADMAP

ADVANTAGES FOR PC UNDER 111(d)

Identify and describe EE/RE programs and policies to

include in the baseline emissions projection

State could submit its total (baseline) electricity

consumption for target facilities e.g. all
public/taxpayer-funded buildings

Ensure EE/RE programs and policies will be in place

for the duration of the planning period

All states have PC authority

A state Executive Order could mandate audit
& retrofit action for appropriate period

Perform an analysis of the energy impacts expected

from the policies and programs

Baseline electricity savings estimates could be

prepared using either standard formulas or ESCO
audits

Ensure EE/RE emissions reductions in the baseline

emission projections are not accounted for as part of
another pathway to avoid double counting

Double counting is addressed by:

111(d) discount for EE in electricity importing

states

Reduce PC project contribution by appropriate

amount for EE savings funded by other state
programs (e.g. state- and utility-run EE
program) or RECs generated under state RPS

28

Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal
Implementation Plans available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/eere/manual.html.
23


Table 2C: Control Strategy Pathway Qualifying Criteria
CRITERIA

EPA ROADMAP

ADVANTAGES FOR PC UNDER 111(d)

Permanent

Evidence that regulation or legislation is

mandated throughout attainment
planning period

Most states already have authorizing statutes, and an

Executive Order can establish an PC program (similar
to federal program) for the duration of the planning
period

GHG reductions from PC projects can provide states

with enforceable compliance measures.

Enforceable

EPA has ability to enforce EE/RE

policies and programs brought into
SIPs as control strategies
Federal enforceability is key for
expanded SIP credit
Emission reductions from some PC
projects have been included in SIPs
and meet the necessary
enforceability requirements for SIPs

Legally binding contracts to deliver EE are the basis of

PC projects. EGUs and states can secure access
to/use of GHG reductions from PC projects by:

Direct contracts with PC project participants

Purchase and use of tradable emission credits

generated by PC projects (as RECs from PC
projects are currently used)
State and local governments can also (as many do)
require publically-owned or taxpayer-funded buildings
to undergo deep energy retrofits.

Quantifiable

Use a reliable and replicable emissions

quantification approach that illustrates
which EGUs will reduce emissions
based on EE/RE policies and programs

Use of internationally recognized and accredited M&V

protocols are applied through well-established methods
(e.g. IPMVP) on each PC project

Surplus
(Double Counting)

Document no double counting of

emissions reductions
Demonstrate emissions reductions
are not used for other CAA
requirements (e.g. under a cap and
trade program)

Double counting is addressed under 111(d) by:

1. 111(d) discount for EE in electricity importing
states
2. Reducing PC project contribution by
appropriate amount for EE savings funded by
other state programs (e.g. state- and utility-run
EE program) or RECs generated under state
RPS
Electricity reductions (and related CO2) are only
counted under 111(d)

Predictability

The GHG reductions delivered by PC projects are dependably predictable.

Before a PC is agreed to and signed, the EE reductions that the project will
deliver are defined, and so, the GHG benefits of the project can be precisely
calculated well in advance of when they will occur. The operating parameters
and useful life of the measures to be used in a PC project are clearly defined in
the Investment Grade Audit (IGA) used as the binding, legal basis for the
performance guarantee. The information in the IGA can be used to project
GHG reductions for the life of the contract, and beyond assuming appropriate
24


operation and maintenance of the equipment. Equipment performance is
validated by the rigorous, on-site M&V performed after construction of the
project. Importantly, the project performance guaranteed by contract is
known before the construction period, which can be as much as two years prior
to completion of the project. Additionally, the GHG benefits of the project can
be accurately projected forward for a decade or more into the future.

Job Creation
In 2013, the LBNL estimated that ESCO industry revenues were $6.4 billion, 29
which is directly and indirectly responsible for a large number of jobs,
particularly in states that incentivize EE projects. If state plans credit and
incentivize EE measures, they will spur enormous amounts of cost-effective
emission reductions while also generating approximately 95 jobs for every $10
million in ESPC project investment. According to Federal Performance
Contracting Coalition (FPCC), a typical $10 million ESPC project supports 20
jobs for the ESCO, 40 jobs for associated subcontracted installation work, and
35 jobs associated with the equipment purchased (See Figure 9). Extrapolating
these job figures across the 2013 market suggests that there are approximately
60,800 jobs across the country supported by PC-delivered EE projects. LBNL
projects that the industry will grow to between $10.6 and $15.3 billion by
2020,30 which would increase the potential job impact to a range of
approximately 100,000 and 145,000 jobs.

29
30

Stuart, et al., p.15.

Ibid.
25


Much of the criticism against pursuing GHG reductions from the power sector
through the 111(d) rule will focus on the economic harm caused by increased
costs borne by electric utilities and ultimately consumers. The impressive
employment profile associated with PC investments along with EE and RE
deployment help mitigate the costs of compliance with section 111(d).

Onsite Fossil Fuel and Water Savings

While 111(d) values the GHG reductions associated with avoided electricity
consumption, many PC projects include other environmental benefits, such as
on-site fossil fuel savings and reduction in water consumption. By increasing
the market signal for electricity avoidance, states will gain the environmental
(including carbon dioxide) benefits of non-electricity savings for no additional
cost.
PC projects often reduce the consumption of water significantly below the
consumption levels existing before the conservation measures are installed.
This results in quantifiable, environmentally- and economically-valuable
reductions in water consumption. Since the movement of water is highly
energy intensive, the water savings enabled by PC projects create additional,
ancillary GHG reductions by avoiding the energy consumption that would
otherwise be needed to transport that water.

Performance Contracting Increases States 111(d) Compliance

Flexibility
PC is a potentially powerful tool that states can use to achieve compliance with
their section 111(d) interim and final goals. Since EPA used utility EE
programs (and not PC projects) as the basis for establishing the BSER, any
GHG reductions achieved through PC should provide states with another
strong compliance option that reduces the pressure to meet the standard using
the same combination of building blocks in which EPA set the standard. For
instance, a state that includes EE savings generated through PC in its state plan,
in addition to EE savings generated through ratepayer programs, may create the
flexibility to require less than six percent heat rate improvements at coal plants.
This will prove valuable in states that have economic or political challenges
associated with coal-fired generation, or in states with limited potential for
further reductions due to early action.
States should view PC as purchasable compliance with the 111(d) goals (See
Appendix J). States or EGUs can secure access to or use of the GHG
emissions reductions delivered by a PC project through binding contracts with
parties participating in the PC project. Greater amounts of PC included in a
state plan leads directly to more flexibility in that state to utilize the other
26


building blocks in the most sensible manner. In addition, PC can serve as an
easily implementable EE mechanism in states that do not yet have robust
ratepayer-based EE programs. PC projects are a shovel-ready resource for
states that do not have the type of utility EE programs required to meet the
BSER target of 1.5% annual incremental savings. The ESCO industry
provides an established infrastructure that is already generating EE savings in
every state and can gear up immediately, without any ratepayer investment, to
meet CPP needs. During the last three years, the ESCO industry has doubled
the production of EE from federal projects in response to President Obamas
Performance Contracting Challenge. This accomplishment can be duplicated
in any state that is similarly motivated. In fact, this infrastructure can easily be
tapped by utility programs that need to deliver low-cost EE savings
expeditiously under the section 111(d) rule.
The example in Table 3 illustrates how PC projects could enable states to
require less than a 6% heat rate improvement at coal-fired power plants, which
was identified under building block one as BSER by EPA. Under the BSER
scenario, in 2029, Alabama would achieve EE savings equal to 9.48% of
avoided generation, which exclude the EE savings generated by PC projects.
Assuming Alabama deployed all other building blocks exactly in line with
BSER goal setting, the state compliance rate would be 1,059 which is equal to
the final goal. If Alabama preferred to require a 3% heat rate improvement at
coal-fired power plants instead of a 6% heat rate improvement, and all other
levels were in line with BSER, Alabamas compliance rate in 2030 would be
1,079, which is 20 lbs/MWh over the final goal. However, factoring in the
low-case scenario for PC projects would bring the state rate down to 1,056,
which is 3 lbs/MWh under the final goal. Achieving the high-case scenario for
PC projects would bring the state rate down to 1,039, which is 20 lbs/MWh
under the final goal. Therefore, aggressively pursuing PC projects would
create the necessary compliance flexibility with the final goals that would
allow a state to, for example, require less heat rate improvements or fuel
switching at affected EGUs.
Please see Appendix A for more discussion and more examples related to this
point.

27

Table 3: Illustrative Example of PC Contribution to 111(d) Compliance Flexibility

State

Alabama

Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:3%6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):100%

RE
EEPrograms
WithoutPC
LowcasePC

HighcasePC

State
State
2029

111(d)
111(d)
2029
Cumulative

State111(d)
Compliance
Compliance
Existingand
EESavings
Lowcase
Highcase
Proposed
Compliance
Ratewith
Ratewith
Incremental
Potential
2030PC
2030PC
State111(d) Ratewithout
LowCase
HighCase
REfromBSER
fromBSER
Potential
Potential
FinalGoal
includingPC
PC
PC
(MWh)
(%)
(MWh)
(MWh)
(Lbs/MWh)
(Lbs/MWh)
(Lbs/MWh)
(Lbs/MWh)

4,457,934
14,292,801
9.48%
1,059
1,079
1,056
1,039
2,439,983

Operateabovegoalifheatrate
improvementrequirementis3%and
otherbuildingblocksmatchBSER

28

Operatebelowgoalifusinglowcaseor
highcasePCscenarios

3. EPA Actions Needed for Performance

Contracting to Contribute to 111(d)
Comments on EPAs Proposed Rule
A. Overview
B. Need for EPA Action
C. Multiple GHG Benefits of Performance Contracting
D. Recommended M&V Approach to Enable Performance Contracting to
Contribute to State Compliance
E. Actions to Facilitate Use of Performance Contracting
F. Alternate Approach to the Best System of Emission Reduction

A. Overview
Benefits of
Performance
Contracting
(See Section 2)
Increase EE
delivered under CPP
Universal
applicability
Significant GHG
reductions
Rigorous M&V
Low-cost
compliance option
Significant
contributor to state
111(d) compliance
Reduction of criteria
pollutants
Predictability
Job creation
Onsite fossil fuel
and water savings
Increase States
111(d) Compliance
Flexibility

The companies submitting this technical paper appreciate the opportunity to comment on
EPAs unique and forward-thinking proposal to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuelfired EGUs under CAA section 111(d). We commend EPA for proposing the CPP in a
manner that provides states with flexibility to develop a variety of compliance paths, both
within EGU facilities themselves (e.g. heat rate improvements and fuel switching) and
outside the fence line of those facilities (e.g. renewable energy and energy efficiency).
This flexibility will allow states to employ options that reduce costs while maintaining
environmental rigor.
The CPP appropriately recognizes end-use EE savings and distributed RE as a means to
reduce GHGs from the power sector. With modifications recommended in this section,
such as explicitly including PC as an acceptable compliance mechanism in the final rule
and providing states sufficient guidance on how to incorporate PC in their state plans, the
CPP can unleash substantial additional GHG savings delivered through market-based PC
projects. Integrating the guaranteed energy savings generated through PC projects as a
means of compliance will provide states enhanced flexibility and dramatically lower the
costs of this regulation both for regulated entities and consumers. Additionally, including
PC in the final rule will align with existing state energy policies as all 50 states have
enabling legislation for PC and the majority of states have active PC markets.
EPA and the states face substantial challenges in developing a cost-effective CO2
regulatory program for existing EGUs under the CAA. Tapping into the vast potential of
investments in end-use energy efficiency will provide low-cost emission reductions.
EPAs proposed rule provides states with a variety of compliance options that each can
use to build state plans tailored to its specific needs. End-use EE is one of the least-cost
compliance options. It can, and should, play a critical role in helping the United States
meet its climate policy objectives.
29

While the CPP

clearly identifies EE
savings delivered
via utility- and staterun programs as a
central element of
both establishing
and complying with
the goals, it is
virtually silent on
the important
contribution of PC
projects to EE
savings and how
they can be
incorporated into
approvable state
plans.

EPA and the states have already done important work (e.g., through the EPA Roadmap
for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State
and Tribal Implementation Plans) in opening the door for EE as a CAA compliance
mechanism. The CPP recognizes the positive impacts EE has made to reduce GHGs and
allows states to use EE, which will change the way our nation generates and consumes
electricity. Including EE as a compliance mechanism can reduce the disparity in
available and cost-effective compliance tools across regions. In addition, EE provides
significant environmental benefits.
While the CPP clearly identifies EE savings delivered via utility- and state-run programs
as a central element of both establishing and complying with the goals, it is virtually
silent on the important contribution of PC projects to EE savings and how they can be
incorporated into approvable state plans. The guaranteed energy savings achieved by PC
projects can provide a significant amount of efficiency not captured in either current
utility offerings or state-run efficiency programs. It is critical that energy savings from
such private sector investments are clearly recognized in the section 111(d) compliance
regime in order to give states the most robust set of compliance options and set a market
signal for greater efficiency gains. The CPP will be most successful if states have a wide
range of compliance options and PC projects can be a valuable tool in a states
compliance toolbox.

B. Need for EPA Action

If the CPP encourages states to incorporate PC projects into their plans, it is likely to
significantly expand the GHG reductions delivered by existing state PC programs. The
policies that will be put into place by states to implement the CPP and drive deployment
of GHG reducing technologies will have a profound effect on the market for delivering
EE, and the PC market specifically. Significant opportunities remain to increase EE
delivered by PC projects in all market segments. For example, while PC projects have
flourished in the MUSH market, LBNL reports that barriers to implementing
performance contracts remain high in private sector commercial and industrial facilities.
We believe that a 111(d) program that recognizes the benefits of PC as a compliance
option for states will lead to state policies and market demand that could lower or remove
remaining barriers and capture latent EE opportunities in all market segments.

C. Multiple GHG Benefits of Performance Contracting

Because they are comprehensive energy retrofits, PC projects often implement a variety
of ECMs. In addition to traditional EE measures, PC projects can include construction
and operation of distributed renewable generation systems, combined heat and power
systems, and construction and/or modernization of more traditional fossil-based
generation systems. In all cases, these PC project activities result in quantifiable,
30


additional GHG emission reductions that can contribute to 111(d) compliance. EPA
should incorporate methods of accounting for emission reductions from these measures.
Those methodologies should be applied appropriately within PC projects to allow GHG
benefits to be aggregated as part of the PC project accounting by the state for compliance
purposes.
The focus of the following comments is on how PC can best integrate the EE-derived
GHG emissions benefits. This is because: 1) the majority of PC project-related GHG
emission reductions result from EE measures, and 2) the NOPR does not provide states
with the necessary guidance regarding how to incorporate PC project EE in state plans. It
is presumed that, using the methodologies established for the other building blocks
together with the approaches described below, all GHG reductions delivered by PC
projects will be aggregated and credited for 111(d) compliance.

D. Recommended M&V Approach to Enable Performance

Contracting to Contribute to State Compliance
We recommend that EPA clarify that GHG emission reductions achieved as a result of a
PC project with appropriate M&V be allowed to be used for CPP compliance activities.
The table below compares the M&V used for typical utility-run EE programs with the EE
approach used for typical PC projects. The level of rigor provided by typical PC project
M&V approach is quite rigorous and is based on measuring the performance of energy
conservation measures where they are installed as they operate. There should be no
doubt that this is a sufficient level of rigor to enable GHG emission reductions from PC
projects to be considered an appropriate form of CPP compliance.
It is also true that many, if not most, of the energy conservation measures installed in PC
projects have a useful life that will outlast the guaranteed period of the contract under
which they were installed. Yet, those measures will still produce GHG emission
reductions provided they are operated and maintained according to the parameters
specified by the PC. It would further facilitate low-cost compliance with the CPP if these
GHG emission reductions could also be included for compliance. The level of rigor
specified by the PC guarantee might not be the appropriate balance of cost and rigor for
those measures that have already been proved to contribute to GHG emission reductions.
The current approach to M&V for PC projects was developed for a purpose other than
CPP compliance. While full PC M&V may be an excellent fit for use in the CPP during
the time it is performed on a project, it would be appropriate to develop a more costeffective option to verify the GHG reductions for later years in these projects when half
or more of the GHG savings occur.
Many parties are already considering the question of how best to harmonize the varying
approaches used for PC M&V and to adapt those practices to better suit the purposes of
enabling PC projects, and many other forms of EE delivery, to be used efficiently for
31


CPP compliance. One example is a recent multi-state grant awarded by DOE to four
states for the purpose of harmonizing their EE M&V practices for use under EPAs
proposed program. We would encourage the EPA to participate in such discussions to
better enable states to find the proper balance of cost and rigor in M&V strategies.
Furthermore, we recommend that EPA recognize that fully vetted and tested practices for
this purpose may not be established by the time EPA publishes its final rule under section
111(d). Therefore, we would encourage EPA to support ongoing development and
refinement of best practices that will fully utilize the potential for EE-related GHG
reductions to be encouraged and valued for CPP compliance.

Table 4: Evaluating M&V Approaches

UTILITY/STATE DSM PROGRAM

EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT &
VERIFICATION

ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS

MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION
(Recommended for State 111(d) PC
Programs)

Objective

Determine direct and indirect impact of direct

incentives, codes and standards, and market
transformation on utility system load.

Verify impact of individual ECMs and projects at

a specific location to reconcile verified and
guarantee savings.

Protocols and
Guidelines

IPMVP
SEE Action Energy Efficiency Program
Impact Evaluation Guide
California Energy Efficiency Evaluation
Protocols
Other state specific evaluation protocols

IPMVP and FEMP M&V Guidelines

ASHRAE Guideline 14

Savings based on
measured
performance for all
significant ECMs.

No Typically use one or more of the

following:

Deemed savings from past evaluations.

Extrapolated from detailed M&V on

sample of projects.

Statistical analysis of participant energy

use (vs a control group)

Yes - Project and ECM specific performance

tests and monitoring using IPMVP and FEMP
M&V Guidelines to establish annual energy
savings.

Savings based on
measured or
modeled
performance for all
buildings.

Mostly modeled

Mostly measured

Use estimated or
deemed savings

Yes majority of measures not individually

monitored or verified

Yes for measures that contribute only minor

efficiency gains in the project

Approach to
Persistence of
Savings

Modeled savings based on verified

performance on a samples of implemented
measures

M&V of ECM performance and annual savings

reconciliation throughout contract term. Ongoing
ECM performance monitoring ensures savings
persistence.

Reconciliation
Reports

Not Applicable

Annually during ESPC term. Basis for true-up of

any energy savings shortfalls

32

UTILITY/STATE DSM PROGRAM

EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT &
VERIFICATION

ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS

MEASUREMENT & VERIFICATION
(Recommended for State 111(d) PC
Programs)

Incentives to
Ensure Savings
Persistence

None

ESCO (or other responsible party) pays building

owner for any savings shortfalls.

Recourse if
Savings Do Not
Persist

None

ESCO (or other responsible party) remedies the

cause of the savings shortfall including
implementation of additional savings measures

Approach to
Auditing of Savings
Reported

Review of impact evaluation results by state

utility regulators.

Where used, review of data collection and

calculations procedures and results by oversight
authority

Typical ECMs

Programs limited to measures that meet utility

commission cost-effectiveness criteria, such
as total resource cost criteria.

Comprehensive energy retrofits which are cost

effective based on project contract term,
including measures that produce substantial
non-electric energy savings and GHG
reductions.

M&V Costs Paid by

Utility (Ratepayers)

ESPC Project Customer

Baseline
Development

Based on typical current practice, such as

required standards or codes

Baseline is existing facility performance as

measured and documented in IGA.

Advantages

Measures performance of projects

Verifies persistence of projects
Captures comprehensive (deep) retrofit
savings
Accounts for changes due to weather and
other factors (e.g., occupancy, production)
Measurement and verification throughout
ESPC term

Disadvantages

Leverages existing EM&V programs

Captures projects across multiple sectors
Captures direct & indirect impacts
Can account for weather dependencies
Can be used for ESPC and non ESPC
projects.

Doesnt measure performance of individual

projects
Doesnt verify project-level savings
persistence.
Doesnt readily apply to multi-measure,
comprehensive retrofit projects

Uncommon outside public and institutional

sectors.
May require separate reporting for avoided
emissions and M&V reconciliation

E. Actions to Facilitate Use of Performance Contracting

1. Identify Approvable Pathway. Without limiting state flexibility, EPA should clearly
state in the final rule and technical support documents what will constitute an approvable
pathway for states to include PC project-related emission reductions in their 111(d)
compliance plans (See Section 4 for suggested pathway options). We believe this is
consistent with EPAs intent to provide states as much flexibility as possible. Since
33


111(d) planning will require air regulators, utility regulators, energy officers and other
state officials to coordinate state-wide efforts to reduce GHG emissions from affected
EGUs, states will benefit from EPA guidance on what would constitute an approvable
state plan with respect to PC projects.
2. Recognize All Existing Programs. The NOPR and technical support documents go
into significant detail explaining the benefits of demand-side EE programs, and how
existing programs can be built upon to deliver annual increases in utilization. EPA
should acknowledge, as it did with EERS and renewable portfolio standards (RPS), etc.,
that existing federal and state PC laws, regulations, and contracts likewise provide a
strong foundation for potentially substantial contributions to 111(d) compliance.
3. Targeting Sources of Energy Savings. EPA should clarify how the state plan
requirement to identify affected entities applies to PC projects. Since it is difficult to
forecast the extent to which PCs will be executed, we recommend that the states be
required only to identify building types (e.g. state-owned, hospitals, universities etc.)
targeted for PC, along with a reasonable estimate of savings to be achieved from
anticipated PC projects. That estimate can be developed by the state in coordination with
its energy office and/or another state agency responsible for state PC-administration, or in
coordination with a qualified third party. This will help identify the potential universe of
private-sector delivered EE savings, from which a state can perform further analysis to
arrive at a reasonable, yet conservative, estimate of future PC EE savings. States should
be permitted to include emission reductions from federal and public housing authority PC
projects which occur in their respective states. This Federal data could be provided by a
national registry or other database administered by FEMP.
4. Aggregation of PC-Created Emission Reductions. EPA should describe approvable
approaches for aggregation of PC project-related EE for use in 111(d) compliance. We
recommend that a national registry be created for this purpose, as that approach would be
the most efficient and would provide the greatest degree of consistency in all aspects of
inclusion of project-related GHG reductions in 111(d) compliance. Alternately, a state
energy office (SEO) (or another designated Agency) can collect (directly or via a third
party) data from all PC projects in the state and determine the avoided emissions
achieved. In addition, a state could choose to have a state-run or utility-run EE program
collect data from PC projects. In such states, the state-run or utility-run program could
choose to direct additional incentives to PC projects to increase the quantity of costeffective EE delivered.
The designated aggregation office can facilitate aggregation by registering all PC projects
to be utilized for compliance in 111(d), including projects on federal facilities and
projects initiated prior to the CPP compliance period but from which GHG emission
reductions are still resulting and appropriate M&V is ongoing. The aggregation process
would also be used to eliminate any double-counting of GHG emission reductions from
EE projects. By identifying those measures that benefitted from a utility rate subsidy or
34

Annual (or some

other regular interval)
inspections must be
conducted to verify
that the proper
equipment/systems
are installed and the
equipment/systems
are performing to
specification.
Source: FEMP M&V
Guidelines:
Measurement and
Verification for
Federal Energy
Projects, Version 3.0,
Section 4.3.1.3.

other incentive, aggregators can ensure that GHG reductions from individual measures
within a comprehensive energy retrofit are claimed only under the appropriate EE
program for compliance purposes. Lastly, by using a national registry, EPA could ensure
uniformity of EE-derived GHG benefits which would allow EE credit to be applied
anywhere within an ISO without creating a concern about double-counting of GHG
reductions. This approach would eliminate the need for the EE penalty discussed later in
this section. See Section 4B for more details on this approach to aggregation.
The aggregator would use project M&V reports to determine the EE contribution from
each. The aggregation process would allow states to accomplish three important tasks
needed for 111(d) compliance:
Ex Ante Projection of Savings (provide estimates for use in plan) As discussed
above, by working with ESCOs and other third-party experts, the aggregator can
establish a reasonable, conservative projection of potential EE from PC projects to
include in the state plan. This would be based on the size and type of facilities to be
targeted for comprehensive energy retrofits, the historic pace of retrofit projects in
the state, and the incentives to be used to increase market demand for retrofit
projects.
Calculating actual GHG reductions from EE projects (for use in state progress
reports) The aggregator can use the M&V reporting from PC projects to ensure
accurate accounting of the actual EE supplied from PC projects during the
compliance period. This information can be accessed by the compliance entity
(EGU, state air office, etc.) for inclusion in compliance progress reports.
Support PC program evaluation The collection of M&V reports using a
standardized format for data will enable a simple and robust system for evaluating the
program performance as appropriate.
By supporting a national or state-based aggregation and registry function for PC
programs through 111(d), EPA can help establish a set of 111(d) compliance tools that
will work in either a state-driven portfolio approach or an EGU-obligated compliance
approach.
5. Clarify Approvable Approach for Key Compliance Criteria. We recommend that
EPA assist states by identifying approvable approaches for key compliance criteria that
will facilitate inclusion of PC project-related emission reductions in state plans.
Defining a Balanced EM&V Approach. In its NOPR, EPA clearly indicated it is
aware of the need to establish a balanced approach to EM&V that cost-effectively
provides appropriate rigor. In Section 3D, we have included a detailed discussion of
the M&V approach that provides a high degree of rigor and is consistent with
common practice on PC projects. We recommend that EPA clarify that the
recommended approach described in Section 3D is approvable for use on PC
projects. We believe the best manner to clarify this would be through EM&V
guidance, which will assist states in developing EM&V plans for EE within their
overall state plans. States will need to adopt procedures to ensure that only EE from
35


PC projects utilizing appropriate M&V is included in the aggregated total PC
contribution.
Appropriate M&V should adapt to the specific conditions and circumstances of a
project. For example, FEMPs M&V Guidelines31 describe an approach to M&V that
enables ongoing verification through annual inspections to verify that the proper
equipment and/or systems are performing to specification. When the savings
achieved by ECMs persist beyond the contract period, annual inspections described
in the FEMP M&V Guidelines can be an excellent tool used by states or property
owners to verify that persistence.

When pursuing
options that will
lead to 111(d)
compliance,
states and EGUs
will be far less
likely pursue
mechanisms that
do not possess
full compliance
value.

Meeting PC Performance Targets. When an ECM in a PC project fails to perform as

guaranteed, the ESCO must repair or replace it. EPA should clarify that, in the event
of a program or project shortfall related to PC projects, it would be sufficient to
restore any deficient measure to their specified performance level or provide
additional measures. Requiring PC projects to retrospectively address a resulting
deficit of GHG emission reduction is unnecessary. As illustrated in Figure 2, PC
projects typically produce verified additional and substantial GHG benefits beyond
the estimated/guaranteed savings. This occurs for two practical reasons. First, in
order to be confident in the level of guaranteed savings, ESCOs tend to be
conservative in savings estimates. Secondly, the useful life of many measures
included in PC projects typically outlast the term of the contract, and are largely
uncounted. Given the documented tendency of PC projects to over-deliver on
reductions, it would not make sense for EPA to require more than restoration of any
defective or underperforming measure included in a PC. The backstop against project
shortfalls holds true for broader programmatic shortfalls (e.g. less PC projects entered
into than expected). If PC electricity savings projected in a state plan do not
materialize, the tendency of projects to over perform will provide cushion against the
shortfall. Additionally, states can build conservatism into their projections. For
instance, if a state believes it can achieve 100 MWh of PC-attributable savings over a
defined period (based on analysis of its buildings), it could choose to build into its
plan only 80 MWh. This is consistent with existing practice of state plans and it
would be prudent to continue this practice with PC projects.

6. Existing Facilities/Installations. EPA proposed that RE projects constructed prior to

the 111(d) proposal and implementation be eligible to contribute to 111(d) compliance
despite the fact that these projects were not purpose-built for 111(d) compliance. EE
savings from PC projects should be regarded the same way in terms of the contribution to
111(d) compliance made by the continued maintenance and operation of ECMs that
reduce demand for electricity in the compliance period. If the electricity savings of a PC
project persist into the compliance period, and can be validated by an approved M&V

31

FEMP, M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects, Version 3.0 (April 2008),
Section 4.3.1.3, page 4-8.
36


approach, those savings should be eligible for compliance regardless of when the
measure was installed.

Because an
importing state
may not take
credit for all of its
EE savings and
an exporting
state may only
take credit for its
own EE savings,
the rule would
leave a
significant
amount stranded
and uncounted
because neither
the importing
state nor the
producing state
could claim credit
for savings.

7. Create Incentives for Immediate Action to Reduce Emissions. EPA should provide
states with flexibility to take credit for actions taken after the NOPR was issued and
before the interim compliance period begins (2020) and count that credit toward
achievement of the state's compliance obligation. This early-action provision would help
ensure that the states have an incentive to reduce GHGs prior to 2020. It would also help
prevent a dip in market activity in the EE and RE sectors, as obligated parties otherwise
may delay projects until after the compliance period begins. One option for ensuring
states are given an opportunity to begin compliance earlier than 2020 is to give states the
option to bank credits from 2014 to 2020 for use in the 2020-2029 interim compliance
period.
8. Contributions to Future Avoided Emissions. Avoided electricity consumption
delivered by PC projects with proper M&V should be allowed to count toward 111(d)
compliance. EPA should treat all EE projects in a similar fashion when attempting to
determine their contribution to CPP compliance. Coal-fired EGU efficiency
improvements, economic fuel switching, and increasing renewable generation are all part
of any reasonable business as usual scenario analyzing GHG emissions from the
electricity sector. EE projects should be treated no differently than EPA treats other
means of GHG emission reduction for the purposes of 111(d) compliance.
9. Identify Remedies for the 111(d) State EE Penalty. In setting the interim and final
goals, EPA only permits each state to take credit for the percentage of EE savings
achieved in the state equal to the percentage of state electricity consumption that is
generated in the state (capped at
100%). Stated simply, when
submitting single-state plans,
states that import electricity may
not take full credit for the EE
savings achieved in their state,
creating a penalty for EE relative
to other compliance options.
The extent of the penalty is in
exact proportion to the amount
of electricity that the state
imports. This penalty makes the
need for a clear path toward
approvable interstate approaches
more significant. EPA needs to
ensure it provides a means for
states to account for the full
value of EE savings in either a
37


Figure 11: State
Electricity Importers vs.
Exporters

single state or multi-state plan. If left unresolved, this penalty puts EE at a competitive
disadvantage compared to other 111(d) compliance mechanisms.
While this is not an issue for states that export electricity, it creates a distinct
disincentive to pursue EE in the 26 states that import electricity. As an example, if a
state generated 1,000,000 MWh of EE savings through programs and projects, and
imported 25% of the electricity it consumed, only 750,000 MWh of EE savings would
count toward compliance Because an importing state may not take credit for all of its

EE savings and an exporting state may only take credit for its own EE savings, the rule
would leave a significant amount stranded and uncounted because neither the importing
state nor the producing states could claim credit for savings.

Exporting State
Importing State

The size of this penalty could be quite large (See Figure 10). If all states utilized
building block 4 in the exact amount anticipated by EPA in setting the 111(d) goal, 322
million MWh of cumulative EE savings would be stranded in the 26 importing states
(See Figures 11 and 12) during the 2020-2029 period. Since building block 4 was
predicated exclusively on EE programs, the penalty would be stiffer if it is applied to the
EE savings generated by PC projects as well. The aggregated penalty in 2020-2029
would be 380 million MWh if the low-case PC scenario is usedand 462 million MWh
over the same time period if the high-case PC scenario is used (See Section 2B for
discussion on Potential PC Contribution to State 111(d) Compliance).

38


EPA should ensure a workable interstate solution in which EE programs and projects are
not discounted or penalized. When pursuing options that will lead to 111(d) compliance,
states and EGUs will be far less likely pursue mechanisms that do not possess full
compliance value.
10. Encourage the Use of Tradable Credits. EPA should support the development and
use of single-state and multi-state emission credit trading programs and other marketbased systems. This will facilitate compliance in either a state-driven portfolio approach
or an EGU-obligated compliance approach. It will facilitate the use of the least-cost
compliance options, which in many cases, will involve comprehensive energy retrofits.
Assuming EPA supplies states with clarifying guidance along the lines suggested in this
document, it should be a fairly straightforward matter to include GHG reductions from
PC projects in such market-based programs.

Successful Models for Emission Credit Trading. The Acid Rain Program (ARP)
created by the CAA remains the best example of an emission credit trading program,
and one that is highly relevant as a model for credit trading under Sec. 111(d). As
with the ARP, the CPP targets emission reductions from a large, but finite number of
EGUs. The pollutant of concern in each program is different, but the legal and
market principles are essentially the same. One of the primary and largely
unanticipated means of compliance enabled by credit trading in the ARP occurred
as a result of changes outside the fence-lines of power plants. Rapid computerization
and other technology improvements in railroad transportation radically reduced the
costs of moving low-sulfur content coal from Western mines to Eastern power plants.
As a result, many power plants were able to over-comply with the ARP and increase
the supply of sulfur emission credits available for use by other EGUs for compliance.

Emission Credit Trading Enhances CPPs Consistency with the Clean Air Act.
Overall, the market efficiency enabled by emission credit trading under the ARP
allowed regulated parties to comply with the ARP for a total cost that was
approximately 10 percent of the lowest cost estimates made prior to program
implementation. For this reason, emission trading programs are appropriately seen as
consistent with EPAs responsibility to protect and enhance the quality of the
Nations air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the
productive capacity of its population.32 Emission trading programs, when properly
implemented, facilitate achievement of emission reduction goals at the least cost and
support investments in new modes of business such as railway modernization. In this
fashion, emission trading programs protect and enhance the productive capacity of
the nation while enabling protection of public health and welfare.
It was originally anticipated that the only viable approach to compliance with the
ARP would be through the construction of scrubbers at existing coal-fired power

32

USC 42 Sec. 7401(b)(1).

39


plants by vendors with expertise in such technologies. One concern was that many
power plants were located on small parcels of land that might not be able to
physically accommodate the addition of a scrubber. Low-sulfur coal provided more
than enough reductions in sulfur emissions to address this concern. Electricity
suppliers were able to meet both the demand for power needed by the economy and
the mandate to reduce air pollution. In the case of the CPP, EGUs also can purchase
credits that represent lower GHG emissions without any reduction in the productive
activities of the customers served by the EGU.
Using a trading program, EGUs would be able to buy needed emission reduction
credits generated by diverse measures including greater-than-expected efficiency
improvements at a coal-fired power plant, or by increased end-use energy efficiency.
In both of those cases the emission reduction will have been generated without any
decrease in the productive capacity of the population except, possibly, as a
consequence of increased costs of electricity. In that case, the lower the costs of
compliance, the better the protection of the productive capacity of the population. As
demonstrated by the ARP, an emission trading program enables the least cost
strategies of emission reduction to be used to avoid the need for more expensive
options. GHG reductions through end-use EE projects will, in many cases, be one of
many options that are far less expensive than efficiency improvements at power
plants or fuel switching strategies. Additionally, in no case would an EGU pay more
for emission reduction credits than it would cost to achieve compliance through
means more directly under its control (e.g. heat rate improvements at its facility). So,
use of an emission credit trading program would only reduce the costs of
implementation of the CPP. Therefore, inclusion of a trading program for
compliance under the CPP will improve the programs consistency with the CAA.

Optimal Approach for 111(d) Emission Credit Trading. As occurred in the ARP, an
emission trading program for the CPP would lower compliance costs, increase
compliance flexibility, and spur investment in innovations that can enable lower-cost
compliance activities both inside the fence line and outside the fence line of an
EGU. Several emission credit trading programs exist as models for, or even the
foundations of, a functioning market for GHG emission reduction credit trading that
could be applied to 111(d). Californias AB 32 trading program and the
Northeastern States Region Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) are the best
illustrations for EPA to consider.
Both of these emission trading platforms demonstrate how GHG emission reductions
can be quantified and assigned credit value. Both operate functioning trading
markets that allow GHG emitters to acquire credits certifying actual GHG reductions
at costs far below the costs of reducing the same quantity of GHG emissions at their
own facilities. Neither program has extensively incorporated EE projects in credit
generation activities, but both market and regulatory reasons can account for this.
EPA can easily support the incorporation of EE-derived GHG emission reductions in
40


a 111(d) trading program by identifying an acceptably rigorous method of M&V that
can be consistently applied. That will ensure that emission reduction credits
generated by EE measures will meet the standards applied to other GHG emission
reduction activities. A credit trading program must have a common currency to
function efficiently. Rigorously verified EE programs can produce GHG reductions
that meet the requirements necessary to ensure appropriate confidence in the currency
or credits generated for trading and compliance purposes.
Implementing a national emission trading program, or supporting the development of
regional or state trading programs is consistent with EPAs multiple obligations
under the CAA. The best and most useful markets are those that are most efficient.
In this case, a national emission registry and trading system would provide the
greatest environmental benefit for the least cost under the CPP. That said, EPA and
states may prefer initially to utilize existing regional GHG trading platforms such as
RGGI, or encourage state platforms such as Californias AB 32 program. Any
emission trading program, if well designed and implemented, should increase CPP
compliance efficiency and flexibility. The larger the market, the more pronounced
this effect would be. We therefore encourage EPA to support the development of the
largest and most comprehensive emission trading platform it finds practical to
facilitate compliance with 111(d) at the lowest costs and to spur investment in
economic innovations including greater use of PC projects.

F. Alternate Approach to the Best System of Emission

Reduction

CAA Sec. 111(a)(1) defines the term standard of performance for application in Sec.
111(d) as the best system of emission reduction that the Administrator determines to be
adequately demonstrated. The definition also directs the Administrator to consider costs
in setting the standard of performance. The inclusion of building blocks 2, 3 and 4 in the
best system of emission reduction allowed for both calculating and meeting the standard
of performance proposed in the NOPR is entirely appropriate. Reliance on these building
blocks 2, 3, and 4 including the use of PC projects is consistent with the CAA, with
long-standing interpretation of the CAA by the courts, and with widely-employed and
adequately demonstrated energy practices.
The inclusion of building blocks 2, 3 and 4 provide an approach that is consistent with
the authority granted by the CAA and its long-standing interpretation by the courts. In its
proposal the EPA has presented a path toward significant GHG emission reduction while
allowing the overwhelming majority of existing EGUs to continue operating. This
appropriate balance can only be achieved by the inclusion of building blocks 2, 3 and 4.
Building Blocks 2, 3 and 4 Have Been Adequately Demonstrated as Options for
Meeting Electricity Demand While Reducing Emissions.The NOPR straightforwardly
relies only on those approaches to emission reduction from electricity production that are
41


well demonstrated. The NOPR extensively documents EPAs approach to setting the
standard of performance drawing exclusively from existing activities in use today that fall
into each of the four building blocks. As described by this paper, PC projects are
employed in every state in the nation. Though not explicitly discussed in the NOPR, the
abundant experience with implemented PC projects means they are also adequately
demonstrated as a method of meeting electricity demand while reducing emissions.
System Is a Broad TermThe term system in best system of emission reduction
should not be assumed to have been a casual or unintentional choice by Congress when it
drafted Sec. 111. Congress could have used other terms including device, equipment
or technology if it intended to constrict EPAs authority under section 111(d) only to
requiring pollution controls that could be physically attached to, or exclusively used
within, an emissions source. The term system plainly indicates a broader approach to
emission control strategies permitted by this section of law. As is pointed out in the
NOPR, that broader interpretation is consistent with past court rulings relevant to EPAs
current proposal. The inclusion of energy efficiency strategies including PC projects
in the CPP are appropriately included in the concept of a system of emission
reductions.

42

4. State Pathways for Performance

Contracting to Contribute to 111(d)
A. Synthesizing State 111(d) Plans with EPA
Requirements

Table 5 summarizes the key components of an acceptable state plan and identifies
opportunities for EPA to develop guidance that would make it more likely that PC
projects will be included as key components of approvable state compliance plans.

Table 5: PC Program Elements Align with EPA Pathway Requirements

EE PROJECT
PATHWAY
REQUIREMENTS

STATE PC PROGRAM ELEMENT

EPA GUIDANCE NEEDED/DESIRED

Identification of affected
entities

The EGUs for which PC projects can contribute

to GHG emission reductions will be identified in
the state plan. State PC program can / should
identify target buildings for PC (e.g. all public
buildings above a minimum energy-using
threshold).

EPA should clarify the extent to which

states are responsible for identifying
specific EE sites or sectors before EE
projects are contracted or commissioned.

Description of Plan
approach and
geographical scope

State PC plans can establish goals for target

buildings. (e.g. By utilizing state PC authority, a
20% EE improvement will be achieved in public
buildings comprising at least 50% of the energy
used in state public buildings, etc.)

Identification of state
emission performance
level

Using the goal/approach described in the state

plan for PC EE projects and the appropriate
factor for the GHG value of avoided electricity
consumption, the state can estimate the
avoided CO2 emissions likely to occur.

Demonstration that the

plan is projected to
achieve the states
emission performance
level

Milestones

Using PC together with reductions expected

from other strategies appropriate under the
CPP, the state should be able to project
compliance.

At the start of each year, a state office

responsible for aggregating emission reductions
attributable to PC EE projects (e.g. SEO) should
be able to confirm total emissions avoided from
the prior year using M&V reporting provided by
ESCOs, a registry, or other appropriate source.

43

None

EPA should affirm its approved

conversion factor to translate avoided
electricity generation to GHG reductions,
which should apply equally to all EE
savings, including PCs.

None

None

EE PROJECT
PATHWAY
REQUIREMENTS

STATE PC PROGRAM ELEMENT

EPA GUIDANCE NEEDED/DESIRED

This will enable the state to identify any shortfall

of PC-related reductions, and to take credit
when PC-related emission reductions exceed
planned levels.

Corrective Measures

PCs contain contractually-binding correction

requirements in the event that expected savings
fail to materialize. Typically the ESCO is
responsible for addressing any savings shortfall
and correcting those measures that contributed
to the shortfall.

Identification of
Emission Standards
and any other
measures

State may choose to establish specific EE

improvement rates or aggregate efficiency &
related emission reduction targets for potential
PC sites.

PC projects are highly quantifiable.

Quantifiable

Demonstrate that emission standard is:

NonDuplicative

Permanent

Verifiable

Using the IGA and appropriate emission rate

factors, projected GHG reductions can be
established.
Using the M&V and reconciliation reports,
actual GHG reductions can be confirmed.

None

EPA could facilitate the use of PCderived GHG reductions under 111(d) by
providing guidance on acceptable M&V
approaches, including the recommended
M&V approach outlined in Section 3D of
this paper.

Nothing in the CAA requires or accounts for the

GHG reductions achieved by PC projects. Any
GHG reductions achieved by PC projects would
be non-duplicative. PC-derived EE can be
easily separated from other utility- or state-run
EE programs by attributing those EE gains
related to rebates and other public funds to the
source of that funding even when they are
implemented as part of a PC project.

EPA could facilitate the use of PCderived GHG reductions under 111(d) by
clarifying that PC-derived GHG emission
reductions will be treated in the same
manner as RE projects and state- and
utility-run EE programs.

The permanence of PC project measures is

comparable to other control measures. The life
of PC project elements will vary among each
ECM used in the project, but ECM performance
is well understood, and well documented for
each project using appropriate M&V protocols.

EPA could facilitate the use of PCderived GHG reductions under 111(d) by
determining acceptable methods of
incorporating in state plans and progress
reports GHG reductions related to PC
project ECMs that have been properly
measured and verified.

The M&V conducted on each measure and

each building in a PC project provides rigorous
verification needed to include PC-derived
emission reductions in State plans.

EPA could facilitate the use of PCderived GHG reductions under 111(d) by
clarifying that PC-derived GHG emission
reductions will be treated in the same

44

None

EE PROJECT
PATHWAY
REQUIREMENTS

STATE PC PROGRAM ELEMENT

EPA GUIDANCE NEEDED/DESIRED

manner as state- and utility-run EE

programs.

Enforceable

Identification of
monitoring, reporting,
and recordkeeping
requirements

States can ensure that M&V protocols are

enforced prior to accepting any GHG reduction
credit for those projects.

EPA should approve use of model

pathways.

The standard M&V protocols followed by PC

projects provides a high level of rigor for
monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping.

EPA (perhaps in collaboration with DOEFEMP) could facilitate the use of PCderived GHG reductions under 111(d) by
providing guidance on the acceptable:
application of M&V protocols for
monitoring
level of detail needed for reporting
acceptable under the CAA

45

B. State Pathways to Establish a 111(d) Compliant

Performance Contracting Program
Overview
As it works to finalize the rule, EPA should define approvable pathways for the inclusion
of EE produced from PC projects. Doing so would increase the market demand for EE as
states seek to comply with 111(d). Two possible approaches to developing approvable
pathways are described here but others could be developed that would also promote
increased EE delivered via PC projects.

In the majority of
states, the only
action needed to
enable inclusion of
PC projects state
plans would be
developing a means
of aggregating the
EE produced by PC
projects.

The first is a PC program pathway in a state-driven portfolio approach. This approach

assumes that the state would include emission limits for affected EGUs along with other
enforceable end-use EE and RE measures that avoid EGU CO2 emissions. The second
pathway described is a PC program pathway in an EGU-obligated compliance approach.
This approach assumes the state delegates the compliance obligation to individual EGUs.
This second approach relies upon CAA precedents such as the Acid Rain Program and
the use of traditional emission compliance strategies that rely on obligated party contracts
with third-party vendors and contractors to deliver emission reductions.

PC Program Pathway in State-Driven Portfolio Approach

This pathway utilizes existing PC program elements that are commonly found in the large
number of states with active programs. These program elements could be easily
established in states with less active PC programs by the adoption of the models and
approaches used in other states. In the majority of states, the only action needed to
enable inclusion of PC projects state plans would be developing a means of aggregating
the EE produced by PC projects. This aggregation activity would also support an
efficient evaluation of the performance of PC projects as necessary. As discussed
elsewhere in this paper, a national registry of PC projects would be the most efficient
option, relieving states of the burden for organizing their own registry and aggregation
activity. That said, a state level aggregation could be undertaken by a single, full-time
state employee or third-party agent.
Under this pathway, the national registry, SEO, or another appropriate office, would
serve as an aggregator of EE produced by PC projects for use in 111(d) compliance. By
using conservative estimates of PC project potential, the state plan can credibly estimate
the amount of savings that will be generated by PC projects. Using M&V reports from
PC projects, the aggregating official would register PC projects and aggregate the
quantity of EE produced and the GHG emission reductions available for compliance. The
data aggregated in this fashion would also provide a complete basis for the creation of
emission reduction credits that could be used in a market-based emission credit trading
system if states, regions or EPA establish the use of such a system for 111(d) compliance.

46


Project information, once aggregated, can then be shared with the state air office
responsible for compliance with 111(d). Various approaches can be used for addressing
enforceability of state plans that include a portion of compliance derived from PC
projects. Some examples of these are described below in Table 6.
TABLE 6: PC PROGRAM PATHWAY IN STATE-DRIVEN PORTFOLIO
APPROACH
State 111(d)
Compliance
Plan
Development

Through the national registry, SEO, or other appropriate office, the state would develop an
estimate of the amount of EE that will be delivered via PC during the compliance period, taking
into account programs and policies in place to deploy PC projects. Credible estimates of PC
project potential can be developed by third parties or state energy officials using established
estimating methodologies. To increase robustness of plan, states should use conservative
estimates of future potential.

State 111(d)
Progress
Reports

Using M&V reports from all PC projects registered in the state, the national registry, SEO or
other appropriate office can aggregate on an annual basis all EE produced by installed PC
projects and provide compliance officials with the GHG avoided by EE projects. The rigor of the
M&V will provide precise data regarding EE produced to date. The fact that projects have long
lead times (up to two years) from signing the project contract to final commissioning gives states
excellent visibility on future-year contributions from contracted PC projects.

Program
Evaluation

By using standardized formats for collecting PC project data, states will be able to evaluate its
PC program.

Enforceability
Approaches

Portfolio Approach
State could include estimates of PC project EE in its 111(d) compliance plan. In the event that
PC projects are producing greater amounts of EE than anticipated (e.g. more or larger
projects have been implemented than assumed in the state plan), the state will have time (1224 months as described above in Progress Reports) to adjust delaying or possibly
cancelling requirements for other, more costly compliance actions.
In the event that PC projects are producing less EE than planned, state will have time to
adjust plan to require additional measures to increase EE delivered from any source including
increased PC project utilization to address any shortfall.
Enforceable Project Approach - State may ensure the enforceability of GHG emission
reductions from deep energy retrofits (including PC projects) by:
o Including in state plans only conservative estimates of the potential GHG reductions from
PC activities
o Utilize Executive Orders, regulation, or legislation (many states and the federal government
currently operate with such requirements) to require comprehensive energy retrofits where
appropriate. For example, states could require:

Audits of types of buildings (e.g. all state buildings) and require implementation of
certain projects meeting state-specified criteria, or

Comprehensive energy retrofits at all buildings above a minimum size or energy

consumption threshold

Increases in incentives paid to those implementing EE project until the market

response met the desired level of GHG emission reduction

The inclusion of PC projects in EERS programs

PC Program Pathway in EGU-Obligated Compliance Approach

For states that assign responsibility for 111(d) compliance to EGUs, EPA should define a
somewhat different approvable pathway for including EE from PC projects. In this
approach, EGUs should be able to utilize all EE from PC projects with appropriate M&V
to support their demonstration of compliance. PC projects offer a stable and highly
47


predictable source of EE. Project performance is well defined in the final contract of a
PC project, which can be signed as much as two years prior to the projects
commissioning after which EE benefits can be counted. Furthermore, PC projects
produce predictable and measurable EE benefits for the life of the contract.
EGUs can access this source of verified, predictable GHG emission reductions in a
multitude of ways. For instance, EGUs can enter direct contractual relationships with PC
project participants that assign credit to the EGU for emission reductions created by the
project. This is entirely consistent with EPA precedent for assigning environmental
attributes by contract to a particular entity for renewable electricity transmitted on multiuser grids (See Appendix I).
Another approach would be for the EGU to acquire emission reduction credits created by
the PC project either through market-based emission credit exchanges or directly from
the project. Using credit trading programs is clearly suggested by the NOPR as an option
for state program design. EPA has extensive expertise in these types of market-based
compliance programs and there is ample CAA precedent for their use (See Section 3D for
further discussion).
For states that allow the use of tradable emission credits for 111(d) compliance, PC
projects could provide a much larger source of compliance than would otherwise be the
case. Given that many PC projects will be among the least-expensive means of reducing
GHG emissions, credit programs could provide financial incentives sufficient to increase
demand for PC projects well above even the most optimistic estimates for industry
growth found in the LBNL study of PC market potential. The ESCO industry is
extremely well structured to identify and implement all cost-effective EE measures
available to motivated customers. The added value from a 111(d) credit trading program
is likely to increase the size of PC projects, shorten their payback periods, and, as a direct
consequence, increase the number of building owners motivated to harvest the multiple
benefits of comprehensive energy retrofits.

48

TABLE 7: PC PROGRAM PATHWAY IN EGU-OBLIGATED

COMPLIANCE APPROACH
State 111(d)
Compliance
Plan
Development

No estimate of PC project potential would be required to be included in state plans.

States may want to develop reasonable estimates of the potential amount of EE
potential available if PC projects are utilized for compliance. Credible estimates of PC
project potential can be developed using established (e.g. DOE) protocols by third
parties or state energy officials.

Project
Registration
and
Verification

ESCOs could register PC projects with a national, regional, or state registry and a state
office could check the registry to ensure M&V has successfully occurred to enable
quantification and certification of EE results of PC projects. Ownership of verified units
of EE can be directly transferred between PC project and EGU, or converted to tradable
emission reduction credits for use in single state or multi state credit trading system.

Purchasable
Compliance

Much as EGU owners can purchase compliance by paying to increase dispatch of

natural gas-fired generation, EGUs could purchase compliance through contractual
relationships with the owners of registered PC project EE production. The rigor of PC
project M&V would support the use of such market-based contractual relationships.

State 111(d)
Progress
Reports

Units of EE produced by PC projects used for compliance would be identified in EGU

reports to state compliance authority. The fact that projects have long lead times (up to
two years) from signing the project contract to final commissioning, the state will have
excellent visibility on future-year contributions from contracted PC projects.

Program
Evaluation

By using standardized formats for collecting PC project data, states will be able to easily
evaluate their PC program and projects. The state may choose to periodically review a
project registry to benchmark PC emission reductions.

Enforceability
Approaches

The EGU would be the party obligated to demonstrate compliance and subject to
enforcement. EE achieved through PC projects would count toward their compliance.
Because of the rigor of M&V used on PC projects, EGUs purchasing EE from PC
projects or emission reduction credits generated by PC projects could be assured of the
validity of those GHG reductions. Additional confidence in the compliance value of EEderived GHG reductions could be established for EGUs by utilizing conventional
transaction safeguards (e.g. contracts or insurance) similar to those used for nearly all
commodity transactions, such as trading related to future electricity or coal supply.
Utility-run EE programs could increase the incentive paid to EE projects, including PC
projects, in the event that the market demand for such projects is not delivering the
desired amount of GHG reduction.

49

Table 8: Elements Needed For State Programs

PC
PROGRAM
ELEMENT

WHAT ADDITIONAL STATE ACTIONS ARE NEEDED?

STATE-DRIVEN PORTFOLIO APPROACH

EGU-OBLIGATED COMPLIANCE APPROACH

Enabling Legislation
Project Registration and
Verification (Aggregation)

None all 50 states have existing authority to

utilize PC in MUSH market
Some states may choose to expand authority to
capture a broader scope of public buildings
No state authority is necessary to use PC for
commercial and industrial projects but those
projects would have to meet equivalent M&V and
reporting requirements to contribute to state
111(d) compliance

Same

Legislation authorizing use of PC

enables its use in public buildings
and supports its use throughout
the MUSH market

Designate an entity responsible for collecting

the data and confirming the 111(d) contribution
made by projects
Create a system and standard format for
collecting data
Identify targets (e.g. all MUSH facilities in state)
Estimate (using 3rd party support if needed)
reasonable savings potential for inclusion in
state 111(d) compliance plan
States should inform facility owners and
operators of any incentives and/or requirements
for EE improvement

Designate an entity responsible for collecting

the data and confirming the 111(d) contribution
made by projects
Create a system and standard format for
collecting data
Registered projects can produce units of EE
(e.g. tradable credits, incentives, etc.) for use in
compliance

State-Driven
Supports development of state
plan
Supports review of state progress
toward goal
Enables program evaluations

Ensure that the requirements for M&V comply

with EPAs guidance

Same

Project
M&V

50

ROLE IN 111(d) COMPLIANCE

EGU-Obligated
Enables direct contracts for
EGUs to purchase compliance (in
the form of EE) from PC projects
Enables inclusion of EE from PC
projects in tradable credit
programs
Demonstrates that emission
reductions are permanent,
additional, etc.


PC

WHAT ADDITIONAL STATE ACTIONS ARE NEEDED?

ROLE IN 111(d) COMPLIANCE

PROGRAM
ELEMENT
STATE-DRIVEN PORTFOLIO APPROACH

Incentives

No incentives are necessary for many PC

projects, but states can expand the emission
benefits achieved via PC with the use of
incentives
States where rebates and other traditional
utility/PUC EE program incentives are used will
need to define how properly credit separate EE
programs to avoid double counting
States that utilize tradable emission credits for
111(d) compliance should ensure PC projects
are eligible to participate

EGU-OBLIGATED COMPLIANCE APPROACH

Enforceable Measures

Provided PC projects are included in an

enforceable state 111(d) plan as part of a
portfolio approach, enforcement measures for
specific PC activities will not be needed
State include PC activities as eligible under an
EERS or may (as several already have) create
requirements for MUSH market and other
buildings in Executive Orders, regulations, and
legislation these would qualify as enforceable
measures for purposes of 111(d) compliance

States should inform facility owners and

operators of any incentives and/or requirements
for EE improvement
No incentives are necessary for many PC
projects, but states can expand the emission
benefits achieved via PC with the use of
incentives
States where rebates and other traditional
utility/PUC EE program incentives are used will
need to define how properly credit separate EE
programs to avoid double counting (e.g.
percentage of project cost or other stateapproved methods)
States that utilize tradable emission credits for
111(d) compliance should ensure PC projects
are eligible to participate

Incentives can increase utilization

of EE and distributed RE for
111(d) compliance

EGU remains responsible for enforceability

PC projects can be included

according to CAA precedents
either as enforceable measures
in their own right, or as measures
that will contribute to a portfolio
approach that is enforceable

51

Discussion of Elements Needed for State Programs

Utilizing Existing Authority. As described in the preceding table (Table 8), this pathway
approach would rely on existing authority in those states with active PC programs. A
majority of states have active PC programs that provide tools to increase utilization of PC,
including standardized contracting tools and technical and legal support from a centralized
office (See Appendix F for a good example of state agency PC guidance support). Some
states also have adopted goals, targets, or requirements to drive increased use of PC. All 50
states have current PC authority for public buildings (See Appendix B). PC projects have
been implemented in every state and the volume of EE delivered through PC projects is
growing annually. States should continue those programs and increase the EE benefits they
create.
Aggregation of EE from PC Projects. As discussed in Section 3A of this paper, it is
necessary to create a system for tracking and aggregating the GHG emission reductions
created by PC projects. A national registry, or state registry of PC projects would work for
this purpose and either could support inclusion of PC projects for compliance under both the
state-driven portfolio approach and the EGU-obligated compliance approach. In either case,
the aggregator can facilitate aggregation by registering all PC projects to be utilized for
compliance. The aggregator would use project M&V reports to determine the EE contribution
from each.
The use of standardized formats for data collection will increase the value of this activity for
states. States should work with appropriate stakeholders to define the types of data to be
collected, and the format for submitting it. Once the appropriate data sets and formats are
defined, collection and aggregation of the data will be an efficient and straightforward
process. The aggregator will be able to track GHG savings derived from PC projects and
make that information available to the entity responsible for compliance (EGU, state air
office, etc.) in the states 111(d) progress reports. Standardized tools such as DOEs eProject
Builder33 can be a model for states to track project-level data. A national registry could be a
more efficient approach to standardization and could be an outgrowth of federal efforts, such
as DOEs eProject Builder. EPA should explore this option with DOE.
Using this aggregation process, the state will be able to include in its progress reports the
precise quantity of EE actually produced from PC projects, regardless of the quantity of EE
anticipated in the state plan. Any additional, unanticipated EE can be used to defer/avoid
more expensive inside the fence-line compliance measures because PC projects contracting
structure provides precise long-term predictability once the contracts are in place.
Data standardization also will ensure that project M&V reports are prepared in a manner that
enables effective and efficient evaluating the PC program. The aggregator could periodically
audit a sample of M&V reports to ensure their accuracy. Absent a standardized data format,

33

https://eprojectbuilder.lbl.gov/home/#/about.
52


audits are likely to involve expensive, and unproductive re-measuring of equipment
performance to meet an auditors needs.
EE Projects in
State Compliance
Programs
In Connecticut, a 5
MW third-party
delivered EE projectbased program,
involving numerous
lighting and lighting
controls measures,
was approved by the
state utility
commission to earn
Class III renewable
energy credits. The
third-party provider of
the EE program
applied a factor to the
gross savings of the
measures, adjusting
by an appropriate
variable realization
rate, to determine the
net savings of each
measure. The thirdparty providers M&V
methodology is based
on IPMVP and the
ISO-NE required M&V
procedures for
demand resources.
The provider also
utilized the services of
an independent party
to review and approve
the M&V plan
submitted with its
Class III REC
Application. The
provider also
conducts a
measure-by-measure,
pre- and
post-installation
inspection for every
project as part of the
energy efficiency
initiative.

The aggregator will also be able to ensure that, for projects using utility rebates or other
incentives, the aggregation process ensures against double counting of any GHG reductions.
This can be done by requiring the project registry to identify any incentives used for a PC
project, and to identify the appropriate ownership and attribution for purposes of 111(d)
compliance of any related GHG reductions. By using uniform data standards, and by tracking
the ISO in which the PC project reduced electricity consumption, this aggregation approach
can be the basis of regional trading (within the ISO) of EE-derived GHG emission
reductions. Such an approach would eliminate concerns regarding potential double counting
of EE savings across state lines, while eliminating the EE penalty discussed in Section 3E.
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification. In its NOPR, EPA clearly indicated it is
aware of the need to establish a balanced approach to M&V that cost-effectively provides
appropriate rigor. In Section 3D, there is a detailed summary of a recommended EM&V
approach for a state third-party EE program, which leverages common ESCO project-level
M&V practices to provide high degrees of rigor while minimizing complexity and
incremental program evaluation costs. EPA should consider offering states guidance on how
to leverage project-level M&V to cost-effectively implement rigorous program-level EM&V.
States will need to adopt procedures to ensure that appropriate project-level M&V is included
in any program that aggregates third-party EE projects for compliance purposes or that create
compliance credits for purchase by EGUs.
While rigorous M&V occurs at the project level, section 111(d) may inspire states to
implement EM&V on a program of projects. EM&V could include, for example, an
evaluation of project M&V reports and on-site inspections. However, this evaluation
approach may be cost-intensive and not cost-effective for states. Based on program-level
EM&V, a state may elect to adopt a realization rate for CO2 reductions at the program level,
which will provide states an additional mechanism to be conservative when evaluating the
use of EE programs in 111(d) compliance plans. PC projects will report full savings into a
national, regional, or state registry, and the state could decide how to adjust those savings to
comport with a state EM&V plan. In Connecticut, there is an example of how a state can
adjust measured savings at the program level to achieve program-level goals. In determining
the savings that are eligible to earn Class III REC credits in the state, Connecticut utility
regulators approved a third-party delivered EE project-based program which utilized an
adjustment factor to determine the net savings of the program of projects.
Evaluation of PC Program. As discussed in the NOPR, states will need to evaluate the
performance of EE programs. For states using a standardized format for collection of PC
project M&V reports, program evaluation should be a simple, cost-effective activity. EPA
should consider providing guidance to states on approvable options for conducting program
evaluations for PC programs. We would recommend that states periodically audit a sample
of M&V reports. ESCOs should be held accountable for failure to meet contractual energy
53


savings goals found and required to implement appropriate corrective measures. Given the
contractual guarantee which requires ESCOs to correct any performance shortfalls of
implemented measures, the risk of programmatic shortfall is quite low, and the requirement
that ESCOs correct any shortfall is consistent with the traditional operation of PC projects.
Recent evaluations of the savings performance of the federal ESPC program found that
savings exceed the guaranteed levels (See Figure 2).
Enforceable Measures for PC Programs. EPA should clarify how states can utilize PC
projects for 111(d) compliance under a state-driven portfolio approach in a manner that is
consistent with enforceability requirements. It would seem that several approaches are
possible that would be consistent with existing CAA precedents (See Appendix H).
States could employ a portfolio approach to identifying compliance measures as has been
approved by EPA for NAAQS attainment strategies. In adopting a portfolio approach, the
state could include a diverse set of compliance measures in an overall plan that has
appropriate enforceability, even in the event that some contributing measures may not
themselves be enforceable. Using this approach, the state could provide in its plan an
estimate of anticipated EE from PC projects. During the compliance period, surplus
quantities of EE from PC projects can be used to decrease the need for more expensive
compliance options, while shortfalls, should they occur, can be made up with increases in in
EE driven by increased incentives, or requirements for additional comprehensive energy
retrofits such as described in Table 8. States should use conservative estimates for planning
purposes when they are not relying on enforceable requirements for investment in
comprehensive energy retrofits to avoid challenges that might be created with overlyoptimistic projections.
Alternatively, states could rely on existing or new state requirements included in Executive
Orders, regulation, or law (See Appendix D for examples of federal, state, and local PC
directives). In this approach, a state could designate a particular class of buildings (e.g. all
state buildings) take a specific set of actions to develop and implement comprehensive energy
retrofits. Requirements could be structured as mandatory energy audits and implementation
of all measures meeting specific minimum requirements. Alternately, enforceable
requirements could be structured based on limiting the use of appropriated funds for facilities
that have not implemented comprehensive energy retrofits, or as requirement to meet a
minimum level of investment or EE through comprehensive energy retrofits. Examples of
each of these approaches are currently operating in various parts of the country.
Incentives. A broad mix of incentives are currently used to encourage PC projects. These
include use of utility rebates and other traditional EE incentives, tax incentives, and
participation in RE credit trading programs and other market-based compliance systems.
Some states also make low-cost project financing available for PC projects.
For states that implement or utilize tradable emission credit programs for 111(d) compliance,
allowing PC projects to participate would be a potentially significant new incentive given the
54


low cost of implementing typical PC projects relative to many other 111(d) compliance
options. Increased availability of incentives for PC projects would be expected to have the
effect of increasing the quantities of EE available for compliance purposes. Increased
incentives could also meaningfully increase demand for PC projects in privately-owned
buildings. In fact, an increased availability of incentives may lead to enough demand that the
high-case PC estimate articulated in Section 2B will become a much more likely scenario
than the low-case estimate.

55

C. State Activities to Increase GHG Reductions through

Performance Contracting Project Activity

Elements Needed For State PC Projects

Regardless of whether PC projects in a state are driven exclusively by market demand, or by

state incentives or mandates, the process of developing projects will remain fairly
standardized from state to state. Table 9 identifies the key actions that will be carried out by
ESCOs in order for a PC project to participate in a state PC program and be eligible for
111(d) compliance.

Table 9: Elements Needed for State PC Projects

PC
PROJECT
ACTIVITY

ACTIONS FOR ESCOS

ROLE IN 111(D) COMPLIANCE

Development
Incentives and Other
Project Drivers

Facility-level project development will be done by

the ESCO in conjunction with site/customer
Investment grade audit will establish baseline of
energy use
ESCO will propose a suite of ECMs in a detailed
cost proposal including M&V approach and
financing costs
Final project scope defined by customer and
detailed in contract
Identify applicable incentives that can apply to
project and include in investment grade audit &
project scope/financial proposal
Identify state program requirements project will
satisfy (e.g. EE goals or requirements for state
buildings)

Approve and
Register
Install and
Commission
Implement
M&V and
Report
Results

ESCO submits project details to state program

official
State program official maintains registry of project
details including guaranteed energy savings, carbon
reductions, implemented measures, M&V details
and use/ownership of incentives
ESCO engineers, installs and commissions the
energy conservation measures
ESCO completes initial verification of measure
integrity and savings effectiveness
ESCO establishes operations and maintenance
schedule and performance assurance plan
M&V conducted on installed measures using
approved protocols, such as IPMVP or FEMP.
Project M&V report prepared by ESCO and
submitted to state program official according to
state data requirements

56

Supports development of state-wide

estimate of PC project EE that can be
delivered for 111(d compliance
Develops the scope of projects at specific
facilities

Incentives including tradable emission

credits, utility program rebates, etc. can
contribute to larger projects that produce
greater EE benefits
States with goals and requirements for
comprehensive energy retrofit projects for
MUSH and other facilities can increase
the EE and RE contributions to 111(d)
compliance
Projects will have to be registered and
approved with the state PC Program
official responsible for aggregating EE
savings
Projects will be counted for the actual EE
created by the project

M&V reports enable states to quantify

actual program EE performance and
include aggregated totals in state 111(d)
progress reports
Standardized format for M&V reporting
facilitates program-level evaluations

APPENDIX A
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING CONTRIBUTION TO STATE
COMPLIANCE WITH 111(d) GOALS

Performance Contracting Contribution to State Compliance with

111(d) Goals
PC Gives States Compliance Flexibility

In the 111(d) NOPR, EPA set performance standards based on best system of emission reduction (BSER).
BSER is adequately demonstrated measures which take into account the cost of achieving such reduction
and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. EPA identified four
building blocks which constitute for affected sources under this proposal, including: 1) achieving 6% heat rate
improvement (HRI) at coal fired power plants, 2) achieving natural gas combined cycle utilization rate of
70% by redispatching of more carbon-intensive generation to natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants
operating at below 70% capacity, 3) increasing RE generation, and 4) increasing utilization of demand-side
EE programs.
Since the final goals for each state are based on BSER, every state would meet its state goal exactly if it
achieved the levels identified in BSER. EPA acknowledges that every state is unique and has provided states
flexibility to meet their goal. States may choose (subject to EPA approval) to achieve more reductions from
one measure encompassed by the BSER and less from another, or it could choose to include measures that
were not part of the EPAs BSER determination as long as the state meets the goals.
Since building block 4 is made up exclusively of EE programs, PC is a tool that can help states reduce their
carbon intensity, while providing administrative flexibility in building a state plan. This appendix provides
examples of how states may choose to use PC projects to meet 111(d) final goals, while creating flexibility to
utilize the four building blocks in a manner that best fits the needs of the state.
Summary Table of Appendix A Examples
Example:
Georgia

State
111(d)
Final
Goal

State 111(d) State 111(d)

Compliance Compliance
Rate
Rate with
without PC
Low-Case
PC

State 111(d)
Compliance
Rate with
High-Case
PC

Example:
Ohio

State
111(d)
Final
Goal

State 111(d) State 111(d)

Compliance Compliance
Rate
Rate with
without PC
Low-Case
PC

State 111(d)
Compliance
Rate with
High-Case
PC

Utilize BSER
Baseline Levels

834

834

811

792

Utilize BSER
Baseline Levels

1,338

1,338

1,302

1,273

BSER baseline,
except RE at 90%
of BSER levels

834

842

819

800

BSER baseline,
except RE at 80% of
BSER levels

1,338

1,365

1,327

1,297

812

BSER baseline,
except RE at 80% of
BSER levels, and
4% heat rate
improvement

1,338

1,389

1,351

1,320

827

BSER baseline,
except RE at 80% of
BSER levels, 4%
HRI, and utilize
NGCC at 65%

1,338

1,404

1,365

1,334

BSER baseline,
except RE & EE at
90% of BSER
levels

BSER baseline,
except RE & EE at
90% of BSER
levels, and 3% HRI

834

834

851

866

829

844

A-2

Example 1A: BSER Baseline Levels34

If the assumptions used to develop BSER in any state were achieved in the exact amounts in 2030, then each states compliance with the 111(d)
final goals would match the final goal exactly. In a case in which a state will meet the goal with only the original four building blocks, the
addition of PC projects would lead to a state overcomplying with its final goal. Operating at below regulated levels is not unusual, as stationary
sources often intentionally operate at below permitted limits to provide the margin of safety needed to account for variability. This same strategy
may be employed by states to ensure compliance with 111(d) goals. Example 1A examines how the use of PC would impact Georgias
compliance rate if it were to meet the standard using the four building blocks in exactly the same way that EPA used them to set the goal. The use
of PC in 2030 would allow the state to exceed compliance with its final goal of 834 lbs/MWh by 23 in the low-case PC deployment scenario, or 41
in the high-case PC deployment scenario. This example shows the deployment of PC projects can give states a welcome compliance cushion in
case unforeseen circumstances diminish the reduction achieved by any of the BSER building blocks.

Example1A(BSERBaselineLevels)
Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):100%
State

Georgia

RE

EEPrograms

2029
Existingand
IncrementalRE
fromBSER
(MWh)

2029
Cumulative
EESavings
Potential
fromBSER
(%)

12,230,636

9.83%

WithoutPC

LowcasePC

ProposedState
111(d)FinalGoal

State
111(d)
Compliance
Rate
withoutPC

Lowcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

834

834

3,708,248

MeetgoalexactlyifusingEPABSERfactors

State111(d)
Compliance
Ratewith
LowCasePC
(lbs/MWh)

811

HighcasePC
Rate
Reduction
Attributed
toLow
CasePC
(lbs/MWh)

23

Highcase
2030PC
Potential

State111(d)
Compliance
Ratewith
HighCasePC

Rate
Reduction
Attributed
toHigh
CasePC

(MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

6,775,097

792

42

Operatebelowgoalifusinglowcaseor
highcasePCscenarios

34

EPA Goal Computation Technical Support Document, State Goal Data Computation Spreadsheet. Compliance levels provided in the examples were calculated
using the same tool EPA used to calculate goals for each state. EPAs goal computation spreadsheet was modified to determine how much the state goal would
have been reduced if the avoided electricity consumption attributable to PC projects were added to the denominator of a states rate-based carbon intensity
equation in the same manner as avoided electricity consumption attributable to EE programs. This illustrates the potential contribution of PC projects to state
compliance and how this compliance mechanism interacts with other compliance options in a state plan. In other words, the compliance levels illustrated in these
examples would have been the final goals if the BSER inputs were modified in the manner we describe.
A-3

Example 1B: Renewable Energy Shortfall from BSER Levels

Example 1B illustrates how PC projects may help states that fall short of their renewable target. Under the BSER scenario, in 2029, Georgia
would generate 12,230,636 megawatt hours from 111(d) eligible renewable sources. This is a 273% increase over the amount of eligible
renewables it generated in 2012. If Georgia only met 90% of that figure in 2030, it would generate 11,007,572 megawatt hours of renewable
electricity. Assuming Georgia deployed all other building blocks exactly in line with BSER goal setting, the state compliance rate would be 842,
which is 8 lbs/MWh over the final goal. However, factoring in the low-case scenario for PC projects would bring the state rate down to 819,
which is 15 lbs/MWh under the final goal. Achieving the high-case scenario for PC projects would bring the state rate down to 800, which is 34
lbs/MWh under the final goal.

Example1B(RenewableEnergyShortfallfromBSERLevels)
Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):90%100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):100%

State

RE

Georgia

2029
Existingand
IncrementalRE
fromBSER
(MWh)
12,230,636
11,007,572

EEPrograms
2029
Cumulative
EESavings
Potential
fromBSER
(%)
9.83%

WithoutPC

ProposedState
111(d)FinalGoal

State
111(d)
Compliance
Rate
withoutPC

Lowcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

834

842

3,708,248

OperateabovegoalifREgenerationis
90%ofBSERassumption

Highcase
2030PC
Potential

HighcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
HighCase
toHigh
PC
CasePC

(MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

6,775,097

800

42

Operatebelowgoalifusinglowcaseor
highcasePCscenarios

A-4

LowcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
LowCase
toLow
PC
CasePC
(lbs/MWh)
(lbs/MWh)

819
23

Example 1C: Energy Efficiency Program Shortfall from BSER Levels

Utility- and state-administered EE programs are the basis for EPAs BSER building block 4. In the event that a state does not reach the level of
cumulative EE program savings that EPA assumed in BSER building block 4, EE savings from PC projects can help make up that shortfall.
Example 1C illustrates how 111(d) compliance would be affected if Georgia reached 90% the cumulative EE savings rate (8.85%) that EPA
believed was achievable in 2029. Factoring in that reduction in addition to the renewable shortfall in Example 1B, and assuming all of the other
BSER factors remained unchanged, the state compliance rate would be 851 (17 lbs/MWh over the final goal). However, factoring in the low-case
scenario for PC projects would bring the state rate down to 829, which is 5 lbs/MWh under the final goal. Achieving the high-case scenario for
PC projects would lower Georgias compliance rate to 812, creating flexibility to consider how best to utilize the other building blocks.

Example1C(EnergyEfficiencyProgramShortfallfromBSERLevels)

State

Georgia

RE

2029
Existingand
IncrementalRE
fromBSER
(MWh)
12,230,636
11,007,572

Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):90%100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):90%100%
EEPrograms
WithoutPC
LowcasePC
2029
Cumulative
EESavings
Potential
fromBSER
(%)
9.83%
8.85%

ProposedState
111(d)FinalGoal

State
111(d)
Compliance
Rate
withoutPC

Lowcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

834

851

3,708,248

OperateabovegoalifREgenerationandEE
savingsare90%ofBSERassumption

HighcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
HighCase
toHigh
PC
CasePC

Rate
Reduction
Attributed
toLow
CasePC

Highcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

6,775,097

812

39

22

Operatebelowgoalifusinglowcaseor
highcasePCscenarios

A-5

State
111(d)
Compliance
Ratewith
LowCase
PC
(lbs/MWh)

829

Example 1D: Coal Heat Rate Improvement Shortfall from BSER Levels
In the NOPR, building block 1 relied on 6% heat rate improvements at coal fired power plants. A host of factors (political, economic, technical,
etc.) may contribute to a state needing the flexibility to require less than the 6% assumed in building block 1. Example 1D shows that if Georgia
chooses to require a 3% heat rate improvement in coal plants, along with the 90% achievement of BSER levels for RE and EE from Examples 1B
and 1C, Georgias state compliance rate in 2030 would be 866 (32 lbs/MWh over the final goal). Factoring in the low-case scenario for PC
projects would bring the state rate down to 844, which is 10 lbs/MWh over the final goal. However, if Georgia aggressively pursued PC projects
and achieved the high-case scenario for PC projects, Georgias 111(d) compliance rate in 2030 would fall to 827, which is 7 lbs/MWh under the
final goal. As illustrated in these examples, PC projects offer states flexibility to manage other compliance options in a manner most compatible
with their needs.

Example1D(CoalHeatRateImprovementShortfallfromBSERLevels)
Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:3%6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):90%100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):90%100%

State

RE

EEPrograms

Georgia

2029
Existingand
IncrementalRE
fromBSER
(MWh)
12,230,636
11,007,572

2029
Cumulative
EESavings
Potential
fromBSER
(%)
9.83%
8.85%

WithoutPC

ProposedState
111(d)FinalGoal

State
111(d)
Compliance
Rate
withoutPC

Lowcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

834

866

3,708,248

OperateabovegoalifREgenerationandEEsavings
are90%ofBSERassumptionandcoalplantheat
rateimprovementsare3%

A-6

LowcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
LowCase
toLow
PC
CasePC
(lbs/MWh)
(lbs/MWh)

844
20

Highcase
2030PC
Potential

HighcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
HighCase
toHigh
PC
CasePC

(MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

6,775,097

827

39

OperatebelowgoalifusinghighcasePC
scenario

Example 2A: BSER Baseline Levels

In Example 2A, if Ohio achieved the four building blocks in the exact manner that EPA specified, the 111(d) compliance rate in 2030 would
match the final goal of 1,338 lbs/MWh exactly. The use of PC in Ohio, in conjunction with reductions that match the BSER levels, would allow
Ohio to exceed compliance with the state goal by 36 lbs/MWh in the low-case PC deployment scenario, or 65 lbs/MWh in the high-case PC
deployment scenario.

Example2A(BSERBaselineLevels)
Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):100%
State

Ohio

RE

EEPrograms

2029
Existingand
IncrementalRE
fromBSER
(MWh)

2029
Cumulative
EESavings
Potential
fromBSER
(%)

13,775,594

11.56%

WithoutPC

ProposedState
111(d)FinalGoal

State
111(d)
Compliance
Rate
withoutPC

Lowcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

1,338

1,338

4,316,329

MeetgoalexactlyifusingEPABSERfactors

A-7

LowcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
LowCase
toLow
PC
CasePC
(lbs/MWh)
(lbs/MWh)

1,302
36

Highcase
2030PC
Potential

HighcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
HighCase
toHigh
PC
CasePC

(MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

7,886,082

1,273

65

Operatebelowgoalifusinglowcaseor
highcasePCscenarios

Example 2B: Renewable Energy Shortfall from BSER Levels

Ohio is part of EPAs east central region for renewable energy that, for purposes of establishing building block 3, is expected to increase
renewable generation by 16% per year (compounded) starting in 2017. Under the BSER scenario, Ohio would be generating 13,775,594 megawatt
hours of renewable energy in 2029. This is a 692% increase over the amount of eligible renewables it generated in 2012. If Ohio met 80% of that
target in 2030, it would generate 11,020,475 MWh of 111(d) eligible renewable electricity. Assuming all of the other BSER factors remained
unchanged, the state compliance rate would be 1,365 (27 lbs/MWh over the final goal). However, factoring in the low-case scenario for PC
projects would bring the state rate down to 1,327, which is 11 lbs/MWh under the final goal. Achieving the high-case scenario for PC projects
would bring the state rate down to 1,297, which is 41 lbs/MWh under the final goal.

Example2B(RenewableEnergyShortfallfromBSERLevels)
Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):80%100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):100%

State

RE

Ohio

2029
Existingand
IncrementalRE
fromBSER
(MWh)
13,775,594
11,020,475

EEPrograms
2029
Cumulative
EESavings
Potential
fromBSER
(%)
11.56

WithoutPC

ProposedState
111(d)FinalGoal

State
111(d)
Compliance
Rate
withoutPC

Lowcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

1,338

1,365

4,316,329

OperateabovegoalifREgenerationis80%
ofBSERassumption

A-8

LowcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
LowCase
toLow
PC
CasePC
(lbs/MWh)
(lbs/MWh)

1,327
38

Highcase
2030PC
Potential

HighcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
HighCase
toHigh
PC
CasePC

(MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

7,886,082

1,297

68

Operatebelowgoalifusinglowcaseor
highcasePCscenarios

Example 2C: Coal Heat Rate Improvement Shortfall from BSER Levels
If Ohio chooses to require 4% heat rate improvements at coal fired power plants, along with the 90% achievement of BSER renewable levels in
Example 2B, Ohios state compliance rate in 2030 would be 1,389, which is 51 lbs/MWh over the final goal. Factoring in the low-case scenario
for PC projects would bring the state rate down to 1,351, which despite lowering the compliance rate by 38 lbs/MWh would still be 13 lbs/MWh
over the final goal. However, Ohio can achieve compliance with the final goal by aggressively pursuing PC projects and achieving the high-case
scenario for PC projects, which would achieve a compliance rate in 2030 of 1,320, which is 18 lbs/MWh under the final goal.

Example2C(CoalHeatRateImprovementShortfallfromBSERLevels)
Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:4%6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):80%100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):100%

State

RE

Ohio

2029
Existingand
IncrementalRE
fromBSER
(MWh)
13,775,594
11,020,475

EEPrograms
2029
Cumulative
EESavings
Potential
fromBSER
(%)
11.56%

WithoutPC

ProposedState
111(d)FinalGoal

State
111(d)
Compliance
Rate
withoutPC

Lowcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

1,338

1,389

4,316,329

OperateabovegoalifREgenerationis80%of
BSERassumptionandcoalplantheatrate
improvementsare4%

Highcase
2030PC
Potential

HighcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
HighCase
toHigh
PC
CasePC

(MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

7,886,082

1,320

69

OperatebelowgoalifusinghighcasePC
scenarios

A-9

LowcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
LowCase
toLow
PC
CasePC
(lbs/MWh)
(lbs/MWh)

1,351
38

Example 2D: Natural Gas Redispatch Shortfall from BSER Levels

Building upon Examples 2B and 2C, Ohio has 18 lbs/MWh of cushion under the goal, which it can use to modulate its use of other building
blocks. Example 2D examines what would occur if Ohio utilized building block 2 differently than how EPA used it to set the goal. EPA assumed
that coal and oil fired generation could be redispatched to natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants up to a 70% utilization rate. If, based on
state-specific considerations, Ohio chooses to require redispatching up to a 65% NGCC utilization rate (in addition to the modifications in
Examples 2B and 2C), Ohios state compliance rate in 2030 would be 1,404, which is 66 lbs/MWh over the final goal. Factoring in the low-case
scenario for PC projects would bring the state rate down to 1,365, which is 27 lbs/MWh over the final goal. However, Ohio can achieve
compliance with the final goal by achieving the high-case scenario for PC projects, which would bring Ohios 111(d) compliance rate in 2030 to
1,334, which is 4 lbs/MWh under the final goal.

Example2D(NaturalGasRedispatchShortfallfromBSERLevels)
Factors:CoalHeatRateImprovement:4%6%NGCCUtilizationRate(Redispatch):65%70%
Renewables(%of2029BSERassumption):80%100%EEPrograms(%of2029BSERassumption):100%
State

RE

Ohio

2029
Existingand
IncrementalRE
fromBSER
(MWh)
13,775,594
11,020,475

EEPrograms
2029
Cumulative
EESavings
Potential
fromBSER
(%)
11.56%

WithoutPC

ProposedState
111(d)FinalGoal

State
111(d)
Compliance
Rate
withoutPC

Lowcase
2030PC
Potential

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(MWh)

1,338

1,404

4,316,329

OperateabovegoalifREgenerationandEEsavings
are80%ofBSERassumption,coalplantheatrate
improvementsare4%,andnaturalgasplantsare
utilizedat65%forpurposesofredispatching

A-10

LowcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
LowCase
toLow
PC
CasePC
(lbs/MWh)
(lbs/MWh)

1,365
39

Highcase
2030PC
Potential

HighcasePC
State
111(d)
Rate
Compliance Reduction
Ratewith
Attributed
HighCase
toHigh
PC
CasePC

(MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

(lbs/MWh)

7,886,082

1,334

70

OperatebelowgoalifusinghighcasePC
scenario

APPENDIX B
MATRIX OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING IN STATES

ESPC
Authorization

LeadManagementAgency
AlabamaDept.ofEconomicand
CommunityAffairs
DepartmentofTransportation
andPublicFacilities

Alabama

Yes

Alaska

Yes

Arizona

Yes

ArizonaDept.ofCommerce

Arkansas

Yes

ArkansasEconomicDevelopment
Commission

California

Yes

CaliforniaEnergyCommission

Colorado

Yes

ColoradoEnergyOffice

Connecticut

Yes

OfficeofPolicyandManagement

Delaware

Yes

Florida

Yes

Georgia

Yes

Hawaii

Yes

Idaho

Yes

Illinois

Yes

Indiana

Yes

Iowa

Yes

Kansas

Yes

KansasCorporateCommission

Kentucky

Yes

OfficeofEnergyPolicy

Louisiana

Yes

Maine

Yes

Maryland

Yes

Massachusetts

Yes

Michigan

Yes

Minnesota

Yes

Mississippi

Yes

Missouri

Yes

DepartmentofNaturalResources
andEnvironmentalControl
FloridaDept.ofMangement
Services
GeorgiaEnvironmentalFinance
Authority
DeprtmentofBusiness,Economic
DevelopmentandTourism
DivisionofPublicWorks/
DepartmentofAdministration
DepartmentofCommerceand
EconomicOpportunity
IndianaOfficeofEnergy
Development
DepartmentofAdministrative
Services

LouisianaDepartmentofNatural
Resources
DepartmentofAdminstrative
Services
MarylandDepartmentofGeneral
Services/MarylandEnergy
ExecutiveOfficefor
AdministrationandFinance
MichiganEconomicDevelopment
Corporation
MinnesotaDepartmentof
Commerce
MississippiDevelopment
Authority
DepartmentofNaturalResources

B2

TypesofPublicBuildingsCovered

Alaskahasauthorizedarevolvingloanfundforenergy
efficiencyprojects,includingESPCs.

* The information in this matrix is complied from the following sources: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, http://database.aceee.org/state/energy-savings-performance; National Conference of State
Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-energy-savings-performance-contracting.aspx; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, http://web.ornl.gov/info/esco/legislation/newesco.shtml

State

St
at
e

An

PerformanceContractinginStates*

yP
u
Ag blic
en
cy
Sc
ho
ol
D
is t
ric
ts
M
un
ic
ip
al
i ti
es
Un
iv
er
si
tie
s
Co
un
tie
s

ESPC
Authorization

LeadManagementAgency

Montana

Yes

DepartmentofEnvironmental
Quality

Nebraska

Yes

NebraskaEnergyOffice

Nevada

Yes

NevadaStateOfficeofEnergy

NewHampshire

Yes

OfficeofEnergyandPlanning

NewJersey

Yes

NewMexico

Yes

NewYork

Yes

NorthCarolina

Yes

NorthDakota

Yes

Ohio

Yes

Oklahoma

Yes

DepartmentofCommerce

Oregon

Yes

OregonDepartmentofEnergy

Pennsylvania

Yes

DepartmentofGeneralServices

RhodeIsland

Yes

OfficeofEnergyResources

SouthCarolina

Yes

SouthDakota

Yes

Tennessee

Yes

DepartmentofGeneralServices

Texas

Yes

EnergyConservationOffice

Utah

Yes

UtahOfficeofEnergy
Development

Vermont

Yes

BuildingsandGeneralServices

Virginia

Yes

DepartmentofGeneralServices

Washington

Yes

WestVirginia

Yes

Wisconsin

Yes

DepartmentofAdministration

Wyoming

Yes

WyomingBusinessCouncil

State

NewJerseyBoardofPublic
Utilities
DepartmentofEnergy,Minerals
andNaturalResources
NewYorkStateEnergyResource
andfDevelopmentAuthority
DepartmentofEnvironmentand
NaturalResources
NorthDakotaDepartmentof
Commerce
DepartmentofAdministrative
Services

SouthCarolinaEnergyOffice
(BudgetandControlBoard)
SouthDakotaPublicUtilities
Commission

WashingtonDepartmentof
EnterpriseServices
WestVirginiaDevelopment
Office

B3

St
at
e

An
yP
u
Ag blic
en
cy
Sc
ho
ol
D
is t
ric
ts
M
un
ic
ip
al
i ti
es
Un
iv
er
si
tie
s
Co
un
tie
s

TypesofBuildingsCovered

APPENDIX C
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING PROJECT SUMMARIES

Cashing in on Clean Energy

Investments

DE Sustainable Energy Ulity

Energy Eciency Revenue Bonds
Series 2011
Funding Energy Saving Performance Contracts for:
DelawareOceofManagementandBudget(OMB)
DelawareStateUniversity(DSU)
DelawareDepartmentofCorrecon(DOC)
DelawareDepartmentofServicesforChildren,Youth,andtheirFamilies
DelawareTechnicalandCommunityCollege

DE Sustainable Energy Ulity (SEU), Inc.

Energy Eciency Revenue Bonds, Series 2011
THE BONDS: TheDelawareSEUwasestablished

Aggregated Data (1):

bytheStateofDelawarein2007topromote,pro
vide,andinvestinenergyeciencyservicesand
renewableenergygeneraon.The SEUalsowas
empowered to issue Energy Eciency Revenue
Bonds,andbydoingso,raisedover$72millionin
2011 to  support energy performance contracts.
The bonds carried a 4.07% interest rate (All In
True Cost of Interest).  Standard and Poors
awarded the bonds a AA+ longterm rang;
MoodysgavethebondstheirAa2rang.

Total Project Costs: $75,102,694

Construcon Jobs Created, est.: over950
Delaware Construcon Jobs, est.: over550
Guaranteed Energy Savings: $147,889,405
Premium Annual Savings over20years:

$1,335,344/year
Expected First Year Emissions Savings: over (2)
 44,200,000lbs.CO2
 134,000lbs.SOX
 55,400lbs.NOX
Equivalent Environmental Savings (3):
Removing5,800carsfromtheroadforoneyear;
Carbonsequesteredby22,800acresofforest
overoneyear.

DE Energy Efficiency Revenue Bonds

$160

Millions of Dollars

$140
$120
PremiumSavings

$100

EquityContribution

$80

PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING: Contractsare

M&V

$60

carried out in accordance with the Delaware En

ergy Performance Contracng Act with qualied
Energy Service companies (ESCOs).  The perfor
mancecontracngmodelguaranteesenergyand
operaonalreduconstorepayprojectnancing.
Parcipants incur no upfront capital expenses:
fundingfees,training,commissioning,andmeas
urement and vericaon of savings are included
in overall project costs. Addionally, ESCO pro
jects not only reduce inecient operaons but
also reduce future capitol and deferred mainte
nancecosts. Underthisprogram,theESCOshave
guaranteedenergysavingsofalmost$148million
over20years.

DebtService

$40

GuaranteedSavings

$20
$
GuaranteedSavings

AggregatePayments

JOB CREATION: AccordingtotheNaonalAsso

ciaon of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO),
approximatelyonethirdofthemoneyinvestedin
performancecontractsgetsappliedtolaborcosts
(4)
.  The American Council for an EnergyEcient
Economyreportsthatforevery$1millioninvested
inbuildingeciencyimprovement,approximately
20jobsgetcreatedthroughouttheeconomy(5).In
addion, the Brookings Instute has found that
eventhoughabouthalfthejobsrequirenohigher
educaon, median wages for these and other
clean economy jobs are higher than for the U.S.
economyasawhole(6).
The jobs data provided here were obtained from
preliminaryreportsprovidedbyeachoftheESCOs
involved.Theseprojectsareexpectedtogenerate
950construconjobswithover550ofthemlled
todatebyDelawareresidents.

PREMIUM SAVINGS: Premiumsavingsrefers

to the guaranteed energy savings of the project,
lessdebtservice,returnofthestatesequitycon
tribuon,feesandthecostofM&V.Theyearly
valueswereaveragedoverthe20yearprojectlife
andarepresentedhereasPremiumAnnualSav
ings.  Across the SEU bond projects, the Premi
umAnnualSavingstotalmorethan$1.34million.
The total Premium Savings for the projects over
the 20 year period amounts to almost  $27 mil
lion.
2

DE Oce of Management and Budget (OMB)

Including the Carvel Building; Richardson & Robbins Building; Legislave Hall; Jesse Cooper; ONeill; Townsend,
W.A.R., Tatnall, Sykes, Short, & Kirk Buildings; the Credit Union Building; Biggs Museum; Public Archives, Supreme
Court; Old State House; Haslet Armory; Kent County Family Court; Sussex County Courthouse, Courthouse Annex,
Court of Chancery, Family Court; Sussex County Elecon Building and Warehouse

Energy Conservaon Measures

(ECMs) include:

Project Details (1):

Project Cost: $16,307,313
Construcon Time, est.: 18months
Construcon Jobs Created, est.: 251
Delaware Construcon Jobs, est.: 204
Guaranteed Energy Savings: $27,980,541
Premium Annual Savings over20years:

 $122,595/year
Expected First Year Emissions Savings, over (2)
 9,730,000lbs.CO2
 49,700lbs.SOX
 14,600lbs.NOX
Equivalent Environmental Savings (3):
Removing 1,350 cars from the road for one
year;
Carbon sequestered by over 5,300 acres of
forestoveroneyear.

Office of Management & Budget

Millions of Dollars

$25.00
PremiumSavings
EquityContribution
$15.00

Control Systems: Replace old and inecient

systems  with new automated systems; sched
uleequipmentbasedonbuildingusageandnot
24/7 operaon, opmizing ramp up and ramp
down; opmize water heang; install demand
controlled venlaon to match the air ow to
the number of occupants; allow for night set
backofHVACinunoccupiedspaces;implement
morning warmup and evening cooldown pro
grams;installelectricmeterstopermitongoing
feedbackonelectricusageanddemand.
Building Envelope Improvements: Weather
strip doors; seal building penetraons; insulate
crawlspace,ceilings,andacs.

$30.00

$20.00

Lighng: Replaceinteriorlightxtureswiththe
latest generaon of energy ecient xtures;
install moon sensors to turn o lights when
not in use and daylight harvesng controls to
adjust lights based on natural ambient light in
put; replace incandescent and uorescent EXIT
signswithecientLEDsigns.

Solar Photovoltaic (PV): InstallPVpowergener

angsystemsoftheroofoftheCarvelBuilding.

M&V
DebtService

$10.00

GuaranteedSavings
$5.00
$
GuaranteedSavings AggregatePayments

Miscellaneous: Replace domesc hot water

heaterswithhigheciencymodels;installpow
ercorreconsystemstominimizesurges/spikes
inpowersupplies;installhigheciencymotors
and variable frequency drives; replace exisng
transformerswithEnergyStarratedversionsto
reduce electric losses, lower equipment room
cooling loads and handle todays compung
loads.


3

Delaware State University (DSU)

Including the following buildings: Administraon and Student Services; Baker, Baker AG, and Baker Extension; Bank of America; Conrad Hall; Conwell Hall; Educaon and Humanies; ETV Building; Harrie Tubman
Hall; Herbarium; John R. Price Building; Luna I. Mishoe Science Center; Lydia P. Laws Hall; Medgar Evers Hall;
MLK Student Center; Meta V. Jenkins Hall; R. S. Grossley Hall; U.S. Washington Jr. Extension Center; University Buildings 1, 2, and 3; Memorial Hall Gym; Wellness Center Pool; and William C. Jason Library

Energy Conservaon Measures (ECMs)

include:

(1)

Project Details :
Project Cost: $11,260,925
Construcon Time, est.: 18months
Total area addressed: 1,436,673SF
Construcon Jobs Created, est.: 121
Delaware Construcon Jobs, est.: 56
Guaranteed Energy Savings: $24,611,552
Premium Annual savings over20years:

 $263,330/year
Esmated First Year Emissions Savings, over (2)
 7,122,000lbs.CO2
 29,500lbs.SOX
 9,700lbs.NOX
Equivalent Environmental Savings (3):
Removingover950carsfromtheroadforone
year;
Carbonsequesteredbyover3,700acresoffor
estinoneyear.

Delware State
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00

PremiumSavings
M&V

$15.00

Lighng: Retrotexisngsystemswithener
gyecient lamps and lighng xtures, bal
lasts, and compact uorescent bulbs; install
occupancy sensors campuswide to turn o
lightsinunoccupiedspaces.
Building Envelope: Installweatherstripping;
reseal air condioning units; increase ac
insulaontoR40;sealbuildingpenetraons
androof/wallintersecons.
Controls: Upgradebuildingmanagementsys
temsallowingwebbased,remoteaccess;in
stall boiler controls to economize on energy
use; install soware to place computers and
monitorsintolowerpowerstateswhennotin
use.
Miscellaneous:
Install occupancybased
vending machine controls;   install demand
venlaon controls to reduce air ow when
spaces are not occupied; install energy e
cientmotorsvariablefrequencydrivesonfan
motors; replace air handling units that have
passedtheirusefullife.

DebtService
$10.00

GuaranteedSavings

$5.00
$
GuaranteedSavings

AggregatePayments

4

Delaware Department of Correcon (DOC)

Howard R. Young Correconal Instuon, James T. Vaughn Correconal Center,
Sussex Correconal Instuon
Energy Conservaon Measures
(ECMs):
Project Details (1):
Project Cost: $39,069,088
Construcon Time, est.: 36Months
Construcon Jobs Created, est.: 425
Delaware Construcon Jobs, est.: 185
Guaranteed Energy Savings: $80,720,709
Premium Annual Savings over20years:

 $714,331/year
Esmated First Year Emissions Savings, over (2)
 20,778,000lbs.CO2
 20,400lbs.SOX
 21,200lbs.NOX
Equivalent Environmental Savings (3):
Removing over 2,580 cars from the road for
oneyear;
Carbon sequestered by 10,200 acres of forest
overthecourseofoneyear.

Department of Correction
$90.00
$80.00
Millions of Dollars

$70.00
$60.00

PremiumSavings

$50.00

EquityContribution

$40.00

M&V

$30.00

DebtService

$20.00

GuaranteedSavings

$10.00
$
GuaranteedSavings AggregatePayments

5

Lighng: Install energy ecient luminaires and

modify exisng uorescent lighng to  increase
itseciency;installoccupancysensorsinareas
whereoccupancyisinfrequenttoautomacally
shutolights.

Fuel: Replacepropaneheangwithnatural
gasinstall gas lines, natural gas burners,
gauges,regulators,furnaces,dryers,domes
chotwatertanks,etc.
Air Handling: Refurbish airhandling sys
tems and heang and venlaon units; in
stall digital control units ; upgrade kitchen
makeup air units;  install demand control
venlaon to ensure opmal CO2 levels in
theair.
Energy Management: Upgrade hardware
and soware to improve communicaons
andreduceunscheduledservicecalls;install
programmablethermostats;provideonsite
trainingfortheengineeringstatoincrease
thelikelihoodupgradeswillbeproperlyu
lized.

Delaware Department of Services for Children,

Youth and their Families
Murphy Coage, Administraon Building, Grace Coage, Cleveland/White
Building, Mowlds and Snowden Coages, NCCDC, Ferris School, Terry Childrens
Center, and the Stevenson House
Project Details

(1)

Energy
(ECMs) :

Project Cost: $2,185,416

Construcon Time, est.: 9months
Construcon Jobs Created, est.: 29
Delaware Construcon Jobs, est.: 16
Guaranteed Energy Savings: $3,820,970
Premium Annual Savings over20years:

 $191,049/year
Esmated First Year Emissions Savings, over (2)
 1,740,000lbs.CO2
 8,200lbs.SOX
 2,500lbs.NOX
Equivalent Environmental Savings (3):
Removing over 235 cars from the road for one
year;
Carbonsequesteredby935acresofforestover
thecourseofoneyear.

Dept. of Services for Children, Youth,

and their Families

Millions of Dollars

$5.00
$4.00
PremiumSavings
$3.00

EquityContribution
M&V

$2.00

DebtService
$1.00

GuaranteedSavings

$
GuaranteedSavings AggregatePayments

6

Conservaon

Measures

Lighng Improvements: Replaceexisngx

tures with high performance ones; replace
incandescentlampswithcompactuorescent
lamps; replace incandescent EXIT signs with
ecient LED signs; install lighng sensors in
areas of infrequent occupancy to ensure
lightsgetturnedlightso.
Air Handling: Install and program variable
frequencydrives(VFDs)forsupplyandreturn
fansintheTerryCenterandFerrisSchool.
Controls Systems: Convert exisng building
automaonsystemswithanautomatedlogic
system in the Stevenson house to enable
nightsetbacks,opmizetheowtothechill
ers,enablemoreaccuratecontrolofexhaust
fans,makeupairfans.

Delaware Technical and Community College

Wilmington, Stanton and Terry Campuses
Energy
Conservaon
(ECMs) include:
Project Details (1):
Total Project Cost: $6,279,952
Construcon Time, est.: 11Months
Total Area Addressed: 729,702SF
Construcon Jobs Created, est.: 135
Delaware Jobs Created, est.: 104
Guaranteed Energy Savings: $11,491,698
Premium Annual Savings over20years:

 $164,378/year
Esmated First Year Emissions Savings, over (2)
 4,850,000lbs.CO2
 26,000lbs.SOX
 7,400lbs.NOX
Equivalent Environmental Savings (3):
Removingover675carsfromtheroadforone
year;
Carbonsequesteredby2,600acresofforest
overthecourseofoneyear.

Delaware Tech
$14.00
Millions of Dollars

$12.00
$10.00

PremiumSavings

$8.00

M&V

$6.00

DebtService

$4.00

GuaranteedSavings

$2.00
$
GuaranteedSavings AggregatePayments

7

Measures

Lighng: Replace exisng xtures with energy

saving lamps, incandescent bulbs with compact
uorescent bulbs, exisng EXIT signs with LED
signs; install occupancy sensors to reduce
lighngsystemenergyrequirements.
Venlaon: install CO2 sensors in venlaon
systemstomaintainairqualitystandards;  re

placekitchenhoodexhaustvenngsystems;
retrotlabfumehoods;installmoreenergy
ecientcoolingsystems.
Building Envelop: Install energy ecient
windows; weather strip doors; seal wall
penetraonsandeaves.
Miscellaneous: Replace electrical distribuon
transformers to decrease losses and thus in
creaseeciency;;installmoreecientmotors
with variable frequency drives (VFDs); upgrade
refrigeraon systems for the Stanton campus
kitchen and Culinary Arts area; install ice ma
chines that use precooled incoming water and
thus reduce cooling loads on the refrigeraon
systems; install condensing hot water heaters
that recapture emied heat; install more e
cientheatpumpunitsandcondensingboilers.

Informaon Systems: Upgradeinformaon

andmonitoringsystemstomakethemuser
friendlyandexpandable.

ESCOs and Performance Contracts Do Deliver the Savings

Naonally:

ResearchersattheLawrenceBerkeleyNaonalLaboratoryandtheNaonalAssociaon
ofEnergyServiceCompanies(NAESCO)haveexaminedthegrowthandperformanceoftheEnergySer
viceCompany(ESCO)industryfrom1990through2008 (5).TheirESCOdatabasecontainsqualitaveand
quantaveinformaonon3,265dierentprojects.Thelateststudyshowsthatabout85%oftheESCO
projects in recent years have targeted the public and instuonal sectors (up from 74% as recently as
2005).Thestudyalsoshowsthatalmost75%ofthepublic/instuonalsectorprojectsulizedguaran
teedsavings,performancebasedcontracng.

ComparableProjects

Cheyney University (PA) & NORESCO

Construcon:Jan.2009Nov.2010

ClosertoHome(7):

Energy Conservaon Measures (ECMs):

Installaon of lighng and lighng control up
grades; replacement of centralized steam plant
with local high eciency hot water and steam
boilers; weatherizaon; kitchen hood venlaon
replacement;windowreplacements.

Virginia Department of Correcons &

Johnson Controls
Energy Conservaon Measures (ECMs): Retrot
ofairhandlingandvenlaon;installaonofhigh
eciencymotors;lighngsystemupgrades;con
trolsystemupgrades

Project Dollar Amount: $15,059,495

Guaranteed Annual Energy Savings: $1,514,930
Actual Annual Savings: $1,520,187fortherst
year

Phase1Construcon(Fourfacilies):May
2005April2007
Contract Amount:$9,504,287
Projected Annual Savings: $733,707
Actual Annual Savings: $1,094,647

Rachel Carson State Oce Building,

Pennsylvania Governors Residence
(PA) & NORESCO

Phase2Construcon(Sevenfacilies):June
2007Nov.2008
Contract Amount: $12,913,271

Construcon:Dec.2006Dec.2008

Projected Annual Savings: $787,450

Energy Conservaon Measures (ECMs):

Actual Annual Savings: $856,177fortherst

year

Lighngretrotandlighngcontrols;installaon
of geothermal heat pump systems; weatheriza
on; installaon of new supplemental hot water
boilers and high eciency motors; new window
systems.
Project Dollar Amount: $5,814,592
Guaranteed Annual Energy Savings: $524,960
Actual Average Annual Savings:$588,387over
veyears



8

Thank you to these Delaware contractors who

worked on the Bond Funded Projects:
Active Crane

Newport
Advantech Inc.

Dover
Battaglia Electric

NewCastle
Battaglia Mechanical

NewCastle
Christiana Mechanical Inc.

Middletown
Cloudburst Sprinkler

Wilmington
County Insulation

NewCastle
Delaware Engineering and Design Corp.

Newark
EMR (Electric Motor Repair)

NewCastle
ESI Energy & Environmental Solutions

Kirkwood
Gregg & Sons
Smyrna
Hardy Environmental

NewCastle
I.D. Griffith Inc.

Wilmington
K.W. Solar Solutions

Newark
W. Locco LLC

Georgetown
Merit Mechanical

Newark
Modern Controls Inc.

NewCastle

9

Nickle Electrical
Newark

P & C Roofing

NewCastle
Paragon Engineering

Wilmington
Preferred Electric Inc.

NewCastle
Progressive Electric

Wilmington
Quality Exteriors Inc.

Harrington
Radius Systems

Wilmington
J.T. Richardson Inc.

Harrington
RPJ Waste Services 

Smyrna
Roberts Electric Inc.

Magnolia
Seiberlich Trane

NewCastle
Simplex Grinnell Lp 

NewCastle
Solar Dock 


Wilmington
TetraTech

Newark
Thorn Electric


Smyrna
White Optics 


NewCastle
Wilson Masonry Corp.

Harrington
Worth and Co.


Smyrna



















About the Delaware Sustainable

Energy Utility (SEU)
TheDelawareSustainableEnergyUlity(SEU)oersfundingandnancingtoDelawareans
seeking to save money through clean energy and energy eciency.  Energize Delaware is
theprogrambanner,providingasinglepointofcontactforeducaon,resourcesandpro
grams.TheSEU,anonprotorganizaoncreatedbytheStateofDelawarein2007,fosters
asustainableenergyfutureforthestate.TheSEUdoesnotsupportonlyonefueltypeor
market segment, but rather works with businesses, government agencies, and residenal
customerstosavemoneyandenergy,toimplementrenewableenergyprograms,tocreate
newjobsinDelaware,andtohelptheenvironmentbyreducingthecarbondioxideandoth
ergreenhousegasesemiedbythecreaonofenergyforDelawareans.
FundingforEnergizeDelawareandSEUprogramscomesfromtheRegionalGreenhouseGas
Iniave(RGGI),thesaleofRenewableEnergyCredits(RECs),thesaleoftaxexemptbonds,
feespaidforservices,andthereturnoninvestmentsandloans.Nostatetaxpayermoneyis
usedforSEUprograms
Formoreinformaonaboutthefullrangeofprogramsincludingnancing,technical,educa
onal,andnetworkingprogramsbeingoeredbytheSEUforhomesandbusinesses,visit
ourwebsite.
ESCDelawareChapter

www.energizedelaware.org
hp://www.energyservicescoalion.org/chapters/DE/

Sources:
(1) BasedondataprovidedtoCibytheESCOs
(2) Derivedfromdatafoundathps://gats.pjmeis.com/mymodule/rpt/myrpt.asp?r=112
(3)hp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energyresources/calculator.html#results
(4)hp://www.naesco.org/resources/esco.htm
(5)hp://aceee.org/les/pdf/factsheet/eeeconomicopportunity.pdf
(6)hp://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Series/resources/0713_clean_economy.pdf
(7)ProvidedbyJohnsonControlsandNORESCO

109 S. State Street

Dover, DE 19901
(302) 8833048

10

PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, OR

Contract Details
Contract Type:
Energy Savings Performance Contract;
Energy Efficiency; Guaranteed Energy
Savings; Water Conservation
Facility:
4 school campuses; 752,100 sq. feet
Energy Project Size:
$1,999,256
Energy Savings:
765,350 kWh
45,000 gallons of fuel oil
1,022,000 gallons of water

Summary
With an average age over 65 years,
and many buildings dating back to the
1910s, the Portland Public School
District understands the challenges of
operating and maintaining older

With the help of Ameresco and itsproprietary process,Total System Evaluation, the Portland Public School District is updating infrastructure and reaping the
benefits of cost savings with minimal capital investment through a multi-phase partnership. The Cleveland High School (above) was part of the pilot program.

Customer Benefits
By partnering with Ameresco Quantum, Portland

Schools was looking for a way to capture utility cost

two million dollars in facility improvements that

savings to fund facility improvement projects. They

were self-funded through tax credits and utility cost

decided to run a pilot program to evaluate energy

savings. Using Ameresco Quantum's proprietary

Total Systems Evaluation method, the District was
able to maximize the amount of tax credits and
utility savings. Utilizing the Energy Saving
Performance Contracting (ESPC) model enabled
PPS to minimize the project's cost and risk, while
retaining the flexibility to tailor the project to
their needs.

financial resources available to

Amerescos thorough approach and attention to

maintain the facilities in good condition.

detail have provided many energy savings

Faced with these challenges, Portland

opportunities throughout the Portland Public

Public Schools was looking for a way to

School District. Ameresco consistently provides

evaluate energy saving performance

contracting. With the success of the
pilot project, Portland Public Schools
has expanded the scope to address the
entire District.

transparent communication with the owner and the

engineering competence to evaluate complicated
building and control systems to tailor energy
projects to meet our mission to reduce energy
consumption. They have proven themselves as
dedicated, thorough, and effective partners on
every project we have worked with them on.
Sharon Raymor, PE, Project Manager
Portland Public Schools

Environmental Benefits
Through the Districts partnership with Ameresco,
Portland is expected to save the equivalent of
830 metric tons of CO2 per year. The green benefit
from this carbon reduction is roughly equal to:
350 acres of pine forest absorbing carbon
George Middle School

development and contracting method combines

guaranteed savings and performance along with
guaranteed maximum project pricing, resulting in a
budget-neutral approach to improving facilities. A
competitive selection process was conducted in 2007
to find an Energy Services Company (ESCO) that
experience with ESPC, technical expertise, and

Accolades

decided to run a pilot program to

saving performance contracting. This project

could best deliver the program based on their

added challenge by eating away the

facility improvement projects. They

Faced with numerous challenges, Portland Public

Public Schools (PPS) was able to obtain almost

facilities. Increasing utility rates pose an

capture utility cost savings to fund

Services Provided

160 cars taken off the road for one year

72 households powered for one year

cost-effectiveness. The District selected Ameresco

Quantum, and asked them to design a pilot program
for four schools including Beaumont Middle School,
Cleveland High School, George Middle School and
Wilson High School.
Ameresco Quantum applied their proprietary Total
System Evaluation process to analyze the utility
consumption of the facilities and to uncover
cost-effective projects that would improve the schools
and pay for themselves through utility cost savings.
By installing instruments and recording values such
as temperature, air flow, water flow, amperage, and
kW, Ameresco engineers compiled an accurate
energy baseline. This comprehensive and detailed
model was used by Ameresco to identify and analyze
over ninety projects to improve lighting, HVAC
systems, building envelopes, and plumbing fixtures.
For the first phase of implementation, the district
selected a package of projects that would provide the
greatest impact and value at Beaumont and George

PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, OR

environmental impact. Because water and sewer

About Portland Public

costs are so high in the District, toilets and faucets

School District, OR

were replaced with low flow models, and new controls

Originally established in 1851, the

were added to the urinals to eliminate continual

Portland Public School District

flushing. To help pay for all of this work, Ameresco

serves about 47,000 students

Quantum helped the District to qualify for over

$100,000 in funding from the Oregon Business

attending 85 schools. The goal at

Energy Tax Credit.

Portland Public Schools is that: By

the end of elementary, middle, and

The second phase of the pilot program included

high school, every student by name

comprehensive lighting improvements at Cleveland

will meet or exceed academic

and Wilson High Schools. The third phase of the pilot

standards and will be fully prepared

to make productive life decisions.
Portland Public Schools is an equal
opportunity educator and employer.

provided improvements to the HVAC systems at

Beaumont Middle School

Services Provided (cont.)

Middle Schools. This included a comprehensive
indoor lighting retrofit including replacing lamps with
new full-spectrum energy efficient lamps and more

Learn more at www.pps.k12.or.us.

efficient ballasts. The new equipment maintains the

lighting levels for the students, but provides a better
quality of light and saves the District money. An

About Ameresco
Ameresco, Inc. (NYSE:AMRC) is
one of the leading energy efficiency
and renewable energy services
providers. Our energy experts

additional lighting measure at the two middle schools

tion Service Center, the Districts 380,000 square foot

administration building. Phase Three will encompass
six additional school campuses and serval districtwide energy and water efficiency measures.

Both schools employed outdated pneumatic controls

for the HVAC systems. A new direct digital controls
better occupancy controls, load shedding strategies,
temperature set-back and demand control ventilation.
Both middle schools were over-ventilating with
100% outside air, which is very expensive to heat in

energy, supply management, and

the winter. The new controls are designed to bring in

innovative facility renewal all with

the proper amount of outside air. Additionally, the new

Ameresco and its predecessors

projects. Phase Two includes the Blanchard Educa-

the gym is not being used.

environmental stewardship, and

practical financial solutions.

pilot program has led to the development of two more

gymnasiums to turn off the lights automatically when

(DDC) system was installed to take advantage of

efficiency services, alternative

The Districts confidence in the proven results of the

included the installation of occupancy sensors in the

deliver long-term customer value,

sustainability through energy

Wilson High School during the summer of 2011.

system enabled the maintenance staff greater ability

to monitor the energy systems and have remote
access during the times when no one is on-site.

have constructed billions in projects

throughout North America.

Ameresco realized the District could also save a

considerable amount of money by converting the fuel

For more information about

Ameresco and our full-range of
energy efficiency and renewable

oil-fired boilers at the George and Beaumont Middle

Schools to natural gas-fired boilers. Ameresco worked
with the local utility to bring natural gas to the two
campuses. During the summer months, Ameresco

energy solutions, please visit

upgraded the burners on the boilers and abated

http://www.ameresco.com and

and filled the buried tanks to mitigate their

Wilson High School

http://quantum.ameresco.com.
Printed on 30% recycled paper. 2012 Ameresco, Inc. Ameresco and the Ameresco logo, the orb symbol and the tagline
Green. Clean. Sustainable. are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. All rights reserved.

CS-4380-00-0/12 03 00.0

Honeywell Building Solutions

Honeywell and the City of Dayton

Working Together to Promote
Sustainability

The City of Dayton has worked with Honeywell since

2008 to meet the goals of a Sustainable Practices Policy
adopted by the City Commission and inspired by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. As a
result, Dayton is well on the way to being a cleaner, healthier
and more energy efcient city.

PHASE ONE

PHASE TWO

GHG Impact on
All Phases

Dayton tackled the first phase of energy

A second phase of improvements

(Metric Tons/Year CO2 emissions)

projects through a $3.2-million energy

conservation and building modernization

backed by the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (ARRA), allowed Dayton

4,240

program that has decreased utility expenses

to replace cooling units at its data center

7,868

and greenhouse gas emissions at the

and lighting in several facilities with LEDs.

targeted facilities by more than 30 percent.

Honeywell has cataloged five years of

Funded through a 10-year performance

utility data from nearly 900 utility meters

contract with Honeywell, the program

in city-owned facilities to create an

includes infrastructure upgrades that are

emissions inventory. The data was

expected to reduce energy and operating

loaded into the EPAs Portfolio Manager

costs by $420,000 annually. Dayton will

Phase 1-3 reductions

use the savings, which are guaranteed by

Remaining GHG footprint

Honeywell, to pay for the improvements.

to complete a benchmark analysis. The

data will be used to understand where
additional infrastructure upgrades can be

U Reduced electricity consumption by an estimated 3.7 million kilowatt-hours per year

made. Honeywell will continue to provide

U Decreased carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 4,000 tons each year

energy analysis and audits at facilities

U Impacted 12 city buildings and included upgrades to HVAC

where the data suggests the opportunity

for improvement.

equipment, building controls and lighting

U Buildings sealed to reduce the loss of warm and cool air
U Traffic signals at 273 intersections were converted to more
efficient light-emitting diode (LED) technology
U Critical equipment replacements made, including heating and cooling units at the Fleet
nd

Garage offices, 2 District Police Station, City Hall and the One Stop Permit Center
U Obtained over $119,000 in utility rebates from DP&L for the work accomplished

U Earned the ENERGY STAR certification for City Hall by meeting standards set

PHASE THREE
As a next step to address infrastructure
improvements at the Dayton Convention
Center, Honeywell is implementing
significant roof repairs, lighting, sealing
the building envelope, variable drives
on motors, and escalator controllers.

by the EPA and U.S. Department of Energy

The City of Dayton is proud of its environmental stewardship. Its efforts have been recognized in the
June 2009 issue of American City/County Magazine and the May-June 2010 issue of Distributed Energy Magazine.
It was also awarded the Association of Energy Engineers 2010 Region III Energy Project of the Year Award.
Find Out More
To learn more about Honeywell
Building Solutions, contact your
local Honeywell representative Keith
Valiquette at 937-754-4129, or visit
www.honeywell.com/buildingsolutions
Honeywell Building Solutions
1232 Dayton-Yellow Springs Road
Fairborn, OH 45324
www.honeywell.com

ENERGY STAR is a registered trademark

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Printed on recycled paper containing
15% post-consumer waste.
2011 Honeywell International Inc.

Case study

State of Maryland
Maryland

Sustaining Marylands future

The State of Maryland has a long-standing commitment to the preservation and
enhancement of its precious natural resources, particularly the Chesapeake Bay, for
the enjoyment of future generations. The States government believes that its economy
and the health and quality of life of its citizens are dependent on the careful stewardship
of its environmental resources. It is this commitment and belief that prompted the
State to enlist the help of Johnson Controls, Inc. in efforts that will produce nearly
$29 million in energy savings, greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, enable necessary
capital improvements, and reduce the impact of government building operations on
the environment.
Efforts such as those made by the State of Maryland are the result of government
legislation, which dates back to the early 1990s. This legislation mandated that all state
agencies reduce energy consumption by 15 percent by 1996, and 25 percent by 2001.
More recently, in 2001, Maryland Governor Parris N. Glendening established additional
energy efciency goals. Among them is the goal to reduce energy consumption per
gross square foot of its facilities by 10 percent by 2005, and 15 percent by 2010.
These goals are representative of Marylands reputation for leadership in energy
efciency initiatives, indicates Fred Hoover, director, Maryland Energy Administration
(MEA). The performance contracts rst initiated in 1994 with Johnson Controls aid in
achieving these goals by generating necessary funds and avoiding capital expenditure.
Contracts implemented through 2001 will continue to produce energy and emission
savings over the next 15 to 20 years. In addition, increased people comfort, equipment
reliability, positive environmental impact, and Johnson Controls accountability is built in
because of the contracts guarantees, adds Hoover.

On behalf of Marylands Department

of General Services, Secretary, Peta
Richkus receives the Public Service
Energy Leadership Award at the Energy
Efciency Forum.

Chesapeake Bay is one of the nest

inland estuaries in the country. The
State is dedicated to the preservation
of it and all natural resources,
explains Rick Pecora, secretary of the
environment for the state of Maryland.
By taking advantage of performance
contracting with Johnson Controls, we
improve our indoor environments, the
efciency of our building operations,
save energy, save money, and have a
positive impact on the environment in
keeping with the States goals.

Partnership
facilitates states
initiatives

include construction, replacement

of various electrical, mechanical,
plumbing, and HVAC equipment, lighting
retrots, water conservation measures,
installation of energy management
systems, electrical submetering, and
Metasys building automation systems,
and provide training support services.
Through the useful lives of these
contracts, 1994-2010, total benets will
include energy cost savings of nearly
$29 million, electric energy savings of
nearly 339,000 megawatt hours, and
reduced carbon dioxide emissions of
nearly 650,000 tons.
Through Planned Service Agreements
(PSA), Johnson Controls is responsible
for repair and maintenance of all
equipment installed under the contracts.
Under the PSAs, Johnson Controls
technicians ensure optimal equipment
performance and provide assistance
in developing additional energy
conservation and efciency measures.

Three Executive Orders set the stage

for ongoing statewide conservation
and efciency initiatives throughout
Marylands government facilities.
The state is commited to preserving
Collectively these orders establish goals
its environment. Because of the fact
for clean energy procurement, energy
that Johnson Controls has been in the
efciency, and water conservation,
With the performance contracts,
forefront of energy conservation, I know and initiate a green buildings program
multiple facilities are consolidated
that what they bring to the table is
along with a task force on energy
under one vendor, which lessens
based on good research and a corporate conservation and efciency. Although
the management responsibilities of
the State of Maryland had already
commitment that I can rely on.
individual state agencies who previously
made great strides along these lines,
dealt with multiple service contracts,
Peta Richkus
the mandates are designed to ensure
says Hoover. Performance contracting
Secretary
continued efforts.
upgrades
infrastructure through freed
Department of General Services
capital, allowing expenditures on other
These mandates require getting
hidden problems that need attention,
the best bang for our buck, says
adds Pecora.
Pecora, who indicates that capital
improvements, cost avoidance, and
energy savings are proven results of
the existing relationship with Johnson
Continued performance contracting
Controls. To date, eight Johnson
Controls performance contracts ranging with Johnson Controls was a natural
from 6 to 15 years in length affect more consequence of these government
than 118 government facilities. Services mandates, says Pecora, who explained

In it for the long haul

that while Johnson Controls is a major

player in the States performance
contracting relationships, it must still take
part in competitive bid processes where
selection is primarily quality based.

program sets performance standards

for the sustainable design of existing
buildings including, building operations
and upgrades of systems that do not
signicantly change the interior or
exterior surfaces of the building. The
objective of the pilot is to ensure
the new rating system is practical for
application in real buildings.

Johnson Controls was selected because

they are technically competent,
nancially secure, and stand behind
their promise and product they are
in it for the long haul, says Pecora.
Johnson Controls was the rst energy
Johnson Controls doesnt just market
service company to really promote
the program they own the goals,
green buildings and offer themselves
adds Hoover. They are attuned to
as a knowledgeable resource to the
our unique demands and equipped to
state, says Hoover. Johnson Controls
expertise has made them a key player in
address them.
all of our LEED initiatives and the only
player for the Existing Buildings pilot,
indicates Pecora. They have helped
us better understand what the LEED
Maryland rst initiated a Green Buildings
programs are all about and by visiting
Program in 1997 along with Governor
their Brengel Technology Center in
Glendenings Smart Growth initiatives.
Milwaukee, WI we were able to see it
While the Smart Growth initiatives
rst-hand.
focused on expanding where there
is existing infrastructure rather than
in green space, the Green Buildings
Programs goal was to increase the
awareness and use of environmentally
friendly building practices. Under the
recent Executive Order, Maryland will
again take a leadership role with its
High Efciency Green Buildings Program.
The new program requires that eligible
buildings constructed by the State
meet or exceed the U.S. Green Building
Councils (USGBC) Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) rating
of Silver.

Taking the LEED

As another rst, with the assistance

of Johnson Controls, Maryland is the
rst state government to sign up for
and be accepted into the LEED for
Existing Buildings pilot program. The

The District Court of Maryland,

Centerville, is one of more than
118 government facilities affected
by the performance contracts.

Johnson Controls was selected

because they are technically competent,
nancially secure, and stand behind
their promise and product they are
in it for the long haul.
Rick Pecora
Secretary of the Environment
State of Maryland

Metasys is a registered trademark of Johnson Controls, Inc.

2008 Johnson Controls, Inc. Printed in USA CSST-PS03-004
www.johnsoncontrols.com

EPA/PIX10264

LABORATORIES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY:

CASE STUDIES
Case Study Index
Laboratory Type
Wet lab
Dry lab

Clean room

Construction Type
New
Retrofit

Type of Operation

Research/development
Manufacturing
Teaching
Chemistry
Biology
Electronics
Automotive tests

Service Option
Suspended ceiling
Utility corridor
Interstitial space

Featured Technologies
Fume hoods
Controls
Mechanical systems

Electrical loads
Water conservation

Renewables
Sustainable
design/planning
On-site generation

Daylighting
Building commissioning

Other Topics
Diversity factor
Carbon trading
Selling concepts to
stakeholders
Design process
ESPC

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCYS NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL
EMISSIONS LABORATORY,
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been operating since 1971 and has a track record of
pushing the limit on energy-efficient operations. Its ongoing mission is to advance clean vehicle
fuels and technologies, which requires extensive testing and research in a tightly controlled environment. In 1998 the EPA established a site specific Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC)
with NORESCO, one of the largest and most experienced energy service companies in the United
States, to replace its obsolete and aging heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system,
and institute a series of operation practices to ensure the new system would serve the needs of the
laboratory while maintaining the highest possible degree of energy efficiency.

LEED Rating

Platinum
Gold
Silver
Certified

United States
Department
of Energy

The project goals were intended to push the contract bidders to focus on many of the Federal energy efficiency and
emission reduction goals in addition to the cost savings of
the typical ESPC.

This study describes how the EPA was able to reduce the
laboratorys annual energy cost by 60% and water consumption by 60%. It is geared toward architects and engineers who
are familiar with laboratory buildings and is one in a series
produced by Laboratories for the 21st Century, a joint program
of the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). These
case studies exemplify the Labs21 approach, which encourages the design, construction, and operation of safe, sustainable, high-performance laboratories.

To fulfill its contract, NORESCO accomplished the following:

1. Installed two York Millennium two stage absorption chiller/
heaters rated at 440 tons and 575 tons of cooling, respectively,
a new cooling tower, and one 3200 MBtu/h Bryon hot water
generator.

The new HVAC system uses state-of-the-art digital controls,

incorporates variable air volume on supply and exhaust systems,
provides for recirculation of air in certain testing cells, and
allows for energy recovery from the exhaust air stream. The
unique gas-fired chiller/heaters provide the ability to heat
and cool from a single piece of equipment while avoiding
the high electrical demand charges associated with more
traditional electrical chillers.

2. Installed 34 air handling units (AHUs), customized

according to planned operation.
3. Installed a 1200-point energy management system.
4. Replaced old motors with high-efficiency equivalents.
5. Converted once-through cooling water systems to closed
loop cooling.
6. Installed power factor correction.

The system was fully operational in March 2001 and has

completed its first full year of performance. This case study
highlights the features of the system and discusses the system
efficiency and diagnostic monitoring points that are used to
maintain peak performance and troubleshoot environmental
control problems.

7. Installed a 200-kW ONSI fuel cell.

The awarded project includes full operation and maintenance for 22 years as allowed by ESPC legislation. The EPA
selected this option to ensure efficient operation and performance of the retrofit as guaranteed by NORESCO.
The ESPC process allows an agency to implement an energy
efficiency project without the usual constraints of capital funded
projects. The project cost is paid from the guaranteed savings
over the length of the contract. For this project several energy
service companies (ESCOs) were given the opportunity to
provide an initial project proposal. Each proposal was
reviewed and scored according to source selection criteria,
and one ESCO was chosen to provide a detailed proposal.
Following approximately 6 months of detailed proposal development the NORESCO final proposal was again reviewed
and negotiated to receive the final award. The total process
took approximately 18 months. Today, EPA could use the
DOE Regional Super ESPC contract to achieve the same
result in less time.

Project Description
The design effort was guided by the following goals established by the EPA at the beginning of the procurement process:
1. Meet or exceed Federal energy reduction mandates, as prescribed
by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), which requires
20% site energy reduction relative to a 1985 baseline in
Federal facilities by 2000, and Executive Order 12902,
which requires an additional 10% by 2005 (30% total).
2. Reduce power plant source emissions, consistent with the EPAs
mission of environmental protection.
3. Optimize energy cost savings.
4. Restore obsolete and aging infrastructure.

The awarded contract called for an installation period

followed by 22 years of complete system operation and performance guarantees. The total investment was slightly in
excess of $10.5 million, requiring annual contract payments of
approximately $1 million, including annual operation costs of
$200K. The annual savings guarantees are slightly in excess
of the required payment. The EPA could have lowered the
annual payment by some small margin to retain some of the
savings, but that would have added one or more years to the
contract length and increased the total amount of interest.

5. Eliminate or replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) with a refrigerant material that is consistent with EPA guidance and
reflects sound engineering practices.
6. Minimize energy waste by cost-effectively eliminating as
much energy waste as possible.
7. Maximize the use of the waste energy streams, to feed other
processes (where cost effective).
8. Use renewable energy to meet the requirements of sections
304 and 307 of Executive Order 12902, which establishes
a goal for Federal facilities to use photovoltaic, solar
thermal, passive solar, biomass, wind, geothermal,
hydropower, and other alternative technologies, such
as cogeneration, where cost effective.

Because the system is very complex and because the laboratory was required by contract to maintain the ability to conduct
near normal operations, the installation of this project required
24 months. Normal operation was a considerable challenge, as

of SO2 power plant emissions were eliminated with this project.

The ability to run the chillers in simultaneous heating and
cooling modes also allowed chilled water supply throughout
the year for process cooling loads, which eliminated the practice of using once through domestic water for cooling, thereby
reducing domestic water consumption by 60%, or more than
14 million gallons of domestic supply.

the new central plant was based on hot water distribution while
the previous central plant was steam based. This meant that
both systems had to operate simultaneously until the HVAC
system could be completely switched over.

Design Approach/Technologies Used

By opening up the entire facility to the retrofit effort,
NORESCO was able to design a fully integrated system that
provided a level of redundancy and flexibility that was not
present in the original system.

It was assumed that the use of direct-fired chillers would

increase the natural gas usage in the summer months, but the
overall usage fell for the winter and summer months. The total
annual gas usage was reduced by 35%.

The previously installed CFC refrigerant chiller capacity of

more than 2000 tons had contributed to system peak electrical
demand of 2700 kW. The installed gas-fired York chiller/
heaters, in conjunction with the other system improvements,
reduced the system peak to slightly more than 900 kW.

10
ccf (104)

The electrical demand and usage graphs show similar

dramatic impacts. (All graphs are measured data.) During
2001, the on peak demand was reduced by 1800 kW, and
energy use was reduced by 6 million kWh compared to
the baseline. The limited 2002 data available indicate
similar performance.

25

8
Baseline
6

2002

2000

4
1999

2001

0
J

03266401

30

03266403

12

M J

Figure 3. Gas consumption

kW (102)

Baseline
20

Additional design considerations included the ability to

recirculate air in many of the test laboratories (cells). These
test cells are equipped to hold an engine or sometimes an
entire automobile or full-size truck. Temperature and humidity
tolerances are typically 2F and 5 grains humidity (7000
grains/lb) based on operating range specifications of 6886F
and 4080 grains per pound of dry air humidity (RH range of
21%78% 2% humidity). Handling the huge changes in heat
load was a challenge, particularly during the typical summer
design day. The test cell air handlers were designed with
enthalpy energy recovery wheels to maximize heat and
moisture transfer and, for the largest test cells, evaporative
heat piping was added to provide an added degree of cooling
capability. A typical high-duty test cell AHU is shown Figure 4.

1999
15
2000
10
2001

2002

5
0
J

M J

Figure 1. On peak demand

From a regional perspective, this reduced electrical requirement further translated to significant power plant emission
reductions: 8910 tons of CO2, 16.5 tons of NOx, and 26.5 tons

The outdoor air supply and exhaust are shown on the left
side of the diagram. Air first passes through the enthalpy
wheel and through typical heating, cooling, and reheating
coils before entering the test cell space. Although the heating,
cooling, and reheating sequence is not the most energy efficient, the design engineers felt that the tight tolerances and
potentially extreme changes in the test cell during a testing
sequence required the conservative strength of this design.

03266402

14
12
Baseline
kWh (105)

10
1999

8
6
2000

2001

2002

Exhausted air can be channeled through any of three paths.

If the return airflow meets the required specifications, it can
be channeled directly back to the test cell through return path 1.
If additional conditioning is required, it can be channeled

0
J

M J

Figure 2. Electricity consumption

03266404

Purge air exhaust

Evaporative
cooler

Exhaust air
Heat pipe

Return air from

test cell

Exhaust air

Enthalpy
wheel

Return path 2

Return path 1

Supply air to
test cell

Outside air
Damper
(typical)

Humidification

Heating coil

Figure 4. A typical high-duty test cell AHU

Outside purge
air intake
Cooling
coil

Reheating
coil

The gas to electricity base efficiency of the fuel cell averages

36.5%. Counting the recovered heat transferred to the heating
loop the efficiency is increased to as high as 75%. One challenge
of the recovered heat is the operating temperature of the primary
hot water loop. Originally the fuel cell was to have been configured with the high heat output option that would have
delivered hot water in excess of 250F. Because of some procurement challenges, the low temperature option (maximum
output temperature of 160F) was installed. Even with this
limitation, the system efficiency is affected little. The total
efficiency averages 65%.

through return path 2. In both cases 20% of outside air is constantly introduced into the test cell. If the exhaust return air is
too hot for the cooling coil to condition (based on outside air
conditions), a portion of the air can be passed through an
evaporative cooling section (shown on the top-middle of the
diagram) and then through a heat pipe. The heat pipe cools
the remainder of the exhaust return air stream, providing
indirect evaporative cooling. The indirect evaporative cooling
section is used only when ambient air moisture content is low
and test cell heat load is high. In all cases the enthalpy wheel
tempers the incoming air to more closely match the test cell
conditions. The system also has the capability to quickly
purge the test cell in an emergency, including some temperature control to prevent freezing conditions during the winter.

Commissioning Process and Measurement

and Verification

Overall, the entire AHU system is capable of delivering

354,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) of supply air (reduced
from the original system capacity of a constant volume of
410,470 CFM); however, the extensive use of variable frequency
drives and a variable testing schedule have made accurate
estimates of typical air flow difficult. The total 1015 tons of
system cooling can meet all cooling requirements.

The ESPC leaves much of the commissioning process in the

hands of the contractor. The contractual requirements of the
measurement and verification (M&V) plan and tracking of
several system performance parameters ensure that the system is operated correctly and efficiently. The complex nature
of the test cell tolerances does not allow the system operator
to hide improper operation by making simple adjustments.

The 200-kW fuel cell was added during the initial design.
The availability of clean power and the recovery of waste heat
are beneficial. However, the high cost of natural gas during
2001 made cost-effective operation difficult. Gas prices have
since decreased to historical normals. The fuel cell electrical
and thermal outputs are connected to primary electrical and
heating systems. The fuel cell serves part of the base load of
the facility, reducing electrical demand by almost 200 kW.
Even though it is grid connected, surplus energy will probably
not be transmitted to the serving grid. The connection of the
fuel cell waste heat loop is shown in Figure 5.

The system operation is measured through two sets of

parameters to maintain the system at peak operating efficiency:
The M&V plan calls for annual analysis; the system diagnostic
programming provides real time feedback based on expected
performance parameters. The M&V action provides system
savings based on the measurement plan and a variety of
baseline parameters.
As described in the M&V plan:
To gather data for the M&V function, the EMS continuously
logs appropriate variables and calculates energy usage by system

03266405

Typical
heating coil
Gas
fired
chiller/
heater

Gas
fired
chiller/
heater

Fuel cell
ONSI
200 kW

Hot water
boiler

AC
power
out

the system examines operation at

15-minute intervals when the system is in steady state mode. The
alarm parameters are reviewed
monthly to determine whether
any modifications are necessary.

Summary

EPA used an ESPC to upgrade

the entire mechanical system at
NVFEL at no initial cost. The annual
energy cost was reduced by 60%;
domestic water use was reduced by 60%. The ESPC contractor
also provides the operation and maintenance services. The
ongoing attention to energy use and system efficiency through
the ESPC contract provides comfortable assurances that the
laboratory will be able to meet its programmatic mission for
many years in an environmentally responsible manner.

Figure 5. Fuel cell waste heat loop

and by measure, using a dedicated computer networked to the
EMS. NORESCO on-site operations personnel have access to the
stored data, and review it regularly to verify system performance.
The stored data is downloaded monthly by the NORESCO on-site
staff and sent to the NORESCO M&V group for processing.

This process is completely automated so site staff always

have access to the data and can review past performance to
continuously improve system response and performance.
During the first year of system operation, quarterly M&V
reports were prepared to closely track system savings and
performance. Now that the stability of these reports has been
verified, the reporting is done annually.

Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to Phil Wirdzek and Steven Dorer of EPA,
Timothy Kehrli of TLK Consulting, and Otto Van Geet of
NREL for their contributions to this Laboratories for the 21st
Century case study.

For More Information

The system diagnostic programming constantly monitors

the operation of the electronic control modules to detect inefficient operation and notify the plant operator. Monthly reports
of system diagnostics ensure the EPA that the system is being
operated at optimum efficiency. The system diagnostic report
is prepared each month. The ongoing system diagnostics are
designed to look at key system performance factors to ensure
efficient everyday operation. Examples of these diagnostics
include:

On the NVFEL:
Steven Dorer, Facilities Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
734-214-4503

On Laboratories for the 21st Century:

Phil Wirdzek
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
202-564-2094
wirdzek.phil@epamail.epa.gov

1. Position of AHU bypass damper when the test cell is within

specifications.
2. Position of AHU hot and chilled water valves when the test
cell is not being used.
3. Low chilled water system temperature differential.
4. Chiller/heater Btu input versus Btu output.

Will Lintner, P.E.

U.S. Department of Energy
Federal Energy Management Program
1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-3120
william.lintner@ee.doe.gov

Whenever the measured parameters fall out of expected

ranges, the system operator is alarmed. The monthly alarms
and operator follow-up are reported to the EPA.
A challenge of this approach was how to define allowable
tolerances to avoid alarms during normal dynamic operation
of the AHU system. The test cell operation allows the space
conditions to move from normal building temperatures and
loads to heat output from a 500 horsepower engine completing
a high load emission test. This test may last only 10 minutes,
then the system will revert to normal building loads. Currently

Building Metrics for the NVFEL

System

Key Metrics

Annual Energy Use (based on design data)

2(3)

Annual Energy Use (based on measured data)

Ventilation

Exhaust = 0.52 W/cfm

Supply = 0.87 W/cfm(2)
Total = 0.73 W/cfm(1)
(2.6 cfm/gross ft2)(2)

33.2 kWh/gross ft

Cooling Plant

1015 ton peak gas

fired absorption chillers

NA

Included in heating plant use

Lighting

2.0 W/gross ft2

9 kWh/gross ft2(4)

NA

Process/Plug

1 W/gross ft2

5.3 kWh/gross ft2(5)

NA

Heating Plant

3200 MBH + chillers

+ 200 kW fuel cell

NA

236,640 Btu/gross ft2

Central plant, 335,240 Btu/gross ft2 including
fuel cell use

47.5 kWh/gross ft2 for electricity

162,118 Btu/gross ft2 for electricity

28.9 kWh/gross ft2 for electricity(6)

98,636 Btu/gross ft2 for electricity
335,276 Btu/gross ft2 combined site for
electricity and central plant gas(7)
433,880 Btu/gross ft2 combined site for
electricity and total gas(7)

Total

Not separately analyzed (NA)

Notes:
1. W/cfm for the supply/exhaust air handlers represents the fan nameplate horsepower. Ventilation is for test chambers that have short runs of ductwork.
2. 354,000 CFM/135,000 gross ft2 = 2.6 CFM/gross ft2
3. 0.73 W/cfm x 2.6 cfm/gross ft2 x 8760 h x 2/1000 = 33.2 kWh/gross ft2
4. 2.0 W/gross ft2 (assumed) x 4534 h/1000 = 9 kWh/gross ft2 (assumes lights are on 87.2 h/wk)
5. 1.0 W/gross ft2 (assumed) x 5256 h/1000 = 5.3 kWh/gross (assumes equipment is operating 60% of the time. Most of the heat load is produced by
running engines, not electricity.
6. Part of the electricity is generated on site by the fuel cell and used on site, the 28.9 kWh/gross ft2 is purchased electricity.
7. Presented in site Btu (from actual energy bills for 9/008/01). To convert to source Btu, multiply site Btu for electricity by 3. Ann Arbor has 6,569 heating
degree days and 626 cooling degree days.

Otto Van Geet, P.E.

Federal Energy Management Program
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401
303-384-7369
otto_vangeet@nrel.gov

Laboratories for the 21st Century

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Administration and Resources Management
www.epa.gov/labs21century/
In partnership with the
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Federal Energy Management Programs
www.eren.doe.gov/femp/

Case Studies on the Web:

http://labs21.lbl.gov/cs.html

Prepared at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
A DOE national laboratory

DOE/GO-102002-1630
December 2002
Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least
50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

Municipality

City of Houston
Houston, Texas

Customer benefits
Improved building occupant comfort
Disaster hardening of critical systems
Guaranteed savings
Single source for renovations and results
Holistic approach to problem solving
Reduced energy costs

PrOjECT AT A GLANCE
Project Type:
Performance contract
Location:
Houston, Texas, U.S.
Number of Buildings:

Solutions provided by Schneider Electric translated to improved

system reliability, shorter work order response time, reduced
deferred maintenance backlog, local job creation, no increase in
taxes, and great example set for citizens.

26 (2.8 million ft2)

Annual Savings:
$2,518,417
Energy Conservation Measures:
Central plant improvements
Building management system additions/updates
HVAC additions/updates
Lighting fixtures and controls
Water conservation fixtures
Computer room HVAC
Emergency power generation
Retro-commissioning
Phase Completion
August 2012

Summary
There is no denying, a vow to reduce and control energy consumption in the
nations fourth largest city is a Texas-sized challenge. For the city of Houston,
Texas, partnering with the Clinton Climate Initiatives (CCI) Building Retrofit
Program and implementing a performance contract with Schneider Electric
have proven to be the recipe for green success.

The challenge
The city of Houston is located on the Gulf Coast, spans more than 600 square
miles, and boasts a population of more than 2.1 million citizens. The citys
employees operate out of more than 271 nonrevenue facilities, ranging in age
and style with a total of 11 million square feet of space.
For many years, the city battled the increasing need for building repairs, most
of which only treated the symptoms, rather than the cause of the problem.
Work requests for buildings rose as systems aged and the deferred maintenance
backlog grew. Enough was enough.

Make the most of your energy

SM

Municipality

City of Houston

Faced with economic uncertainty, job loss, extreme

drought, and challenging buildings, the citys
administration found a way to address all of its issues
and lead by example. In 2008, the city of Houston
partnered with the Clinton Climate Initiatives (CCI)
Building Retrofit Program.
CCI worked with the city to identify, design, and
implement large-scale energy efficiency projects.
At the suggestion of CCI, the city of Houston
decided to explore performance contracting as a
way to pay for facility repairs and renovations.
Schneider Electric was chosen to execute the
performance contract because of its ability to
provide proactive, tailored solutions through
state-of-the-art equipment and excellent customer
service, all while guaranteeing energy savings.
Schneider Electric faced a variety of challenges
while working on this project from the complete
replacement of the police headquarters air handling
units while maintaining a high level of security for the
building to making all building upgrades in a
timely manner, with no interruption to the services
the city provides for its citizens. The Schneider

Electric team accepted these challenges and

performed as expected. This point is summarized by
Deputy Director of General Services, Steve Girardi,
we believe Schneider Electric to be a world-class
organization. They conduct themselves with the
utmost professionalism, they are very client-oriented,
and they always deliver on schedule.

The solution
To date, Schneider Electric and the city decided to
address efficiency, operation, and comfort needs in
26 buildings with square footage totaling 2.8 million
square feet. Among others, improvements and
upgrades were implemented in the city hall building,
municipal courts, police headquarters, police
academy, three police command centers, and a water
purification plant.
The Schneider Electric project managers worked
closely with the citys employees and representatives
from CCI. This cooperative approach ensured goals
were met and the facilities kept operational during
the renovations. The city of Houston relied on
Schneider Electric staff for their expert knowledge
of building management systems and operations.

We believe Schneider Electric to be a world-class organization.

They conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism, they are very
client-oriented, and they always deliver on schedule.
Steve Girardi
Deputy Director of General Services

Municipality

City of Houston

Clients are often surprised that, after completion of the project,

we place so much emphasis on making sure the performance
continues through the years.
Corey Newby
Director, Performance Assurance Support Services, Schneider Electric

Schneider Electric implemented energy

conservation measures (ECMs), including: building
management system upgrades and recomissioning,
chiller plant replacements and redesign, boiler
replacement and upgrades, HVAC replacement
and upgrades, water conservation measures,
lighting and lighting control upgrades, variable
volume upgrades, common area daylight
harvesting, and air handling unit replacements.
In some areas, the performance contract called for
improving the control of the already efficient lighting,
thus Schneider Electric installed state-of-the-art
lighting controls, motion sensors, and efficient
fixtures where possible. In addition, Schneider
Electric capitalized on the use of ambient lighting
in common areas, saving the city money.
In addition to technology upgrades, the
Schneider Electric Performance Assurance Support
Services (PASS) team has continued to work with
the city staff after completion of the project.
Ongoing commissioning and review of operational
strategies are an important part of achieving
enduring performance in a Schneider Electric
performance contract. As stated by Corey Newby,
Director of PASS, clients hire Schneider Electric
for our expertise in the area of efficient building
improvements and operations. Clients are often
surprised that, after completion of the project,
we place so much emphasis on making sure the
performance continues through the years. Clients
seem to be accustomed to companies collecting
their final payments, then looking to the next project.
At Schneider Electric, it is our goal to always be

involved in helping our clients over the long term."

The city of Houston will continue to experience
performance improvements throughout the life of
the performance contract with Schneider Electric.

The bottom line

The performance contract provided a vehicle that
enabled the city of Houston to proactively address
its resource consumption issues immediately.
The ECMs utilized by the performance contract with
Schneider Electric have helped the city become an
example to other cities and have taken it to the next
level of efficient performance.
The immediate needs of the city of Houston were
met. In addition, the performance contract provided
jobs to local contractors, and taxpayers werent
responsible for funding internal bond releases
and federal stimulus funds paid for the project.
City water consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions were slashed. Finally, system reliability
and occupant comfort have increased dramatically
as evidenced by work order requests to building
engineers dropping significantly.
Schneider Electric guaranteed the city of Houston
at least $2,518,417 in operational and energy savings
annually. Over the course of the 15-year contract,
the city of Houston can expect to save over $37
million. All in all, the solutions provided by
Schneider Electric translated into improved system
reliability, shorter work order response time, reduced
deferred maintenance backlog, local job creation, no
increase in taxes, and a great example set for citizens.

2013 Schneider Electric. All Rights Reserved. All trademarks are owned by Schneider Electric Industries SAS or its affiliated companies.
1650 West Crosby Road, Carrollton, TX 75006 USA Tel: 800-274-5551 Email: info@buildings.schneider-electric.com www.schneider-electric.com/us 998-1223679_US

October 2013

White Sands Missile Range

U.S. Army
The Armys Largest Renewable Energy Project Achieves
Sustainability Objectives while Leaving Capital Funds Intact
usa.siemens.com

Central New Mexico A longstanding, preeminent military

test facility, the White Sands Missile Range is one of the largest
military installations in the U.S., covering approximately
3,200 square miles. It provides Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA,
Department of Defense (DoD), and other customers with
research, development, and training for weapon and space
systems, subsystems, and components. In addition to supporting the Armys core values and emphasizing customer
service, the U.S. Army looks to take advantage of renewable
and alternative energy resources in an effort to create more
energy security for the site, reduce costs in a fiscally-challenging environment, and be environmentally responsible.
In 2012, the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center
awarded the Building Technologies division of Siemens
Industry, Inc., and Siemens Government Technologies, Inc.,
an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) to implement
energy-conserving upgrades for the White Sands Missile
Range facility. This ESPC puts the Army on track to meet its
share of the government-wide goal to award $2 billion in
ESPCs by the end of 20131. A primary component of the
White Sands Missile Range ESPC is a 4.465MW solar photovoltaic (PV) power generating system.

Medici, Andy. Army on Track to Meet Contracting Goal for Energy

Projects. Federal Times. Gannett, 10 Jan. 2013.

Objectives
Like most customers today, White Sands recognizes that it
lives and works in a fiscally stringent environment, and
continuously seeks ways to improve efficiencies. Additionally,
White Sands has established six goals to achieve its strategic
plan for 2015; one of these goals is to develop a sustainability
mindset. That is, White Sands looks to:
Reduce energy consumption
Eliminate water waste
Reduce the amount of waste generated
Become good stewards of the environment and the budget
Promote the Armys Net Zero Installation program
The Net Zero program is the cornerstone of the Armys
strategy for sustainability and energy security. Combining
reduction, re-purpose, recycling and composting, energy
recovery, and disposal, a Net Zero Energy Installation produces as much energy onsite as it uses over the course of a
year. This strategy is essential to the Armys current security
and future operational missions, and as part of the 25-year
ESPC with Siemens, White Sands is looking to create the
Armys largest solar array while leaving the facilitys capital
budget intact.

Photographs by the U.S. Army. Photo this page photo illustration.

usa.siemens.com

Siemens Solutions
The ESPC project at White Sands will include a wide variety
of energy conservation improvements, but the primary
project is the 4.465MW solar photovoltaic power generating
systemthe largest to date for the U.S. Army. The Building
Technologies division of Siemens Industry, Inc., is implementing the solar array, which meets the Net Zero programs
objectives and will generate enough energy to support
base load demand for the missile range.
The ground mount system uses a single access tracker
design, which maximizes power generation by following,
or tracking, the path of the sun. When combined with the
solar implementation locationin a geographically ideal
area of the U.S.the system produces nearly 10 Million
kWh of energy. The result is a more efficient system that
provides a higher return on investment for White Sands and
the Army.
Siemens has been able to implement the solar array while
working within the requirements of a highly secure army
base. Coordinating subcontractors, deliveries, and logistics
requires specialized clearances, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
orientations and briefings, and environmental assessments,
all of which have been completed in an expedited manner
to keep the project on schedule.

Customer Results
Although many of the facility improvement measures for
the ESPC are still underway, the solar array at White Sands
is producing power today. The renewable energy solution
means that White Sands can offset its base load demand
producing enough energy from the solar installation to
power the facilitywhile leaving capital funds intact. In
total, the White Sands Missile Range will achieve 10.8%
renewable energy in 2013, up significantly from 0.5% and
overachieve the federal mandate by more than three percentage points.
The U.S. Army will also receive approximately 10,000 solar
renewable energy credits (REC), and the project represents
the first DoD facility in which the customer keeps all RECs
as a result of producing renewable energy on the White
Sands property. In addition to the RECs and supporting the
Armys renewable energy and Net Zero objectives, the project
qualifies the U.S. Army for a cash grant of more than $4.8
million and supports President Barack Obamas directive
that federal agencies use ESPCs to make more than $2 billion
worth of energy efficiency upgrades by the end of 2013.

Siemens Industry, Inc.

Building Technologies Division
1000 Deerfield Parkway
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
(847) 215-1000
01/13 | Printed in USA | 153-EES-855
2013 Siemens Industry, Inc. | All rights reserved

usa.siemens.com

Case study
August 2011

Clayton County
County saves $575,000 annually with performance contract
Jonesboro, Georgia
Like many county governments, Clayton County faced rising energy and facilities maintenance costs. Significant
system upgrades were needed to improve energy efficiency, and enhance employee comfort and productivity.

Challenge
Clayton County particularly wanted to address inadequate
cooling at the Department of Family and Children Services,
temperature control issues at the County Archives building
and urgent piping issues at the Annex III building. They also
wanted to install a methane gas collection system at the
landfill. Before selecting specific energy conservation
measures and system upgrades, county officials completed a
facilities audit to identify cost-effective projects.
Clayton County courthouse is saving significant energy costs.

Solution
After being selected by Clayton County to present a proposal,
Trane developed a performance contract to replace or

Integrated building control

redesign HVAC systems for better temperature control and to

The Trane proposal included modifying building automation

reduce energy use and operating costs at the various

systems at the H.R. Banke Complex and installing new Tracer

facilities. Each building was modeled using TRACE (Trane

Summit systems at the Department of Family and Children

Air Conditioning Economics) software. Light loggers were

Services, Annex III, Behavioral Health, Central Library and the

installed to verify lighting burn hours and identify the

Health Department/County Archives building. The control

potential for lighting upgrades and controls. The methane

system at the Justice Complex was updated to work with the

recovery project at the county landfill used a LandGem model

design of the central chilled water plant. The library entry was

(Landfill Gas Emissions Model) with a safety factor to

rebuilt to minimize air infiltration and the loss of conditioned

calculate the projected methane flow. Stamped engineering

air. To reduce electrical costs and leverage the current rate

drawings were developed for all aspects of the project.

structure, electric meters within the Justice Complex and the

Lundquist Aquatics buildings were consolidated.

Efficiency upgrades
Other upgrades included replacing nearly 12,500 fixtures
with high-efficiency lighting to enhance brightness and
reduce energy expenses. Motion sensors control lighting in
lobbies and conference rooms in six buildings. The methane
collection system voluntarily installed at the landfill allows the
county to capture carbon credits as a revenue stream. The
performance contract also replaces plumbing fixtures in the
County Archives building to decrease water use.

Results
Clayton County expects that infrastructure upgrades to its
facilities will save $575,000 per year. The renovation will save
$361,000 in annual utility costs and generate $213,000 in

New rooftop air conditioners are helping Clayton County taxpayers save
significant energy while improving comfort and employee productivity.

annual carbon credit revenues. The energy-saving plan offers

the added benefits of improving employee comfort and
productivity and reducing the countys environmental impact.
Upgrades are being completed at seven county facilities and
the county landfill. The $5.5 million renovation project is
being funded with a performance contract that allows the use

comprehensive list of energy conservation measures

specifically designed to address many of our facility needs
and included substantial mechanical and controls work.
Tranes coordination and project management were superb,
ensuring that the project was implemented on schedule with
minimal disruptions. They also began the measurement and

of future energy and operational savings to finance

verification process very early in the construction phase to

infrastructure improvement projects.

ensure that the projected results were achieved.

Eldrin Bell, chairman of the Clayton County Board of
Commissioners, said, Were excited about implementing
these new energy efficient upgrades in our county buildings

We would highly recommend working with Trane for any

energy services project!"

that will also improve the working conditions for our

employees. Were especially pleased that well be able to pay
for the upgrades through energy and operational savings

Clayton County is proceeding with Phase II of the project,

which will include utilizing the methane in the landfill to
power a 2.0 mega watt generation system to provide power

toward building a greener county.

to nearby County buildings, while selling excess power back

Les Markland, interim director of building maintenance, said,

to Georgia Power.

"The entire Trane team has demonstrated the highest level of

professionalism and attention to detail. They developed a

Ingersoll Rand (NYSE:IR) is a world leader in creating and sustaining safe, comfortable and efficient environments in commercial, residential and
industrial markets. Our people and our family of brandsincluding Club Car, Ingersoll Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Tranework together to
enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties,
and increase industrial productivity and efficiency. We are a $14 billion global business committed to sustainable business practices within our
company and for our customers. For more information, visit www.ingersollrand.com.
2011 Trane All rights reserved
CASE-SLX234-EN
August 30, 2011

We are committed to using environmentally

conscious print practices that reduce waste.

trane.com
ingersollrand.com

APPENDIX D
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERFORMANCE
CONTRACTING DIRECTIVES
1. PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY SAVINGS PROJECTS AND
PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING FOR ENERGY SAVINGS
2. COLORADO GOVERNORS EXECUTIVE ORDER ON ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING
TO IMPROVE STATE FACILITIES
3. EXCERPT FROM NEW YORK CITYS ONE CITY: BUILT TO LAST

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

December 2, 2011

December 2, 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT:

Implementation of Energy Savings Projects and

Performance-Based Contracting for Energy Savings

The Federal Government owns and operates nearly 3 billion square

feet of Federal building space. Upgrading the energy
performance of buildings is one of the fastest and most
effective ways to reduce energy costs, cut pollution, and create
jobs in the construction and energy sectors. We have a
responsibility to lead by example, reduce our energy use, and
operate our buildings efficiently.
Meeting that responsibility requires executive departments and
agencies (agencies) to evaluate their facilities, identify
potential savings, and appropriately leverage both private and
public sector funding to invest in comprehensive energy
conservation projects that cut energy costs. The Federal
Government can do so by increasing the pace of the
implementation of energy conservation measures, and improving
the results from its energy efficiency investments.
In Executive Order 13514 of October 5, 2009 (Federal Leadership
in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance), my
Administration reaffirmed a commitment to reduce energy
intensity in agency buildings. In addition, through my
memorandum of June 10, 2010 (Disposing of Unneeded Federal Real
Estate Increasing Sales Proceeds, Cutting Operating Costs, and
Improving Energy Efficiency), and through the Campaign to Cut
Waste, my Administration has directed agencies to cut energy
costs in agency facilities as part of a broader effort to reduce
spending and shrink the Federal Government's real estate
footprint. In order to ensure agencies fully meet these goals
and maximize the cost reduction and job creation potential of
making Federal buildings more energy efficient, I hereby direct
the following:
Section 1. Implement and Prioritize Energy Conservation
Measures. (a) Agencies shall fully implement energy
conservation measures (ECMs) in Federal buildings with a payback
time of less than 10 years, consistent with real property and
capital improvement plans. Agencies shall prioritize ECMs with
the greatest return on investment, leveraging both direct
appropriations and performance contracting, consistent with
guidance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

2
(b) The Federal Government shall enter into a minimum of
$2 billion in performance-based contracts in Federal building
energy efficiency within 24 months from the date of this
memorandum. Each agency shall include its anticipated total
performance-based contract volume in its plan submitted pursuant
to subsection (d) of this section.
(c) In order to maximize efficiency and return on
investment to the American taxpayer, agencies are encouraged to
enter into installation-wide and portfolio-wide performance
contracts and undertake comprehensive projects that include
short-term and long-term ECMs, consistent with Government-wide
small business contracting policies.
(d) Agencies shall prioritize new projects under this
section based on return on investment, develop a planned
implementation schedule, and reconcile all investments with
actions undertaken pursuant to Executive Order 13576 of June 13,
2011 (Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable
Government). Agencies shall ensure that any performance-based
contracts are consistent with, and do not duplicate or conflict
with, real property plans or planned capital improvements.
(e) No later than January 31, 2012, agencies shall report
their planned implementation schedule described in subsection
(d) of this section to the Department of Energy's Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP), OMB, and the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ).
(f) Beginning in 2012, agencies shall incorporate the
planned implementation schedule into their annual Strategic
Sustainability Performance Plans in furtherance of Executive
Order 13514.
Sec. 2. Complete Required Energy and Water Evaluations. (a)
Agencies shall identify in the Department of Energy's Compliance
Tracking System (CTS) any ECMs that have been implemented, and
ensure that the CTS is regularly updated.
(b) Consistent with section 432 of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 8253(f)(2)), agencies shall
complete all energy and water evaluations and report the ECMs
and associated cost saving opportunities identified through
these evaluations to the CTS.
Sec. 3. Transparency and Accountability. (a) Agencies shall,
where technically feasible, continue efforts to connect meters
and advanced metering devices to enterprise energy management
systems to streamline and optimize measurement, management, and
reporting of facility energy use.
(b) The FEMP shall assist agencies with timely
implementation of subsection (a) of this section. Consistent
with its mission and responsibilities, FEMP shall also track
Government-wide implementation progress. Subject to the
protection of critical infrastructure information and avoidance
of disclosure of sensitive information relating to national
security, FEMP shall annually publish these results, as well as
facility energy usage data, in machine readable formats on
agency websites, consistent with applicable OMB guidance.

3
(c) The OMB shall continue to track agency implementation
and progress towards goal achievement on its Energy and
Sustainability Scorecard, and publicly report on agency
progress, pursuant to the requirements of Executive Order 13514.
Sec. 4. Applicability. This memorandum shall apply to agency
activities, personnel, resources, and facilities located within
the United States. The head of an agency may apply this
memorandum to activities, personnel, resources, and facilities
of the agency that are not located within the United States, to
the extent the head of the agency determines that doing so is in
the interest of the United States.
Sec. 5. Exemption Authority. (a) The Director of National
Intelligence may exempt an intelligence activity of the
United States, and related personnel, resources, and facilities,
from the provisions of this memorandum, to the extent the
Director determines necessary to protect intelligence sources
and methods from unauthorized disclosure.
(b) The head of an agency may exempt particular facilities
from the provisions of this memorandum where doing so is in the
interest of national security. If the head of an agency issues
an exemption under this subsection, the agency must notify the
Chair of CEQ in writing within 30 days of issuance of the
exemption. To the maximum extent practicable, and without
compromising national security, each agency shall strive to
comply with the purposes, goals, and implementation steps in
this memorandum.
Sec. 6.

Definitions.

For the purposes of this memorandum:

(a) "energy conservation measure" (ECM) has the same

meaning as in 42 U.S.C. 8259(d).
(b) "energy savings performance contract" (ESPC), as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. 8287, means a contract (or task order)
awarded to an energy service company (ESCO) for up to 25 years
that provides for the design, acquisition, financing,
installation, testing, operation, and maintenance and repair of
identified ECMs at one or more locations. Under an ESPC, the
ESCO incurs the costs of project implementation, including
audits, acquiring and installing equipment, and training
personnel, in exchange for a predetermined price. Payment to
the ESCO is contingent upon realizing a guaranteed stream of
future savings, with excess savings accruing to the Federal
Government.
(c) "performance-based contract" means a contract that
identifies expected deliverables, performance measures, or
outcomes, and makes payment contingent on their successful
achievement. Performance-based contracts also use appropriate
techniques, which may include consequences or incentives to
ensure that the agreed-upon value to the agency is received.
Performance-based contracts, which include ESPCs, can be
performed by any qualified contractor, including utilities.
(d) "agency" has the same meaning as in Executive
Order 13514.

4
(e) "United States" means the fifty States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana
Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) This memorandum shall be
implemented consistent with applicable law, including
international trade obligations, and subject to the availability
of appropriations.
(b) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to
impair or otherwise affect:
(i)
authority granted by law to a department,
agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of OMB relating to
budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not,
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the
United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its
officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

# # #

One City
Built to Last

The City of New York

Mayor Bill de Blasio
0D\RUV2IFHRI/RQJ7HUP3ODQQLQJDQG6XVWDLQDELOLW\
$QWKRQ\6KRUULV)LUVW'HSXW\0D\RU
1

,PSURYHWKH(IFLHQF\DQG4XDOLW\RI
1HZ<RUN&LW\V3XEOLF+RXVLQJ
The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)which houses more than
1HZ<RUNHUVLQSXEOLFKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQWVDURXQGWKHYHERUoughshas already made a concerted effort to reduce its energy and water consumption through upgrading building systems and improving regular operations
DQGPDLQWHQDQFH+RZHYHUULVLQJXWLOLW\FRVWVDUHSODFLQJDVLJQLFDQWVWUDLQRQ
NYCHAs operating budget. In its FY2015 operating budget, NYCHA allocated
$589 millionor 18 percent of total spendingfor utilities, nearly double from a
decade ago. This is due to higher energy and water costs as well as aging and inefFLHQWSODQWVDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUH7KHIHGHUDOJRYHUQPHQWUHLPEXUVHV1<&+$IRUWKH
majority of this bill, but payments have not kept pace with escalating utility costs.
NYCHA can achieve three critical objectives through scaling up its energy and
ZDWHUHIFLHQF\HIIRUWV)LUVWE\UHGXFLQJFRQVXPSWLRQ1<&+$FDQPLWLJDWHWKH
impact of ever-rising utility costs on its operating budget. Second, NYCHA can
preserve its limited capital budget for vital repairs and building upgrades, while leYHUDJLQJSULYDWHVRXUFHVWRQDQFHHQHUJ\DQGZDWHUXSJUDGHVWKURXJKFDSWXULQJWKH
VDYLQJV)LQDOO\1<&+$FDQPDNHDVLJQLFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKH&LW\VJUHHQhouse gas reduction progress.
To realize this opportunity, NYCHA and the City will undertake a partnership with
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and private lenders
to develop a multiphase, large-scale Energy Performance Contract (EPC) that will
HQDEOH1<&+$WRQDQFHHQHUJ\DQGZDWHUHIFLHQF\PHDVXUHVWKURXJKFDSWXUing the savings that will accrue over time. An EPC could include the installation
RIKLJKHIFLHQF\OLJKWLQJLQFRPPRQDUHDVDQGDSDUWPHQWVERLOHUVFRQWUROVDQG
other measures across many of its developments. NYCHA and the City will partner
with HUD to streamline the EPC process and explore the opportunity to leverage
QDQFLDOLQFHQWLYHVIURPWKLUGSDUWLHVDVSDUWRIWKH(3&
(IFLHQF\PHDVXUHVWKDW1<&+$FRXOGSXUVXHLQFOXGHOLJKWLQJUHWURWVLQDSDUWments and common areas are highly cost-effective. Roughly half of NYCHAs
developments have yet to undergo comprehensive upgrades. Implementing lighting
UHWURWVDFURVVWKHSRUWIROLRFRXOGFUHDWHDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRFURVVVXEVLGL]HWKHLQVWDOlation of more costly measures such as exterior lighting or boilers.
Wireless thermostats and building management systems present another opportunity.
NYCHA has installed automated heating controls at its largest heating plants, but
WKHVHV\VWHPVODFNWKHUPRVWDWVZLWKLQDSDUWPHQWV7KLVGHFUHDVHVWKHHIFLHQF\RI
the heating controls and can lead to comfort issues, such as over-heating. Installing
wireless thermostats in approximately 25% percent of applicable apartments to continuously monitor indoor apartment temperatures and communicate with a centralized building management system could achieve an estimated 10 percent reduction
in its annual heating fuel usage.

One City Built to Last



$GGLWLRQDOHQHUJ\DQGZDWHUHIFLHQF\PHDVXUHVWRFRQVLGHULQFOXGHLPSURYLQJ
PRWRUVDQGKRXVHSXPSVWRKDQGOHGLVWULEXWLRQRIZDWHUWRWKHURRIWRSWDQNVLQVWDOOLQJZDWHUVDYLQJVGHYLFHVIRUVKRZHUVIDXFHWVDQGWRLOHWVXSJUDGHVWRH[WHULRU
ODQGVFDSHOLJKWLQJSURYLGLQJDLUFRQGLWLRQHUFRYHUVWRSUHYHQWZLQWHUGUDIWVWKURXJK
H[LVWLQJDLUFRQGLWLRQHUVDQGXSJUDGLQJHOHYDWRUVDQGERLOHUV

57

APPENDIX E
ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING IN STATE FACILITIES
EPA CLEAN ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT TECHNICAL FORUM
APRIL 2008

EPA Clean Energy-Environment Technical Forum

Energy Performance Contracting in State Facilities
April 2008
I.

Introduction

Energy performance contracting provides a one-stop

procurement process that allows states to use future energy cost
savings to pay for new energy-efficient equipment and services.
A number of states use energy performance contracts (PCs) to
reduce energy consumption in state-owned buildings, typically
by 15% to 35% in selected facilities. Performance contracting
can provide states with a means of freeing up capital and
operating budget dollars for lead by example activities while
producing many other energy, environmental, and economic
benefits, with no out-of-pocket expense and typically with a
guarantee that cost savings will meet or exceed payments for
equipment and services over the contract period.

Performance Contracting
Projects
Performance contracts can be used to
finance a variety of energy efficiency
activities, ranging from simple lighting
retrofits to comprehensive packages
involving auditing, engineering design,
and maintenance services, in addition to
equipment procurement and installation.
PCs can also be used to increase
energy efficiency at different scales,
from a single building to a portfolio of
buildings.

Many states are setting aggressive goals to reduce energy use in their facilities. For example, more than
half of the states have joined the ENERGY STAR Challenge to reduce energy use by 10% of more across
all state-owned facilities. Performance contracting, if done right, can help states meet these goals.
PCs include a technical audit of one or several facilities by an energy services company (ESCO). This
audit provides the framework of an ESCO-developed proposal that includes recommended energy
efficiency measures and expected costs. State agencies can negotiate with ESCOs to develop a PC that
bundles the proposals recommended measures with other project services (e.g., project management,
monitoring, maintenance, staff training, and results measurement and verification) and sometimes
financing. A PC typically includes a guarantee that energy cost savings will meet or exceed the agencys
financing payments. Once the contract period is completed and all payments have been made, agencies
retain 100% of the energy cost savings. Comprehensive performance contracting programs for state
agencies and other public entities have saved as much as $12 million in annual utility costs in some states
(see Section V for actual results).
This document provides a brief overview of the performance contracting process, the benefits of using
PCs, and potential barriers, and describes several comprehensive state programs. Additional state
examples and information resources are provided at the end of the document.
II.

How Performance Contracting Works

Assembling a Team
The performance contracting process typically begins by assembling a team of diverse expertise from
multiple state agencies (e.g., legal, purchasing, and facility management staff) to coordinate preliminary
feasibility assessments, review potential ESCOs, and later work with the selected ESCO to develop PCs
that will help meet state energy consumption reduction goals. Some states have involved third-party
engineering consultants to provide teams with additional expertise in developing performance contracts.
Screening
Prior to entering a performance contract, the team typically conducts a preliminary feasibility assessment
to determine the potential benefits of performance contracting in one or several buildings. States have
performed these assessments using in-house staff or by hiring outside consultants. Washington, for
Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

example, developed an internal energy consumption survey for facility managers that helped determine
potential energy cost savings. Hawaii hired an energy consultant to provide a third-party analysis of the
potential for performance contracting in its facilities. Many states are using EPAs Portfolio Manager
energy rating system to identify facilities with the greatest opportunity for improvement. It is important
that a buildings energy cost savings potential be sufficient to interest the ESCO, since the ESCO is
unlikely to take on a project that will not bring
Preliminary Feasibility Assessment
financial returns. While ESCOs will often take on
small projects, they typically offer their services to
A preliminary feasibility assessment considers the
appropriateness of performance contracting in a
buildings with potential energy cost savings of at
particular facility. The Energy Service Coalition has
least 15% to 20% (GGGC, 2008b). Buildings that
identified several criteria to guide decisions on whether
have not previously implemented many energy
to pursue performance contracting in a given building.
efficiency measures and that use a significant
Buildings most likely to benefit from performance
contracting typically have the following characteristics:
amount of energy may offer the highest energy
cost savings potential because of operational
x Square footage of 40,000 ft2 or more;
considerations.
x Annual energy costs of $40,000 or more;
x

Recurring maintenance problems;

Evaluating ESCOs
x Poor indoor air quality;
Once a preliminary assessment has identified
x Budget concerns;
which buildings to include in a PC, states typically
x Inexperienced energy management team;
issue a request for proposals (RFP) and evaluate
x Understaffed maintenance team;
ESCO qualifications to establish a pool of prex No recent lighting or control system upgrades;
and
qualified ESCOs to which agencies can issue
x
Energy-using equipment that is obsolete or on
RFPs. The Rhode Island Office of Energy
schedule for replacement.
Resources, for example, issued a request for
Other issues to consider in a preliminary feasibility
qualifications (RFQ) to a number of ESCOs and
assessment include:
developed a list of qualified ESCOs based on a
review of each companys experience, staff,
x Scope of the activities (e.g., a single building as a
pilot project, or a larger portfolio of buildings);
references, and financial stability (RIOER, 2007).
x
Occupancy patterns; and
State agencies can often obtain RFP review
x
Security needs.
assistance from central state performance
contracting programs. Many agencies hire
consultants to guide staff through the complex review and selection process.
Developing a Plan
Once an ESCO is selected, the company conducts an investment-grade energy audit to identify potential
energy cost saving measures. When approved, the audit results can be used to develop a comprehensive
plan of action. The ESCO proposes this plan, including the anticipated costs, to the agency. This plan
forms the basis for the performance contract.
Contingencies
Agencies can negotiate with ESCOs to ensure that
the PC clearly defines the length of the contract,
PC negotiations determine the length of the contract,
roles of each party, the method for measuring and
the roles and responsibilities of each party,
verifying savings, and a savings guarantee. In
maintenance expectations, staff training exercises,
addition, PC negotiations can address several other
the method by which savings will be measured
terms. For example, it is important that a PC clearly
and verified, a savings guarantee, and often
define how the agencys and the ESCOs roles and
financing terms. Some states have established
responsibilities are affected by contingencies (e.g., in
the event that the agency is required to change the
criteria that agencies are required to follow (e.g.,
intended use of a building, or is obligated to install new
Pennsylvania has mandated that PC terms not
equipment that alters how a building performs).
exceed 15 years) (GESA, 2008).
The savings guarantee can be one of the most significant features of a PC. These guarantees can be
structured so that an agencys expected financing repayments and maintenance and monitoring fees will
Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

be recovered through energy cost savings; if savings do not meet these costs, the guarantee requires the
ESCO to pay the agency the balance.
Financing
Financing can be secured from state funds, through the ESCO, or from other sources. An example of a
program that uses state funds to finance PCs in state agency facilities is the Building Energy Conservation
Initiative in New Hampshire. When an ESCO provides financing directly, it usually through a sharedsavings agreement whereby the agency pays the ESCO a certain percentage of the energy cost savings
each month. If no savings accrue, the agency is only responsible for paying its utility bills, not the cost of
the energy efficiency investments.
Tax-exempt lease-purchase agreements are a common
financing mechanism that enables public entities to obtain
financing at a cost lower than what an ESCO might be able to
offer because the agencys interest payments are tax-exempt,
which can lead to lower financing rates. Under such an
arrangement, the ESCO is paid in full upon completion of the
project installation and guarantees that the energy cost
savings will provide the cash flow necessary to repay the
third-party financing (U.S. EPA, 2004).

Other Sources of Funds for

Performance Contracting
States can also access funds through
utility rebate and grant programs. The
Washington performance contracting
program provides information to public
entities on funding opportunities available
through utilities.
Source: Washington, 2006.

Measurement and Verification

One of the most important aspects of the PC is how it addresses measurement and verification. A clearly
defined protocol for determining energy cost savings is essential to an effective PC. Agencies need to be
sure that both parties understand how energy cost savings will be measured and verified, especially if the
savings are to be shared. Many states are using EPAs Portfolio Manager to measure and verify progress
toward their energy savings goals. These and other states can include requirements in their PCs that
ESCOs demonstrate energy savings in Portfolio Manager (such as Pennsylvania is doing), providing
valuable third party verification. Some states (e.g., Wyoming) have developed guidance for state
agencies on measurement and verification protocol. States can also use resources such as the International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol to establish guidelines for performance contracts.
III.

Benefits of Performance Contracting

The primary benefit of performance contracting is the ability to achieve guaranteed energy cost savings
from no-risk capital improvements at no up-front cost. These savings can provide a continuous source of
funding for lead by example activities. In addition to reducing energy and maintenance costs and
avoiding greenhouse gas emissions, performance contracting can have a number of other benefits,
including:
x

No cost from delay. Because PCs enable energy efficiency improvements to be made with no upfront cost, states do not have to wait for scarce capital dollars to become available. This can result in
dollars saved because of the opportunity costs associated with delaying energy efficiency
improvements.
No debt. Because PCs are considered off-balance sheet expenses, they do not constitute debt and
thus do not affect credit ratings. This makes performance contracting a helpful strategy for increasing
energy efficiency in states where agencies are limited by the amount of debt they can incur (NCEP,
2006).
Increased capital budget flexibility. Using PCs to purchase, install, and operate energy-efficient
equipment enables states to keep upgrade expenditures off the balance sheets and preserves capital
budgets to be used for other priority capital projects that might not generate savings.

Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

IV.

Reduced administrative costs and burden. Performance contracting can minimize the ratio of
management and administrative costs to energy cost savings because much of the administrative
responsibility is covered under the performance contract. Along with the one-stop shopping
procurement process, this can free up staff for other projects.
Proven expertise. A credible ESCOs technical expertise means that a state can increase energy
efficiency activities even when lacking in-house expertise.

Barriers

Several barriers can impede the use of performance contracting. A well-designed state performance
contracting program can often be the best strategy for overcoming these barriers.
x

V.

Legal Barriers. Most states have used legislation to enable public entities to use PCs and circumvent
mandatory low-bid requirements in favor of qualification-based contractor selection. While most
states now permit state agencies to use performance contracting, some legal barriers still remain for
other public entities (NCEP, 2006). The Energy Services Coalition has compiled a matrix of state
performance contracting enabling legislation (http://www.ornl.gov/info/esco/legislation/).
RFP Review and Contract Negotiation Complexities. Many state agencies have found that the
complexities of the RFP review and contract negotiation processes require significant legal expertise.
Some states administer programs that can provide agencies with guidance, while agencies in other
states hire consultants to guide them through these processes. Some states have addressed this barrier
by streamlining these processes and providing standard or model performance contracting documents
for agencies.
Liability Concerns. In addition, early performance contracts that did not deliver expected results
caused skepticism from some building owners over the issue of liability (NCEP, 2006). However, the
growth of the ESCO market over the past decade has refined ESCO expertise and improved ESCO
familiarity with state government needs and procedures.
Comprehensive state performance contracting programs

Colorado
The Colorado Governors Energy Office (GEO) helps state agencies, local governments, schools, and
other building owners use PCs to increase energy efficiency activities. For local governments, schools,
and other commercial and public building owners, GEO provides assistance in ESCO selection (based on
a list of pre-qualified ESCOs), contract review and negotiation, and monitoring and verification guidance.
For state government agencies, GEO also offers preliminary feasibility studies to evaluate a facilitys
energy performance and to determine the potential benefits of a PC. These studies are mandatory for all
state agencies under Executive Order D10403 (issued in 2003), which directs state agencies to enter into
PCs when the studies determine them to be feasible, viable, and economically sound over a period of 12
years or more. In 2007, a new executive order directed agencies that had not yet conducted feasibility
studies to do so, and directed the state planning office and green government council to develop standards
to define feasible, viable, and economically sound. Since 1997, GEO and the Rebuild Colorado
program have facilitated more than 80 PCs, producing annual energy and maintenance cost savings of $15
million (DOE, 2007; Colorado, 2003; Colorado, 2007; Colorado, 2008).
Web site: http://www.colorado.gov/energy/greening/performance-contracting-existing.asp
Illinois
The Illinois Energy Performance Contracting Program began in 1996 with the initiation of a ten-year pilot
project. The pilot project used PCs to implement $33.4 million in capital improvements to seven state
Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

buildings. These improvements, which were financed through private certificates of participation (leasepurchase agreements that are divided and sold to multiple private investors), have resulted in annual
energy cost savings of $4.7 million. The program also provides assistance to local governments, schools,
and other organizations to facilitate PCs, including providing model documents, technical review of
audits, review and advice on contract terms, and information on evaluation methodologies. Utility savings
for local governments, schools, public housing authorities, and other organizations from PCs total $17
million annually (DCEO, 2004; 2008).
Web site:
http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Energy_Recycling/Energy/Energy+Efficiency/epc.htm
Kansas
The Facility Conservation Improvement Program (FCIP), which provides technical and financial
performance contracting assistance to public agencies, saves these agencies $8 million in utility costs
annually. The FCIP staff have streamlined the performance contracting process by developing prenegotiated PCs with a pool of pre-qualified ESCOs. Agencies can work with the FCIP to plan a
preliminary facility walk-through with several ESCOs, after which the ESCOs present preliminary
proposals at no cost to the contracting agency. After the agency selects an ESCO, the ESCO performs a
technical audit at a pre-negotiated cost. The audit is reviewed by the contracting agency, the FCIP, and
the ESCO before the pre-negotiated PC is finalized. Financing for the PC is arranged through the
Department of Administrations master lease-purchase authority, which enables state agencies to purchase
equipment at the end of the contract period for $1 (Kansas, 2006; FCIP, 2008).
Web site: http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/energy/fcip/index.htm
Pennsylvania
The Guaranteed Energy Savings Act of 1998 enables state government agencies to enter PCs as a means
of achieving the energy efficiency goals of the Governors Green Government Council (GGGC). The
Department of General Services (DGS) developed a Guaranteed Energy Savings Program to assist state
agencies in entering PCs that guarantee savings over a period of no more than 15 years. This assistance
typically includes project design review, program management, and other information resources. DGS has
developed a series of model documents for agencies, including a facility energy profile template and a
standard RFP, and guidance on RFP evaluation. These documents include references to ENERGY STAR
as part of the screening, audit, and verification process. DGS also developed flowcharts to guide state
agencies through the performance contracting process and has pre-qualified a pool of ESCOs that meet
departmental quality criteria. State agencies can also receive assistance from the Pennsylvania State
Facilities Engineering & Architecture Institute, which can provide technical assistance in preparing and
adapting DGS model documents and reviewing ESCO audits. The GGGC has developed a program to
provide similar assistance to local governments, schools, and other public entities (GESA, 2008; GGGC,
2008). Currently, the program has provided assistance for 37 projects that have been completed or are in
progress. Seven of these projects are already generating energy cost savings, and are expected to save the
state more than $16 million over the period of the contracts. To date, these projects are estimated to have
reduced emissions of CO2 by 27,000 tons, NOx by 51 tons, and SOx by 211 tons (GGGC, 2007).
Web sites: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open = 512&objID = 1300&&SortOrder =
100&level = 3&parentid = 1298&css = L3&mode = 2&cached = true (DGS State Agencies)
http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 515&q = 157027 (GGGC Other Public Entities)
Washington
The Washington Department of General Administration Energy Team administers the Energy Savings
Performance Contracting Program to assist state agencies, state colleges and universities, local
Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

governments, and other entities in using PCs. The program assists state agencies in complying with HB
2247 (2001) which requires them to identify energy efficiency measures in their facilities and to use PCs
to implement these measures (U.S. EPA, 2006). The Energy Team provides free feasibility assessments
and has developed a questionnaire for facility managers to help them determine if their building is a good
candidate for performance contracting. The Team also helps agencies select ESCOs from a pre-qualified
pool, assists in contract negotiation, provides an energy engineer to manage the PC, offers guidance on
monitoring and verification, reviews ESCO annual savings reports, and can assist with obtaining lowinterest financing from the state treasurer. The Energy Teams program generates nearly $12 million in
combined annual cost savings (energy and maintenance) for state agencies and other entities and helps
these entities avoid an estimated 127,000 tons of CO2 emissions annually. From 1986 through 2006, the
program has saved $66 million in energy and maintenance costs (Washington, 2006).
Web site: http://www.ga.wa.gov/eas/epc/espc.htm

Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

VI.

Additional Resources
Resources: State Examples and Information Resources
Examples
Examples of State Programs
Colorado

http://www.colorado.gov/energy/greening/performance-contracting-existing.asp

Hawaii

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/efficiency/state/performance/

Idaho

http://adm.idaho.gov/pubworks/perfcontracting/

Illinois

http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Energy_Recycling/Energy/Energy+
Efficiency/epc.htm

Massachusetts

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID = ocaterminal&L = 4&L0 = Home&L1 =

Consumer&L2 = Energy%2C+Fuel+%26+Utilities&L3 = Energy+Programs&sid =
Eoca&b = terminalcontent&f = doer_ems_ems&csid = Eoca

New Hampshire

http://www.nh.gov/oep/programs/energy/beci.htm

New York

http://www.nyserda.org/Programs/Technical_Assistance/default.asp

Pennsylvania

https://fei.psu.edu/ESCO/NAESCO_PA_CaseStudy_Apr2004.ppt
http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 515&q = 157027

Virginia

http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/StateAgencyProgs/performancecontracting.shtml

Washington

http://www.ga.wa.gov/eas/epc/espc.htm

Wyoming

http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/business/energy_wyecip.aspx
Examples of State Guidelines for Agencies

Florida

http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/chapters/FL/manual/Florida%20Manual.pdf

Oregon

http://www.governor.state.or.us/ENERGY/CONS/school/docs/ESPCGuide.pdf

South Carolina

http://www.energy.sc.gov/publications/Perf.%20Cont.%20Guide1.doc

Texas

http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/sa_pc.htm
Examples of State Commitments

Colorado

http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/chapters/CO/documents/executive_order07.
pdf

Delaware

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title29/c069/sc05/index.shtml

Hawaii

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol01_Ch00010042F/HRS0036/HRS_0036-0041.HTM

Louisiana

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/portals/0/news/pdf/2008EOGreenGovernment.p
df
Examples of Performance Contracting Enabling Legislation

Colorado
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Energy Services Coalition

http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/chapters/CO/documents/legislationstate_government.pdf
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-bills/showBill.do?id = 15996
http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 515&q = 157006
http://www.ornl.gov/info/esco/legislation/
Examples of State Preliminary Feasibility Studies

Hawaii

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/sfeup1.pdf

Virginia

http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/StateAgencyProgs/performancecontracting.shtml

Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

Resources: State Examples and Information Resources

Examples
Examples of State Preliminary Feasibility Studies
Washington

http://www.ga.wa.gov/eas/epc/ESPC-test.doc
Examples of States with Pre-Qualified Pools of ESCOs

Rhode Island

http://www.energy.ri.gov/documents/efficiency/Application_for_RIOER_ESCO.pdf
Examples of State Financing for Energy Performance Contracts

Kansas
Texas

http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/energy/fcip/financing.htm
http://www.tpfa.state.tx.us/masterlease.aspx
Model Energy Performance Contracts

Pennsylvania

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_8527_1300_2
44922_43/http%3B/enctcapp099%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/cop_general_
government_operations/dgs/community_content/property_management/gesa_clea
n_07_07.doc

Rhode Island

http://www.energy.ri.gov/documents/efficiency/ESCO_Contract.pdf

National Association of State

Energy Officials

http://www.naseo.org/energy_sectors/buildings/performance_contracting.htm
State Performance Contracting Case Studies

California

http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/be/case_studies.Par.15163
.File.tmp/CA%20EPA%20CS-f.pdf

Colorado

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/feature_detail_info.cfm/fid =
63/start = 3

Idaho

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/project_brief_detail.cfm/pb_id =
1006

Kansas

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/project_brief_detail.cfm/pb_id =
602

Maryland

http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/be/case_studies.Par.15163
.File.tmp/CA%20EPA%20CS-f.pdf

Nevada
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin

http://www.ameresco.com/case.asp?ID = 41
http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/be/case_studies.Par.37209
.File.tmp/Tennessee%20Energy%20Initiative.pdf
http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/StateAgencyProgs/VADOCRelease.pdf
http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/be/case_studies.Par.85432
.File.tmp/Wisconsin%20Energy%20Initiative.pdf
Information Resources

Clean Energy-Environment Guide http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/gta/guide_action_chap3_s4.pdf

to Action, Funding and
Incentives (U.S. EPA)
Energy Performance Contracting http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/BuildingsLand/D04-23_EleyPerfCntrEFRpt.pdf
for New Buildings (The Energy
Foundation)
Energy Performance Contracting http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_Inside_school_deaf_and_blind_3773
in State of Michigan Facilities
1_7.pdf
(Michigan Department of Labor and
Economic Growth)

Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

Resources: State Examples and Information Resources

Information Resources
ENERGY STAR Building Upgrade http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c = business.bus_upgrade_manual
Manual (EPA)
EPA Portfolio Manager

http://www.energystar.gov/benchmark

The Federal Market for ESCO

Services: How Does it Measure
Up? (LBNL)

http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-54952/

Financing Energy Efficiency in

Buildings (DOE)

http://michigan.gov/documents/CIS_EO_financinghandbook_75701_7.pdf

Financing Energy Efficiency

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/government/Financial_Energy_Efficiency_Pr
Projects (N. Zobler and K. Hatcher) ojects.pdf
Frequently Asked Questions on http://michigan.gov/documents/StatePCFAQmodified2_120210_7.pdf
Performance Contracting
(Michigan Department of Labor and
Economic Growth)
Guide to Performance
http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/publications/epc.pdf
Contracting (Hawaii Department of
Business, Economic Development,
and Tourism)
Handbooks for Energy Efficiency http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/efficiency_handbooks/
(California Energy Commission)
Innovative Financing Solutions: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/COO-CFO_Paper_final.pdf
Finding Money for Your Energy
Efficiency Projects (U.S. EPA)
Legislation and Executive Orders http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/resources/legislation/stateleg.htm
Requiring Energy Performance
Contracting (Energy Services
Coalition)
List of ESCOs (National
Association of Energy Service
Companies)

http://www.naesco.org/organizations/companies.aspx?CatID = 3

Manage Energy Uncertainty: Use http://www.coloradoenergy.org/activities/success/download.aspx?CaseStudyID =

Quick Financing for Energy
22
Efficiency Projects (International
City/County Management
Association)
Model State Enabling Legislation http://www.leonardoacademy.org/download/Model%20Legislation-04-27-07.pdf
for Green Performance
Contracting (Leonardo Academy)
Performance Contracting
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_8527_1300_2
Process Flowcharts (Pennsylvania 44922_43/http%3B/enctcapp099%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/cop_general_
Department of General Services) government_operations/dgs/community_content/facilities/document_management/
guaranteed_energy_savings/flowchart_both.pdf
Public Benefit Charge Funded
Performance Contracting
Programs Survey and
Guidelines (LBNL)

http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMS/reports/46071.pdf

http://www.ncouncil.org/pdfs/pubs/FINAL.EE.Financing.pdf
State Policies for Financing
Electricity Resources: Financing
Energy Efficiency (National
Council on Electricity Policy)

Performance Contracting in State Facilities

April 10, 2008

Resources: State Examples and Information Resources

Information Resources
Statewide Procurement of Master http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/resources/documents/Statewide%20Financ
Lease Financing for Performance e%20Procurement%20Guide.doc
Contracting Projects (Energy
Services Coalition)
Organizational Resources
Department of Energy

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/plan/financing/contracts.html

Database of State Incentives for http://www.dsireusa.org/

Renewable Energy
Energy Services Coalition

http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/

ENERGY STAR

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c = business.bus_index

National Association of Energy

Service Companies

http://www.naesco.org/default.htm

References
Colorado. 2003. Executive Order 0014 03. Available:
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/govnr_dir/exec_orders/d01403.pdf. Accessed 3/26/2008.
Colorado. 2007. Executive Order 0012 07. Available:
http://www.colorado.gov/governor/press/pdf/executive-orders/2007/ExecutiveOrder-GreeningGovernment-ImplementationMeasures.pdf. Accessed 3/26/2008.
Colorado. 2008. Greening Government: Energy. Available:
http://www.colorado.gov/energy/greening/energy.asp. Accessed 3/26/2008.
DCEO. 2004. Energy Conservation Technical Assistance Update. Available:
http://www.commerce.state.il.us/NR/rdonlyres/4E0681B7-9F83-4D4D-AC0609CF58160D25/0/AnnualReportEnergyConservationActFINAL.pdf. Accessed 3/26/2008.
DCEO. 2008. Energy Performance Contracting Program. Available:
http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Energy_Recycling/Energy/Energy+Efficiency/epc.htm.
Accessed 3/26/2008.
ESC. 2008. 5 Steps to Successful Energy Performance Contracting. Available:
http://www.energyservicescoalition.org/resources/5steps.htm#step1. Accessed 3/25/2008.
FCIP. 2008. Facility Conservation Improvement Program. Available:
http://kcc.ks.gov/energy/fcip/index.htm. Accessed 3/26/2008.
GESA. 2008. Pennsylvania Guaranteed Energy Savings. Available:
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open = 512&objID = 1300&&SortOrder = 100&level =
3&parentid = 1298&css = L3&mode = 2&cached = true. Accessed 3/26/2008.

GGGC. 2007. Green Plan 2006-2007. Available:

http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/plan0607/cwp/view.asp?a = 3&Q = 154262&plan0607Nav = |7046|.
Accessed 3/28/2008.
Performance Contracting in State Facilities

10

April 10, 2008

GGGC. 2008. Building Renovations and Retrofits. Available:

http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 515&q = 156985. Accessed 3/26/2008.
GGGC. 2008b. Guaranteed Energy Savings: How it is Done. Available:
http://www.gggc.state.pa.us/gggc/cwp/view.asp?a = 515&q = 157055. Accessed 3/28/2008.
Hawaii. 2003. State Facility Energy Upgrade Analysis and Performance Contracting Potential. Available:
http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/efficiency/state/performance/sfeup1.pdf. Accessed 3/25/2008.
NCEP. 2006. State Policies for Financing Electricity Resources: Financing Energy Efficiency. Available:
http://www.ncouncil.org/pdfs/pubs/FINAL.EE.Financing.pdf. Accessed 3/26/2008.
Ploger, J. 2006. The High Cost of Energy and the Facility Conservation Improvement Program. Kansas
Government Journal, 92: 50-52. Available: http://kcc.ks.gov/energy/fcip/kgj_feb06_reprint.pdf. Accessed
3/26/2008.
RISEO. 2007. ESCO Program Description. Available:
http://www.energy.ri.gov/documents/efficiency/ESCO_Program_Description.pdf. Accessed 3/25/2008.
U.S. DOE. 2007. Rebuild Colorado: A Systematic Approach to Improve Performance of Public
Buildings. Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/feature_detail_info.cfm/fid =
63/start = 3. Accessed 3/25/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2004. Innovative Financing Solutions: Finding Money for Your Energy Efficiency Projects.
Available: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/COO-CFO_Paper_final.pdf. Accessed 3/26/2008.
U.S. EPA. 2006. Clean Energy-Environment Guide to Action: Funding and Incentives. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/gta/guide_action_chap3_s4.pdf. Accessed 3/26/2008.
Washington. 2006. Energy Saving Performance Contracting. Available:
http://www.ga.wa.gov/eas/epc/espc.htm. Accessed 3/26/2008.

Performance Contracting in State Facilities

11

April 10, 2008

APPENDIX F
GUARANTEED ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING STATE AGENCY
MANUAL
GEORGIA ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCE AUTHORITY
MARCH 2014

APPENDIX G
SAMPLE OF M&V RECONCILIATION REPORT

Year 2
Measurement and Verification
Reconciliation
for

Submitted by:

April 15, 2013

Performance Agreement for Comfort from Trane

Year 2 M & V Reconciliation Report

Table of Contents
Tab
Reconciliation Summary.........................................................................1
Energy Savings Summary Table.........................................................................................2
Supporting Charts by Campus ...................................................................... 3
Continuous Metering ECM Calculations .............................................................................4
Stipulated ECM Calculations...............................................................................................5
Base Utility Rates................................................................................................................6
Baseline Adjustments..........................................................................................................7
Appendix.......................................8

Reconciliation Summary

Energy Savings Summary

Supporting Charts

Point-Source ECM Calculations

Rate Change Savings

Base Utility Rates

Baseline Adjustments
Baseline Development

Appendix

Reconciliation Summary
Background
TM
th
This document is in reference to the PACT Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") entered on the 8
day of November, 2006 between Trane and
Energy Savings Guarantee
This section summarizes the savings generated during the second annual guarantee period, March 1,
2012 to February 28, 2013. Two (2) different methods were utilized to measure and calculate the Energy
Savings: 1) the continuous metering method (IPMVP Option C) and 2) the stipulated method. The type
and location of the energy conservation measures installed determine which of the two methods is used.
Table 1.1 indicates the guarantee method used at each campus/building.
Table 1.1 Guarantee Method by Utility for Each Campus/Building
Campus / Bldg
Utility

Continuous Metering
(IPMVP Option C)

Campus
electric
natural gas
Downtown Campus
electric
Warrington Campus
electric
natural gas
Milton Campus
electric
natural gas
Transmitter Building
electric

Stipulated

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Continuous Metering Guarantee

Energy savings from 24 electric accounts and 11 natural gas accounts are measured and calculated
using the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option C
(Continuous Metering). This method involves collecting utility bills throughout the guarantee period and
comparing them to baseline utility bills as outlined in Exhibit E and F of the Agreement.
Table 1.4 shows the guaranteed savings and the actual savings that were achieved in the second year for
the IPMVP Option C (Continuous Metering) part of the Guarantee. The guaranteed dollar savings as well
as the actual dollar savings were calculated using current utility rates. Additional details are provided in
Section 4 of this report.
Table 1.4 - Continuous Metering (IPMVP Option C) 2nd Year Savings
Utility
Guaranteed Savings
Actual Savings
Electric Energy (kWh)
4,439,568 kWh
5,259,680 kWh
Electric Demand (kW)
3,175 kW
1,710 kW
Natural gas (therms)
155,413 therms
147,293 therms
Total Savings

$ 522,149

$ 572,641

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 1-1

Stipulated Savings
Energy savings for the energy conservation measure at the Transmitter Building have been stipulated by
the Customer and Trane. The stipulated energy unit savings will not be measured, monitored, or adjusted
throughout the term of the guarantee period. Table 1.5 shows the stipulated savings for the second year
of the Guarantee Period. The dollar savings for year 2 were calculated using Base Utility Rates.
Additional details are provided in Section 5 of this report.
Table 1.5 - Stipulated 2nd Year Savings
Utility
Electric Energy (kWh)
Electric Demand (kW)
Natural gas (therms)

Stipulated Savings
91,980 kWh
126 kW
0 therms

Total Savings

$ 9,129

Total Project Savings

The total guaranteed and actual second year savings for the entire project (combined Continuous
Metering and stipulated) are shown in Table 1.6.
Table 1.6 - Total Project 2nd Year Savings (Combined Option C & Stipulated)
Utility
Guaranteed Savings
Actual Savings
Excess/(Shortfall)
Electric Energy (kWh)
4,531,548 kWh
5,351,660 kWh
820,112 kWh
Electric Demand (kW)
3,301 kW
1,836 kW
(1,466 kW)
Natural gas (therms)
155,413 therms
147,293 therms
(8,120 therms)
Total Savings

$ 531,277

$ 581,769

$ 50,492

Table 1.6 shows the guaranteed savings for electric energy (kWh) were exceeded. However, the project
fell short of meeting the guaranteed savings for electric demand (kW) and natural gas (therms). After
converting the savings for all energy units to dollars using current utility rates, the result is excess dollar
savings of $50,492.
Energy Rate Savings
The annual energy rate savings due to retrofits EEM 18- Warrington Gas Stand-by System and EEM 18Main Gas Stand-by System is $39,851. The energy rate savings are stipulated in Section C.1.0 of the
Agreement and are not included in Table 1.6.

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 1-2

Project Number J5-32292

Energy Savings Summary

Annual Guaranteed Energy Savings

4,531,548 kWh

Actual Energy Savings

Year

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Period

Installation Period
Mar '11 - Feb '12
Mar '12 - Feb '13

TOTALS

Electrical
Electrical
Energy (kWh) Demand (kW)

3,301 kW

Deviation from Guaranteed Savings

Gas/Oil
(therms)

Electrical
Electrical
Energy (kWh) Demand (kW)

5,184,526
5,351,660

696
1,836

148,999
147,293

652,978
820,112

(2,605)
(1,466)

10,536,187

2,532

296,293

1,473,091

(4,071)

Gas
(therms)
$
(6,414) $
(8,120) $

155,413 therms

Guaranteed Savings
Energy
Savings

Energy Rate
Savings

Actual Savings
Energy
Savings

Total

Energy Rate
Savings

Energy
Savings
Deviation

Total

578,041
531,277

$
$
$

39,851
39,851

$
$ 617,892
$ 571,128

$
$
$

617,296
581,769

$
$
$

39,851
39,851

$
$ 657,147
$ 621,620

$
$
$

39,255
50,492

(14,534) $ 1,109,318

79,702

$1,189,020

$ 1,199,065

79,702

$ 1,278,767

89,747

PSC Year 2 Project Summary Table.xlsx Energy Savings Summary

Page 2-1

Dollar savings - Year 2

Mar '12 - Feb '13

$440,000
$400,000
$360,000
$320,000
$280,000
$240,000
$200,000
$160,000
$120,000
$80,000
$40,000
$0
Guaranteed
Actual

Campus
$328,297
$402,194

Warrington Campus

Milton Campus

Downtown Campus

Transmitter Building

Total

$94,768
$84,825

$85,964
$61,999

$13,119
$23,622

$9,129
$9,129

$531,277
$581,769

Page 3-1

kWh savings - Year 2

Mar '12 - Feb '13

3,300,000
3,000,000
2,700,000
2,400,000
2,100,000
1,800,000

kWh
1,500,000
1,200,000
900,000
600,000
300,000
0
Guaranteed
Actual

Campus
2,566,172
3,293,539

Warrington Campus

Milton Campus

Downtown Campus

Transmitter Building

Total

720,373
793,409

959,079
867,378

193,944
305,354

91,980
91,980

4,531,548
5,351,660

Page 3-2

kW savings - Year 2
Mar '12 - Feb '13

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

kW
1,000

500

(500)

(1,000)
Guaranteed
Actual

Campus
2,676
2,212

Warrington Campus

Milton Campus

Downtown Campus

Transmitter Building

Total

806
146

48
(531)

(354)
(117)

126
126

3,301
1,836

Page 3-3

therm savings - Year 2

Mar '12 - Feb '13

120,000

108,000

96,000

84,000

therms

72,000

60,000

48,000

36,000

24,000

12,000

0
Guaranteed
Actual

Campus
104,217
116,455

Warrington Campus

Milton Campus

Downtown Campus

Transmitter Building

Total

41,125
32,186

10,070
(1,348)

0
0

0
0

155,413
147,293

Page 3-4

Continuous Metering (IPMVP Option C) ECM Calculations

Energy savings for all ECMs completed on the
Warrington, Milton and Downtown campuses
are measured and calculated using International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol
(IPMVP) Option C (Continuous Metering). This method involves collecting utility bills throughout the
guarantee period and comparing them to baseline utility bills as outlined in Exhibit E and F of the
Agreement. Table 4.1 lists the 24 electric accounts and Tables 4.2 and 4.3 list the 11 natural gas
accounts that are being used to calculate the Continuous Metering savings.
Table 4.1 Gulf Power Electric Meters Included in Continuous Metering Guarantee
Campus / Bldg
Campus
Bldg 14 & 15
Bldg 10, 12, 18 & 50
Computer Bldg 13
CSAT Bldg 21 (Baroco West Wing)
Bldg 17 (Baroco East Wing)
WSRE Bldg 23
Maintenance Bldg 9
Bldg 3
Baars Bldg 1 East
Baars Bldg 1 West
Administration Bldg 7
Fine Arts Bldg 8
Liberal Arts Bldg 4
Bldg 2
Student Affairs Bldg 6
Student Affairs Bldg 5
Bldg 16
Bldg 11 NEW (meter was installed in
Sep '09)
Downtown Campus
Entire Downtown Campus
Warrington Campus
Health Science Bldgs 3000, 3100,
3200, 3700 & Chilled Water Plant
Bldgs 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600
Milton Campus
Bldg 4100-4400, 4800, 4900
Life Fitness Center Bldg 4000

Gulf Power
account #

meter #

Rate

08860-93009
09280-93001
09490-93001
09700-93004
09910-93004
15370-93003
16840-93008
17050-93000
17260-93000
17680-93000
17890-93000
18520-93005
18730-93005
19150-93007
19360-93007
19570-93007
26223-77004

535639
590782
585549
580598
510287
642097
WH2196
516176
585612
495369
495739
591354
582594
485373
532926
591320
552266

GSD
LP
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD
GSD

06911-51014

643910

GSD

34780-83003

3239485

GSD

39234-50009

3241948

LP

51431-20008

3237611

GSD/PRI

68560-80009
93550-80008

3261190
3261193

GSD
GSD

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 4-1

Table 4.2 City of

Campus / Bldg
Campus
Bldg 23
Bldg 17 & 21
Bldg 2
Bldg 10, 11, 12, 16 & 18
Bldg 15
Bldg 1, 3-9, 19, 20, 24
Bldg 14
Warrington Campus
Entire Campus

Natural Gas Meters Included in Continuous Metering Guarantee

City of
account #

meter #

053537-65261916
053536-65261915
053539-65261919
053534-65261901
053472-65261910
053533-65261900
053583-65261918

95040
56147
85765
82700
59208
109868
82691

008723-52262150

85803

Table 4.3 City of Milton Natural Gas Meters Included in Continuous Metering Guarantee
Campus / Bldg
Milton Campus
Science Center Bldg 4800
Administration Bldg 4900
Bldg 4000

City of Milton
account #
15869-69860
15871-69862
15873-69864

meter #
12442
12443
12444

Units of energy saved are computed by the Metrix software application. Metrix is an accounting
software application copyrighted by Abraxas Energy Services, Inc. Units of energy saved are calculated
by subtracting current period measured units of energy consumed from the adjusted Base Facility Utility
Consumption units of energy defined in the Agreement. Adjustments to the Base Facility Utility
Consumption units of energy are based on factors such as weather, occupancy, operating hours, etc.,
and changes to the Base Conditions and operating practices as defined in the Agreement.
Additional details regarding the performance of the IPMVP Option C (Continuous Metering) part of the
guarantee for each campus are provided in the charts beginning on the next page. The guaranteed dollar
savings as well as the actual dollar savings were calculated using current utility rates.

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 4-2

Performance Summary - Total Utility Dollars

Guaranteed vs. Actual Dollar Savings by Campus
Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$450,000

$400,000

$350,000

$300,000

$250,000

$200,000

$150,000

$100,000

$50,000

$0

Milton Campus

Warrington Campus

Downtown Campus

All Campuses Combined

Guar Svgs

$328,297

$85,964

$94,768

$13,119

$522,149

Act Svgs

$402,194

$61,999

$84,825

$23,622

$572,641

Over/(Under)

$73,897

$(23,965)

$(9,943)

$10,503

$50,492

4/13/2013

Campus

Page 4-3

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm All Schools guar v actual $

Performance Summary - All Campuses Total $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$350,000

$300,000

$250,000

$200,000

$150,000

$100,000

$50,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Total $

$250,825

$253,234

$258,936

$248,197

$237,032

$259,106

$252,441

$237,148

$272,769

$258,425

$256,247

$253,833

$3,038,195

Target Total $

$208,099

$209,543

$213,060

$202,792

$191,416

$212,410

$210,140

$199,636

$230,924

$215,044

$211,762

$211,220

$2,516,047

Actual Total $

$217,636

$217,632

$216,056

$211,006

$206,156

$217,981

$202,728

$189,233

$195,300

$186,928

$201,820

$203,079

$2,465,555

Guar svngs $

$42,726

$43,691

$45,876

$45,405

$45,617

$46,696

$42,301

$37,512

$41,845

$43,381

$44,485

$42,613

$522,149

Actual svngs $

$33,189

$35,602

$42,880

$37,191

$30,876

$41,125

$49,713

$47,916

$77,469

$71,497

$54,428

$50,754

$572,641

Over/(Under)

$(9,537)

$(8,089)

$(2,996)

$(8,214)

$(14,740)

$(5,571)

$7,412

$10,403

$35,624

$28,116

$9,943

$8,142

$50,492

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-4

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Tot $ Perf All Campuses

Performance Summary Campus Total $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$250,000

$200,000

$150,000

$100,000

$50,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Total $

$173,986

$177,905

$176,651

$171,323

$163,730

$179,977

$170,594

$161,188

$195,137

$180,614

$180,967

$181,890

$2,113,962

Target Total $

$148,534

$150,428

$148,061

$141,620

$133,574

$149,087

$143,701

$139,318

$169,416

$154,455

$153,344

$154,127

$1,785,665

Actual Total $

$156,276

$155,971

$149,568

$144,695

$143,023

$150,915

$137,836

$127,939

$135,626

$130,068

$138,025

$141,826

$1,711,768

Guar svngs $

$25,452

$27,476

$28,590

$29,702

$30,156

$30,890

$26,894

$21,870

$25,721

$26,160

$27,623

$27,763

$328,297

Actual svngs $

$17,709

$21,934

$27,083

$26,628

$20,706

$29,063

$32,759

$33,249

$59,512

$50,546

$42,942

$40,064

$402,194

Over/(Under)

$(7,742)

$(5,542)

$(1,506)

$(3,075)

$(9,449)

$(1,828)

$5,865

$11,379

$33,790

$24,386

$15,319

$12,300

$73,897

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-5

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Tot $ Perf

Campus

Performance Summary - Warrington Campus Total $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Total $

$37,419

$40,023

$39,366

$40,033

$37,574

$36,132

$44,872

$41,487

$38,840

$39,297

$41,436

$37,051

$473,530

Target Total $

$29,434

$32,229

$31,198

$32,401

$30,043

$29,143

$37,377

$33,707

$31,278

$30,787

$31,902

$29,263

$378,763

Actual Total $

$32,404

$33,918

$33,923

$36,443

$34,855

$34,625

$34,923

$32,441

$27,831

$25,295

$32,406

$29,640

$388,705

Guar svngs $

$7,984

$7,793

$8,168

$7,633

$7,531

$6,989

$7,495

$7,780

$7,562

$8,510

$9,534

$7,789

$94,768

Actual svngs $

$5,014

$6,104

$5,443

$3,590

$2,719

$1,507

$9,949

$9,045

$11,009

$14,002

$9,030

$7,411

$84,825

$(2,970)

$(1,689)

$(2,725)

$(4,043)

$(4,812)

$(5,482)

$2,454

$1,265

$3,447

$5,492

$(504)

$(378)

$(9,943)

Over/(Under)

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-6

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Tot $ Perf Warrington Campus

Performance Summary - Milton Campus Total $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Total $

$30,908

$27,991

$34,241

$28,265

$27,937

$34,701

$29,797

$27,156

$31,606

$31,250

$26,772

$27,962

$358,584

Target Total $

$22,762

$20,716

$26,517

$21,766

$21,447

$27,439

$22,929

$20,076

$23,851

$23,348

$20,163

$21,607

$272,620

Actual Total $

$24,062

$22,684

$26,483

$24,173

$22,714

$26,893

$25,035

$23,758

$25,759

$24,536

$25,257

$25,229

$296,585

Guar svngs $

$8,146

$7,275

$7,724

$6,499

$6,490

$7,261

$6,867

$7,080

$7,755

$7,902

$6,609

$6,355

$85,964

Actual svngs $

$6,845

$5,307

$7,758

$4,091

$5,223

$7,807

$4,761

$3,398

$5,847

$6,714

$1,515

$2,733

$61,999

$(1,300)

$(1,968)

$34

$(2,407)

$(1,268)

$546

$(2,106)

$(3,683)

$(1,908)

$(1,188)

$(5,094)

$(3,622)

$(23,965)

Over/(Under)

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-7

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Tot $ Perf Milton Campus

Performance Summary - Downtown Campus Total $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Total $

$8,513

$7,316

$8,678

$8,577

$7,792

$8,296

$7,178

$7,317

$7,185

$7,264

$7,073

$6,930

$92,119

Target Total $

$7,368

$6,170

$7,284

$7,005

$6,352

$6,741

$6,134

$6,536

$6,378

$6,455

$6,353

$6,224

$79,000

Actual Total $

$4,892

$5,059

$6,083

$5,695

$5,563

$5,548

$4,935

$5,094

$6,084

$7,029

$6,132

$6,383

$68,497

Guar svngs $

$1,144

$1,146

$1,394

$1,571

$1,440

$1,555

$1,044

$782

$807

$809

$720

$706

$13,119

Actual svngs $

$3,620

$2,257

$2,595

$2,882

$2,228

$2,748

$2,243

$2,224

$1,101

$235

$941

$547

$23,622

Over/(Under)

$2,476

$1,111

$1,201

$1,311

$789

$1,193

$1,199

$1,442

$294

$(574)

$221

$(159)

$10,503

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-8

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Tot $ Perf Downtown Campus

Performance Summary - All Campuses Electric $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$300,000

$250,000

$200,000

$150,000

$100,000

$50,000

$-

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Electric $ $197,449

Mar '12

$199,294

$214,158

$205,189

$194,554

$215,759

$206,855

$190,472

$184,510

$177,455

$170,179

$176,905

$2,332,7

Target Electric $

$170,044

$169,329

$180,196

$169,780

$159,053

$178,758

$175,711

$166,499

$160,008

$153,459

$147,744

$155,313

$1,985,8

Actual Electric $

$165,967

$169,916

$178,070

$176,373

$175,149

$185,407

$166,784

$152,041

$137,375

$136,812

$138,946

$142,761

$1,925,6

Guar svngs $

$27,405

$29,966

$33,962

$35,409

$35,501

$37,001

$31,144

$23,973

$24,502

$23,995

$22,435

$21,591

$346,884

Actual svngs $

$31,482

$29,378

$36,088

$28,816

$19,405

$30,353

$40,071

$38,430

$47,136

$40,643

$31,233

$34,144

$407,180

Over/(Under)

$4,077

$(587)

$2,126

$(6,593)

$(16,095

$(6,649)

$8,928

$14,458

$22,634

$16,647

$8,798

$12,553

$60,296

Performance Summary - All Campuses Natural Gas $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$100,000

$80,000

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline nat gas $

$53,376

$53,940

$44,778

$43,008

$42,478

$43,347

$45,586

$46,677

$88,259

$80,970

$86,068

$76,929

$705,416

Target nat gas $

$38,055

$40,214

$32,864

$33,012

$32,363

$33,652

$34,429

$33,137

$70,915

$61,584

$64,018

$55,907

$530,151

Actual nat gas $

$51,668

$47,716

$37,986

$34,633

$31,007

$32,574

$35,945

$37,192

$57,925

$50,116

$62,874

$60,318

$539,955

Guar svngs $

$15,321

$13,725

$11,914

$9,996

$10,116

$9,695

$11,157

$13,540

$17,343

$19,386

$22,050

$21,021

$175,265

Actual svngs $
Over/(Under)

$1,707

$6,224

$6,792

$8,375

$11,471

$10,773

$9,641

$9,485

$30,333

$30,854

$23,195

$16,610

$165,461

$(13,614

$(7,502)

$(5,122)

$(1,621)

$1,355

$1,077

$(1,516)

$(4,055)

$12,990

$11,468

$1,145

$(4,411)

$(9,804)

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-9

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm E & G $ Perf All Campuses

Performance Summary -

Campus Electric $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)

$200,000

$160,000

$120,000

$80,000

$40,000

$-

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Electric $ $131,740

Mar '12

$134,087

$140,181

$134,552

$128,146

$143,246

$133,494

$125,889

$122,606

$116,422

$109,538

$118,334

$1,538,2

Target Electric $

$116,886

$116,638

$119,886

$111,960

$105,028

$119,120

$114,201

$113,206

$108,940

$103,446

$97,572

$106,408

$1,333,2

Actual Electric $

$113,242

$115,426

$118,333

$115,909

$118,414

$124,915

$109,828

$99,344

$88,804

$87,940

$89,328

$92,396

$1,273,8

Guar svngs $

$14,854

$17,450

$20,295

$22,592

$23,117

$24,126

$19,293

$12,683

$13,666

$12,976

$11,966

$11,926

$204,943

Actual svngs $

$18,497

$18,662

$21,848

$18,643

$9,731

$18,331

$23,666

$26,545

$33,802

$28,483

$20,209

$25,938

$264,355

Over/(Under)

$3,643

$1,212

$1,553

$(3,949)

$(13,386

$(5,795)

$4,373

$13,862

$20,136

$15,507

$8,243

$14,012

$59,412

Performance Summary -

Campus Natural Gas $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)

$80,000

$60,000

$40,000

$20,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline nat gas $

$42,246

$43,818

$36,470

$36,770

$35,584

$36,731

$37,101

$35,299

$72,531

$64,192

$71,429

$63,556

$575,727

Target nat gas $

$31,648

$33,791

$28,175

$29,660

$28,546

$29,966

$29,500

$26,112

$60,476

$51,008

$55,772

$47,719

$452,373

Actual nat gas $

$43,034

$40,545

$31,235

$28,786

$24,609

$25,999

$28,008

$28,595

$46,822

$42,129

$48,697

$49,430

$437,888

Guar svngs $

$10,598

$10,027

$8,295

$7,110

$7,038

$6,765

$7,601

$9,188

$12,056

$13,184

$15,657

$15,837

$123,354

Actual svngs $
Over/(Under)

$(788)

$3,273

$5,236

$7,984

$10,975

$10,732

$9,093

$6,704

$25,710

$22,063

$22,732

$14,125

$137,839

$(11,386

$(6,754)

$(3,059)

$874

$3,937

$3,967

$1,492

$(2,483)

$13,654

$8,880

$7,076

$(1,712)

$14,485

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-10

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm E & G $ Perf

Campus

Performance Summary - Warrington Campus Electric $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Electric $

$28,396

$31,957

$32,787

$34,890

$32,527

$31,161

$38,117

$32,391

$27,258

$26,728

$30,022

$26,921

$373,155

Target Electric $

$23,909

$26,897

$27,365

$29,500

$27,455

$26,435

$33,334

$27,765

$23,248

$22,538

$25,343

$22,932

$316,721

Actual Electric $

$25,761

$28,148

$28,450

$31,666

$29,545

$29,416

$29,069

$26,696

$21,272

$22,221

$22,509

$23,187

$317,941

Guar svngs $

$4,487

$5,060

$5,422

$5,390

$5,072

$4,726

$4,783

$4,626

$4,010

$4,190

$4,679

$3,989

$56,434

Actual svngs $

$2,635

$3,809

$4,338

$3,224

$2,982

$1,745

$9,048

$5,695

$5,986

$4,507

$7,513

$3,734

$55,214

$(1,852)

$(1,251)

$(1,085)

$(2,166)

$(2,090)

$(2,981)

$4,265

$1,069

$1,976

$317

$2,834

$(255)

$(1,220)

Over/(Under)

Performance Summary - Warrington Campus Natural Gas $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$15,000

$12,000

$9,000

$6,000

$3,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline nat gas $

$9,023

$8,065

$6,579

$5,143

$5,047

$4,971

$6,755

$9,096

$11,582

$12,569

$11,414

$10,130

$100,375

Target nat gas $

$5,525

$5,332

$3,833

$2,900

$2,588

$2,708

$4,043

$5,942

$8,030

$8,249

$6,560

$6,330

$62,042

Actual nat gas $

$6,643

$5,770

$5,473

$4,777

$5,310

$5,209

$5,854

$5,745

$6,559

$3,074

$9,898

$6,453

$70,764

Guar svngs $

$3,497

$2,733

$2,746

$2,243

$2,459

$2,263

$2,712

$3,154

$3,553

$4,320

$4,855

$3,800

$38,333

Actual svngs $

$2,379

$2,296

$1,106

$366

$(263)

$(238)

$902

$3,351

$5,024

$9,495

$1,517

$3,677

$29,611

$(1,118)

$(438)

$(1,640)

$(1,877)

$(2,721)

$(2,501)

$(1,810)

$197

$1,471

$5,175

$(3,338)

$(123)

$(8,722)

Over/(Under)

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-11

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm E & G $ Perf Warrington Campus

Performance Summary - Milton Campus Electric $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline Electric $

$28,801

$25,934

$32,512

$27,169

$26,090

$33,056

$28,066

$24,875

$27,461

$27,040

$23,547

$24,719

$329,271

Target Electric $

$21,881

$19,624

$25,661

$21,314

$20,218

$26,462

$22,043

$18,992

$21,441

$21,021

$18,477

$19,749

$256,884

Actual Electric $

$22,071

$21,283

$25,205

$23,103

$21,626

$25,528

$22,952

$20,907

$21,214

$19,622

$20,978

$20,794

$265,283

Guar svngs $

$6,920

$6,310

$6,850

$5,856

$5,872

$6,594

$6,023

$5,882

$6,020

$6,020

$5,071

$4,970

$72,387

Actual svngs $

$6,730

$4,651

$7,307

$4,067

$4,464

$7,528

$5,114

$3,968

$6,247

$7,418

$2,569

$3,925

$63,988

Over/(Under)

$(190)

$(1,658)

$457

$(1,789)

$(1,407)

$934

$(909)

$(1,915)

$227

$1,398

$(2,501)

$(1,046)

$(8,398)

Performance Summary - Milton Campus Natural Gas $

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$-

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

$2,107

$2,057

$1,729

$1,095

$1,847

$1,644

$1,730

$2,281

$4,145

$4,210

$3,225

$3,243

$29,313

Target nat gas $

$881

$1,091

$855

$452

$1,228

$977

$886

$1,083

$2,410

$2,327

$1,686

$1,858

$15,735

Actual nat gas $

$1,991

$1,401

$1,278

$1,071

$1,089

$1,366

$2,083

$2,851

$4,545

$4,914

$4,279

$4,435

$31,302

Guar svngs $

$1,226

$965

$874

$643

$619

$667

$845

$1,198

$1,735

$1,883

$1,539

$1,385

$13,578

Actual svngs $

$116

$656

$451

$25

$758

$279

$(353)

$(570)

$(400)

$(704)

$(1,054)

$(1,192)

$(1,989)

$(1,110)

$(310)

$(423)

$(618)

$140

$(388)

$(1,197)

$(1,768)

$(2,135)

$(2,587)

$(2,593)

$(2,576)

$(15,567

Baseline nat gas $

Over/(Under)

Baseline is the calculated total $ based on historic utility bill patterns using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Target is the predicted total $ after measures are implemented using Base Utility Rates in the Contract.
Actual is the total $ direct from the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-12

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm E & G $ Perf Milton Campus

Performance Summary - All Campuses Electric kWh

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
3,000,000

2,500,000

kWh

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Baseline kWh 2,006,496

Mar '12

1,969,488

2,162,708

2,278,158

2,169,744

2,444,987

2,332,344

2,107,751

2,036,192

1,947,913

1,857,917

1,933,141 25,246,840

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Target kWh

1,683,952

1,622,287

1,773,833

1,826,969

1,699,488

1,950,699

1,920,303

1,788,785

1,703,108

1,626,953

1,561,430

1,649,465 20,807,272

Actual kWh

1,634,880

1,645,960

1,733,320

1,903,400

1,916,160

2,038,640

1,781,120

1,585,760

1,476,680

1,360,120

1,426,920

1,484,200 19,987,160

Guar svngs

322,544

347,200

388,874

451,189

470,257

494,288

412,041

318,966

333,085

320,960

296,487

283,676

4,439,568

Actual svngs

371,616

323,528

429,388

374,758

253,584

406,347

551,224

521,991

559,512

587,793

430,997

448,941

5,259,680

Over/(Under)

49,072

(23,673)

40,513

(76,431)

(216,672)

(87,941)

139,183

203,025

226,428

266,833

134,510

165,265

820,112

Performance Summary - All Campuses Electric kW

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
6,000

5,000

kW

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kW

4,176

4,563

4,512

4,589

4,716

4,892

4,884

4,753

4,549

4,281

4,166

4,244

54,325

Target kW

3,978

4,276

4,157

4,158

4,322

4,521

4,542

4,510

4,403

4,162

4,024

4,096

51,150

Actual kW

4,100

4,308

4,396

4,488

4,686

4,787

4,755

4,603

3,853

4,396

4,134

4,109

52,615

Guar svngs

197

286

355

430

394

371

342

243

146

120

142

148

3,175

Actual svngs

76

255

116

101

30

105

129

150

696

-115

32

135

1,710

Over/(Under)

(122)

(31)

(239)

(329)

(364)

(267)

(213)

(93)

550

(235)

(110)

(13)

(1,466)

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-13

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Electric Perf All Campuses

Performance Summary -

Campus Electric kWh

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)

2,000,000

kWh

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kWh 1,314,007

Mar '12

1,310,919

1,385,120

1,514,203

1,424,869

1,616,390

1,473,995

1,351,860

1,315,502

1,238,523

1,167,989

1,265,483

16,378,85

Target kWh

1,145,042

1,113,088

1,158,232

1,227,219

1,121,398

1,295,022

1,223,614

1,190,135

1,136,594

1,072,177

1,015,444

1,114,724

13,812,68

Actual kWh

1,105,040

1,110,760

1,129,480

1,266,280

1,286,640

1,366,880

1,159,360

1,011,840

951,160

839,000

907,880

951,000

13,085,32

Guar svngs

168,965

197,831

226,888

286,984

303,471

321,368

250,382

161,725

178,908

166,346

152,545

150,759

2,566,172

Actual svngs

208,967

200,159

255,640

247,923

138,229

249,510

314,635

340,020

364,342

399,523

260,109

314,483

3,293,539

Over/(Under)

40,002

2,328

28,752

(39,061)

(165,242)

(71,858)

64,254

178,295

185,434

233,177

107,564

163,724

727,368

Performance Summary -

Campus Electric kW

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)

4,000

3,200

kW

2,400

1,600

800

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kW

2,842

3,024

3,047

3,034

3,050

3,230

3,241

3,297

3,152

2,968

2,771

2,932

36,589

Target kW

2,656

2,805

2,782

2,691

2,757

2,965

2,974

3,079

2,979

2,818

2,629

2,779

33,913

Actual kW

2,730

2,802

2,933

2,922

3,097

3,168

3,120

3,043

2,403

2,941

2,623

2,594

34,377

Guar svngs

186

219

265

343

293

266

267

217

173

150

142

154

2,676

Actual svngs

112

222

114

112

-47

63

121

253

748

28

148

338

2,212

Over/(Under)

(74)

(151)

(231)

(340)

(203)

(146)

36

576

(122)

185

(464)

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-14

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Electric Perf

Campus

Performance Summary - Warrington Campus Electric kWh

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
500,000

kWh

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kWh

300,294

315,198

340,129

353,295

367,573

351,784

459,521

392,857

326,157

324,959

354,294

314,627

4,200,689

Target kWh

248,146

255,866

276,140

288,808

297,824

286,730

393,787

330,822

273,510

270,348

294,338

263,999

3,480,316

Actual kWh

260,640

278,880

286,800

325,680

340,800

324,000

319,920

300,240

236,640

243,600

237,360

252,720

3,407,280

Guar svngs

52,148

59,332

63,990

64,488

69,749

65,054

65,735

62,035

52,647

54,611

59,956

50,628

720,373

Actual svngs

39,654

36,318

53,329

27,615

26,773

27,784

139,601

92,617

89,517

81,359

116,934

61,907

793,409

Over/(Under)

(12,494)

(23,014)

(10,661)

(36,873)

(42,976)

(37,270)

73,867

30,582

36,870

26,748

56,978

11,279

73,036

Performance Summary - Warrington Campus Electric kW

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
1,000

800

kW

600

400

200

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kW

610

815

721

836

864

830

829

687

597

555

634

592

8,571

Target kW

543

746

651

772

798

770

768

619

532

485

558

524

7,765

Actual kW

649

717

691

728

750

845

836

719

578

628

657

627

8,425

Guar svngs

67

69

71

65

65

60

62

68

64

70

76

68

806

Actual svngs

-39

98

30

108

113

-15

-6

-32

19

-73

-23

-35

146

Over/(Under)

(106)

30

(41)

43

48

(75)

(68)

(100)

(46)

(143)

(99)

(103)

(660)

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-15

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Electric Perf Warrington Campus

Performance Summary - Milton Campus Electric kWh

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
400,000

kWh

300,000

200,000

100,000

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kWh

305,573

269,681

349,238

309,898

288,613

381,143

318,667

280,378

312,818

304,404

257,939

276,227

3,654,578

Target kWh

220,378

195,078

268,772

231,241

210,495

293,360

237,645

198,403

226,108

219,514

187,600

206,906

2,695,499

Actual kWh

222,880

209,600

257,920

249,600

230,720

287,520

249,760

220,640

224,480

203,200

217,120

213,760

2,787,200

Guar svngs

85,195

74,603

80,466

78,657

78,118

87,783

81,022

81,975

86,710

84,890

70,339

69,321

959,079

Actual svngs

82,693

60,081

91,318

60,298

57,893

93,623

68,907

59,738

88,338

101,204

40,819

62,467

867,378

Over/(Under)

(2,502)

(14,522)

10,852

(18,359)

(20,225)

5,840

(12,115)

(22,237)

1,628

16,314

(29,520)

(6,854)

(91,701)

Performance Summary - Milton Campus Electric kW

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
800

kW

600

400

200

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kW

578

589

594

588

651

685

656

620

661

610

614

584

7,431

Target kW

592

561

555

560

615

643

628

628

701

653

636

610

7,383

Actual kW

594

641

633

694

670

635

657

685

697

647

694

715

7,961

Guar svngs

-14

29

39

28

37

42

27

-7

-41

-43

-22

-26

48

Actual svngs

-16

-52

-39

-105

-18

50

-1

-65

-37

-37

-80

-131

(531)

Over/(Under)

(1)

(80)

(78)

(133)

(55)

(29)

(58)

(58)

(105)

(578)

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-16

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Electric Perf Milton Campus

Performance Summary - Downtown Campus Electric kWh

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
120,000

100,000

kWh

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kWh

86,622

73,689

88,221

100,762

88,690

95,670

80,160

82,656

81,716

80,028

77,695

76,804

1,012,714

Target kWh

70,387

58,255

70,690

79,702

69,772

75,587

65,257

69,426

66,896

64,914

64,049

63,836

818,770

Actual kWh

46,320

46,720

59,120

61,840

58,000

60,240

52,080

53,040

64,400

74,320

64,560

66,720

707,360

Guar svngs

16,235

15,434

17,531

21,061

18,918

20,083

14,903

13,231

14,820

15,114

13,647

12,968

193,944

Actual svngs

40,302

26,969

29,101

38,922

30,690

35,430

28,080

29,616

17,316

5,708

13,135

10,084

305,354

Over/(Under)

24,067

11,535

11,570

17,862

11,772

15,347

13,177

16,386

2,496

(9,406)

(511)

(2,884)

111,410

Performance Summary - Downtown Campus Electric kW

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
250

200

kW

150

100

50

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline kW

146

134

150

130

151

147

157

149

140

148

147

136

1,735

Target kW

187

165

170

136

152

143

172

184

190

206

201

183

2,088

Actual kW

127

148

140

144

169

140

142

155

174

181

160

173

1,852

Guar svngs

-41

-30

-20

-6

-1

-15

-35

-50

-57

-54

-47

(354)

Actual svngs

18

-13

10

-14

-18

15

-6

-34

-33

-13

-37

(117)

Over/(Under)

60

17

30

(8)

(17)

30

30

16

25

40

10

236

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings
4/13/2013

Page 4-17

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Electric Perf Downtown Campus

Performance Summary - All Campuses Natural Gas Consumption

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
80,000

therms

60,000

40,000

20,000

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline therms

46,797

47,049

38,795

37,138

36,680

37,808

39,213

41,681

76,601

70,970

75,547

67,666

615,944

Target therms

33,233

34,963

28,339

28,355

27,728

29,071

29,519

29,500

61,395

53,776

55,733

48,919

460,531

Actual therms

44,863

41,373

32,907

30,001

27,092

28,789

30,923

32,711

49,759

42,392

55,402

52,439

468,651

Guar svngs

13,564

12,085

10,456

8,783

8,952

8,737

9,694

12,180

15,207

17,194

19,814

18,746

155,413

Actual svngs

1,934

5,676

5,888

7,137

9,588

9,019

8,290

8,970

26,842

28,578

20,145

15,227

147,293

Over/(Under)

(11,630)

(6,410)

(4,568)

(1,646)

636

282

(1,404)

(3,211)

11,636

11,384

331

(3,520)

(8,120)

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-18

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Nat Gas Perf All Campuses

Performance Summary Campus Natural Gas Consumption

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
70,000

60,000

therms

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline therms

35,692

37,020

30,812

31,066

30,064

31,033

31,345

29,823

61,279

54,234

60,348

53,696

486,411

Target therms

26,739

28,549

23,804

25,058

24,117

25,317

24,923

22,061

51,094

43,095

47,120

40,316

382,194

Actual therms

36,358

34,255

26,389

24,320

20,791

21,966

23,663

24,159

39,558

35,593

41,142

41,762

369,956

Guar svngs

8,954

8,471

7,008

6,007

5,946

5,715

6,422

7,762

10,186

11,138

13,228

13,380

104,217

Actual svngs

-666

2,765

4,423

6,746

9,273

9,067

7,682

5,664

21,721

18,641

19,206

11,934

116,455

Over/(Under)

(9,619)

(5,706)

(2,585)

738

3,326

3,351

1,260

(2,098)

11,536

7,502

5,978

(1,446)

12,238

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-19

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Nat Gas Perf

Campus

Performance Summary - Warrington Campus Natural Gas Consumption

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
15,000

12,000

therms

9,000

6,000

3,000

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

Baseline therms

9,529

8,376

6,657

5,226

5,190

5,505

6,557

10,139

12,447

13,804

12,849

11,536

107,815

Target therms

5,835

5,538

3,878

2,947

2,662

2,999

3,925

6,624

8,629

9,060

7,384

7,209

66,690

Actual therms

7,016

5,992

5,538

4,854

5,460

5,768

5,682

6,404

7,048

3,376

11,142

7,349

75,629

Guar svngs

3,694

2,838

2,778

2,279

2,528

2,506

2,632

3,515

3,818

4,744

5,465

4,327

41,125

Actual svngs

2,513

2,384

1,119

372

-270

-263

875

3,735

5,399

10,428

1,707

4,187

32,186

Over/(Under)

(1,181)

(454)

(1,660)

(1,907)

(2,798)

(2,769)

(1,757)

220

1,581

5,684

(3,758)

(140)

(8,939)

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-20

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Nat Gas Perf Warrington Campus

Performance Summary - Milton Campus Natural Gas Consumption

Year 2 (3/1/12 - 2/28/13)
4,000

therms

3,000

2,000

1,000

Mar '12

Apr '12

May '12

Jun '12

Jul '12

Aug '12

Sep '12

Oct '12

Nov '12

Dec '12

Jan '13

Feb '13

Y2 Total

1,575

1,653

1,325

846

1,427

1,270

1,311

1,719

2,875

2,932

2,350

2,434

21,718

Target therms

659

877

656

349

949

755

671

816

1,672

1,621

1,229

1,395

11,648

Actual therms

1,489

1,126

980

827

841

1,055

1,578

2,148

3,153

3,423

3,118

3,328

23,066

Guar svngs

917

776

670

497

478

515

640

903

1,204

1,311

1,121

1,039

10,070

Actual svngs

86

527

345

19

586

215

-267

-429

-278

-491

-768

-894

(1,348)

Over/(Under)

(830)

(249)

(324)

(478)

108

(300)

(907)

(1,332)

(1,481)

(1,802)

(1,889)

(1,933)

(11,418)

Baseline therms

Baseline is the calculated value based on historic utility bill patterns.

Target is the predicted value after energy conservation measures are implemented.
Actual is the value as shown on the utility bills.
Target = Baseline - Guaranteed Savings

4/13/2013

Page 4-21

PJC - Y2 Savings Report 041213.xlsm Nat Gas Perf Milton Campus

Stipulated ECM Calculations

This section of the report describes how energy savings were calculated for the stipulated energy
Conservation Measure (ECM). The calculations and results have been collaboratively agreed upon by
Customer and Trane and will not be measured, monitored or adjusted throughout the term of the
Agreement.
Transmitter Building
A new high efficiency air-cooled chiller has been installed by Trane in the Transmitter Building of the TV
Broadcasting Station. The efficiency of the new chilled water system is 1.1 kW per ton. The efficiency of
the air-cooled direct expansion system that was replaced was 2.0 kW per ton. The following shows the
spreadsheet methodology used to calculate savings:
Pre-Retrofit Energy Consumption

= 2 kW/ton x 30 tons = 60 kW
= 60 kW x 8760 hrs/yr = 525,600 kWh/yr
= 60 kW x 12mo. = 720 kW/yr

Post-Retrofit Energy Consumption

= 1.1 kW/ton x 45 tons = 49.5 kW

= 49.5 kW x 8760 hrs/yr = 433,620 kWh/yr
= 49.5 kW x 12mo. = 594 kW/yr

Annual kW Savings

= 720 kW 594 kW = 126 kW

Annual kWh Savings

= 525,600 kWh 433,620 kWh = 91,980 kWh

The annual dollar savings were calculated using Base Utility Rates. Table 1.5 shows the stipulated
annual savings.
Table 1.5 - Stipulated Annual Savings
Utility
Electric Energy (kWh)
Electric Demand (kW)
Natural gas (therms)
Total Savings

Stipulated Savings
91,980 kWh
126 kW
0 therms
$ 9,129

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 5-1

Base Utility Rates

The Base Utility Rates are those utility rates used in the Utility Baseline Analysis (as defined in Exhibit F
of the Agreement) that are used to calculate the energy savings and are the rates set forth below. The
Base Utility Rates used to calculate energy savings will be used as the floor price for the Guarantee Term
and shall be the lowest rate used. In calculating any cost savings for the annual reconciliation report,
Trane will use the greater of the then current applicable utility rate unit cost or the Base Utility Rates as
described herein. The Base Utility Rates used to calculate cost increases for the annual Reconciliation
Report will be used as the ceiling price for the Guarantee Term and shall be the highest rate used.
Adjusted Base Utility Rates are the Base Utility Rates adjusted upward for inflation by four percent (4%)
per year, compounded annually. The parties agree that the 4% escalation rate is a reasonable projection
of inflation based on past inflation experience and Customers budgetary practices.
The following are the Base Utility Rates:

Campus

Buildings

Milton
Downtown
Warrington
Warrington

All Bldgs
Downtown Center
3000, 3100, 3200 & 3700
3300, 3400, 3500 & 3600
10, 11, 12, 16, 18 & 50
All Other Bldgs

Fixed Charge
($/mo)
$
$
$
$
$
$

112.88
38.11
466.90
112.88
168.77
38.11

kWh Rate
($/kWh)
$
$
$
$
$
$

0.05528
0.05869
0.04649
0.05458
0.04936
0.05869

kW Rate
($/kW-mo)

therm Rate
($/therm-mo)

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

5.559
5.901
8.975
5.392
9.527
5.901

1.63
1.65
1.47
1.47
1.63
1.63

For the second year of the guarantee period, both the guaranteed and actual dollar savings for the Option
C buildings were calculated using current utility rates. For the transmitter building, the stipulated savings
were calculated using Base Utility Rates.
The following are the current utility rates (as of February, 2013):
Campus

Buildings

Milton
Downtown
Warrington
Warrington

All Bldgs
Downtown Center
3000, 3100, 3200 & 3700
3300, 3400, 3500 & 3600
10, 11, 12, 16, 18 & 50
All Other Bldgs

Fixed Charge
($/mo)
$
$
$
$
$
$

45.36
47.91
234.57
45.97
244.99
47.91

kWh Rate
($/kWh)
$
$
$
$
$
$

kW Rate
($/kW-mo)

0.07400 $
0.07816 $
0.06476 $
0.07499 $
0.06764 $
0.07816 $

6.134
6.479
10.436
6.216
10.899
6.479

therm Rate
($/therm-mo)
$

1.37

$
$
$
$

0.93
0.93
1.81
0.96

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 6-1

Baseline Adjustments
Trane reserves the right to make baseline adjustments in response to changes to the facility(s) or
TM
deviations in the operating parameters per the PACT Agreement. The following sections describe the
baseline adjustments that have been made to date.
Campus Bldg 13 New Roof & Bldg 3 HVAC
A new roof has been installed at Building 13 and an HVAC system replacement has taken place at
Building 3. Neither of these projects was affiliated with Tranes work included in the Agreement. However,
both projects have affected energy consumption. In order to determine the effect on energy consumption,
Trane has modeled both projects in Trace.
The resulting change in monthly energy consumption is shown in Table 7.1. Positive numbers indicate an
increase in the baseline while negative numbers indicate a decrease in the baseline.
Table 7.1 Baseline Adjustment for Bldg 13 New Roof & Bldg 3 HVAC
kWh
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL

(7,788)
(7,518)
(4,567)
(962)
(376)
5,924
14,315
14,694
5,714
(3,247)
(3,755)
(6,369)

kW
(5)
(9)
(4)
(5)
6
24
(7)
(8)
16
(7)
(5)
(5)

Therms
1,166
994
1,384
1,578
1,521
1,387
1,490
1,407
1,440
1,553
1,426
1,291

6,066

(8)

16,637

Milton Campus Ventilation Air

The outside air dampers for two air handlers at Building 4800 and two air handlers at Building 4900 on
the Milton Campus were observed to be closed. During Tranes work on the Milton campus, the dampers
were repaired and returned to their operational state. The result is an increase in the amount of outside
air available to the air handlers.
Table 7.2 shows the effect on energy consumption of the increase in ventilation air on the Milton Campus.
Positive numbers indicate an increase in the baseline while negative numbers indicate a decrease in the
baseline.

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 7-1

Table 7.2 Baseline Adjustment for Increased Ventilation Air on Milton Campus
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

kWh
(12,566)
(11,868)
(5,877)
751
5,779
11,285
13,526
14,034
7,974
(3,171)
(4,429)
(9,030)

TOTAL

kW

6,407

Therms
(2)
(14)
(2)
(0)
6
15
13
13
11
(2)
(3)
(2)

173
184
56
12
1
39
51
106

32

623

Campus Addition to LRC Bldg #20

In July, 2009, an addition was completed to the Learning Resource Center Bldg #20. The square footage
of the building before the addition was 49,789. The square footage after the retrofit is 60,344. The retrofit
added approximately 10,555 square feet to the facility, an increase of 21.2%. Although the building has its
own electric meter, the retrofit resulted in an increase in chilled water load at the chilled water plant. The
increase in electric and natural gas consumption was estimated by multiplying the modeled load for this
building by a factor of 0.212. The modeled load used was the Trace building model that was created
during the Detailed Energy Study phase of the project.
The result is a baseline adjustment as shown in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Baseline Adjustment for Square Footage addition at LRC Bldg #20
kWh

kW

Therms

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

1,390
1,251
1,560
2,360
2,673
3,173
3,495
3,698
2,993
1,796
1,566
1,445

3
3
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
6
5
3

673
633
351
130
42
271
338
527

TOTAL

27,401

63

2,966

Warrington Campus Changes to 3200 Building

Approximately 9,000 square feet on the west side of Bldg 3200 has been converted from an
unconditioned automotive facility to a veterinary lab and kennel. The change in use of the facility was
modeled in Trace and the resulting increase in energy consumption is shown in Table 7.4.

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 7-2

Table 7.4 Baseline Adjustment for Bldg 3200 Change in Usage

kWh

kW

Therms

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

5,422
4,832
5,770
6,468
7,246
8,306
8,761
9,170
7,694
6,096
5,763
5,590

12
12
12
14
16
27
26
27
22
13
13
12

208
238
137
15
66
95
176

TOTAL

81,118

206

935

Warrington Campus Low Temperature Settings in Dental Lab of Warrington 3100 Building
The dental labs in Warrington Building 3100 are typically kept at temperatures in the 65 Deg F range.
This low temperature setting was modeled in Trace and the resulting increase in energy consumption is
shown in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5 Baseline Adjustment for Low Temp Setpoints in Dental Lab of Bldg 3100
kWh

kW

Therms

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

705
559
1,276
1,857
1,688
2,070
3,453
4,150
2,430
1,548
1,198
894

4
4
5
5
6
6
19
19
7
5
5
5

(87)
(86)
(64)
(37)
(50)
(35)
38
64
(16)
(44)
(57)
(67)

TOTAL

21,827

90

(439)

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Page 7-3

Appendix
Bill Ledgers

Trane Contract No.: J5-32292

Bill Data for Site: Downtown Campus

Project: PJC
Area: Entire Downtown Center
From
To
# Days
12/17/02
01/17/03
32
01/18/03
02/17/03
31
02/18/03
03/17/03
28
03/18/03
04/17/03
31
04/18/03
05/16/03
29
05/17/03
06/18/03
33
06/19/03
07/18/03
30
07/19/03
08/19/03
32
08/20/03
09/17/03
29
09/18/03
10/15/03
28
10/16/03
11/14/03
30
11/15/03
12/15/03
31
Sum/Average/Max
364

Site: Downtown Campus

Meter: 01 Elect Mtr # 3239485
kWh
Demand
Cost
75,120
147 $
4,166
81,120
147 $
4,426
71,440
134 $
3,929
81,600
147 $
4,447
76,320
134 $
4,141
94,400
151 $
5,026
92,400
127 $
4,798
97,840
152 $
5,181
83,440
146 $
4,521
80,160
157 $
4,444
88,560
149 $
4,761
81,040
139 $
4,376
1,003,440
157 $
54,216

HDD
479
449
153
92
1
32
330
1,535

4
14
77
277
433
446
496
450
236
131
30
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 34780-83003
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.055458
2347.5
67%
0.054561 2616.774
74%
0.054997 2551.429
79%
0.054498 2632.258
75%
0.054258 2631.724
82%
0.053242 2860.606
79%
0.051926
3080
101%
0.052954
3057.5
84%
0.054183 2877.242
82%
0.055439 2862.857
76%
0.05376
2952
83%
0.053998 2614.193
78%
0.05403 2757.007
73%

CDD
-

12/16/03
01/14/04
01/15/04
02/16/04
02/17/04
03/17/04
03/18/04
04/15/04
04/16/04
05/14/04
05/15/04
06/15/04
06/16/04
07/15/04
07/16/04
08/13/04
08/14/04
09/16/04
09/17/04
10/14/04
10/15/04
11/12/04
11/13/04
12/14/04
Sum/Average/Max

30
33
30
29
29
32
30
29
34
28
29
32
365

74,800
90,480
83,040
87,120
78,080
84,960
87,040
87,040
97,840
40,240
68,400
71,280
950,320

149 $
149 $
160 $
154 $
144 $
134 $
146 $
152 $
146 $
147 $
137 $
134 $
160 $

4,357
5,078
4,801
4,953
4,478
4,735
4,902
4,956
5,398
2,756
3,992
4,106
54,512

429
467
220
89
8
26
205
1,442

6
3
16
39
149
433
492
478
512
303
201
38
2,667

0.058249
0.056123
0.057816
0.056853
0.057351
0.055732
0.056319
0.056939
0.055172
0.068489
0.058363
0.057604
0.057362

2493.333
2741.818
2768
3004.138
2692.414
2655
2901.333
3001.379
2877.647
1437.143
2358.621
2227.5
2596.527

70%
77%
72%
81%
78%
83%
83%
82%
82%
41%
72%
69%
68%

12/15/04
01/14/05
01/15/05
02/15/05
02/16/05
03/16/05
03/17/05
04/18/05
04/19/05
05/17/05
05/18/05
06/16/05
06/17/05
07/16/05
07/17/05
08/16/05
08/17/05
09/15/05
09/16/05
10/18/05
10/19/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
12/14/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
32
29
33
29
30
30
31
30
33
27
30
365

74,960
80,640
83,120
72,080
68,400
73,440
67,920
70,000
65,280
76,720
64,480
77,360
874,400

130 $
155 $
154 $
134 $
128 $
134 $
144 $
134 $
134 $
139 $
135 $
142 $
155 $

4,663
5,102
5,224
4,718
4,484
4,791
4,552
4,605
4,351
4,998
4,314
5,050
56,852

327
398
225
86
16
64
292
1,406

6
3
12
36
123
418
479
533
528
454
88
33
2,711

0.062207
0.063269
0.062849
0.065455
0.065556
0.065237
0.06702
0.065786
0.066651
0.065146
0.066904
0.065279
0.065018

2418.065
2520
2866.207
2184.242
2358.621
2448
2264
2258.065
2176
2324.848
2388.148
2578.667
2398.739

78%
68%
78%
68%
77%
76%
66%
70%
68%
70%
74%
76%
64%

34
28
30
29

92,320
78,880
96,240
88,880

6,389
5,623
6,825
6,211

334
305
135
75

13
6
48
82

0.069205 2715.294
0.071285 2817.143
0.070916
3208
0.069881 3064.828

72%
72%
69%
78%

12/15/05
01/18/06
02/15/06
03/17/06

01/17/06
02/14/06
03/16/06
04/14/06

158
162
193
163

$
$
$
$

Downtown Campus
Page A-1

From
To
04/15/06
05/17/06
05/18/06
06/16/06
06/17/06
07/17/06
07/18/06
08/16/06
08/17/06
09/16/06
09/17/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
11/14/06
11/15/06
12/14/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
33
30
31
30
31
31
28
30
365

kWh
92,480
71,840
71,120
70,480
71,440
67,840
59,280
50,800
911,600

Demand
141 $
162 $
158 $
146 $
142 $
115 $
125 $
109 $
193 $

Cost
6,293
5,206
5,141
5,032
5,065
4,694
4,252
3,660
64,391

HDD
-

CDD
268
472
589
524
518
287
41
9
2,854

$/kWh
0.068047
0.072467
0.072286
0.071396
0.070899
0.069192
0.071727
0.072047
0.070635

kWh/Day
2802.424
2394.667
2294.194
2349.333
2304.516
2188.387
2117.143
1693.333
2495.772

LF
83%
62%
61%
67%
68%
79%
71%
65%
54%

12/15/06
01/18/07
01/19/07
02/15/07
02/16/07
03/19/07
03/20/07
04/17/07
04/18/07
05/17/07
05/18/07
06/15/07
06/16/07
07/17/07
07/18/07
08/16/07
08/17/07
09/17/07
09/18/07
10/17/07
10/18/07
11/15/07
11/16/07
12/14/07
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
32
29
30
29
32
30
32
30
29
29
365

59,200
50,800
73,760
52,400
54,480
49,840
53,200
51,280
52,080
53,840
78,480
91,520
720,880

110 $
126 $
131 $
131 $
105 $
110 $
118 $
102 $
97 $
118 $
158 $
160 $
160 $

4,753
4,271
5,877
4,410
4,400
4,110
4,388
4,162
4,188
4,432
6,361
7,268
58,620

261
432
236
89
2
94
169
1,281

7
21
96
235
366
546
564
573
381
55
34
2,875

0.080287
0.084075
0.079677
0.08416
0.080764
0.082464
0.082481
0.081162
0.080415
0.082318
0.081052
0.079414
0.081317

1691.429
1814.286
2305
1806.897
1816
1718.621
1662.5
1709.333
1627.5
1794.667
2706.207
3155.862
1984.025

64%
60%
73%
57%
72%
65%
59%
70%
70%
63%
71%
82%
51%

12/15/07
01/16/08
01/17/08
02/18/08
02/19/08
03/17/08
03/18/08
04/17/08
04/18/08
05/15/08
05/16/08
06/17/08
06/18/08
07/17/08
07/18/08
08/15/08
08/16/08
09/16/08
09/17/08
10/17/08
10/18/08
11/14/08
11/15/08
12/15/08
Sum/Average/Max

33
33
28
31
28
33
30
29
32
31
28
31
367

106,640
106,160
80,400
92,800
81,760
89,680
84,160
84,880
77,840
72,720
103,760
82,080
1,062,880

162 $
167 $
150 $
150 $
149 $
151 $
145 $
152 $
134 $
166 $
167 $
161 $
167 $

8,332
8,329
6,456
7,309
6,544
7,100
6,685
6,776
7,139
6,913
9,435
7,642
88,659

355
391
221
120
4
117
381
1,589

10
12
13
63
142
458
474
484
531
277
24
5
2,491

0.078132
0.078457
0.080299
0.078761
0.080039
0.07917
0.079432
0.079831
0.091712
0.095058
0.090928
0.093103
0.083414

3231.515
3216.97
2871.428
2993.548
2920
2717.575
2805.333
2926.896
2432.5
2345.806
3705.714
2647.742
2901.252

83%
80%
80%
83%
82%
75%
81%
80%
76%
59%
92%
69%
72%

12/16/08
01/14/09
01/15/09
02/16/09
02/17/09
03/19/09
03/20/09
04/16/09
04/17/09
05/15/09
05/16/09
06/16/09
06/17/09
07/16/09
07/17/09
08/17/09
08/18/09
09/17/09
09/18/09
10/15/09
10/16/09
11/12/09
11/13/09
12/11/09
Sum/Average/Max

30
33
31
28
29
32
30
32
31
28
28
29
361

83,760
86,880
58,000
25,120
34,960
39,680
39,200
40,960
41,520
37,120
36,480
44,480
568,160

142 $
170 $
137 $
137 $
129 $
122 $
146 $
147 $
138 $
141 $
129 $
165 $
170 $

8,573
9,025
6,177
3,155
4,012
4,405
4,406
4,570
4,567
4,191
4,063
4,991
62,134

176
438
215
68
71
246
1,213

54
3
26
69
248
425
576
540
460
435
71
3
2,907

0.102356
0.103879
0.106493
0.125599
0.114763
0.111002
0.11241
0.111568
0.10999
0.112901
0.111371
0.112206
0.109361

2792
2632.727
1870.968
897.1429
1205.517
1240
1306.667
1280
1339.355
1325.714
1302.857
1533.793
1560.562

82%
65%
57%
27%
39%
42%
37%
36%
40%
39%
42%
39%
39%

7
107
344
1,305

Downtown Campus
Page A-2

From

To

# Days

kWh

Demand

Cost

HDD

CDD
3

$/kWh

kWh/Day

0.112091
0.112699
0.119115
0.113282
0.114295
0.114031
0.113482
0.112356
0.115356
0.116144
0.114562
0.116797
0.114337

1801.212
1672.941
1508.148
1532.903
1296.552
1352.258
1517.333
1551.515
1504
1390.345
1330
1520
1498.101

43%
40%
38%
43%
44%
41%
44%
42%
40%
40%
39%
39%
36%

1625.143
1531.429
1317.143
1211.034
1197.5
1445.161
1541.333
1512.5
1629.333
1580
1393.548
1477.333
1455.122

42%
38%
40%
41%
39%
36%
45%
44%
45%
46%
42%
34%
34%

1489.412
1586.207
1536.552
1403.636
1668.571
1907.097
1873.939
2000
1825.455
1860
1894.286
2077.419
1760.214

36%
38%
46%
46%
47%
57%
54%
49%
54%
55%
51%
50%
42%

0.094578
2322.5
0.094954
2152
0.095672
2224
0.095051 2232.833

53%
56%
54%
51%

12/12/09
01/13/10
01/14/10
02/16/10
02/17/10
03/15/10
03/16/10
04/15/10
04/16/10
05/14/10
05/15/10
06/14/10
06/15/10
07/14/10
07/15/10
08/16/10
08/17/10
09/15/10
09/16/10
10/14/10
10/15/10
11/15/10
11/16/10
12/14/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
34
27
31
29
31
30
33
30
29
32
29
368

59,440
56,880
40,720
47,520
37,600
41,920
45,520
51,200
45,120
40,320
42,560
44,080
552,880

176 $
174 $
167 $
149 $
123 $
136 $
144 $
153 $
157 $
145 $
142 $
164 $
176 $

6,663
6,410
4,850
5,383
4,298
4,780
5,166
5,753
5,205
4,683
4,876
5,148
63,215

575
463
370
122
7
4
86
344
1,969

12/15/10
01/18/11
01/19/11
02/15/11
02/16/11
03/15/11
03/16/11
04/13/11
04/14/11
05/15/11
05/16/11
06/15/11
06/16/11
07/15/11
07/16/11
08/16/11
08/17/11
09/15/11
09/16/11
10/13/11
10/14/11
11/13/11
11/14/11
12/13/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
28
29
32
31
30
32
30
28
31
30
364

56,880
42,880
36,880
35,120
38,320
44,800
46,240
48,400
48,880
44,240
43,200
44,320
530,160

160 $
166 $
138 $
123 $
127 $
169 $
143 $
144 $
151 $
144 $
137 $
180 $
180 $

6,123
4,893
4,186
3,938
4,251
5,085
5,061
5,262
5,347
5,025
4,884
5,263
59,320

587
479
133
53
14
10
9
165
263
1,711

21
97
193
498
597
555
412
223
29
52
2,677

0.107654
0.114118
0.113499
0.112137
0.110936
0.113496
0.109458
0.108729
0.109394
0.113582
0.113067
0.11876
0.111891

12/14/11
01/16/12
01/17/12
02/14/12
02/15/12
03/14/12
03/15/12
04/16/12
04/17/12
05/14/12
05/15/12
06/14/12
06/15/12
07/17/12
07/18/12
08/15/12
08/16/12
09/17/12
09/18/12
10/15/12
10/16/12
11/12/12
11/13/12
12/13/12
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
33
28
31
33
29
33
28
28
31
366

50,640
46,000
44,560
46,320
46,720
59,120
61,840
58,000
60,240
52,080
53,040
64,400
642,960

173 $
174 $
140 $
127 $
148 $
140 $
144 $
169 $
140 $
142 $
155 $
174 $
174 $

5,733
5,320
4,814
4,890
5,060
6,086
5,696
5,564
5,548
4,938
5,095
6,084
64,827

338
217
124
11
21
115
261
1,086

7
18
30
117
169
381
486
479
459
218
44
3
2,409

0.113214
0.11565
0.108024
0.105566
0.108298
0.102937
0.092107
0.095924
0.092099
0.094814
0.096057
0.094479
0.100825

12/14/12
01/14/13
01/15/13
02/13/13
02/14/13
03/15/13
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
30
92

74,320
64,560
66,720
205,600

181 $
160 $
173 $
181 $

7,029
6,130
6,383
19,543

334
245
320
899

18
20
11
49

6
24
210
485
562
680
497
268
115
31
2,878
2
-

LF

Downtown Campus
Page A-3

Bill Data for Site: Milton Campus

Project: PJC
Area: Science Center
From
To
07/08/03
08/08/03
08/09/03
09/08/03
09/09/03
10/08/03
10/09/03
11/08/03
11/09/03
12/08/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
31
30
31
30
154

12/09/03
01/08/04
01/09/04
02/08/04
02/09/04
03/08/04
03/09/04
04/08/04
04/09/04
05/08/04
05/09/04
06/08/04
06/09/04
07/08/04
07/09/04
08/08/04
08/09/04
09/08/04
09/09/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
11/08/04
11/09/04
12/08/04
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

840
668
805
522
736
563
60
474
406
256
292
434
6,056

12/09/04
01/08/05
01/09/05
02/08/05
02/09/05
03/08/05
03/09/05
04/08/05
04/09/05
05/09/05
05/10/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
07/08/05
07/09/05
08/09/05
08/10/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
12/08/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
31
31
29
32
34
28
29
30
365

531
543
805
421
391
96
1
210
2,998

33
29
34
27
30
31
31
30
33
29
29

430
710
649
544
511
584
504
511
548
467
533

12/09/05
01/11/06
02/09/06
03/15/06
04/11/06
05/11/06
06/11/06
07/12/06
08/11/06
09/13/06
10/12/06

01/10/06
02/08/06
03/14/06
04/10/06
05/10/06
06/10/06
07/11/06
08/10/06
09/12/06
10/11/06
11/09/06

Therm
843
384
562
566
892
3,247

Site: Milton Campus

Meter: 53 Gas Meter #12442
Demand
Cost
$
499
$
408
$
471
$
324
$
901
$
2,603

HDD
73
73

CDD
493
510
309
169
38
1,519

Utility: Natural Gas

Account: 15869-69860
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
0.591934 26.34375
1.0625 12.3871
0.838078 18.73333
0.572438 18.25806
1.01009 29.73333
0.801663 21.09112

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,091
717
861
753
879
697
88
377
443
303
492
597
7,298

173
186
81
8
2
26
476

6
3
16
27
99
385
475
540
461
383
236
31
2,661

1.29881
1.073353
1.069565
1.442529
1.194293
1.238011
1.466667
0.795359
1.091133
1.183594
1.684932
1.375576
1.205086

27.09677
21.54839
27.75862
16.83871
24.53333
18.16129
2
15.29032
13.09677
8.533333
9.419355
14.46667
16.56196

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

670
685
501
535
499
129
18
18
18
18
20
374
3,485

161
133
44
16
3
50
406

10
3
15
27
56
381
464
544
593
437
134
55
2,718

1.26177
1.26151
0.62236
1.270784
1.276215
1.34375
0
0
0
0
20
1.780952
1.162442

17.12903
17.51613
28.75
13.58065
12.6129
3.096774
0
0
0
0
0.034483
7
8.309997

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

749
1,098
1,061
908
764
690
602
666
702
478
697

119
54
67
7
2

13
6
48
69
246
404
576
542
561
317
65

1.74186
1.546479
1.634823
1.669118
1.495108
1.181507
1.194444
1.303327
1.281022
1.023555
1.307692

13.0303
24.48276
19.08824
20.14815
17.03333
18.83871
16.25806
17.03333
16.60606
16.10345
18.37931
Milton Campus

Page A-4

From
To
11/10/06
12/12/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
33
369

12/13/06
01/12/07
01/13/07
02/13/07
02/14/07
03/13/07
03/14/07
04/12/07
04/13/07
05/11/07
05/12/07
06/12/07
06/13/07
07/12/07
07/13/07
08/13/07
08/14/07
09/12/07
09/13/07
10/11/07
10/12/07
11/09/07
11/10/07
12/11/07
Sum/Average/Max

31
32
28
30
29
32
30
32
30
29
29
32
364

669
698
630
584
440
394
320
546
397
404
553
457
6,092

12/12/07
01/14/08
01/15/08
02/12/08
02/13/08
03/13/08
03/14/08
04/08/08
04/09/08
05/12/08
05/13/08
06/12/08
06/13/08
07/14/08
07/15/08
08/14/08
08/15/08
09/10/08
09/11/08
10/10/08
10/11/08
11/12/08
11/13/08
12/12/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
30
26
34
31
32
31
27
30
33
30
367

736
725
652
360
249
165
69
9
8
7
33
224
3,237

12/13/08
01/15/09
01/16/09
02/12/09
02/13/09
03/12/09
03/13/09
04/10/09
04/11/09
05/13/09
05/14/09
06/11/09
06/12/09
07/15/09
07/16/09
08/12/09
08/13/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
10/13/09
10/14/09
11/10/09
11/11/09
12/08/09
Sum/Average/Max

34
28
28
29
33
29
34
28
33
29
28
28
361

169
544
523
108
100
23
2
67
141
1,677

37
28
32
31
28
32

616
458
407
297
141
72

12/09/09
01/15/10
02/12/10
03/16/10
04/16/10
05/14/10

01/14/10
02/11/10
03/15/10
04/15/10
05/13/10
06/14/10

Therm

Demand

724
6,715

$
$

Cost
1,024
9,439

HDD
125
373

CDD
11
2,854

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

869
950
863
914
743
681
550
974
713
718
932
773
9,680

60
173
95
16
11
27
381

4
4
14
93
172
394
512
577
562
409
97
27
2,863

1.298954
1.361032
1.369841
1.565068
1.688636
1.728426
1.71875
1.783883
1.79597
1.777228
1.685353
1.691466
1.588969

21.58065
21.8125
22.5
19.46667
15.17241
12.3125
10.66667
17.0625
13.23333
13.93103
19.06897
14.28125
16.75737

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,294
1,294
1,166
703
500
345
154
35
32
31
77
412
6,043

117
120
65
17
3
14
124
458

22
9
10
49
145
399
500
520
437
321
76
17
2,502

1.758152
1.784828
1.788344
1.952778
2.008032
2.088667
2.238986
3.888889
4.0475
4.37
2.343636
1.838348
1.86692

21.64706
25
21.73333
13.84615
7.323529
5.322581
2.15625
0.290323
0.296296
0.233333
1
7.466667
8.859627

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

313
920
842
181
176
52
18
18
18
21
114
239
2,911

70
172
70
4
1
43
359

55
3
10
70
230
363
653
479
486
457
102
1
2,906

1.849467
1.691066
1.610402
1.67463
1.762
2.24087
0
0
0
10.375
1.701642
1.692624
1.735695

4.970588
19.42857
18.67857
3.724138
3.030303
0.793103
0
0
0
0.068966
2.392857
5.035714
4.843568

$
$
$
$
$
$

982
782
702
502
233
128

312
101
206
9
-

1.594205
1.707751
1.725455
1.691616
1.654894
1.777222

16.64865
16.35714
12.71875
9.580645
5.035714
2.25

6
24
199
496

$/Therm Therm/Day
1.414365 21.93939
1.405659 18.24509

LF

Milton Campus
Page A-5

From
To
06/15/10
07/15/10
07/16/10
08/12/10
08/13/10
09/14/10
09/15/10
10/14/10
10/15/10
11/09/10
11/10/10
12/08/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
28
33
30
26
29
365

12/09/10
01/12/11
01/13/11
02/10/11
02/11/11
03/11/11
03/12/11
04/14/11
04/15/11
05/12/11
05/13/11
06/14/11
06/15/11
07/14/11
07/15/11
08/15/11
08/16/11
09/15/11
09/16/11
10/13/11
10/14/11
11/07/11
11/08/11
12/12/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
29
29
34
28
33
30
32
31
28
25
35
369

318
317
356
282
289
166
51
304
680
2,763

12/13/11
01/12/12
01/13/12
02/10/12
02/11/12
03/14/12
03/15/12
04/12/12
04/13/12
05/11/12
05/12/12
06/13/12
06/14/12
07/12/12
07/13/12
08/10/12
08/11/12
09/13/12
09/14/12
10/11/12
10/12/12
11/08/12
11/09/12
12/12/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
29
33
29
29
33
29
29
34
28
28
34
366

772
797
725
402
143
135
124
136
167
93
197
293
3,984

12/13/12
01/15/13
01/16/13
02/13/13
02/14/13
03/13/13
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
28
91

296
629
708
1,633

Project: PJC
Area: Admin
From
To
07/08/03
08/08/03
08/09/03
09/08/03
09/09/03
10/08/03
10/09/03
11/08/03
11/09/03
12/08/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
31
30
31
30
154

Therm

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

18
18
18
43
103
537
4,067

HDD
12
84
722

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

520
522
550
395
353
235
18
18
18
89
426
1,002
4,145

289
231
64
3
6
110
702

1,130
1,116
988
532
191
179
159
175
209
129
240
432
5,480

73
72
46

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$

442
915
995
2,352

19
60
352
2,422

Cost

Site: Milton Campus

Meter: 51 Gas Meter #12443
Therm
Demand
Cost
135
$
131
135
$
155
167
$
185
181
$
225
510
$
538
1,128
$
1,234

CDD
581
584
557
284
108
38
2,880

21
98
174
493
605
559
424
223
21
60
2,677

1.633899
1.647066
1.543876
1.401099
1.22045
1.412711
0
0
0
1.751373
1.399836
1.473838
1.500083

9.085714
10.93103
12.27586
8.294118
10.32143
5.030303
0
0
0
1.821429
12.16
19.42857
7.445705

9
57
255

7
18
30
98
157
398
417
481
489
239
69
8
2,409

1.463977
1.400088
1.362841
1.322214
1.336364
1.327481
1.285806
1.284118
1.252096
1.381935
1.219036
1.473447
1.375384

24.90323
27.48276
21.9697
13.86207
4.931034
4.090909
4.275862
4.689655
4.911765
3.321429
7.035714
8.617647
10.84098

128
55
105
287

19
19
11
49

1.492703
1.454436
1.405466
1.440141

8.705882
21.68966
25.28571
18.56042

HDD
49
158
506
713

$/Therm Therm/Day
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.257895 0.633333
1.724333 2.307692
1.525398 12.13793
1.679377 6.472488

CDD
493
510
309
169
38
1,519

LF

Utility: Natural Gas

Account: 15871-69862
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
0.97037 4.21875
1.148148 4.354839
1.107784 5.566667
1.243094 5.83871
1.054902
17
1.093972 7.395793

Milton Campus
Page A-6

From
To
12/09/03
01/08/04
01/09/04
02/08/04
02/09/04
03/08/04
03/09/04
04/08/04
04/09/04
05/08/04
05/09/04
06/08/04
06/09/04
07/08/04
07/09/04
08/08/04
08/09/04
09/08/04
09/09/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
11/08/04
11/09/04
12/08/04
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

12/09/04
01/08/05
01/09/05
02/08/05
02/09/05
03/08/05
03/09/05
04/08/05
04/09/05
05/09/05
05/10/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
07/08/05
07/09/05
08/09/05
08/10/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
12/08/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
31
31
29
32
34
28
29
30
365

341
164
414
460
508
46
18
377
415
438
486
485
4,152

12/09/05
01/10/06
01/11/06
02/16/06
02/17/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
06/10/06
06/11/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
12/12/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
37
26
27
30
31
31
30
33
29
29
33
369

623
512
501
302
308
343
303
309
259
297
311
497
4,565

31
32
28
30
29
32
30
32
30

393
515
389
277
227
241
257
270
242

12/13/06
01/13/07
02/14/07
03/14/07
04/13/07
05/12/07
06/13/07
07/13/07
08/14/07

01/12/07
02/13/07
03/13/07
04/12/07
05/11/07
06/12/07
07/12/07
08/13/07
09/12/07

Therm

Demand

560
459
414
325
247
131
196
111
272
214
230
252
3,411

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
392
499
452
326
330
259
244
208
303
256
318
354
3,941

HDD
733
771
553
398
236
6
5
5
121
409
3,235

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

437
220
489
583
642
71
41
511
695
861
952
840
6,342

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

CDD
6
3
16
27
99
385
475
540
461
383
236
31
2,661

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.7 18.06452
1.087146 14.80645
1.091787 14.27586
1.003077 10.48387
1.336032 8.233333
1.977099 4.225806
1.244898 6.533333
1.873874 3.580645
1.113971 8.774194
1.196262 7.133333
1.382609 7.419355
1.404762
8.4
1.15538 9.327558

676
671
493
412
279
10
1
15
222
460
3,238

10
3
15
27
56
381
464
544
593
437
134
55
2,718

1.281525
1.341463
1.181159
1.267391
1.26378
1.543478
2.277778
1.355438
1.674699
1.965753
1.958848
1.731959
1.527457

11
5.290323
14.78571
14.83871
16.3871
1.483871
0.62069
11.78125
12.20588
15.64286
16.75862
16.16667
11.41347

1,076
796
823
512
468
413
369
410
341
311
414
709
6,642

676
729
328
294
76
36
44
321
683
3,186

13
6
48
69
246
404
576
542
561
317
65
11
2,854

1.727127
1.554688
1.642715
1.695364
1.519481
1.204082
1.217822
1.326861
1.316602
1.047138
1.33119
1.426559
1.454984

18.87879
13.83784
19.26923
11.18519
10.26667
11.06452
9.774194
10.3
7.848485
10.24138
10.72414
15.06061
12.37092

518
706
540
443
392
423
446
491
442

525
751
517
312
147
24
-

4
4
14
93
172
394
512
577
562

1.318066
1.370874
1.388175
1.599278
1.726872
1.755187
1.735409
1.818519
1.826446

12.67742
16.09375
13.89286
9.233333
7.827586
7.53125
8.566667
8.4375
8.066667

LF

Milton Campus
Page A-7

From
To
09/13/07
10/11/07
10/12/07
11/09/07
11/10/07
12/11/07
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
29
32
364

12/12/07
01/14/08
01/15/08
02/12/08
02/13/08
03/13/08
03/14/08
04/08/08
04/09/08
05/12/08
05/13/08
06/12/08
06/13/08
07/14/08
07/15/08
08/14/08
08/15/08
09/10/08
09/11/08
10/10/08
10/11/08
11/12/08
11/13/08
12/12/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
30
26
34
31
32
31
27
30
33
30
367

530
452
451
325
374
271
245
164
31
43
19
50
2,955

12/13/08
01/15/09
01/16/09
02/12/09
02/13/09
03/12/09
03/13/09
04/10/09
04/11/09
05/13/09
05/14/09
06/11/09
06/12/09
07/15/09
07/16/09
08/12/09
08/13/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
10/13/09
10/14/09
11/10/09
11/11/09
12/08/09
Sum/Average/Max

34
28
28
29
33
29
34
28
33
29
28
28
361

490
477
445
411
411
364
421
291
287
214
235
282
4,328

12/09/09
01/14/10
01/15/10
02/11/10
02/12/10
03/15/10
03/16/10
04/15/10
04/16/10
05/13/10
05/14/10
06/14/10
06/15/10
07/15/10
07/16/10
08/12/10
08/13/10
09/14/10
09/15/10
10/14/10
10/15/10
11/09/10
11/10/10
12/08/10
Sum/Average/Max

37
28
32
31
28
32
31
28
33
30
26
29
365

377
266
306
297
221
215
227
173
212
211
202
226
2,933

35
29
29
34

296
263
269
272

12/09/10
01/13/11
02/11/11
03/12/11

01/12/11
02/10/11
03/11/11
04/14/11

Therm

Demand

257
343
443
3,854

$
$
$
$

Cost
464
585
750
6,200

HDD
1
279
476
3,029

CDD
409
97
27
2,863

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

937
814
812
637
742
554
503
325
74
95
52
106
5,651

642
629
580
293
258
30
47
376
637
3,489

22
9
10
49
145
399
500
520
437
321
76
17
2,502

1.767925
1.800885
1.800443
1.96
1.983957
2.045978
2.051469
1.982744
2.37871
2.216744
2.745789
2.118
1.912477

15.58824
15.58621
15.03333
12.5
11
8.741935
7.65625
5.290323
1.148148
1.433333
0.575758
1.666667
8.018349

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

872
809
719
638
668
549
587
393
412
312
355
459
6,772

509
668
509
287
149
14
1
7
262
497
2,900

55
3
10
70
230
363
653
479
486
457
102
1
2,906

1.779714
1.695723
1.616449
1.551776
1.625766
1.507418
1.393729
1.349863
1.434704
1.456121
1.509574
1.628794
1.564677

14.41176
17.03571
15.89286
14.17241
12.45455
12.55172
12.38235
10.39286
8.69697
7.37931
8.392857
10.07143
11.98623

608
462
532
502
356
346
310
245
296
294
306
351
4,608

993
613
796
408
107
2
89
243
479
3,728

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.612706
1.736128
1.740033
1.691616
1.608688
1.610977
1.365595
1.414335
1.395189
1.395592
1.513366
1.553938
1.571207

10.18919
9.5
9.5625
9.580645
7.892857
6.71875
7.322581
6.178571
6.424242
7.033333
7.769231
7.793103
7.997084

$
$
$
$

485
436
420
382

950
793
475
319

6
24
199
496
581
584
557
284
108
38
2,880
2
21
98

$/Therm Therm/Day
1.805447 8.862069
1.705539 11.82759
1.693002 13.84375
1.608718 10.5717

LF

1.638108 8.457143
1.658707 9.068966
1.560186 9.275862
1.403456
8
Milton Campus

Page A-8

From
To
04/15/11
05/12/11
05/13/11
06/14/11
06/15/11
07/14/11
07/15/11
08/15/11
08/16/11
09/15/11
09/16/11
10/13/11
10/14/11
11/07/11
11/08/11
12/12/11
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
28
33
30
32
31
28
25
35
369

12/13/11
01/12/12
01/13/12
02/10/12
02/11/12
03/14/12
03/15/12
04/12/12
04/13/12
05/11/12
05/12/12
06/13/12
06/14/12
07/12/12
07/13/12
08/10/12
08/11/12
09/13/12
09/14/12
10/11/12
10/12/12
11/08/12
11/09/12
12/12/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
29
33
29
29
33
29
29
34
28
28
34
366

214
271
231
174
170
175
146
154
187
62
36
101
1,921

12/13/12
01/15/13
01/16/13
02/13/13
02/14/13
03/13/13
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
28
91

222
184
150
556

Project: PJC
Area: Building 4000
From
To
07/08/03
08/08/03
08/09/03
09/08/03
09/09/03
10/08/03
10/09/03
11/08/03
11/09/03
12/08/03
Sum/Average/Max
12/09/03
01/09/04
02/09/04
03/09/04
04/09/04
05/09/04
06/09/04
07/09/04
08/09/04
09/09/04
10/09/04
11/09/04

01/08/04
02/08/04
03/08/04
04/08/04
05/08/04
06/08/04
07/08/04
08/08/04
09/08/04
10/08/04
11/08/04
12/08/04

# Days
32
31
30
31
30
154
31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30

Therm

Demand

182
157
149
149
169
169
172
258
2,505

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
244
223
211
211
237
245
250
394
3,738

HDD
130
71
24
90
349
592
3,789

CDD
174
493
605
559
424
223
21
60
2,677

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

329
394
330
243
223
226
184
195
232
93
62
163
2,673

573
493
497
202
158
12
5
66
305
600
2,907

7
18
30
98
157
398
417
481
489
239
69
8
2,409

1.538271
1.45369
1.427749
1.393908
1.311882
1.290229
1.25911
1.26526
1.238021
1.500161
1.718611
1.616238
1.39126

6.903226
9.344828
7
6
5.862069
5.30303
5.034483
5.310345
5.5
2.214286
1.285714
2.970588
5.227381

$
$
$
$

337
283
228
848

671
516
565
1,751

19
19
11
49

1.517477
1.537935
1.521067
1.525216

6.529412
6.344828
5.357143
6.077127

Site: Milton Campus

Meter: 52 Gas Meter # 12444
Therm
Demand
Cost
526
$
677
628
$
656
706
$
753
768
$
721
1,460
$
1,356
4,088
$
4,163
1,358
1,056
1,026
948
914
738
636
649
711
417
743
1,034

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,500
1,122
1,093
929
858
744
751
720
763
481
986
1,397

HDD
49
158
506
713

CDD
429
448
253
118
24
1,272

733
771
553
398
236
6
5
5
121
409

2
1
5
12
62
323
415
478
399
323
185
15

$/Therm Therm/Day
1.343132
6.5
1.418981 4.757576
1.415302 4.966667
1.415302 4.65625
1.401006 5.451613
1.450178 6.035714
1.455349
6.88
1.526744 7.371429
1.49206 6.785102

LF

Utility: Natural Gas

Account: 15873-69864
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
1.287072 16.4375
1.044586 20.25806
1.066572 23.53333
0.938802 24.77419
0.928767 48.66667
1.018346 26.73395
1.104566
1.0625
1.065302
0.979958
0.938731
1.00813
1.180818
1.109399
1.073136
1.153477
1.327052
1.351064

43.80645
34.06452
35.37931
30.58065
30.46667
23.80645
21.2
20.93548
22.93548
13.9
23.96774
34.46667
Milton Campus

Page A-9

From
To
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
366

Therm
10,230

12/09/04
01/08/05
01/09/05
02/08/05
02/09/05
03/08/05
03/09/05
04/08/05
04/09/05
05/08/05
05/09/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
07/08/05
07/09/05
08/09/05
08/10/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
10/10/05
10/11/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
12/08/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
30
32
29
32
34
28
29
30
365

1,231
1,533
1,026
1,119
974
588
834
351
1,253
1,265
1,460
1,513
13,147

12/09/05
01/10/06
01/11/06
02/08/06
02/09/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
06/10/06
06/11/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
08/10/06
08/11/06
09/09/06
09/10/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
12/12/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
34
27
30
31
31
30
30
32
29
33
369

1,835
2,410
2,258
1,629
1,199
1,418
1,075
1,120
1,301
1,351
1,742
2,657
19,995

12/13/06
01/12/07
01/13/07
02/13/07
02/14/07
03/13/07
03/14/07
04/12/07
04/13/07
05/11/07
05/12/07
06/12/07
06/13/07
07/12/07
07/13/07
08/13/07
08/14/07
09/12/07
09/13/07
10/11/07
10/12/07
11/09/07
11/10/07
12/11/07
Sum/Average/Max

31
32
28
30
29
32
30
32
30
29
29
32
364

2,413
2,861
2,018
1,738
1,533
762
662
842
800
885
1,172
1,540
17,226

34
29
30
26
34
31
32

2,050
2,012
1,741
1,267
1,464
1,063
1,097

12/12/07
01/15/08
02/13/08
03/14/08
04/09/08
05/13/08
06/13/08

01/14/08
02/12/08
03/13/08
04/08/08
05/12/08
06/12/08
07/14/08

Demand
-

Cost
11,344

HDD
3,235

CDD
2,218

$/Therm Therm/Day
1.108895 27.95912

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,530
1,901
1,752
1,392
1,214
695
1,048
477
2,062
2,452
2,823
2,582
19,928

676
671
493
412
273
17
1
15
222
460
3,238

6
1
7
12
21
321
406
480
525
381
98
37
2,293

1.242892
1.240052
1.707602
1.243968
1.246407
1.181973
1.256595
1.358974
1.64565
1.93834
1.933562
1.706543
1.515783

39.70968
49.45161
36.64286
36.09677
32.46667
18.375
28.75862
10.96875
36.85294
45.17857
50.34483
50.43333
36.2733

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

3,134
3,682
3,645
2,684
1,769
1,650
1,265
1,438
1,642
1,349
2,238
3,710
28,206

676
531
527
294
76
36
44
321
683
3,186

6
2
32
47
187
342
514
482
460
293
44
3
2,410

1.707902
1.527801
1.61426
1.647637
1.475396
1.163611
1.176744
1.283929
1.262106
0.99852
1.28473
1.396312
1.410653

55.60606
83.10345
66.41176
60.33333
39.96667
45.74194
34.67742
37.33333
43.36667
42.21875
60.06897
80.51515
54.11196

3,089
3,838
2,724
2,686
2,543
1,300
1,119
1,493
1,419
1,552
1,955
5,663
29,381

525
751
517
312
147
24
1
279
476
3,029

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2
4
60
125
330
452
513
502
351
64
10
2,410

1.280149
1.341489
1.349851
1.545455
1.658839
1.706037
1.690332
1.773159
1.77375
1.753672
1.668089
3.677273
1.705619

77.83871
89.40625
72.07143
57.93333
52.86207
23.8125
22.06667
26.3125
26.66667
30.51724
40.41379
48.125
47.33551

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

3,572
3,560
3,083
2,430
2,850
2,122
2,188

642
629
580
293
258
30
-

10
5
4
26
99
337
436

1.742439
1.769384
1.770821
1.917916
1.946721
1.996472
1.994394

60.29412
69.37931
58.03333
48.73077
43.05882
34.29032
34.28125

LF

Milton Campus
Page A-10

From
To
07/15/08
08/14/08
08/15/08
09/10/08
09/11/08
10/10/08
10/11/08
11/12/08
11/13/08
12/12/08
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
27
30
33
30
367

Therm
1,026
839
1,000
1,582
2,042
17,183

12/13/08
01/15/09
01/16/09
02/12/09
02/13/09
03/12/09
03/13/09
04/10/09
04/11/09
05/13/09
05/14/09
06/11/09
06/12/09
07/15/09
07/16/09
08/12/09
08/13/09
09/14/09
09/15/09
10/13/09
10/14/09
11/10/09
11/11/09
12/08/09
Sum/Average/Max

34
28
28
29
33
29
34
28
33
29
28
28
361

2,382
2,390
1,931
1,340
1,304
1,081
892
624
753
582
889
1,417
15,585

12/09/09
01/14/10
01/15/10
02/11/10
02/12/10
03/15/10
03/16/10
04/15/10
04/16/10
05/13/10
05/14/10
06/14/10
06/15/10
07/15/10
07/16/10
08/12/10
08/13/10
09/14/10
09/15/10
10/14/10
10/15/10
11/09/10
11/10/10
12/08/10
Sum/Average/Max

37
28
32
31
28
32
31
28
33
30
26
29
365

3,227
1,874
2,291
1,272
1,052
732
691
513
727
638
789
1,291
15,097

12/09/10
01/12/11
01/13/11
02/10/11
02/11/11
03/11/11
03/12/11
04/14/11
04/15/11
05/12/11
05/13/11
06/14/11
06/15/11
07/14/11
07/15/11
08/15/11
08/16/11
09/15/11
09/16/11
10/13/11
10/14/11
11/07/11
11/08/11
12/12/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
29
29
34
28
33
30
32
31
28
25
35
369

2,782
2,267
1,231
787
558
572
477
542
574
595
761
1,513
12,659

31
29

1,392
1,107

12/13/11
01/13/12

01/12/12
02/10/12

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
1,940
1,527
1,816
2,862
3,608
31,557

HDD
47
376
637
3,489

CDD
458
383
261
53
11
2,080

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,170
3,981
3,061
2,039
2,081
1,594
1,223
822
1,051
816
1,292
2,236
24,365

509
668
509
287
149
14
1
7
262
497
2,900

27
1
3
38
173
305
585
423
420
399
74
2,445

1.750537
1.66551
1.585298
1.52141
1.59579
1.474635
1.371166
1.316827
1.395883
1.402904
1.453228
1.577678
1.563369

70.05882
85.35714
68.96429
46.2069
39.51515
37.27586
26.23529
22.28571
22.81818
20.06897
31.75
50.60714
43.42862

5,068
3,145
3,870
2,093
1,625
1,136
907
690
971
854
1,142
1,921
23,420

993
613
796
408
107
2
89
243
479
3,728

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.570558
1.678074
1.689088
1.645134
1.544354
1.551831
1.31233
1.345361
1.335048
1.338495
1.447085
1.488226
1.551327

87.21622
66.92857
71.59375
41.03226
37.57143
22.875
22.29032
18.32143
22.0303
21.26667
30.34615
44.51724
40.49911

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,406
3,623
1,856
1,070
712
764
635
720
761
807
1,032
2,203
18,591

950
793
475
319
130
71
24
90
349
592
3,789

10
65
135
436
545
495
362
174
10
38
2,268

1.583749
1.598222
1.507904
1.360152
1.276541
1.335734
1.332222
1.327675
1.325836
1.356958
1.356386
1.456015
1.468586

79.48571
78.17241
42.44828
23.14706
19.92857
17.33333
15.9
16.9375
18.51613
21.25
30.44
43.22857
33.89896

$
$

2,020
1,541

573
493

2
6

8
150
432
519
528
491
229
78
24
2,460
-

$/Therm Therm/Day
1.890526 33.09677
1.81944 31.07407
1.81598 33.33333
1.809355 47.93939
1.766797 68.06667
1.836552 46.79818

LF

1.451286 44.90323
1.392358 38.17241
Milton Campus

Page A-11

From
To
02/11/12
03/14/12
03/15/12
04/12/12
04/13/12
05/11/12
05/12/12
06/13/12
06/14/12
07/12/12
07/13/12
08/10/12
08/11/12
09/13/12
09/14/12
10/11/12
10/12/12
11/08/12
11/09/12
12/12/12
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
33
29
29
33
29
29
34
28
28
34
366

Therm
1,403
913
813
670
557
551
701
1,423
1,915
2,759
14,204

12/13/12
01/15/13
01/16/13
02/13/13
02/14/13
03/13/13
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
28
91

2,905
2,305
2,470
7,680

Project: PJC
Area: Building 4000
From
To
01/11/03
02/11/03
02/12/03
03/12/03
03/13/03
04/10/03
04/11/03
05/12/03
05/13/03
06/11/03
06/12/03
07/14/03
07/15/03
08/11/03
08/12/03
09/11/03
09/12/03
10/09/03
10/10/03
11/07/03
11/08/03
12/08/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
29
32
30
33
28
31
28
29
31
332

12/09/03
01/09/04
01/10/04
02/10/04
02/11/04
03/10/04
03/11/04
04/08/04
04/09/04
05/10/04
05/11/04
06/09/04
06/10/04
07/12/04
07/13/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
09/09/04
09/10/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
11/05/04
11/06/04
12/08/04
Sum/Average/Max

32
32
29
29
32
30
33
28
31
29
28
33
366

65,120
65,120
63,040
70,240
82,720
96,000
112,640
102,720
104,480
63,200
81,120
69,280
975,680

33
31
29
31

77,760
54,400
67,200
69,280

12/09/04
01/11/05
02/11/05
03/12/05

01/10/05
02/10/05
03/11/05
04/11/05

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
1,891
1,179
983
802
639
640
807
1,652
2,143
3,880
18,180

HDD
497
202
158
12
5
66
305
600
2,907

CDD
13
57
111
332
359
423
421
184
46
4
1,956

4,142
3,291
3,417
10,850

671
516
565
1,751

7
11

$
$
$
$

Site: Milton Campus

Meter: 03 Elect Mtr # 3261193
kWh
Demand
Cost
57,440
168 $
3,395
64,320
176 $
3,721
70,240
186 $
4,018
96,320
221 $
5,279
99,680
230 $
5,467
110,880
227 $
5,908
96,320
226 $
5,307
112,800
230 $
6,003
92,000
213 $
5,058
84,160
214 $
4,743
71,680
200 $
4,155
955,840
230 $
53,054
187 $
173 $
198 $
198 $
200 $
214 $
222 $
235 $
210 $
219 $
219 $
181 $
235 $
235
264
179
170

$
$
$
$

HDD
550
204
90
5
13
244
1,105

18

$/Therm Therm/Day
1.348161 42.51515
1.291577 31.48276
1.209545 28.03448
1.197313 20.30303
1.147882 19.2069
1.162305
19
1.151755 20.61765
1.160836 50.82143
1.118872 68.39286
1.406354 81.14706
1.279892 38.71641
1.425955
1.427926
1.383287
1.412824

LF

85.44118
79.48276
88.21429
84.37941

8
61
257
377
484
426
505
275
159
40
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 93550-80008
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.059105
1795
45%
0.057851 2217.931
53%
0.057204 2422.069
54%
0.054807
3010
57%
0.054846 3322.667
60%
0.053283
3360
62%
0.055098
3440
63%
0.053218 3638.71
66%
0.054978 3285.714
64%
0.056357 2902.069
57%
0.057966 2312.258
48%
0.055505 2882.402
52%

CDD
-

3,973
3,895
3,944
4,256
4,808
5,461
6,226
5,868
5,806
4,068
4,844
4,120
57,269

443
477
271
96
32
11
150
1,478

6
3
16
27
118
381
534
482
462
366
235
33
2,661

0.06101
0.059813
0.062563
0.060592
0.058124
0.056885
0.055273
0.057126
0.05557
0.064367
0.059714
0.059469
0.058696

2035
2035
2173.793
2422.069
2585
3200
3413.333
3668.571
3370.323
2179.31
2897.143
2099.394
2673.245

45%
49%
46%
51%
54%
62%
64%
65%
67%
41%
55%
48%
47%

5,189
4,217
4,365
4,579

379
374
248
96

10
6
12
32

0.066731
0.077518
0.064955
0.066094

2356.364
1754.839
2317.241
2234.839

42%
28%
54%
55%

Milton Campus
Page A-12

From
To
04/12/05
05/10/05
05/11/05
06/10/05
06/11/05
07/10/05
07/11/05
08/09/05
08/10/05
09/12/05
09/13/05
10/11/05
10/12/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
12/12/05
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
31
30
30
34
29
30
32
369

Therm
70,400
80,800
74,080
74,080
100,160
84,640
61,440
48,960
863,200

Demand
166 $
187 $
197 $
197 $
227 $
235 $
147 $
133 $
264 $

Cost
4,614
5,259
4,973
4,973
6,465
5,721
4,053
3,340
57,748

HDD
25
60
275
1,455

CDD
60
388
475
517
593
446
134
47
2,718

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.06554 2427.586
0.065087 2606.452
0.06713 2469.333
0.06713 2469.333
0.064547 2945.882
0.067592 2918.621
0.065967
2048
0.068219
1530
0.0669 2339.874

LF
61%
58%
52%
52%
54%
52%
58%
48%
37%

12/13/05
01/10/06
01/11/06
02/10/06
02/11/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
06/09/06
06/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
12/11/06
Sum/Average/Max

29
31
32
27
30
30
32
31
32
29
29
32
364

43,680
50,560
51,840
43,200
54,080
58,080
71,200
76,640
86,080
70,880
55,840
50,560
712,640

142 $
133 $
142 $
134 $
128 $
130 $
171 $
186 $
194 $
211 $
173 $
155 $
211 $

3,317
3,647
3,768
3,244
3,811
4,043
4,996
5,380
5,946
5,201
4,159
3,767
51,279

298
281
201
89
90
362
1,320

13
6
48
69
246
388
592
560
542
317
65
11
2,854

0.075939
0.072132
0.072685
0.075093
0.07047
0.069611
0.070169
0.070198
0.069075
0.073378
0.074481
0.074506
0.071956

1506.207
1630.968
1620
1600
1802.667
1936
2225
2472.258
2690
2444.138
1925.517
1580
1952.73

44%
51%
48%
50%
59%
62%
54%
55%
58%
48%
46%
42%
39%

12/12/06
01/10/07
01/11/07
02/09/07
02/10/07
03/12/07
03/13/07
04/11/07
04/12/07
05/14/07
05/15/07
06/13/07
06/14/07
07/11/07
07/12/07
08/10/07
08/11/07
09/12/07
09/13/07
10/10/07
10/11/07
11/08/07
11/09/07
12/11/07
Sum/Average/Max

30
30
31
30
33
30
28
30
33
28
29
33
365

45,600
45,600
46,560
53,600
63,520
62,240
64,640
70,880
81,600
58,880
46,880
44,320
684,320

144 $
141 $
142 $
157 $
162 $
170 $
165 $
178 $
168 $
147 $
144 $
122 $
178 $

3,864
3,847
3,915
4,453
5,123
5,085
5,212
5,688
6,326
4,740
3,946
3,659
55,858

204
402
299
103
18
71
192
1,287

4
4
11
94
218
365
478
535
624
400
106
27
2,863

0.084737
0.084364
0.084085
0.083078
0.080652
0.0817
0.080631
0.080248
0.077525
0.080503
0.084172
0.082559
0.081626

1520
1520
1501.935
1786.667
1924.848
2074.667
2308.571
2362.667
2472.727
2102.857
1616.552
1343.03
1877.877

44%
45%
44%
47%
50%
51%
58%
55%
61%
60%
47%
46%
44%

12/12/07
01/12/08
01/13/08
02/12/08
02/13/08
03/12/08
03/13/08
04/10/08
04/11/08
05/08/08
05/09/08
06/10/08
06/11/08
07/11/08
07/12/08
08/11/08
08/12/08
09/11/08
09/12/08
10/10/08
10/11/08
11/08/08
11/09/08
12/08/08
Sum/Average/Max

32
31
29
29
28
33
31
31
31
29
29
30
363

44,160
40,160
39,360
45,920
47,360
67,680
67,520
73,920
69,600
55,520
44,320
39,200
634,720

125 $
134 $
134 $
139 $
139 $
146 $
194 $
181 $
160 $
170 $
166 $
160 $
194 $

3,670
3,461
3,409
3,862
3,956
5,312
5,568
5,911
6,317
5,297
4,420
3,996
55,179

296
375
279
93
49
95
346
1,532

22
9
10
60
91
412
476
529
501
302
75
14
2,498

0.083107
0.08618
0.086611
0.084103
0.08353
0.078487
0.082464
0.079961
0.090761
0.095415
0.099729
0.10193
0.086934

1380
1295.484
1357.241
1583.448
1691.429
2050.909
2178.065
2384.516
2245.161
1914.483
1528.276
1306.667
1742.973

46%
40%
42%
47%
51%
59%
47%
55%
58%
47%
38%
34%
38%

Milton Campus
Page A-13

From

To

# Days

Therm

Demand

Cost

HDD

12/09/08
01/10/09
01/11/09
02/10/09
02/11/09
03/11/09
03/12/09
04/09/09
04/10/09
05/11/09
05/12/09
06/10/09
06/11/09
07/13/09
07/14/09
08/10/09
08/11/09
09/09/09
09/10/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
11/06/09
11/07/09
12/09/09
Sum/Average/Max

33
31
29
29
32
30
33
28
30
30
28
33
366

45,120
41,920
40,320
43,040
56,960
55,840
85,440
64,000
64,320
62,240
46,080
41,280
646,560

154 $
155 $
150 $
144 $
165 $
166 $
189 $
184 $
187 $
181 $
181 $
118 $
189 $

4,875
4,603
4,437
4,639
5,961
5,870
8,363
6,529
6,573
6,364
5,002
4,247
67,463

167
468
247
68
5
63
220
1,237

12/10/09
01/11/10
01/12/10
02/09/10
02/10/10
03/10/10
03/11/10
04/09/10
04/10/10
05/10/10
05/11/10
06/10/10
06/11/10
07/09/10
07/10/10
08/10/10
08/11/10
09/09/10
09/10/10
10/11/10
10/12/10
11/10/10
11/11/10
12/09/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
30
31
31
29
32
30
32
30
29
365

35,520
36,640
34,400
43,840
55,680
64,480
76,160
86,880
79,680
68,320
53,600
42,880
678,080

136 $
149 $
142 $
160 $
165 $
176 $
184 $
214 $
190 $
240 $
179 $
150 $
240 $

4,013
4,185
3,948
4,883
5,959
6,799
7,878
8,994
8,223
7,495
5,853
4,743
72,972

563
351
502
143
12
4
76
248
1,897

12/10/10
01/11/11
01/12/11
02/10/11
02/11/11
03/11/11
03/12/11
04/12/11
04/13/11
05/11/11
05/12/11
06/09/11
06/10/11
07/11/11
07/12/11
08/10/11
08/11/11
09/09/11
09/10/11
10/10/11
10/11/11
11/08/11
11/09/11
12/08/11
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
29
32
29
29
32
30
30
31
29
30
364

44,160
41,760
44,640
56,000
58,240
62,880
43,360
64,960
65,440
59,200
43,520
42,240
626,400

122 $
130 $
182 $
189 $
187 $
269 $
216 $
216 $
199 $
180 $
174 $
165 $
269 $

4,551
4,391
4,925
5,931
6,111
6,962
5,005
6,844
6,791
6,321
4,930
4,765
67,527

547
532
205
70
17
10
9
120
236
1,744

32
30
30
32
29
33
29
29

42,080
42,400
43,840
52,320
50,560
64,640
68,640
71,040

4,621
4,685
4,673
5,362
5,188
6,552
6,253
6,395

314
215
215
16
23
-

12/09/11
01/10/12
02/09/12
03/10/12
04/11/12
05/10/12
06/12/12
07/11/12

01/09/12
02/08/12
03/09/12
04/10/12
05/09/12
06/11/12
07/10/12
08/08/12

152
158
160
159
153
188
197
193

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

CDD

$/Therm Therm/Day

LF

59
3
10
63
210
373
637
475
451
471
146
16
2,912

0.108041
0.109813
0.110046
0.107787
0.104651
0.105113
0.097887
0.102014
0.102185
0.102248
0.108554
0.102893
0.104342

1367.273
1352.258
1390.345
1484.138
1780
1861.333
2589.091
2285.714
2144
2074.667
1645.714
1250.909
1768.787

37%
36%
39%
43%
45%
47%
57%
52%
48%
48%
38%
44%
39%

0.112987
0.114212
0.114753
0.111388
0.107026
0.105449
0.103437
0.103517
0.103197
0.109705
0.109196
0.110604
0.107616

1076.364
1263.448
1186.207
1461.333
1796.129
2080
2626.207
2715
2656
2135
1786.667
1478.621
1855.081

33%
35%
35%
38%
45%
49%
59%
53%
58%
37%
42%
41%
32%

21
98
166
402
650
524
446
276
37
58
2,677

0.103054
0.105149
0.110334
0.105918
0.104928
0.110717
0.115436
0.105362
0.10377
0.106772
0.113273
0.112798
0.107802

1338.182
1392
1539.31
1750
2008.276
2168.276
1355
2165.333
2181.333
1909.677
1500.69
1408
1726.34

46%
45%
35%
39%
45%
34%
26%
42%
46%
44%
36%
36%
27%

7
18
23
105
151
379
413
479

0.109819
0.110489
0.106601
0.102477
0.102606
0.101366
0.091096
0.090021

1315
1413.333
1461.333
1635
1743.448
1958.788
2366.897
2449.655

36%
37%
38%
43%
47%
43%
50%
53%

2
20
168
458
533
669
512
350
128
38
2,878
2
-

Milton Campus
Page A-14

From
To
08/09/12
09/10/12
09/11/12
10/09/12
10/10/12
11/06/12
11/07/12
12/07/12
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
33
29
28
31
365

Therm
73,760
74,080
62,880
59,040
705,280

Demand
171 $
200 $
188 $
190 $
200 $

Cost
6,463
6,662
5,784
5,520
68,158

HDD
67
257
1,107

CDD
484
267
77
8
2,408

12/08/12
01/10/13
01/11/13
02/08/13
02/09/13
03/10/13
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
30
93

56,160
60,480
53,440
170,080

191 $
201 $
227 $
227 $

5,422
5,795
5,442
16,659

386
224
286
896

6
31
14
50

Project: PJC
Area: 4100-4400, 4800, 4900
From
To
# Days
01/11/03
02/11/03
32
02/12/03
03/12/03
29
03/13/03
04/10/03
29
04/11/03
05/12/03
32
05/13/03
06/11/03
30
06/12/03
07/14/03
33
07/15/03
08/11/03
28
08/12/03
09/11/03
31
09/12/03
10/09/03
28
10/10/03
11/07/03
29
11/08/03
12/08/03
31
Sum/Average/Max
332

Site: Milton Campus

Meter: 02 Elect Mtr # 3261190
kWh
Demand
Cost
180,480
363 $
9,509
143,232
317 $
7,731
134,016
288 $
7,193
203,136
351 $
10,369
193,152
346 $
9,933
224,640
351 $
11,248
187,776
334 $
9,646
217,344
369 $
11,050
182,400
351 $
9,521
173,568
340 $
9,099
207,744
426 $
10,974
2,047,488
426 $
106,273

12/09/03
01/09/04
01/10/04
02/10/04
02/11/04
03/10/04
03/11/04
04/08/04
04/09/04
05/10/04
05/11/04
06/09/04
06/10/04
07/12/04
07/13/04
08/09/04
08/10/04
09/09/04
09/10/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
11/05/04
11/06/04
12/08/04
Sum/Average/Max

32
32
29
29
32
30
33
28
31
29
28
33
366

222,720
235,776
196,224
197,376
212,352
177,248
212,000
187,200
228,960
156,480
199,360
229,760
2,455,456

415
444
420
420
363
344
347
371
382
365
368
376
444

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12,067
12,793
10,947
10,997
11,329
9,702
11,224
10,284
12,154
8,920
10,794
12,155
133,366

33
31
29
31
29
31
32
28
34
29

228,800
222,880
210,880
218,080
198,560
222,880
205,600
171,360
264,000
228,800

403
435
421
379
386
360
347
413
445
438

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

13,444
13,335
12,675
13,303
12,350
13,441
12,491
11,118
16,004
14,176

12/09/04
01/11/05
02/11/05
03/12/05
04/12/05
05/11/05
06/11/05
07/13/05
08/10/05
09/13/05

01/10/05
02/10/05
03/11/05
04/11/05
05/10/05
06/10/05
07/12/05
08/09/05
09/12/05
10/11/05

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.087628 2235.152
0.089933 2554.483
0.091985 2245.714
0.093495 1904.516
0.09664 1940.277
0.096551
0.095822
0.10183
0.09795

1651.765
2085.517
1781.333
1839.538

LF
55%
53%
50%
42%
40%
36%
43%
33%
34%

8
61
257
377
484
426
505
275
159
40
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 68560-80009
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.052687
5640
65%
0.053975 4939.034
65%
0.053673 4621.241
67%
0.051045
6348
75%
0.051426
6438.4
78%
0.050071 6807.273
81%
0.05137 6706.286
84%
0.050841 7011.097
79%
0.052198 6514.286
77%
0.052423 5985.103
73%
0.052825 6701.419
66%
0.051904 6155.649
60%

443
477
271
96
32
11
150
1,478

6
3
16
27
118
381
534
482
462
366
235
33
2,661

0.05418
0.054259
0.055788
0.055716
0.05335
0.054737
0.052943
0.054936
0.053084
0.057004
0.054143
0.052903
0.054314

6960
7368
6766.345
6806.069
6636
5908.267
6424.242
6685.714
7385.806
5395.862
7120
6962.424
6701.561

70%
69%
67%
68%
76%
72%
77%
75%
81%
62%
81%
77%
63%

379
374
248
96
25
-

10
6
12
32
60
388
511
481
593
446

0.058759
0.05983
0.060105
0.061001
0.062198
0.060306
0.060754
0.064881
0.060621
0.061958

6933.333
7189.677
7271.724
7034.839
6846.897
7189.677
6425
6120
7764.706
7889.655

72%
69%
72%
77%
74%
83%
77%
62%
73%
75%

HDD
550
204
90
5
13
244
1,105

CDD
-

Milton Campus
Page A-15

From
To
10/12/05
11/10/05
11/11/05
12/12/05
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
32
369

Therm
224,320
264,000
2,660,160

Demand
416
486
486

$
$
$

Cost
13,826
16,231
162,394

HDD
60
275
1,455

CDD
134
47
2,718

12/13/05
01/10/06
01/11/06
02/10/06
02/11/06
03/14/06
03/15/06
04/10/06
04/11/06
05/10/06
05/11/06
06/09/06
06/10/06
07/11/06
07/12/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
11/09/06
11/10/06
12/11/06
Sum/Average/Max

29
31
32
27
30
30
32
31
32
29
29
32
364

219,520
234,240
208,960
191,360
228,160
236,800
267,360
258,880
257,760
230,720
229,760
272,640
2,836,160

429
437
434
456
408
438
440
438
459
437
466
496
496

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,633
15,492
14,077
13,217
14,983
15,627
17,326
16,846
16,901
15,285
15,393
17,929
187,709

298
281
201
89
90
362
1,320

13
6
48
69
246
388
592
560
542
317
65
11
2,854

0.066659
0.066137
0.067367
0.069069
0.065669
0.065992
0.064804
0.065073
0.065569
0.066249
0.066996
0.065761
0.066184

7569.655
7556.129
6530
7087.407
7605.333
7893.333
8355
8350.968
8055
7955.862
7922.759
8520
7783.454

74%
72%
63%
65%
78%
75%
79%
79%
73%
76%
71%
72%
65%

12/12/06
01/10/07
01/11/07
02/09/07
02/10/07
03/12/07
03/13/07
04/11/07
04/12/07
05/14/07
05/15/07
06/13/07
06/14/07
07/11/07
07/12/07
08/10/07
08/11/07
09/12/07
09/13/07
10/10/07
10/11/07
11/08/07
11/09/07
12/11/07
Sum/Average/Max

30
30
31
30
33
30
28
30
33
28
29
33
365

190,240
241,280
232,320
219,840
232,320
213,600
222,240
243,520
261,440
205,280
201,920
242,240
2,706,240

403
470
474
411
400
418
416
440
432
403
466
424
474

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,661
18,336
17,779
16,621
17,367
16,256
16,804
18,314
19,429
15,635
15,767
18,143
205,112

204
402
299
103
18
71
192
1,287

4
4
11
94
218
365
478
535
624
400
106
27
2,863

0.077066
0.075995
0.076528
0.075605
0.074755
0.076105
0.075612
0.075205
0.074315
0.076164
0.078085
0.074897
0.075792

6341.333
8042.667
7494.194
7328
7040
7120
7937.143
8117.333
7922.424
7331.429
6962.759
7340.606
7414.824

66%
71%
66%
74%
73%
71%
79%
77%
76%
76%
62%
72%
65%

12/12/07
01/12/08
01/13/08
02/12/08
02/13/08
03/12/08
03/13/08
04/10/08
04/11/08
05/08/08
05/09/08
06/10/08
06/11/08
07/11/08
07/12/08
08/11/08
08/12/08
09/11/08
09/12/08
10/10/08
10/11/08
11/08/08
11/09/08
12/08/08
Sum/Average/Max

32
31
29
29
28
33
31
31
31
29
29
30
363

232,000
243,840
201,760
179,040
187,200
226,720
221,600
220,000
220,800
188,640
190,080
187,040
2,498,720

424
451
466
434
406
398
384
366
370
397
406
442
466

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,509
18,426
15,782
14,131
14,504
17,022
16,612
16,408
19,030
16,574
16,884
16,852
199,736

296
375
279
93
49
95
346
1,532

22
9
10
60
91
412
476
529
501
302
75
14
2,498

0.07547
0.075566
0.078222
0.078926
0.077479
0.075079
0.074964
0.074583
0.086187
0.087862
0.088828
0.090101
0.079935

7250
7865.806
6957.241
6173.793
6685.714
6870.303
7148.387
7096.774
7122.581
6504.828
6554.483
6234.667
6872.048

71%
73%
62%
59%
69%
72%
78%
81%
80%
68%
67%
59%
62%

33
31
29
29
32

233,280
261,440
246,720
224,000
250,080

419
539
514
514
424

$
$
$
$
$

22,636
25,741
24,328
22,361
24,118

167
468
247
68
5

59
3
10
63
210

0.097034
0.098458
0.098605
0.099826
0.096442

7069.091
8433.548
8507.586
7724.138
7815

70%
65%
69%
63%
77%

12/09/08
01/11/09
02/11/09
03/12/09
04/10/09

01/10/09
02/10/09
03/11/09
04/09/09
05/11/09

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.061635 7477.333
0.061481
8250
0.061047 7199.403

LF
75%
71%
62%

Milton Campus
Page A-16

From
To
05/12/09
06/10/09
06/11/09
07/13/09
07/14/09
08/10/09
08/11/09
09/09/09
09/10/09
10/09/09
10/10/09
11/06/09
11/07/09
12/09/09
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
33
28
30
30
28
33
366

Therm
223,040
231,520
189,440
214,560
225,920
204,000
180,800
2,684,800

Demand
419
422
421
427
450
467
450
539

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
21,750
21,969
18,417
20,567
21,652
19,900
17,850
261,289

HDD
63
220
1,237

12/10/09
01/11/10
01/12/10
02/09/10
02/10/10
03/10/10
03/11/10
04/09/10
04/10/10
05/10/10
05/11/10
06/10/10
06/11/10
07/09/10
07/10/10
08/10/10
08/11/10
09/09/10
09/10/10
10/11/10
10/12/10
11/10/10
11/11/10
12/09/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
30
31
31
29
32
30
32
30
29
365

170,080
173,440
167,680
141,600
148,000
157,280
147,360
173,440
169,120
162,080
157,760
166,240
1,934,080

482
477
443
400
406
418
437
446
464
464
478
509
509

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,849
18,118
17,419
14,872
15,472
16,360
15,587
17,946
17,664
17,040
16,736
17,659
202,721

563
351
502
143
12
4
76
248
1,897

12/10/10
01/11/11
01/12/11
02/10/11
02/11/11
03/11/11
03/12/11
04/12/11
04/13/11
05/11/11
05/12/11
06/09/11
06/10/11
07/11/11
07/12/11
08/10/11
08/11/11
09/08/11
09/09/11
10/09/11
10/10/11
11/07/11
11/08/11
12/07/11
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
29
32
29
29
32
30
29
31
29
30
363

160,480
190,080
158,720
132,480
137,920
150,720
158,720
155,040
162,240
155,520
165,920
165,440
1,893,280

490
493
466
459
491
474
436
462
476
435
545
500
545

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

16,500
19,037
16,217
13,974
14,585
15,580
16,050
15,881
16,572
16,187
17,752
17,438
195,773

547
532
205
70
17
10
9
120
213
1,721

12/08/11
01/09/12
01/10/12
02/08/12
02/09/12
03/08/12
03/09/12
04/10/12
04/11/12
05/08/12
05/09/12
06/10/12
06/11/12
07/11/12
07/12/12
08/08/12
08/09/12
09/10/12
09/11/12
10/09/12
10/10/12
11/07/12
11/08/12
12/08/12
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
29
33
28
33
31
28
33
29
29
31
367

170,080
181,600
184,480
170,560
159,040
193,280
180,960
159,680
213,760
175,680
157,760
165,440
2,112,320

506
492
525
435
487
444
497
477
464
457
497
507
525

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,669
18,566
18,396
16,712
16,091
18,633
16,149
14,498
18,308
15,527
14,481
15,094
200,124

338
215
211
20
23
78
246
1,131

CDD
373
637
475
451
471
146
16
2,912
3

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.097515 7434.667
0.094888 7015.758
0.097218 6765.714
0.095857
7152
0.095841 7530.667
0.097548 7285.714
0.098729 5478.788
0.097322 7351.056

LF
74%
69%
67%
70%
70%
65%
51%
57%

0.104943
0.104464
0.103885
0.105025
0.104537
0.104017
0.105776
0.103471
0.104444
0.105136
0.106084
0.106225
0.104815

5153.939
5980.69
5782.069
4720
4774.194
5073.548
5081.379
5420
5637.333
5065
5258.667
5732.414
5306.603

45%
52%
54%
49%
49%
51%
48%
51%
51%
45%
46%
47%
43%

21
98
166
402
650
524
441
273
44
60
2,677

0.102817
0.100152
0.102173
0.105479
0.105749
0.103372
0.101122
0.102433
0.102146
0.104084
0.106988
0.105402
0.103404

4863.03
6336
5473.103
4140
4755.862
5197.241
4960
5168
5594.483
5016.774
5721.379
5514.667
5228.378

41%
54%
49%
38%
40%
46%
47%
47%
49%
48%
44%
46%
40%

7
18
23
105
144
371
443
465
484
267
77
8
2,408

0.103887
0.102235
0.099719
0.097982
0.101177
0.096404
0.089242
0.090792
0.085648
0.088383
0.09179
0.091234
0.094741

5153.939
6053.333
6361.379
5168.485
5680
5856.97
5837.419
5702.857
6477.576
6057.931
5440
5336.774
5760.555

42%
51%
50%
50%
49%
55%
49%
50%
58%
55%
46%
44%
46%

2
20
168
458
533
669
512
350
128
38
2,878
2
-

Milton Campus
Page A-17

From
To
12/09/12
01/09/13
01/10/13
02/07/13
02/08/13
03/10/13
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
31
92

Therm
147,040
156,640
160,320
464,000

Demand
456 $
494 $
488 $
494 $

Cost
13,730
14,669
14,903
43,303

HDD
385
216
295
895

CDD
4
32
14
50

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.093378
4595
0.093648 5401.379
0.09296 5171.613
0.093324 5055.997

LF
42%
46%
44%
43%

Milton Campus
Page A-18

Bill Data for Site:

Campus

Project: PJC
Area: Bldg 11
From
To
09/22/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/03/09
Sum/Average/Max

Site:
Campus
Meter: 23a Elect Mtr #3260689
kWh
Demand
Cost
120
$
24
18,760
70.0 $
2,424
21,280
73.0 $
2,699
40,160
73.0 $
5,147

# Days
14
28
31
73

12/04/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

32
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
364

17,240
26,280
25,160
20,400
24,160
20,440
22,160
22,040
21,320
26,880
24,840
24,520
275,440

74.0 $
76.0 $
78.0 $
74.0 $
72.0 $
64.0 $
71.0 $
73.0 $
70.0 $
75.0 $
74.0 $
78.0 $
78.0 $

2,398
3,375
3,270
2,735
3,121
2,669
2,901
2,903
2,805
3,432
3,208
3,202
36,019

428
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,831

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
29
30
364

22,640
24,080
25,880
21,320
27,400
21,480
20,280
25,640
22,920
25,320
30,560
28,320
295,840

78.0 $
78.0 $
76.0 $
73.0 $
76.0 $
66.0 $
77.0 $
77.0 $
77.0 $
69.0 $
72.0 $
73.4 $
78.0 $

2,911
3,058
3,229
2,740
3,384
2,708
2,326
2,810
2,564
2,807
3,307
3,108
34,953

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
90
203
1,818

12/02/11
01/04/12
01/05/12
02/02/12
02/03/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/01/12
04/02/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/03/12
07/04/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
30
31
30
32
29
33
30
28
32
367

23,960
26,160
24,200
22,280
25,080
21,600
22,480
22,240
21,480
24,360
23,840
23,480
281,160

73.4 $
73.7 $
73.3 $
73.3 $
71.6 $
66.7 $
67.4 $
69.1 $
70.0 $
74.0 $
73.8 $
73.8 $
74.0 $

2,678
2,648
2,614
2,447
2,690
2,356
2,195
2,190
2,138
2,384
2,344
2,317
29,001

347
223
207
39
32
48
270
1,165

HDD
56
157
212

CDD
207
213
16
435
6

Utility: Electric
Account: 06911-51014
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.2 8.571429
0.129211
670
40%
0.126833 686.4516
39%
0.128162 455.0077
31%
0.139095
0.128425
0.129968
0.134069
0.12918
0.130577
0.130912
0.131715
0.131567
0.127679
0.129147
0.130587
0.130769

538.75
906.2069
838.6667
728.5714
732.1212
704.8276
764.1379
688.75
710.6667
814.5455
856.5517
817.3333
758.4274

30%
50%
45%
41%
42%
46%
45%
39%
42%
45%
48%
44%
40%

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.128578
0.126993
0.124754
0.128536
0.123518
0.126063
0.11467
0.109592
0.111872
0.110878
0.108226
0.109758
0.118148

646.8571
860
892.4138
761.4286
830.303
692.9032
751.1111
776.9697
764
816.7742
1053.793
944
815.8795

35%
46%
49%
43%
46%
44%
41%
42%
41%
49%
61%
54%
43%

10
17
21
86
107
314
440
469
503
324
107
13
2,409

0.111753
0.101216
0.108003
0.10982
0.107272
0.109067
0.097658
0.098467
0.099549
0.097863
0.098332
0.098669
0.103146

704.7059
902.069
834.4828
742.6667
809.0323
720
702.5
766.8966
650.9091
812
851.4286
733.75
769.2034

40%
51%
47%
42%
47%
45%
43%
46%
39%
46%
48%
41%
43%

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
-

Campus
Page A-19

From

To

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
29
31
30
121

kWh
18,400
20,920
21,640
19,960
80,920

Project: PJC
Area: Building 23
From
To
12/23/02
01/23/03
01/24/03
02/23/03
02/24/03
03/23/03
03/24/03
04/23/03
04/24/03
05/23/03
05/24/03
06/23/03
06/24/03
07/23/03
07/24/03
08/23/03
08/24/03
09/23/03
09/24/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
11/23/03
11/24/03
12/23/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
31
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

Therm
2,999
3,333
2,272
2,301
1,874
1,674
1,957
1,831
1,661
1,985
1,551
2,466
25,904

12/24/03
01/23/04
01/24/04
02/23/04
02/24/04
03/23/04
03/24/04
04/23/04
04/24/04
05/23/04
05/24/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
12/23/04
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

3,524
3,202
2,126
1,668
1,522
1,563
1,408
1,843
1,954
3,672
3,632
3,827
29,941

12/24/04
01/23/05
01/24/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
12/23/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
33
29
34
27
33
29
28
31
365

4,385
4,049
4,489
3,604
3,654
2,552
2,372
2,249
2,416
3,034
4,216
4,249
41,269

Demand
72.1
69.4
67.1
71.4
72.1

Cost
$
$
$
$
$

1,952
2,130
2,173
2,068
8,323

HDD
292
244
289
269
1,093

Site:
Campus
Meter: 60 Gas Mter # 95040
Demand
Cost
$
3,465
$
3,893
$
3,377
$
3,721
$
2,573
$
2,194
$
2,717
$
2,522
$
2,345
$
2,866
$
2,268
$
3,420
$
35,361

HDD
850
719
344
301
37
6
1
124
245
716
3,340

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,766
4,975
3,130
2,499
2,168
2,632
2,438
3,290
3,272
5,407
5,791
6,534
46,902

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,735
7,195
7,602
5,813
6,075
4,111
3,685
3,669
4,318
6,379
9,573
9,419
75,574

CDD
7
32
13
1
53

$/kWh

kWh/Day

0.10611
0.101814
0.100427
0.103601
0.102861

593.5484
721.3793
698.0645
665.3333
669.5814

LF
34%
43%
43%
39%
39%

4
29
98
323
428
436
492
463
192
120
7
2,590

Utility: Natural Gas

Account: 053537-65261916
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
1.155385 93.71875
1.168017 107.5161
1.486356 81.14286
1.617123 74.22581
1.372999 62.46667
1.310633
54
1.38835 65.23333
1.377389 59.06452
1.4118 53.58065
1.443829 66.16667
1.462282 50.03226
1.386861
82.2
1.365079 70.77897

750
722
424
334
93
2
5
1
58
224
613
3,223

6
3
27
49
228
466
490
482
458
300
146
14
2,667

1.35244
1.553716
1.472248
1.498201
1.424442
1.683941
1.731534
1.785133
1.674514
1.472495
1.594438
1.707343
1.566481

113.6774
103.2903
73.31034
53.80645
50.73333
50.41935
46.93333
59.45161
63.03226
122.4
117.1613
127.5667
81.8152

636
583
496
314
151
1
1
91
343
648
3,263

6
15
9
41
228
423
593
451
579
280
67
22
2,711

1.763968
1.776982
1.693473
1.61293
1.662562
1.610893
1.553541
1.631392
1.787252
2.102505
2.270636
2.216757
1.831253

141.4516
130.6129
160.3214
116.2581
110.7273
88
69.76471
83.2963
73.21212
104.6207
150.5714
137.0645
113.8251

CDD
-

Campus
Page A-20

From

To

# Days

kWh

12/24/05
01/31/06
02/01/06
02/28/06
03/01/06
03/31/06
04/01/06
04/30/06
05/01/06
05/31/06
06/01/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
12/01/06
Sum/Average/Max

39
28
31
30
31
29
29
32
31
31
32
343

4,765
5,080
4,125
3,544
3,878
2,927
3,028
4,481
4,507
4,936
5,178
46,449

12/02/06
01/02/07
01/03/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/28/07
03/01/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
07/30/07
07/31/07
08/30/07
08/31/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
10/30/07
10/31/07
11/30/07
12/01/07
12/28/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
29
29
29
33
29
32
31
28
33
31
28
392

6,378
5,511
4,797
3,835
3,423
3,123
2,600
2,575
2,451
2,933
2,959
2,883
2,904
46,372

12/29/07
01/30/08
01/31/08
02/29/08
03/01/08
03/28/08
03/29/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
05/28/08
05/29/08
06/25/08
06/26/08
07/29/08
07/30/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
09/30/08
10/01/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
12/31/08
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
31
30
28
34
30
33
30
27
35
369

3,222
4,424
3,012
2,805
1,841
1,677
3,603
3,387
3,755
3,957
3,442
4,345
39,470

33
28
29
35
27
29
30
32

4,714
4,218
2,947
2,808
2,118
2,040
2,088
2,632

01/01/09
02/03/09
03/03/09
04/01/09
05/06/09
06/02/09
07/01/09
07/31/09

02/02/09
03/02/09
03/31/09
05/05/09
06/01/09
06/30/09
07/30/09
08/31/09

Demand

Cost

HDD

CDD

$/kWh

kWh/Day

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

10,495
11,943
8,067
6,834
7,083
4,815
5,051
7,904
8,051
9,860
9,240
89,343

653
576
363
109
53
20
212
526
2,511

18
3
60
210
333
512
547
565
411
178
18
2,854

2.202518
2.350984
1.955636
1.92833
1.826457
1.645029
1.668098
1.763892
1.786332
1.997569
1.784473
1.923464

122.1795
181.4286
133.0645
118.1333
125.0968
100.931
104.4138
140.0313
145.3871
159.2258
161.8125
135.6095

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12,952
11,699
9,061
7,080
6,578
5,825
4,574
4,534
4,181
4,852
4,842
5,157
5,317
86,652

637
599
643
359
276
48
2
147
453
458
3,621

4
4
5
49
101
312
469
549
618
431
284
26
26
2,875

2.030731
2.122845
1.888889
1.846154
1.921706
1.865194
1.759231
1.760777
1.705834
1.654279
1.636364
1.788762
1.830923
1.868628

199.3125
196.8214
165.4138
132.2414
118.0345
94.63636
89.65517
80.46875
79.06452
104.75
89.66667
93
103.7143
118.983

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,597
8,590
6,026
5,726
3,924
3,976
8,833
8,551
8,235
8,265
6,857
9,118
84,697

743
547
476
274
90
17
227
489
584
3,445

10
16
18
84
252
431
567
479
468
148
16
42
2,528

2.047486
1.941682
2.000664
2.041355
2.13145
2.370841
2.451493
2.524647
2.192972
2.088688
1.992164
2.098476
2.145859

97.63636
147.4667
107.5714
90.48387
61.36667
59.89286
105.9706
112.9
113.7879
131.9
127.4815
124.1429
106.7167

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

10,505
8,960
5,537
5,465
3,468
3,584
3,451
4,349

689
593
330
252
14
1

17
6
48
144
350
525
495
519

2.228479
2.124144
1.878914
1.946218
1.637469
1.756691
1.652945
1.652485

142.8485
150.6429
101.6207
80.22857
78.44444
70.34483
69.6
82.25

LF

Campus
Page A-21

From
To
09/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/30/09
10/31/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
12/30/09
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
30
31
30
364

kWh
2,334
2,332
2,840
3,686
34,757

12/31/09
01/29/10
01/30/10
02/28/10
03/01/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
04/29/10
04/30/10
05/29/10
05/30/10
06/28/10
06/29/10
07/28/10
07/29/10
08/28/10
08/29/10
09/28/10
09/29/10
10/28/10
10/29/10
11/28/10
11/29/10
12/28/10
Sum/Average/Max

30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
30
31
30
363

3,937
3,916
3,360
4,060
4,398
3,924
4,241
3,571
4,120
3,350
4,135
4,450
47,462

12/29/10
01/28/11
01/29/11
02/28/11
03/01/11
03/28/11
03/29/11
04/27/11
04/28/11
05/28/11
05/29/11
06/28/11
06/29/11
07/28/11
07/29/11
08/28/11
08/29/11
09/28/11
09/29/11
10/28/11
10/29/11
11/28/11
11/29/11
12/28/11
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
30
31
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
365

4,789
5,099
3,604
3,113
2,591
2,351
2,318
2,164
2,947
4,148
5,326
4,300
42,750

12/29/11
01/28/12
01/29/12
02/28/12
02/29/12
03/28/12
03/29/12
04/28/12
04/29/12
05/28/12
05/29/12
06/28/12
06/29/12
07/28/12
07/29/12
08/28/12
08/29/12
09/28/12
09/29/12
10/25/12
10/26/12
11/28/12
11/29/12
12/28/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
27
34
30
366

4,101
4,364
5,379
4,224
2,775
2,732
2,444
2,284
3,600
4,190
5,797
4,993
46,883

31
31
28

4,870
5,426
3,870

12/29/12
01/29/13
03/01/13

01/28/13
02/28/13
03/28/13

Demand

$
$
$
$
$

Cost
3,962
3,708
4,651
5,833
63,474

HDD
151
448
640
3,117

CDD
483
267
16
6
2,873

6,617
6,334
5,437
6,541
6,093
6,097
6,587
5,540
6,789
5,277
6,713
6,985
75,010

804
819
560
246
15
7
159
393
834
3,835

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,162
7,181
5,068
4,939
3,925
3,600
3,553
3,293
4,273
6,950
8,053
6,889
63,885

814
640
347
201
154
30
266
430
600
3,481

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,898
7,844
9,609
7,815
5,008
3,868
3,703
3,780
5,777
6,507
8,996
7,704
77,507

$
$
$

8,510
9,864
7,350

$/kWh kWh/Day
1.697579
77.8
1.590257 77.73333
1.637655 91.6129
1.582558 122.8667
1.826228 95.4994
1.680838
1.617589
1.618039
1.610993
1.38538
1.5538
1.553235
1.551269
1.647694
1.575293
1.623482
1.569647
1.580418

131.2333
130.5333
112
135.3333
146.6
130.8
141.3667
115.1935
132.9032
111.6667
133.3871
148.3333
130.7792

18
48
153
222
653
516
566
346
97
57
10
2,682

1.286751
1.408239
1.406232
1.586418
1.514878
1.531182
1.532856
1.521576
1.449898
1.67548
1.512063
1.601984
1.494378

154.4839
164.4839
128.7143
103.7667
83.58065
75.83871
77.26667
69.80645
95.06452
138.2667
171.8065
143.3333
117.201

576
547
256
238
43
2
2
18
144
607
539
2,970

17
10
73
105
286
417
475
475
384
138
22
7
2,406

1.682002
1.797358
1.786328
1.850028
1.804659
1.415648
1.515094
1.655171
1.604719
1.552895
1.551782
1.543012
1.653202

132.2903
140.7742
185.4828
136.2581
92.5
88.12903
81.46667
73.67742
116.129
155.1852
170.5
166.4333
128.2355

610
513
586

16
30
1

6
77
368
537
578
619
465
167
60
2
2,876
-

LF

1.747446 157.0968
1.817893 175.0323
1.899178 138.2143
Campus

Page A-22

From
To
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
90

kWh
14,166

Project: PJC
Area: Bldg 17 & 21
From
To
12/23/02
01/23/03
01/24/03
02/23/03
02/24/03
03/23/03
03/24/03
04/23/03
04/24/03
05/23/03
05/24/03
06/23/03
06/24/03
07/23/03
07/24/03
08/23/03
08/24/03
09/23/03
09/24/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
11/23/03
11/24/03
12/23/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
31
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

12/24/03
01/23/04
01/24/04
02/23/04
02/24/04
03/23/04
03/24/04
04/23/04
04/24/04
05/23/04
05/24/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
12/23/04
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

10,803
10,711
10,739
8,763
8,243
6,640
4,834
6,902
7,320
1,402
8,583
12,015
96,955

12/24/04
01/23/05
01/24/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
12/23/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
33
29
34
27
33
29
28
31
365

13,127
11,545
12,064
8,550
8,806
5,687
4,114
3,707
5,323
5,965
5,781
8,739
93,408

40
28
31
30

5,316
5,935
5,504
8,396

12/24/05
02/02/06
03/02/06
04/02/06

02/01/06
03/01/06
04/01/06
05/01/06

Demand
-

Cost
25,724

Site:
Campus
Meter: 58 Gas Meter # 56147
Therm
Demand
Cost
12,086
$
13,931
11,990
$
13,978
8,084
$
11,989
7,241
$
11,685
4,938
$
6,763
3,139
$
4,105
4,483
$
6,209
4,895
$
6,724
4,836
$
6,806
8,501
$
12,237
8,644
$
12,588
9,718
$
13,447
88,555
$
120,462

HDD
1,709

HDD
850
719
344
301
37
6
1
124
245
716
3,340

CDD
46

$/kWh kWh/Day
1.815881 156.7811

LF

4
29
98
323
428
436
492
463
192
120
7
2,590

Utility: Natural Gas

Account: 053536-65261915
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
1.152656 377.6875
1.165805 386.7742
1.483053 288.7143
1.613727 233.5806
1.369583
164.6
1.307741 101.2581
1.38501 149.4333
1.373647 157.9032
1.407361
156
1.439478 283.3667
1.45627 278.8387
1.383721 323.9333
1.360307 241.8408

CDD
-

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,587
16,618
15,768
13,082
11,693
11,148
8,345
12,289
12,228
2,095
13,671
20,489
152,013

750
722
424
334
93
2
5
1
58
224
613
3,223

6
3
27
49
228
466
490
482
458
300
146
14
2,667

1.350273
1.551489
1.468293
1.492868
1.418537
1.678916
1.726314
1.780498
1.670492
1.494294
1.5928
1.705285
1.567872

348.4839
345.5161
370.3103
282.6774
274.7667
214.1935
161.1333
222.6452
236.129
46.73333
276.871
400.5
264.9967

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

23,135
20,494
20,411
13,776
14,626
9,147
6,383
6,041
9,501
12,531
13,122
19,361
168,528

636
583
496
314
151
1
1
91
343
648
3,263

6
15
9
41
228
423
593
451
579
280
67
22
2,711

1.762398
1.775141
1.691893
1.611228
1.660913
1.608405
1.551531
1.62962
1.784896
2.100754
2.26985
2.215471
1.804214

423.4516
372.4194
430.8571
275.8065
266.8485
196.1034
121
137.2963
161.303
205.6897
206.4643
281.9032
256.5952

$
$
$
$

11,707
13,949
16,620
13,898

676
564
354
111

18
3
69
208

2.20222
132.9
2.350295 211.9643
3.019622 177.5484
1.655312 279.8667
Campus

Page A-23

From
To
05/02/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
12/01/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
28
29
32
31
31
32
343

kWh
8,165
5,325
5,067
5,327
6,047
7,365
13,360
75,807

12/02/06
01/02/07
01/03/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/28/07
03/01/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
07/30/07
07/31/07
08/30/07
08/31/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
10/30/07
10/31/07
11/30/07
12/01/07
12/28/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
29
29
29
33
29
32
31
28
33
31
28
392

13,719
11,508
14,152
11,879
10,379
11,891
9,605
8,437
7,783
8,377
10,781
12,487
11,367
142,365

12/29/07
01/30/08
01/31/08
02/29/08
03/01/08
03/28/08
03/29/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
05/28/08
05/29/08
06/25/08
06/26/08
07/29/08
07/30/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
09/30/08
10/01/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
12/31/08
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
31
30
28
34
30
33
30
27
35
369

12,019
12,096
11,142
9,069
8,828
6,430
6,702
6,900
3,053
5,676
7,463
9,081
98,459

01/01/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/30/09
07/01/09
07/30/09
07/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/30/09
10/31/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
12/30/09
Sum/Average/Max

33
28
29
35
27
29
30
32
30
30
31
30
364

9,239
7,237
5,466
5,035
3,709
1,111
3,799
2,912
2,707
4,001
5,758
5,772
56,746

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
13,316
7,721
7,460
8,359
9,624
12,338
19,527
134,519

HDD
50
20
212
526
2,511

CDD
344
495
547
565
411
178
18
2,854

$/kWh
1.630863
1.449953
1.472272
1.569176
1.591533
1.675221
1.461602
1.774493

kWh/Day
263.3871
190.1786
174.7241
166.4688
195.0645
237.5806
417.5
222.4712

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

23,436
22,182
23,962
19,599
17,908
19,840
13,988
12,303
10,918
11,328
14,381
18,555
17,373
225,773

637
599
643
359
276
48
2
147
453
458
3,621

4
4
5
49
101
312
469
549
618
431
284
26
26
2,875

1.708288
1.927529
1.693188
1.649886
1.725407
1.668489
1.456325
1.45822
1.402801
1.352274
1.333921
1.485945
1.528372
1.585874

428.7188
411
488
409.6207
357.8966
360.3333
331.2069
263.6563
251.0645
299.1786
326.697
402.8065
405.9643
364.3187

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

20,401
19,264
18,391
15,338
15,702
12,976
14,093
15,012
5,638
9,723
12,055
15,639
174,232

743
547
476
274
90
17
227
489
584
3,445

10
16
18
84
252
431
567
479
468
148
16
42
2,528

1.697396
1.592593
1.650601
1.691256
1.778659
2.018109
2.102738
2.175609
1.84663
1.712953
1.615368
1.722162
1.769585

364.2121
403.2
397.9286
292.5484
294.2667
229.6429
197.1176
230
92.51515
189.2
276.4074
259.4571
268.8747

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,114
12,651
8,211
7,902
4,674
1,541
4,845
3,719
3,587
4,867
7,277
6,983
83,371

689
593
330
252
14
1
151
448
640
3,117

17
6
48
144
350
525
495
519
483
267
16
6
2,873

1.852387
1.748117
1.502115
1.56941
1.260065
1.387399
1.275365
1.277277
1.325264
1.216363
1.263763
1.20973
1.469193

279.9697
258.4643
188.4828
143.8571
137.3704
38.31034
126.6333
91
90.23333
133.3667
185.7419
192.4
155.4858

LF

Campus
Page A-24

From

To

# Days

kWh

Demand

12/31/09
01/29/10
01/30/10
02/28/10
03/01/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
04/29/10
04/30/10
05/29/10
05/30/10
06/28/10
06/29/10
07/28/10
07/29/10
08/28/10
08/29/10
09/28/10
09/29/10
10/28/10
10/29/10
11/28/10
11/29/10
12/28/10
Sum/Average/Max

30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
30
31
30
363

8,515
9,732
6,980
2,694
2,803
2,018
2,687
2,840
2,729
3,297
5,407
8,326
58,028

12/29/10
01/28/11
01/29/11
02/28/11
03/01/11
03/28/11
03/29/11
04/27/11
04/28/11
05/28/11
05/29/11
06/28/11
06/29/11
07/28/11
07/29/11
08/28/11
08/29/11
09/28/11
09/29/11
10/28/11
10/29/11
11/28/11
11/29/11
12/28/11
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
30
31
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
365

8,865
8,813
5,292
3,183
3,381
1,728
2,927
2,845
3,116
4,670
5,355
7,371
57,546

12/29/11
01/28/12
01/29/12
02/28/12
02/29/12
03/28/12
03/29/12
04/28/12
04/29/12
05/28/12
05/29/12
06/28/12
06/29/12
07/28/12
07/29/12
08/28/12
08/29/12
09/28/12
09/29/12
10/25/12
10/26/12
11/28/12
11/29/12
12/28/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
27
34
30
366

7,836
8,121
5,218
4,681
3,597
3,113
2,744
3,042
3,174
3,910
6,487
6,498
58,421

12/29/12
01/28/13
01/29/13
02/28/13
03/01/13
03/28/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
90

7,727
7,025
5,627
20,379

Project: PJC
Area: Bldg 2
From

To

# Days

Therm

Cost

HDD

CDD

kWh/Day

1.307503
1.244041
1.244468
1.241106
1.015555
1.185446
1.183495
1.180687
1.277787
1.203819
1.251195
1.196733
1.22747

283.8333
324.4
232.6667
89.8
93.43333
67.26667
89.56667
91.6129
88.03226
109.9
174.4194
277.5333
160.2054

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

11,133
12,107
8,686
3,344
2,847
2,392
3,180
3,353
3,487
3,969
6,765
9,964
71,228

804
819
560
246
15
7
159
393
834
3,835

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,102
9,127
5,469
3,867
3,862
2,007
3,396
3,268
3,359
5,582
5,528
8,260
61,826

814
640
347
201
154
30
266
430
600
3,481

18
48
153
222
653
516
566
346
97
57
10
2,682

0.91395
1.035609
1.033528
1.214791
1.142153
1.161667
1.16013
1.148587
1.078123
1.195214
1.032233
1.120543
1.07437

285.9677
284.2903
189
106.1
109.0645
55.74194
97.56667
91.77419
100.5161
155.6667
172.7419
245.7
157.8442

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

9,405
10,685
6,818
6,412
4,760
2,911
2,839
3,570
3,572
4,197
6,952
6,904
69,025

576
547
256
238
43
2
2
18
144
607
539
2,970

17
10
73
105
286
417
475
475
384
138
22
7
2,406

1.200234
1.315759
1.306616
1.369831
1.323461
0.935082
1.034534
1.173521
1.125539
1.073371
1.071662
1.062422
1.181514

252.7742
261.9677
179.931
151
119.9
100.4194
91.46667
98.12903
102.3871
144.8148
190.7941
216.6
159.182

$
$
$
$

9,785
9,395
7,979
27,159

610
513
586
1,709

16
30
1
46

1.266354
1.337377
1.418011
1.332712

249.2581
226.6129
200.9643
225.6118

Site:
Campus
Meter: 59 Gas Meter # 85765
Demand
Cost

HDD

$/kWh

6
77
368
537
578
619
465
167
60
2
2,876
-

CDD

LF

Utility: Natural Gas

Account: 053539-65261919
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
Campus

Page A-25

From
To
12/23/02
01/23/03
01/24/03
02/23/03
02/24/03
03/23/03
03/24/03
04/23/03
04/24/03
05/23/03
05/24/03
06/23/03
06/24/03
07/23/03
07/24/03
08/23/03
08/24/03
09/23/03
09/24/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
11/23/03
11/24/03
12/23/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
31
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

kWh
1,523
1,536
672
475
296
327
313
316
304
548
606
811
7,727

12/24/03
01/23/04
01/24/04
02/23/04
02/24/04
03/23/04
03/24/04
04/23/04
04/24/04
05/23/04
05/24/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
12/23/04
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

1,379
228
537
501
445
353
242
300
318
290
502
734
5,829

12/24/04
01/23/05
01/24/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
05/23/05
05/24/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
12/23/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
30
32
34
27
33
29
28
31
365

1,075
804
795
486
422
252
129
1
630
1,114
5,708

40
28
31
30
31
28
29
32
31

1,097
851
793
443
398
237
246
249
296

12/24/05
02/02/06
03/02/06
04/02/06
05/02/06
06/02/06
06/30/06
07/29/06
08/30/06

02/01/06
03/01/06
04/01/06
05/01/06
06/01/06
06/29/06
07/28/06
08/29/06
09/29/06

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
1,765
1,800
1,007
777
416
437
444
444
438
799
893
1,132
10,352

HDD
530
413
93
88
4
52
423
1,601

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,872
364
799
758
642
603
428
545
542
442
810
1,262
9,067

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

CDD
4
29
98
323
428
436
492
463
192
120
7
2,590

$/kWh
1.158897
1.171875
1.498512
1.635789
1.405405
1.336391
1.41853
1.405063
1.440789
1.458029
1.473597
1.395808
1.339718

kWh/Day
47.59375
49.54839
24
15.32258
9.866667
10.54839
10.43333
10.19355
9.806452
18.26667
19.54839
27.03333
21.01346

445
415
161
73
3
5
46
327
1,473

6
3
27
49
228
466
490
482
458
300
146
14
2,667

1.357505
1.596491
1.487896
1.512974
1.442697
1.708215
1.768595
1.816667
1.704403
1.524138
1.613546
1.719346
1.555498

44.48387
7.354839
18.51724
16.16129
14.83333
11.3871
8.066667
9.677419
10.25806
9.666667
16.19355
24.46667
15.92223

1,905
1,437
1,355
793
711
416
211
11
13
11
1,440
2,477
10,780

332
288
225
45
15
20
129
360
1,413

6
15
9
41
188
463
593
451
579
280
67
22
2,711

1.772093
1.787313
1.704403
1.631687
1.684834
1.650794
1.635659
0
13
0
2.285714
2.223519
1.888577

34.67742
25.93548
28.39286
15.67742
14.06667
7.875
3.794118
0
0.030303
0
22.5
35.93548
15.7404

2,424
2,010
1,559
864
736
400
420
449
539

294
287
112
1
-

18
3
69
208
344
495
547
565
411

2.209663
2.361927
1.965952
1.950339
1.849246
1.687764
1.707317
1.803213
1.820946

27.425
30.39286
25.58065
14.76667
12.83871
8.464286
8.482759
7.78125
9.548387

LF

Campus
Page A-26

From
To
09/30/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
12/01/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
32
343

12/02/06
01/02/07
01/03/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/28/07
03/01/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
07/30/07
07/31/07
08/30/07
08/31/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
10/30/07
10/31/07
11/30/07
12/01/07
12/28/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
29
29
29
33
29
32
31
28
33
31
28
392

1,207
909
1,086
773
580
433
293
270
244
274
424
623
662
7,778

12/29/07
01/30/08
01/31/08
02/29/08
03/01/08
03/28/08
03/29/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
05/28/08
05/29/08
06/25/08
06/26/08
07/29/08
07/30/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
09/30/08
10/01/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
12/31/08
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
31
30
28
34
30
33
30
27
35
369

1,027
797
630
536
318
218
268
276
305
440
645
925
6,385

01/01/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/30/09
07/01/09
07/30/09
07/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/30/09
10/31/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
12/30/09
Sum/Average/Max

33
28
29
35
27
29
30
32
30
30
31
30
364

1,012
901
713
697
502
341
371
390
388
460
573
698
7,046

30
30
30
30

1,374
1,076
722
390

12/31/09
01/30/10
03/01/10
03/31/10

01/29/10
02/28/10
03/30/10
04/29/10

kWh
713
959
6,282

Demand

$
$
$

Cost
1,433
1,720
12,554

HDD
49
224
967

CDD
178
18
2,854

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,460
1,938
2,060
1,435
1,123
817
527
487
428
465
705
1,124
1,222
14,791

321
322
358
118
85
34
169
204
1,609

4
4
5
49
101
312
469
549
618
431
284
26
26
2,875

2.038111
2.132013
1.896869
1.856404
1.936207
1.886836
1.798635
1.803704
1.754098
1.69708
1.662736
1.804173
1.845921
1.901646

37.71875
32.46429
37.44828
26.65517
20
13.12121
10.10345
8.4375
7.870968
9.785714
12.84848
20.09677
23.64286
20.01488

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,111
1,558
1,271
1,105
688
528
669
709
681
931
1,296
1,952
13,497

422
263
214
48
1
66
234
276
1,523

10
16
18
84
252
431
567
479
468
148
16
42
2,528

2.055501
1.954831
2.01746
2.061567
2.163522
2.421697
2.495485
2.567029
2.231377
2.115477
2.008853
2.109741
2.113832

31.12121
26.56667
22.5
17.29032
10.6
7.785714
7.882353
9.2
9.242424
14.66667
23.88889
26.42857
17.2644

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,266
1,924
1,350
1,366
832
610
624
656
670
742
949
1,115
13,104

376
318
88
37
44
154
345
1,361

17
6
48
144
350
525
495
519
483
267
16
6
2,873

2.238755
2.135716
1.892987
1.960502
1.657629
1.789091
1.682318
1.681436
1.725928
1.613261
1.656021
1.59788
1.859801

30.66667
32.17857
24.58621
19.91429
18.59259
11.75862
12.36667
12.1875
12.93333
15.33333
18.48387
23.26667
19.35569

$
$
$
$

2,318
1,750
1,179
640

504
519
266
22

6
77

$/kWh kWh/Day
2.009818
23
1.793535 29.96875
1.998408 18.02266

LF

1.687082
45.8
1.626468 35.86667
1.632396 24.06667
1.641564
13
Campus

Page A-27

From
To
04/30/10
05/29/10
05/30/10
06/28/10
06/29/10
07/28/10
07/29/10
08/28/10
08/29/10
09/28/10
09/29/10
10/28/10
10/29/10
11/28/10
11/29/10
12/28/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
30
30
31
31
30
31
30
363

12/29/10
01/28/11
01/29/11
02/28/11
03/01/11
03/28/11
03/29/11
04/27/11
04/28/11
05/28/11
05/29/11
06/28/11
06/29/11
07/28/11
07/29/11
08/28/11
08/29/11
09/28/11
09/29/11
10/28/11
10/29/11
11/28/11
11/29/11
12/28/11
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
30
31
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
365

638
602
415
331
349
312
308
404
368
344
404
507
4,982

12/29/11
01/28/12
01/29/12
02/28/12
02/29/12
03/28/12
03/29/12
04/28/12
04/29/12
05/28/12
05/29/12
06/28/12
06/29/12
07/28/12
07/29/12
08/28/12
08/29/12
09/28/12
09/29/12
10/25/12
10/26/12
11/28/12
11/29/12
12/28/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
27
34
30
366

552
509
379
425
306
302
262
274
251
137
338
308
4,043

12/29/12
01/28/13
01/29/13
02/28/13
03/01/13
03/28/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
90

415
480
355
1,250

Project: PJC
Area: Bldg 10-12, 16 & 18
From
To
12/23/02
01/23/03
01/24/03
02/23/03
02/24/03
03/23/03
03/24/03
04/23/03
04/24/03
05/23/03

# Days
32
31
28
31
30

kWh
337
288
306
319
295
301
355
509
6,272

Demand

Cost

HDD
-

CDD
368
537
578
619
465
167
60
2
2,876

$/kWh
1.421513
1.59625
1.593268
1.588934
1.689153
1.615183
1.657465
1.592613
1.626853

kWh/Day
11.23333
9.6
10.2
10.29032
9.516129
10.03333
11.45161
16.96667
17.33539

18
48
153
222
653
516
566
346
97
57
10
2,682

1.304671
1.427558
1.434337
1.622024
1.547536
1.567853
1.569968
1.548144
1.481277
1.720349
1.550545
1.631243
1.515965

20.58065
19.41935
14.82143
11.03333
11.25806
10.06452
10.26667
13.03226
11.87097
11.46667
13.03226
16.9
13.64551

282
247
39
32
4
289
246
1,137

17
10
73
105
286
417
475
475
384
138
22
7
2,406

1.70837
1.826562
1.827599
1.885671
1.853595
1.465199
1.572443
1.709234
1.667092
1.671752
1.598669
1.594253
1.715474

17.80645
16.41935
13.06897
13.70968
10.2
9.741935
8.733333
8.83871
8.096774
5.074074
9.941176
10.26667
10.99143

316
232
307
855

16
30
1
46

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

479
460
488
507
498
486
588
811
10,204

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

832
859
595
537
540
489
484
625
545
592
626
827
7,553

504
348
114
44
15
62
177
310
1,572

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

943
930
693
801
567
442
412
468
418
229
540
491
6,936

$
$
$
$

741
888
690
2,318

Site:
Campus
Meter: 55 Gas Meter # 82700
Therm
Demand
Cost
2,999
$
3,465
3,333
$
3,893
2,272
$
3,377
2,301
$
3,721
1,874
$
2,573

6
143
536
1,994

HDD
850
719
344
301
37

CDD
4
29
98
323

LF

1.784554 13.3871
1.849854 15.48387
1.942254 12.67857
1.854416 13.84985
Utility: Natural Gas
Account: 053534-65261901
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
1.155385 93.71875
1.168017 107.5161
1.486356 81.14286
1.617123 74.22581
1.372999 62.46667
Campus

Page A-28

From
To
05/24/03
06/23/03
06/24/03
07/23/03
07/24/03
08/23/03
08/24/03
09/23/03
09/24/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
11/23/03
11/24/03
12/23/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

kWh
1,674
1,957
1,831
1,661
1,985
1,551
2,466
25,904

12/24/03
01/23/04
01/24/04
02/23/04
02/24/04
03/23/04
03/24/04
04/23/04
04/24/04
05/23/04
05/24/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
12/23/04
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

3,221
2,799
2,892
2,215
2,306
2,158
1,577
1,620
1,718
816
2,555
23,877

12/24/04
01/23/05
01/24/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
12/23/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
33
29
34
27
33
29
28
31
365

2,541
2,653
2,948
2,250
2,039
601
1,735
1,395
1,658
1,409
1,817
2,481
23,527

12/24/05
02/01/06
02/02/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
04/01/06
04/02/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
05/30/06
05/31/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
12/01/06
Sum/Average/Max

40
28
31
30
29
30
29
32
31
31
32
343

2,811
2,236
2,356
2,131
1,763
946
887
1,239
1,430
2,183
2,798
20,780

32

2,122

12/02/06

01/02/07

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
2,194
2,717
2,522
2,345
2,866
2,268
3,420
35,361

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

HDD

124
245
716
3,340

CDD
428
436
492
463
192
120
7
2,590

$/kWh
1.310633
1.38835
1.377389
1.4118
1.443829
1.462282
1.386861
1.365079

kWh/Day
54
65.23333
59.06452
53.58065
66.16667
50.03226
82.2
70.77897

4,357
4,351
4,254
3,315
3,279
3,630
2,730
2,893
2,878
11
1,310
4,366
37,374

750
722
424
334
93
2
5
1
58
224
613
3,223

6
3
27
49
228
466
490
482
458
300
146
14
2,667

1.352686
1.554484
1.470954
1.496614
1.421943
1.682113
1.731135
1.785802
1.675204
0
1.605392
1.708806
1.565272

103.9032
90.29032
99.72414
71.45161
76.86667
69.6129
52.56667
52.25806
55.41935
0
26.32258
85.16667
65.29852

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,487
4,718
4,996
3,633
3,395
976
2,698
2,280
2,967
2,968
4,132
5,504
42,754

636
583
496
314
151
1
1
91
343
648
3,263

6
15
9
41
228
423
593
451
579
280
67
22
2,711

1.76584
1.778364
1.694708
1.614667
1.665032
1.62396
1.555043
1.634409
1.789505
2.106458
2.274078
2.21846
1.817231

81.96774
85.58065
105.2857
72.58065
61.78788
20.72414
51.02941
51.66667
50.24242
48.58621
64.89286
80.03226
64.53138

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,195
5,263
4,616
4,113
3,226
1,564
1,487
2,193
2,562
4,367
4,998
40,584

676
564
354
111
50
20
212
526
2,511

18
3
69
208
310
528
547
565
411
178
18
2,854

2.203842
2.353757
1.959253
1.93008
1.829836
1.653277
1.676437
1.769976
1.791608
2.000458
1.786276
1.953032

70.275
79.85714
76
71.03333
60.7931
31.53333
30.58621
38.71875
46.12903
70.41935
87.4375
60.25298

4,316

637

2.03393

66.3125

6
1

LF

Campus
Page A-29

From
To
01/03/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/28/07
03/01/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
07/30/07
07/31/07
08/30/07
08/31/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
10/30/07
10/31/07
11/30/07
12/01/07
12/28/07
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
28
29
29
29
33
29
32
31
28
33
31
28
392

kWh
1,861
1,669
2,394
2,279
1,938
1,949
1,725
1,605
1,327
2,081
2,633
1,697
25,280

12/29/07
01/30/08
01/31/08
02/29/08
03/01/08
03/28/08
03/29/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
05/28/08
05/29/08
06/25/08
06/26/08
07/29/08
07/30/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
09/30/08
10/01/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
12/31/08
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
31
30
28
34
30
33
30
27
35
369

2,441
2,183
2,074
1,562
1,872
1,257
1,296
1,176
1,204
1,606
1,708
1,740
20,119

01/01/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/30/09
07/01/09
07/30/09
07/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/30/09
10/31/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
12/30/09
Sum/Average/Max

33
28
29
35
27
29
30
32
30
30
31
30
364

1,496
1,507
1,523
1,828
912
792
927
962
1,214
1,483
1,611
1,628
15,883

30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31

2,284
2,256
2,233
1,936
1,523
1,530
1,069
835
998

12/31/09
01/30/10
03/01/10
03/31/10
04/30/10
05/30/10
06/29/10
07/29/10
08/29/10

01/29/10
02/28/10
03/30/10
04/29/10
05/29/10
06/28/10
07/28/10
08/28/10
09/28/10

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
3,958
3,159
4,423
4,383
3,619
3,432
3,042
2,742
2,202
3,409
4,711
3,112
46,508

HDD
599
643
359
276
48
2
147
453
458
3,621

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,001
4,245
4,154
3,195
3,990
2,983
3,185
2,977
2,649
3,362
3,409
3,659
42,811

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

CDD
4
5
49
101
312
469
549
618
431
284
26
26
2,875

$/kWh
2.126814
1.89275
1.847536
1.923212
1.867389
1.760903
1.763478
1.708411
1.659382
1.638155
1.789214
1.833824
1.839715

kWh/Day
66.46429
57.55172
82.55172
78.58621
58.72727
67.2069
53.90625
51.77419
47.39286
63.06061
84.93548
60.60714
64.5444

743
547
476
274
90
17
227
489
584
3,445

10
16
18
84
252
431
567
479
468
148
16
42
2,528

2.048751
1.944572
2.002893
2.045455
2.13141
2.373373
2.457793
2.531718
2.200158
2.093587
1.996066
2.10304
2.127879

73.9697
72.76667
74.07143
50.3871
62.4
44.89286
38.11765
39.2
36.48485
53.53333
63.25926
49.71429
54.89976

3,343
3,210
2,868
3,562
1,501
1,399
1,540
1,598
2,067
2,363
2,644
2,584
28,679

689
593
330
252
14
1
151
448
640
3,117

17
6
48
144
350
525
495
519
483
267
16
6
2,873

2.234532
2.129801
1.883112
1.948747
1.645746
1.766944
1.660895
1.661237
1.702784
1.5935
1.641192
1.587076
1.805636

45.33333
53.82143
52.51724
52.22857
33.77778
27.31034
30.9
30.0625
40.46667
49.43333
51.96774
54.26667
43.50713

3,845
3,655
3,618
3,126
2,119
2,385
1,670
1,305
1,654

804
819
560
246
15
7

1.683266
1.620062
1.620022
1.614556
1.391037
1.559059
1.56247
1.563365
1.657705

76.13333
75.2
74.43333
64.53333
50.76667
51
35.63333
26.93548
32.19355

6
77
368
537
578
619
465

LF

Campus
Page A-30

From
To
09/29/10
10/28/10
10/29/10
11/28/10
11/29/10
12/28/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
31
30
363

kWh
1,113
1,083
2,190
19,050

12/29/10
01/28/11
01/29/11
02/28/11
03/01/11
03/28/11
03/29/11
04/27/11
04/28/11
05/28/11
05/29/11
06/28/11
06/29/11
07/28/11
07/29/11
08/28/11
08/29/11
09/28/11
09/29/11
10/28/11
10/29/11
11/28/11
11/29/11
12/28/11
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
30
31
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
365

2,052
1,824
1,400
1,301
798
746
848
460
1,032
1,759
1,996
2,197
16,413

12/29/11
01/28/12
01/29/12
02/28/12
02/29/12
03/28/12
03/29/12
04/28/12
04/29/12
05/28/12
05/29/12
06/28/12
06/29/12
07/28/12
07/29/12
08/28/12
08/29/12
09/28/12
09/29/12
10/25/12
10/26/12
11/28/12
11/29/12
12/28/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
27
34
30
366

2,113
2,071
1,406
1,585
1,101
1,203
973
892
920
1,312
1,919
1,457
16,952

12/29/12
01/28/13
01/29/13
02/28/13
03/01/13
03/28/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
90

1,724
2,384
2,120
6,228

Project: PJC
Area: Bldg 15
From
12/23/02
01/24/03
02/24/03
03/24/03
04/24/03
05/24/03
06/24/03
07/24/03
08/24/03
09/24/03

To
01/23/03
02/23/03
03/23/03
04/23/03
05/23/03
06/23/03
07/23/03
08/23/03
09/23/03
10/23/03

# Days
32
31
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
30

Demand

$
$
$
$

Cost
1,762
1,768
3,444
30,351

HDD
159
393
834
3,835

CDD
167
60
2
2,876

2,648
2,577
1,977
2,072
1,218
1,151
1,308
710
1,505
2,957
3,029
3,528
24,679

814
640
347
201
154
30
266
430
600
3,481

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

18
48
153
222
653
516
566
346
97
57
10
2,682

1.290424
1.412884
1.411993
1.592321
1.526316
1.543244
1.542712
1.544152
1.458198
1.680984
1.517335
1.605731
1.503646

66.19355
58.83871
50
43.36667
25.74194
24.06452
28.26667
14.83871
33.29032
58.63333
64.3871
73.23333
45.07124

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

3,562
3,731
2,524
2,943
1,997
1,712
1,484
1,487
1,489
2,049
2,989
2,260
28,228

576
547
256
238
43
2
2
18
144
607
539
2,970

17
10
73
105
286
417
475
475
384
138
22
7
2,406

1.685859
1.801627
1.795171
1.856656
1.813878
1.423475
1.525509
1.666659
1.618337
1.561707
1.55765
1.551194
1.665158

68.16129
66.80645
48.48276
51.12903
36.7
38.80645
32.43333
28.77419
29.67742
48.59259
56.44118
48.56667
46.21428

$
$
$
$

3,023
4,343
4,034
11,401

610
513
586
1,709

16
30
1
46

Site:
Campus
Meter: 57 Gas Meter # 59208
Therm
Demand
Cost
4,720
$
5,447
4,770
$
5,567
3,220
$
4,782
3,200
$
5,170
2,580
$
3,539
2,440
$
3,193
2,620
$
3,633
1,920
$
2,644
2,100
$
2,962
2,820
$
4,066

HDD
530
413
93
88
4

CDD
4
29
98
323
428
436
492
463
192

$/kWh kWh/Day
1.583208
37.1
1.632475 34.93548
1.572703
73
1.593229 52.65538

LF

1.753747 55.6129
1.82185 76.90323
1.902769 75.71429
1.830543 69.41014
Utility: Natural Gas
Account: 053472-65261910
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
1.154025
147.5
1.167086 153.871
1.485093
115
1.615625 103.2258
1.371705
86
1.308607 78.70968
1.386641 87.33333
1.377083 61.93548
1.410476 67.74194
1.441844
94
Campus

Page A-31

From
To
10/24/03
11/23/03
11/24/03
12/23/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
30
366

kWh
2,810
4,000
37,200

12/24/03
01/23/04
01/24/04
02/23/04
02/24/04
03/23/04
03/24/04
04/23/04
04/24/04
05/23/04
05/24/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
12/23/04
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

6,110
4,500
7,360
5,700
6,331
7,023
5,391
6,243
6,621
3,347
5,112
7,598
71,336

12/24/04
01/23/05
01/24/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
12/23/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
33
29
34
27
33
29
28
31
365

10,747
8,066
8,350
6,344
6,307
5,252
5,109
4,571
3,671
3,348
4,631
8,484
74,880

12/24/05
02/01/06
02/02/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
04/01/06
04/02/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
12/01/06
Sum/Average/Max

40
28
31
30
31
28
29
32
31
31
32
343

8,256
6,263
5,456
5,020
5,369
2,993
1,870
2,438
4,098
4,539
7,547
53,849

32
28
29
29
29
33

8,265
6,900
9,017
6,279
5,838
5,882

12/02/06
01/03/07
01/31/07
03/01/07
03/30/07
04/28/07

01/02/07
01/30/07
02/28/07
03/29/07
04/27/07
05/30/07

Demand

$
$
$

Cost
4,099
5,541
50,643

HDD
52
423
1,601

CDD
120
7
2,590

$/kWh kWh/Day
1.458719 90.64516
1.38525 133.3333
1.361371 101.608

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,255
6,988
10,810
8,513
8,983
11,790
9,305
11,117
11,061
4,987
8,147
12,961
112,917

445
415
161
73
3
5
46
327
1,473

6
3
27
49
228
466
490
482
458
300
146
14
2,667

1.351064
1.552889
1.46875
1.493509
1.418891
1.67877
1.726025
1.780714
1.670594
1.489991
1.593701
1.705844
1.582889

197.0968
145.1613
253.7931
183.871
211.0333
226.5484
179.7
201.3871
213.5806
111.5667
164.9032
253.2667
195.159

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

18,942
14,321
14,131
10,224
10,478
8,448
7,924
7,446
6,556
7,038
10,514
18,796
134,818

332
288
225
45
15
20
129
360
1,413

6
15
9
41
228
423
593
451
579
280
67
22
2,711

1.762538
1.775477
1.692335
1.611602
1.661329
1.60853
1.550988
1.628965
1.785889
2.102151
2.270352
2.215464
1.800454

346.6774
260.1935
298.2143
204.6452
191.1212
181.1034
150.2647
169.2963
111.2424
115.4483
165.3929
273.6774
205.6064

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

18,175
14,722
10,667
8,314
8,760
4,345
2,760
3,832
6,525
7,608
11,035
96,743

294
287
112
1
49
224
967

18
3
69
208
344
495
547
565
411
178
18
2,854

2.201429
2.350631
1.955095
1.656175
1.631589
1.451721
1.475936
1.57178
1.59224
1.67614
1.46217
1.796561

206.4
223.6786
176
167.3333
173.1935
106.8929
64.48276
76.1875
132.1935
146.4194
235.8438
155.3296

$
$
$
$
$
$

14,123
13,304
15,271
10,365
10,077
9,819

321
322
358
118
85
-

4
4
5
49
101
312

1.708772
1.928116
1.693579
1.650741
1.726105
1.66933

258.2813
246.4286
310.931
216.5172
201.3103
178.2424

LF

Campus
Page A-32

From
To
05/31/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
07/30/07
07/31/07
08/30/07
08/31/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
10/30/07
10/31/07
11/30/07
12/01/07
12/28/07
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
32
31
28
33
31
28
392

kWh
4,234
3,110
3,502
3,816
5,902
7,758
6,731
77,234

12/29/07
01/30/08
01/31/08
02/29/08
03/01/08
03/28/08
03/29/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
05/28/08
05/29/08
06/25/08
06/26/08
07/29/08
07/30/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
09/30/08
10/01/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
12/31/08
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
31
30
28
34
30
33
30
27
35
369

10,734
10,549
9,203
7,298
6,896
5,394
6,909
4,300
4,970
7,436
8,337
11,624
93,650

01/01/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/30/09
07/01/09
07/30/09
07/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/30/09
10/31/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
12/30/09
Sum/Average/Max

33
28
29
35
27
29
30
32
30
30
31
30
364

12,329
10,193
7,916
8,202
3,368
2,230
3,093
2,654
2,865
4,212
2,400
7,080
66,542

12/31/09
01/28/10
01/29/10
02/28/10
03/01/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
04/29/10
04/30/10
05/29/10
05/30/10
06/28/10
06/29/10
07/28/10
07/29/10
08/28/10
08/29/10
09/28/10
09/29/10
10/28/10
10/29/10
11/28/10
11/29/10
12/28/10
Sum/Average/Max

29
31
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
30
31
30
363

8,936
8,795
5,621
3,769
3,632
2,486
2,132
2,338
2,355
2,679
4,214
5,678
52,635

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
6,173
4,543
4,920
5,167
7,879
11,533
10,293
123,467

HDD
34
169
204
1,609

CDD
469
549
618
431
284
26
26
2,875

$/kWh
1.457959
1.460772
1.404911
1.354036
1.334971
1.486594
1.529193
1.598609

kWh/Day
146
97.1875
112.9677
136.2857
178.8485
250.2581
240.3929
197.9732

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

18,221
16,802
15,192
12,345
12,269
10,888
14,527
9,360
9,170
12,733
13,466
20,015
164,987

422
263
214
48
1
66
234
276
1,523

10
16
18
84
252
431
567
479
468
148
16
42
2,528

1.697503
1.592758
1.650766
1.691559
1.779147
2.018487
2.10262
2.176726
1.845022
1.712398
1.615183
1.721858
1.761745

325.2727
351.6333
328.6786
235.4194
229.8667
192.6429
203.2059
143.3333
150.6061
247.8667
308.7778
332.1143
254.1181

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

22,834
17,813
11,885
12,864
4,245
3,081
3,947
3,391
3,796
5,123
3,041
8,562
100,581

376
318
88
37
44
154
345
1,361

17
6
48
144
350
525
495
519
483
267
16
6
2,873

1.852027
1.747583
1.501364
1.568394
1.260431
1.381426
1.276162
1.277717
1.324998
1.216199
1.266971
1.209305
1.511539

373.6061
364.0357
272.9655
234.3429
124.7407
76.89655
103.1
82.9375
95.5
140.4
77.41935
236
181.8287

11,683
10,943
6,998
4,672
3,685
2,944
2,526
2,763
3,011
3,228
5,275
6,799
64,526

499
525
266
22
6
143
536
1,994

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.307428
1.244186
1.244926
1.239708
1.01448
1.184212
1.18478
1.181681
1.278556
1.204741
1.251882
1.197471
1.225922

308.1379
283.7097
187.3667
125.6333
121.0667
82.86667
71.06667
75.41935
75.96774
89.3
135.9355
189.2667
145.4781

6
77
368
537
578
619
465
167
60
2
2,876

LF

Campus
Page A-33

From
To
12/29/10
01/27/11
01/28/11
02/28/11
03/01/11
03/28/11
03/29/11
04/27/11
04/28/11
05/28/11
05/29/11
06/28/11
06/29/11
07/28/11
07/29/11
08/28/11
08/29/11
09/28/11
09/29/11
10/28/11
10/29/11
11/28/11
11/29/11
12/28/11
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
32
28
30
31
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
365

kWh
6,565
5,884
4,092
3,431
2,980
1,506
1,962
1,985
2,333
2,908
3,959
4,327
41,932

12/29/11
01/28/12
01/29/12
02/28/12
02/29/12
03/28/12
03/29/12
04/28/12
04/29/12
05/28/12
05/29/12
06/28/12
06/29/12
07/28/12
07/29/12
08/28/12
08/29/12
09/28/12
09/29/12
10/25/12
10/26/12
11/27/12
11/28/12
12/28/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
27
33
31
366

4,408
4,589
3,139
2,516
2,027
1,839
1,160
1,775
2,139
2,144
3,734
3,456
32,926

12/29/12
01/28/13
01/29/13
02/28/13
03/01/13
03/28/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
90

4,172
3,886
4,052
12,110

Project: PJC
Area: Bdg 1, 3-9, 19, 20, 24
From
To
# Days
12/23/02
01/23/03
32
01/24/03
02/23/03
31
02/24/03
03/23/03
28
03/24/03
04/23/03
31
04/24/03
05/23/03
30
05/24/03
06/23/03
31
06/24/03
07/23/03
30
07/24/03
08/23/03
31
08/24/03
09/23/03
31
09/24/03
10/23/03
30
10/24/03
11/23/03
31
11/24/03
12/23/03
30
Sum/Average/Max
366
12/24/03

01/23/04

31

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
6,004
6,098
4,232
4,167
3,405
1,751
2,281
2,284
2,519
3,482
4,091
4,856
45,168

HDD
496
356
114
44
15
62
177
310
1,572

CDD
18
48
153
222
653
516
566
346
97
57
10
2,682

$/kWh
0.914471
1.036353
1.034257
1.214491
1.142678
1.162789
1.162345
1.150594
1.079546
1.197397
1.033337
1.122145
1.077182

kWh/Day
218.8333
183.875
146.1429
114.3667
96.12903
48.58065
65.4
64.03226
75.25806
96.93333
127.7097
144.2333
115.1245

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,298
6,045
4,108
3,454
2,690
1,727
1,210
2,090
2,413
2,309
4,009
3,680
39,032

282
247
39
32
4
276
259
1,137

17
10
73
105
286
417
475
475
384
138
22
7
2,406

1.201903
1.317355
1.308754
1.372917
1.327084
0.938831
1.042905
1.17747
1.128107
1.076912
1.073573
1.064702
1.185456

142.1935
148.0323
108.2414
81.16129
67.56667
59.32258
38.66667
57.25806
69
79.40741
113.1515
111.4839
89.62377

$
$
$
$

5,291
5,205
5,751
16,246

316
232
307
855

16
30
1
46

1.268207
1.339313
1.419176
1.341538

134.5806
125.3548
144.7143
134.8833

Site:
Campus
Meter: 54 Gas Meter # 109868
Therm
Demand
Cost
31,006
$
35,723
30,579
$
35,631
17,195
$
25,488
14,544
$
23,460
12,673
$
17,339
12,805
$
16,711
13,834
$
19,138
12,895
$
17,695
13,404
$
18,845
18,033
$
25,945
18,131
$
26,931
21,644
$
29,936
216,743
$
292,842
35,123

47,401

HDD
530
413
93
88
4
52
423
1,601
445

CDD
4
29
98
323
428
436
492
463
192
120
7
2,590
6

LF

Utility: Natural Gas

Account: 053533-65261900
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
1.152132 968.9375
1.165211 986.4194
1.482291 614.1071
1.613036 469.1613
1.368184 422.4333
1.305037 413.0645
1.383403 461.1333
1.372237 415.9677
1.405924 432.3871
1.438751
601.1
1.485357 584.871
1.383108 721.4667
1.351102 590.9207
1.349572

1133
Campus

Page A-34

From
To
01/24/04
02/23/04
02/24/04
03/23/04
03/24/04
04/23/04
04/24/04
05/23/04
05/24/04
06/23/04
06/24/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
12/23/04
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

kWh
31,218
25,527
17,498
15,998
11,656
9,164
12,212
12,952
7,797
14,102
21,842
215,089

12/24/04
01/23/05
01/24/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
12/23/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
33
29
34
27
33
29
28
31
365

28,384
21,661
25,947
18,714
18,605
13,832
11,829
11,689
14,977
15,501
19,194
28,871
229,204

12/24/05
02/01/06
02/02/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
04/01/06
04/02/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
12/01/06
Sum/Average/Max

40
28
31
30
31
28
29
32
31
31
32
343

29,265
22,872
22,194
17,779
17,477
12,030
11,357
10,552
12,198
14,432
26,935
197,091

32
28
29
29
29
33
29
32
31
28
33

30,546
28,428
31,423
23,121
20,620
18,302
12,973
10,420
8,824
9,897
17,339

12/02/06
01/03/07
01/31/07
03/01/07
03/30/07
04/28/07
05/31/07
06/29/07
07/31/07
08/31/07
09/28/07

01/02/07
01/30/07
02/28/07
03/29/07
04/27/07
05/30/07
06/28/07
07/30/07
08/30/07
09/27/07
10/30/07

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
48,413
37,466
26,112
22,683
19,576
15,810
21,736
21,628
11,603
22,454
37,238
332,120

HDD
415
161
73
3
5
46
327
1,473

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

50,011
38,441
43,887
30,138
30,889
22,232
18,333
19,024
26,713
32,546
43,543
63,938
419,695

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

CDD
3
27
49
228
466
490
482
458
300
146
14
2,667

$/kWh
1.550804
1.467701
1.492285
1.417865
1.679478
1.725229
1.779889
1.669858
1.488136
1.592256
1.704881
1.544105

kWh/Day
1007.032
880.2414
564.4516
533.2667
376
305.4667
393.9355
417.8065
259.9
454.9032
728.0667
587.8392

332
288
225
45
15
20
129
360
1,413

6
15
9
41
228
423
593
451
579
280
67
22
2,711

1.761943
1.774664
1.691409
1.610452
1.660253
1.607287
1.549835
1.627513
1.783602
2.099606
2.268574
2.21461
1.831098

915.6129
698.7419
926.6786
603.6774
563.7879
476.9655
347.9118
432.9259
453.8485
534.5172
685.5
931.3226
630.9575

64,400
53,736
43,358
29,451
28,490
17,431
16,708
16,548
19,403
24,167
39,357
353,049

294
287
112
1
49
224
967

18
3
69
208
344
495
547
565
411
178
18
2,854

2.200581
2.349423
1.953591
1.656505
1.630142
1.448961
1.471163
1.568234
1.590671
1.674543
1.461184
1.791299

731.625
816.8571
715.9355
592.6333
563.7742
429.6429
391.6207
329.75
393.4839
465.5484
841.7188
570.2354

52,168
54,780
53,191
38,137
35,567
30,531
18,888
15,191
12,376
13,381
20,419

321
322
358
118
85
34

4
4
5
49
101
312
469
549
618
431
284

1.70785
1.926973
1.692741
1.649453
1.724879
1.668178
1.455947
1.457869
1.402539
1.352026
1.177634

954.5625
1015.286
1083.552
797.2759
711.0345
554.6061
447.3448
325.625
284.6452
353.4643
525.4242

LF

Campus
Page A-35

From
To
10/31/07
11/30/07
12/01/07
12/28/07
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
28
392

kWh
25,023
26,450
263,366

12/29/07
01/30/08
01/31/08
02/29/08
03/01/08
03/28/08
03/29/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
05/28/08
05/29/08
06/25/08
06/26/08
07/29/08
07/30/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
09/30/08
10/01/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
12/31/08
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
31
30
28
34
30
33
30
27
35
369

38,335
25,718
21,777
20,594
15,760
12,475
14,942
13,130
15,249
17,693
20,717
24,493
240,883

01/01/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
06/30/09
07/01/09
07/30/09
07/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/30/09
10/31/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
12/30/09
Sum/Average/Max

33
28
29
35
31
25
30
32
30
30
31
30
364

27,395
23,290
18,042
28,193
12,297
7,359
11,202
12,890
12,387
14,639
18,258
25,621
211,573

12/31/09
01/29/10
01/30/10
02/28/10
03/01/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
04/29/10
04/30/10
05/29/10
05/30/10
06/30/10
07/01/10
07/30/10
07/31/10
08/28/10
08/29/10
09/28/10
09/29/10
10/28/10
10/29/10
11/28/10
11/29/10
12/28/10
Sum/Average/Max

30
30
30
30
30
32
30
29
31
30
31
30
363

32,925
33,636
25,312
15,812
13,404
11,607
8,856
9,356
9,524
14,426
21,678
29,844
226,380

31
31
28
30
31

32,256
28,994
19,830
14,781
14,800

12/29/10
01/29/11
03/01/11
03/29/11
04/28/11

01/28/11
02/28/11
03/28/11
04/27/11
05/28/11

Demand

$
$
$

Cost
31,961
35,613
412,203

HDD
169
204
1,609

CDD
26
26
2,875

$/kWh
1.277265
1.346427
1.565134

kWh/Day
807.1935
944.6429
677.2813

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

54,006
36,161
31,416
31,651
25,579
23,234
29,063
26,515
25,717
27,480
30,623
38,797
380,242

422
263
214
48
1
66
234
276
1,523

10
16
18
84
252
431
567
479
468
148
16
42
2,528

1.408791
1.406058
1.442623
1.536904
1.623033
1.862445
1.945038
2.019436
1.686446
1.553162
1.478178
1.583996
1.578534

1161.667
857.2667
777.75
664.3226
525.3333
445.5357
439.4706
437.6667
462.0909
589.7667
767.2963
699.8
652.3305

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

43,889
35,413
23,934
38,262
13,563
9,035
12,509
14,381
14,416
15,437
20,408
26,200
267,449

376
318
88
37
44
154
345
1,361

17
6
48
144
398
477
495
519
483
267
16
6
2,873

1.602096
1.520533
1.326564
1.357143
1.102989
1.227717
1.116688
1.115676
1.16384
1.054541
1.117775
1.022598
1.264098

830.1515
831.7857
622.1379
805.5143
396.6774
294.36
373.4
402.8125
412.9
487.9667
588.9677
854.0333
575.0589

38,562
38,388
30,548
18,747
11,438
11,914
9,102
9,607
10,700
15,070
22,633
29,248
245,957

504
519
266
22
6
143
536
1,994

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.171213
1.141282
1.206849
1.18561
0.853323
1.026421
1.027816
1.026854
1.123471
1.044651
1.044037
0.980034
1.086479

1097.5
1121.2
843.7333
527.0667
446.8
362.7188
295.2
322.6207
307.2258
480.8667
699.2903
994.8
624.9185

$
$
$
$
$

27,891
25,600
16,688
14,287
14,546

504
348
114
44
15

0.864671
0.882954
0.841545
0.966576
0.982804

1040.516
935.2903
708.2143
492.7
477.4194

6
77
368
571
590
573
465
167
60
2
2,876
18
48
153
222

LF

Campus
Page A-36

From
To
05/29/11
06/28/11
06/29/11
07/28/11
07/29/11
08/28/11
08/29/11
09/28/11
09/29/11
10/28/11
10/29/11
11/28/11
11/29/11
12/28/11
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
365

kWh
10,604
9,863
11,914
15,358
19,164
24,042
24,874
226,480

12/29/11
01/28/12
01/29/12
02/28/12
02/29/12
03/28/12
03/29/12
04/28/12
04/29/12
05/28/12
05/29/12
06/28/12
06/29/12
07/28/12
07/29/12
08/28/12
08/29/12
09/28/12
09/29/12
10/25/12
10/26/12
11/28/12
11/29/12
12/28/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
27
34
30
366

25,690
25,682
20,298
20,304
16,343
14,986
13,100
13,548
13,460
12,259
20,370
18,244
214,284

12/29/12
01/28/13
01/29/13
02/28/13
03/01/13
03/28/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
90

21,270
21,528
19,692
62,490

Project: PJC
Area: Bldg 14
From
To
12/23/02
01/23/03
01/24/03
02/23/03
02/24/03
03/23/03
03/24/03
04/23/03
04/24/03
05/23/03
05/24/03
06/23/03
06/24/03
07/23/03
07/24/03
08/23/03
08/24/03
09/23/03
09/24/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
11/23/03
11/24/03
12/23/03
Sum/Average/Max
12/24/03
01/24/04
02/24/04
03/24/04
04/24/04
05/24/04

01/23/04
02/23/04
03/23/04
04/23/04
05/23/04
06/23/04

# Days
32
31
28
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366
31
31
29
31
30
31

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
10,677
9,958
11,856
14,161
21,059
23,135
24,767
214,624

HDD
62
177
310
1,572

CDD
653
516
566
346
97
57
10
2,682

$/kWh
1.006869
1.00959
0.995133
0.922075
1.098894
0.962256
0.995717
0.947653

kWh/Day
342.0645
328.7667
384.3226
495.4194
638.8
775.5484
829.1333
620.6829

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

25,052
24,469
19,175
19,379
15,301
12,530
12,273
14,577
13,751
11,684
19,274
17,460
204,925

282
247
39
32
4
289
246
1,137

17
10
73
105
286
417
475
475
384
138
22
7
2,406

0.975171
0.952775
0.944671
0.954435
0.936269
0.836122
0.936884
1.07594
1.021585
0.95307
0.946174
0.957048
0.956324

828.7097
828.4516
699.931
654.9677
544.7667
483.4194
436.6667
437.0323
434.1935
454.037
599.1176
608.1333
584.1189

$
$
$
$

21,958
20,775
19,553
62,286

316
232
307
855

16
30
1
46

Site:
Campus
Meter: 56 Gas Meter # 82691
Therm
Demand
Cost
2,716
$
3,139
3,202
$
3,741
2,052
$
3,051
1,867
$
3,021
1,408
$
1,936
1,215
$
1,596
1,367
$
1,901
1,123
$
1,551
$
11
488
$
713
1,286
$
1,882
1,962
$
2,724
18,686
$
25,266
3,297
2,664
1,900
1,542
1,830
1,642

$
$
$
$
$
$

4,459
4,141
2,799
2,311
2,604
2,765

HDD
530
413
93
88
4
52
423
1,601
445
415
161
73
3
-

CDD
4
29
98
323
428
436
492
463
192
120
7
2,590
6
3
27
49
228
466

LF

1.032354 686.129
0.965039 694.4516
0.992921 703.2857
0.996738 694.6221
Utility: Natural Gas
Account: 053538-65261918
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
1.155744
84.875
1.168332 103.2903
1.486842 73.28571
1.618104 60.22581
1.375 46.93333
1.31358 39.19355
1.390636 45.56667
1.381122 36.22581
0
0
1.461066 16.26667
1.463453 41.48387
1.388379
65.4
1.352135 51.06223
1.352442
1.554429
1.473158
1.498703
1.422951
1.683922

106.3548
85.93548
65.51724
49.74194
61
52.96774
Campus

Page A-37

From
To
06/24/04
07/23/04
07/24/04
08/23/04
08/24/04
09/23/04
09/24/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
11/23/04
11/24/04
12/23/04
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

kWh
1,296
1,207
1,280
293
1,460
1,836
20,247

12/24/04
01/23/05
01/24/05
02/23/05
02/24/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/23/05
04/24/05
05/26/05
05/27/05
06/24/05
06/25/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
08/24/05
08/25/05
09/26/05
09/27/05
10/25/05
10/26/05
11/22/05
11/23/05
12/23/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
33
29
34
27
33
29
28
31
365

2,617
1,790
1,675
233
308
979
706
440
1,057
1,015
1,706
2,215
14,741

12/24/05
02/01/06
02/02/06
03/01/06
03/02/06
04/01/06
04/02/06
05/01/06
05/02/06
06/01/06
06/02/06
06/29/06
06/30/06
07/28/06
07/29/06
08/29/06
08/30/06
09/29/06
09/30/06
10/30/06
10/31/06
12/01/06
Sum/Average/Max

40
28
31
30
31
28
29
32
31
31
32
343

2,238
1,904
1,927
1,493
1,506
1,091
969
705
103
1,268
2,217
15,421

12/02/06
01/02/07
01/03/07
01/30/07
01/31/07
02/28/07
03/01/07
03/29/07
03/30/07
04/27/07
04/28/07
05/30/07
05/31/07
06/28/07
06/29/07
07/30/07
07/31/07
08/30/07
08/31/07
09/27/07
09/28/07
10/30/07
10/31/07
11/30/07
12/01/07
12/28/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
29
29
29
33
29
32
31
28
33
31
28
392

2,408
2,175
2,068
1,312
1,191
1,179
917
579
556
294
1,108
2,061
2,257
18,105

33

3,000

12/29/07

01/30/08

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
2,245
2,158
2,147
447
2,334
3,140
31,550

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

HDD
5
46
327
1,473

CDD
490
482
458
300
146
14
2,667

$/kWh
1.732253
1.787904
1.677344
1.525597
1.59863
1.71024
1.558256

kWh/Day
43.2
38.93548
41.29032
9.766667
47.09677
61.2
55.25054

4,621
3,187
2,843
386
522
1,584
1,104
727
1,895
2,141
3,880
4,915
27,805

332
288
225
45
15
20
129
360
1,413

6
15
9
41
228
423
593
451
579
280
67
22
2,711

1.765762
1.780447
1.697313
1.656652
1.694805
1.617978
1.563739
1.652273
1.79281
2.10936
2.274326
2.218962
1.886236

84.41935
57.74194
59.82143
7.516129
9.333333
33.75862
20.76471
16.2963
32.0303
35
60.92857
71.45161
40.75519

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,935
4,483
3,774
2,885
2,757
1,802
1,624
1,252
194
2,735
3,768
30,209

294
287
112
1
49
224
967

18
3
69
208
344
495
547
565
411
178
18
2,854

2.205094
2.354517
1.958485
1.932351
1.830677
1.651696
1.675955
1.775887
1.883495
2.15694
1.699594
1.958952

55.95
68
62.16129
49.76667
48.58065
38.96429
33.41379
22.03125
3.322581
40.90323
69.28125
44.76136

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,897
4,623
3,912
2,429
2,296
2,206
1,621
1,029
958
498
1,821
3,690
4,135
34,115

321
322
358
118
85
34
169
204
1,609

4
4
5
49
101
312
469
549
618
431
284
26
26
2,875

2.033638
2.125517
1.891683
1.851372
1.927792
1.871077
1.767721
1.777202
1.723022
1.693878
1.643502
1.790393
1.832078
1.884286

75.25
77.67857
71.31034
45.24138
41.06897
35.72727
31.62069
18.09375
17.93548
10.5
33.57576
66.48387
80.60714
46.54563

6,143

422

10

LF

2.047667 90.90909
Campus

Page A-38

From
To
01/31/08
02/29/08
03/01/08
03/28/08
03/29/08
04/28/08
04/29/08
05/28/08
05/29/08
06/25/08
06/26/08
07/29/08
07/30/08
08/28/08
08/29/08
09/30/08
10/01/08
10/30/08
10/31/08
11/26/08
11/27/08
12/31/08
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
28
31
30
28
34
30
33
30
27
35
369

kWh
2,261
1,973
1,622
1,169
513
171
140
200
505
863
984
13,401

01/01/09
02/02/09
02/03/09
03/02/09
03/03/09
03/31/09
04/01/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/01/09
06/02/09
06/30/09
07/01/09
07/30/09
07/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/30/09
10/31/09
11/30/09
12/01/09
12/30/09
Sum/Average/Max

33
28
29
35
27
29
30
32
30
30
31
30
364

1,284
1,134
638
622
207
86
66
80
78
245
547
866
5,853

12/31/09
01/29/10
01/30/10
02/28/10
03/01/10
03/30/10
03/31/10
04/29/10
04/30/10
05/29/10
05/30/10
06/28/10
06/29/10
07/28/10
07/29/10
08/28/10
08/29/10
09/28/10
09/29/10
10/28/10
10/29/10
11/28/10
11/29/10
12/28/10
Sum/Average/Max

30
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
31
30
31
30
363

1,770
2,333
1,463
303
206
154
78
75
104
253
525
981
8,245

31
31
28
30
31
31
30
31
31
30

1,022
618
224
157
222
80
99
101
127
237

12/29/10
01/29/11
03/01/11
03/29/11
04/28/11
05/29/11
06/29/11
07/29/11
08/29/11
09/29/11

01/28/11
02/28/11
03/28/11
04/27/11
05/28/11
06/28/11
07/28/11
08/28/11
09/28/11
10/28/11

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
4,396
3,952
3,317
2,496
1,225
431
366
451
1,066
1,729
2,075
27,647

HDD
263
214
48
1
66
234
276
1,523

CDD
16
18
84
252
431
567
479
468
148
16
42
2,528

$/kWh
1.944272
2.003041
2.045006
2.135158
2.38809
2.522456
2.611929
2.2533
2.111584
2.003662
2.108882
2.063086

kWh/Day
75.36667
70.46429
52.32258
38.96667
18.32143
5.029412
4.666667
6.060606
16.83333
31.96296
28.11429
36.58483

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,871
2,418
1,209
1,221
351
164
122
145
145
401
906
1,381
11,335

376
318
88
37
44
154
345
1,361

17
6
48
144
350
525
495
519
483
267
16
6
2,873

2.235997
2.13269
1.895157
1.962797
1.695266
1.904302
1.847121
1.813125
1.861026
1.638449
1.65713
1.594203
1.936566

38.90909
40.5
22
17.77143
7.666667
2.965517
2.2
2.5
2.6
8.166667
17.64516
28.86667
15.9826

2,982
3,779
2,375
500
298
252
134
129
184
411
864
1,550
13,459

504
519
266
22
6
143
536
1,994

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1.684938
1.619876
1.623137
1.651254
1.446408
1.636169
1.719359
1.723333
1.771346
1.623478
1.645429
1.580133
1.632347

59
77.76667
48.76667
10.1
6.866667
5.133333
2.6
2.419355
3.354839
8.433333
16.93548
32.7
22.8397

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,325
882
327
262
348
135
164
166
197
413

504
348
114
44
15
62

1.296898
1.427006
1.461473
1.666242
1.569189
1.6905
1.660303
1.64604
1.549291
1.742447

32.96774
19.93548
8
5.233333
7.16129
2.580645
3.3
3.258065
4.096774
7.9

6
77
368
537
578
619
465
167
60
2
2,876
18
48
153
222
653
516
566
346
97

LF

Campus
Page A-39

From
To
10/29/11
11/28/11
11/29/11
12/28/11
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
30
365

12/29/11
01/28/12
01/29/12
02/28/12
02/29/12
03/28/12
03/29/12
04/28/12
04/29/12
05/28/12
05/29/12
06/28/12
06/29/12
07/28/12
07/29/12
08/28/12
08/29/12
09/28/12
09/29/12
10/25/12
10/26/12
11/28/12
11/29/12
12/28/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
27
34
30
366

874
978
539
520
240
145
108
151
119
207
913
637
5,431

12/29/12
01/28/13
01/29/13
02/28/13
03/01/13
03/28/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
90

964
1,033
658
2,655

Project: PJC
Area: Bldgs 14 & 15
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/03/03
07/04/03
08/05/03
08/06/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max
12/04/03
01/06/04
02/05/04
03/04/04
04/06/04
05/04/04
06/03/04
07/03/04
08/03/04
09/02/04
10/01/04
11/03/04

01/05/04
02/04/04
03/03/04
04/05/04
05/03/04
06/02/04
07/02/04
08/02/04
09/01/04
09/30/04
11/02/04
12/03/04

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
28
33
30
32
29
29
333
33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
29
33
31

kWh
625
680
4,192

Demand

$
$
$

Cost
960
1,104
6,284

HDD
177
310
1,572

CDD
57
10
2,682

$/kWh
1.53584
1.622824
1.498962

kWh/Day
20.16129
22.66667
11.43844

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,483
1,771
978
977
448
221
180
266
207
337
1,431
998
9,297

282
247
39
32
4
289
246
1,137

17
10
73
105
286
417
475
475
384
138
22
7
2,406

1.697151
1.810695
1.814416
1.878404
1.868667
1.525655
1.664074
1.759272
1.741597
1.630242
1.567306
1.566075
1.711882

28.19355
31.54839
18.58621
16.77419
8
4.677419
3.6
4.870968
3.83871
7.666667
26.85294
21.23333
14.65353

$
$
$
$

1,698
1,892
1,264
4,853

316
232
307
855

16
30
1
46

Site:
Campus
Meter: 08 Elect Mtr #3260688
kWh
Demand
Cost
61,360
158 $
3,634
60,560
151 $
3,558
56,080
138 $
3,286
62,400
154 $
3,655
52,960
120 $
3,045
48,880
124 $
2,891
56,960
124 $
3,242
51,040
125 $
2,991
65,840
137 $
3,704
61,840
142 $
3,560
59,520
149 $
3,501
637,440
158 $
37,067
56,960
62,160
59,760
64,320
57,920
52,400
52,400
51,040
50,960
40,000
63,120
62,000

153
146
162
138
146
130
146
119
130
136
117
156

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

3,560
3,758
3,742
3,810
3,563
3,215
3,309
3,087
3,148
2,680
3,631
3,810

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111
438
476
329
120
34
1
5
141

CDD
8
38
178
393
405
499
503
341
158
70
2,590
6
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
448
407
316
41

LF

1.761442 31.09677
1.831094 33.32258
1.920426
23.5
1.827944 29.30645
Utility: Electric
Account: 08860-93009
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.059224
1917.5
51%
0.058752 2088.276
58%
0.058595 1933.793
58%
0.058574 2012.903
54%
0.057496 1708.387
59%
0.059145 1745.714
59%
0.056917 1726.061
58%
0.058601 1701.333
57%
0.056258
2057.5
63%
0.057568 2132.414
63%
0.058821 2052.414
57%
0.05815 1916.027
50%
0.0625
0.060457
0.062617
0.059235
0.061516
0.061355
0.063149
0.060482
0.061774
0.067
0.057525
0.061452

1726.061
2072
2134.286
1949.091
2068.571
1746.667
1746.667
1646.452
1698.667
1379.31
1912.727
2000

47%
59%
55%
59%
59%
56%
50%
58%
54%
42%
68%
53%
Campus

Page A-40

From
To
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
366

kWh
673,040

Demand
162 $

Cost
41,313

HDD
1,542

CDD
2,656

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

58,960
59,760
63,040
61,440
57,600
51,600
48,800
50,720
46,960
63,200
64,000
63,280
689,360

157 $
149 $
163 $
134 $
146 $
129 $
130 $
128 $
129 $
156 $
137 $
154 $
163 $

3,999
3,993
4,244
4,144
4,007
3,583
3,438
3,530
3,333
4,368
4,299
4,361
47,299

390
323
246
153
26
59
159
1,353

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

0.067826
0.066817
0.067322
0.067448
0.069566
0.069438
0.070451
0.069598
0.070975
0.069114
0.067172
0.068916
0.068613

1786.667
2060.69
2173.793
1920
2057.143
1720
1682.759
1536.97
1619.31
1975
2133.333
2109.333
1897.916

47%
58%
56%
60%
59%
56%
54%
50%
52%
53%
65%
57%
48%

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

57,040
58,240
63,120
59,360
62,400
54,800
51,680
48,800
54,400
59,120
61,440
62,880
693,280

168 $
132 $
149 $
105 $
174 $
131 $
125 $
126 $
128 $
154 $
125 $
163 $
174 $

4,377
4,235
4,622
4,138
4,724
4,024
3,806
3,643
3,983
4,413
4,378
4,687
51,030

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.076736
0.072716
0.073226
0.06971
0.075705
0.073431
0.073646
0.074652
0.073217
0.074645
0.071257
0.074539
0.073607

1728.485
2008.276
2176.552
1914.839
2080
1660.606
1722.667
1742.857
1600
2038.621
2118.621
1965
1896.377

43%
63%
61%
76%
50%
53%
57%
58%
52%
55%
71%
50%
45%

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

54,880
55,200
65,680
54,720
59,520
49,520
51,040
53,600
56,240
56,240
64,320
65,920
686,880

158 $
147 $
154 $
154 $
157 $
117 $
126 $
131 $
128 $
150 $
162 $
163 $
163 $

4,740
4,697
5,458
4,705
5,053
4,130
4,287
4,493
4,656
4,786
5,412
5,528
57,945

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
530
652
412
212
16
2,850

0.08637
0.085091
0.0831
0.085983
0.084896
0.083401
0.083993
0.083825
0.082788
0.0851
0.084142
0.083859
0.08436

1715
1971.429
2052.5
1886.897
1984
1597.419
1760
1729.032
1704.242
2008.571
2144
2060
1884.424

45%
56%
56%
51%
53%
57%
58%
55%
55%
56%
55%
53%
48%

34
29
29
29
29
32
30

56,960
55,520
56,560
54,160
56,480
52,400
47,680

4,843
4,703
4,804
4,692
4,828
4,388
4,134

306
336
253
175
49
-

25
18
10
27
92
322
467

0.085025
0.084708
0.084936
0.086632
0.085482
0.08374
0.086703

1675.294
1914.483
1950.345
1867.586
1947.586
1637.5
1589.333

47%
56%
55%
50%
53%
54%
48%

12/05/07
01/08/08
02/06/08
03/06/08
04/04/08
05/03/08
06/04/08

01/07/08
02/05/08
03/05/08
04/03/08
05/02/08
06/03/08
07/03/08

150
143
148
157
153
126
138

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.061383 1840.041

LF
47%

Campus
Page A-41

From
To
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
31
29
32
30
366

kWh
44,320
42,720
48,080
51,520
46,160
612,560

Demand
131 $
126 $
149 $
135 $
139 $
157 $

Cost
3,861
4,245
4,815
5,011
4,600
54,924

HDD
88
290
1,497

CDD
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

$/kWh
0.087117
0.099361
0.100144
0.097266
0.099659
0.089663

kWh/Day
1385
1378.065
1657.931
1610
1538.667
1679.316

LF
44%
46%
46%
50%
46%
44%

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

35,280
44,320
45,920
43,600
45,120
40,960
40,240
39,280
38,720
51,760
44,000
45,200
514,400

134 $
142 $
157 $
157 $
136 $
114 $
120 $
128 $
120 $
138 $
136 $
154 $
157 $

4,071
4,949
5,185
4,971
4,987
4,475
4,346
4,307
4,210
5,483
4,777
4,990
56,752

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

0.115392
0.111665
0.112903
0.114021
0.110529
0.109252
0.108003
0.109659
0.108732
0.105928
0.108565
0.110408
0.110326

1102.5
1477.333
1583.448
1362.5
1555.862
1321.29
1298.065
1354.483
1335.172
1568.485
1571.429
1506.667
1419.769

34%
43%
42%
36%
48%
48%
45%
44%
46%
47%
48%
41%
38%

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

42,000
46,560
53,040
44,480
52,560
38,880
41,520
43,360
40,240
51,840
47,200
48,000
549,680

150 $
147 $
169 $
158 $
158 $
110 $
129 $
117 $
122 $
147 $
147 $
154 $
169 $

4,870
5,281
6,020
5,151
5,910
4,341
4,701
4,803
4,540
5,777
5,341
5,458
62,194

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

0.11596
0.113427
0.113498
0.115796
0.112442
0.111653
0.11323
0.11078
0.112815
0.111446
0.113163
0.113704
0.113146

1272.727
1605.517
1768
1588.571
1592.727
1340.69
1431.724
1355
1341.333
1570.909
1627.586
1600
1507.899

35%
46%
44%
42%
42%
51%
46%
48%
46%
45%
46%
43%
37%

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/02/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
29
31
365

48,480
41,280
44,320
34,960
47,120
33,120
34,720
38,720
37,120
44,720
44,240
48,000
496,800

175 $
150 $
143 $
140 $
162 $
101 $
126 $
119 $
132 $
125 $
125 $
143 $
175 $

5,453
4,654
4,888
4,024
5,253
3,628
3,920
4,240
4,172
4,947
4,903
5,363
55,444

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
90
218
1,832

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.112472
0.112751
0.110284
0.115106
0.111481
0.10953
0.112897
0.109504
0.112395
0.110618
0.110823
0.111736
0.111603

1385.143
1474.286
1528.276
1248.571
1427.879
1068.387
1285.926
1173.333
1237.333
1442.581
1525.517
1548.387
1362.135

33%
41%
45%
37%
37%
44%
43%
41%
39%
48%
51%
45%
32%

32
29

37,760
42,400

4,305
4,692

307
248

10
17

0.114005
1180
0.110669 1462.069

37%
48%

12/03/11
01/04/12

01/03/12
02/01/12

132
127

$
$

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
-

Campus
Page A-42

From
To
02/02/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/01/12
04/02/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/03/12
07/04/12
08/02/12
08/03/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/02/12
10/03/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/03/12
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
30
31
30
32
30
32
29
29
33
367

kWh
47,040
43,680
47,040
41,040
43,120
40,640
38,160
43,760
46,880
46,960
518,480

Demand
129 $
140 $
126 $
101 $
108 $
116 $
107 $
128 $
145 $
131 $
145 $

Cost
4,958
4,737
4,946
4,264
4,035
3,897
3,650
4,213
4,560
4,476
52,733

HDD
207
39
32
48
273
1,153

CDD
22
86
107
314
440
485
486
320
111
13
2,409

$/kWh
0.105409
0.10845
0.105143
0.103892
0.093577
0.095895
0.095648
0.096266
0.097274
0.09532
0.101708

kWh/Day
1568
1456
1517.419
1368
1347.5
1354.667
1192.5
1508.966
1616.552
1423.03
1416.225

LF
50%
43%
50%
56%
52%
49%
47%
49%
46%
45%
40%

12/04/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
02/01/13
02/02/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

30
30
30
30
120

38,160
44,560
51,200
43,760
177,680

140 $
143 $
145 $
128 $
145 $

3,937
4,457
4,989
4,297
17,680

289
258
275
269
1,090

7
32
13
1
53

0.103179
0.100022
0.097439
0.0982
0.099507

1272
1485.333
1706.667
1458.667
1480.667

38%
43%
49%
47%
43%

Project: PJC
Area: Bdg 10,11,12, 16 & 18
From
To
# Days
01/05/03
02/05/03
32
02/06/03
03/06/03
29
03/07/03
04/04/03
29
04/05/03
05/05/03
31
05/06/03
06/05/03
31
06/06/03
07/03/03
28
07/04/03
08/05/03
33
08/06/03
09/04/03
30
09/05/03
10/06/03
32
10/07/03
11/04/03
29
11/05/03
12/03/03
29
Sum/Average/Max
333

Site:
Campus
Meter: 07 Elect Mtr # 3055070
kWh
Demand
Cost
344,800
648 $
18,326
360,000
688 $
19,235
481,200
788 $
24,400
574,800
1,008 $
29,750
650,400
1,084 $
33,101
604,000
1,252 $
33,089
715,600
1,260 $
37,044
668,800
1,252 $
35,341
633,600
1,132 $
32,975
524,400
1,012 $
28,036
477,600
972 $
26,028
6,035,200
1,260 $
317,325

12/04/03
01/03/04
01/04/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/02/04
Sum/Average/Max

31
32
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
29
33
30
365

462,400
356,800
332,400
458,400
479,600
623,600
706,400
744,800
668,400
462,000
647,600
485,200
6,427,600

1,140
816
684
1,160
1,048
1,248
1,276
1,252
1,248
1,164
1,240
1,284
1,284

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

32
31
29

438,400
440,800
452,800

948
884
964

$
$
$

12/03/04
01/04/05
02/04/05

01/03/05
02/03/05
03/04/05

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111

CDD
25
77
269
460
703
685
829
803
661
435
231
5,176

28,264
21,241
19,074
28,305
28,028
35,301
38,653
39,856
36,970
28,477
36,119
30,485
370,773

433
481
329
120
34
1
5
126
1,527

50
46
62
250
324
631
761
843
748
697
641
236
5,286

27,888
27,381
28,655

399
328
246

99
115
110

Utility: Electric
Account: 09280-93001
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.05315
10775
69%
0.053431 12413.79
75%
0.050707 16593.1
88%
0.051757 18541.94
77%
0.050893 20980.65
81%
0.054783 21571.43
72%
0.051766 21684.85
72%
0.052842 22293.33
74%
0.052044
19800
73%
0.053463 18082.76
74%
0.054497 16468.97
71%
0.052579 18109.62
60%
0.061125
0.059532
0.057383
0.061747
0.05844
0.056608
0.054718
0.053512
0.055311
0.061639
0.055774
0.06283
0.057685

14916.13
11150
11871.43
13890.91
17128.57
20786.67
23546.67
24025.81
22280
15931.03
19624.24
16173.33
17610.4

55%
57%
72%
50%
68%
69%
77%
80%
74%
57%
66%
52%
57%

0.063613
13700
0.062117 14219.35
0.063284 15613.79

60%
67%
67%
Campus

Page A-43

From
To
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
365

kWh
522,800
474,000
616,000
678,000
763,600
633,200
700,000
503,600
453,200
6,676,400

Demand
1,000
1,156
1,216
1,224
1,256
1,232
1,212
972
1,172
1,256

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
33,097
32,399
39,327
42,178
46,315
40,249
43,049
31,971
31,621
424,130

HDD
153
26
59
159
1,368

CDD
208
295
595
739
905
798
865
410
258
5,394

$/kWh
0.063307
0.068352
0.063843
0.062209
0.060653
0.063564
0.061499
0.063485
0.069773
0.063527

kWh/Day
16337.5
16928.57
20533.33
23379.31
23139.39
21834.48
21875
16786.67
15106.67
18287.84

LF
68%
61%
70%
80%
77%
74%
75%
72%
54%
61%

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

443,200
355,200
356,000
420,400
539,600
625,200
605,600
604,400
689,200
564,000
482,000
498,400
6,183,200

932
720
692
1,092
1,152
1,128
1,212
1,204
1,232
1,000
1,128
1,144
1,232

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

30,923
24,560
24,332
31,322
37,777
41,773
41,606
41,471
45,923
37,533
34,705
35,667
427,592

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

103
121
104
287
500
722
853
790
940
646
355
131
5,549

0.069772
0.069144
0.068348
0.074505
0.070009
0.066815
0.068702
0.068615
0.066632
0.066548
0.072002
0.071563
0.069154

13430.3
12248.28
12275.86
13561.29
17986.67
18945.45
20186.67
21585.71
20270.59
19448.28
16620.69
15575
16844.57

60%
71%
74%
52%
65%
70%
69%
75%
69%
81%
61%
57%
57%

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

465,200
416,400
479,200
481,200
485,000
531,600
605,600
609,600
784,800
564,800
552,000
501,200
6,476,600

1,084
788
856
968
1,112
1,180
1,096
1,296
1,260
1,108
1,128
1,088
1,296

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

38,026
32,318
36,682
37,867
39,476
42,870
46,449
48,591
58,616
44,148
43,581
40,194
508,818

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

143
69
108
321
340
631
782
840
982
692
481
167
5,553

0.081741
0.077613
0.076548
0.078693
0.081394
0.080643
0.076699
0.07971
0.074689
0.078166
0.078951
0.080196
0.078563

14537.5
14871.43
14975
16593.1
16166.67
17148.39
20882.76
19664.52
23781.82
20171.43
18400
15662.5
17737.93

56%
79%
73%
71%
61%
61%
79%
63%
79%
76%
68%
60%
57%

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30

500,000
435,600
443,600
458,800
488,000
630,400
610,800
676,800
617,200
577,600
514,477
482,323

1,168
864
920
896
1,064
1,208
1,224
1,184
1,196
1,128
932
932

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

40,983
34,263
35,387
36,048
39,368
49,158
48,151
51,706
55,714
52,226
45,884
43,587

306
336
253
175
49
88
290

170
91
101
179
335
642
767
869
801
654
379
118

0.081966
0.078657
0.079772
0.07857
0.080672
0.077979
0.078833
0.076398
0.09027
0.090419
0.089185
0.090369

14705.88
15020.69
15296.55
15820.69
16827.59
19700
20360
21150
19909.68
19917.24
16077.41
16077.43

52%
72%
69%
74%
66%
68%
69%
74%
69%
74%
72%
72%

12/05/07
01/08/08
02/06/08
03/06/08
04/04/08
05/03/08
06/04/08
07/04/08
08/05/08
09/05/08
10/04/08
11/05/08

01/07/08
02/05/08
03/05/08
04/03/08
05/02/08
06/03/08
07/03/08
08/04/08
09/04/08
10/03/08
11/04/08
12/04/08

Campus
Page A-44

From
To
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
366

kWh
6,435,600

Demand
1,224

Cost
532,475

HDD
1,497

CDD
5,103

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

458,400
415,600
398,800
486,800
466,400
541,600
613,200
562,800
562,000
681,200
495,600
396,800
6,079,200

872
796
952
952
964
1,008
1,256
1,260
1,276
1,304
1,264
908
1,304

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

46,182
41,965
42,039
49,258
47,701
54,275
61,163
57,168
57,256
67,032
51,848
40,601
616,488

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

231
68
84
334
390
708
900
764
749
837
438
181
5,681

0.100747
0.100974
0.105414
0.101187
0.102275
0.100212
0.099744
0.101578
0.10188
0.098403
0.104616
0.102322
0.101409

14325
13853.33
13751.72
15212.5
16082.76
17470.97
19780.65
19406.9
19379.31
20642.42
17700
13226.67
16736.02

68%
73%
60%
67%
70%
72%
66%
64%
63%
66%
58%
61%
54%

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

390,800
336,400
327,600
334,000
458,000
509,200
567,200
606,400
594,800
589,200
450,000
393,600
5,557,200

908
852
616
1,220
1,140
1,140
1,232
1,264
1,308
1,220
1,192
1,052
1,308

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

41,790
36,686
33,666
39,923
49,638
53,947
59,686
63,300
62,720
61,412
49,420
43,374
595,561

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

69
38
15
115
442
665
818
966
853
774
433
204
5,390

0.106935
0.109055
0.102764
0.119529
0.10838
0.105945
0.105229
0.104386
0.105447
0.10423
0.109822
0.110197
0.107169

11842.42
11600
10920
11928.57
13878.79
17558.62
19558.62
18950
19826.67
17854.55
15517.24
13120
15212.96

54%
57%
74%
41%
51%
64%
66%
62%
63%
61%
54%
52%
49%

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
10/31/11
11/01/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
28
31
364

299,200
261,600
301,200
315,200
495,200
501,600
522,800
616,800
580,400
536,800
431,600
414,400
5,276,800

644
592
1,024
1,032
1,092
1,244
1,224
1,216
1,216
1,244
1,123
1,235
1,244

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

30,489
26,953
34,305
35,494
50,589
52,535
54,052
61,589
58,653
56,807
46,978
46,723
555,167

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
80
213
1,818

41
18
141
244
472
635
837
901
824
594
280
216
5,200

0.101902
0.10303
0.113896
0.112607
0.102159
0.104735
0.103389
0.099853
0.101055
0.105825
0.108847
0.112749
0.105209

8548.571
9342.857
10386.21
11257.14
15006.06
16180.65
19362.96
18690.91
19346.67
17316.13
15414.29
13367.74
14518.35

55%
66%
42%
45%
57%
54%
66%
64%
66%
58%
57%
45%
49%

33
29
29
31
30
30
32

334,400
334,000
342,000
444,000
435,200
479,600
569,600

1,129
1,091
1,168
842
959
1,161
1,182

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

38,739
38,334
38,569
43,068
44,147
49,716
50,781

322
248
207
39
32
-

125
142
150
363
365
612
756

0.115846
0.114773
0.112775
0.097
0.101442
0.103661
0.089152

10133.33
11517.24
11793.1
14322.58
14506.67
15986.67
17800

37%
44%
42%
71%
63%
57%
63%

12/02/11
01/04/12
02/02/12
03/02/12
04/02/12
05/02/12
06/01/12

01/03/12
02/01/12
03/01/12
04/01/12
05/01/12
05/31/12
07/02/12

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.082739 17571.93

LF
60%

Campus
Page A-45

From
To
07/03/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
33
30
28
32
367

kWh
586,800
592,800
477,600
342,000
274,000
5,212,000

Demand
1,182
1,178
1,152
1,127
560
1,182

$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
51,916
52,271
44,375
35,145
24,511
511,573

HDD
48
270
1,165

CDD
785
833
624
343
111
5,206

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
29
31
30
121

228,800
263,200
267,600
242,800
1,002,400

1,055
699
683
703
1,055

$
$
$
$
$

27,314
25,726
25,855
24,461
103,356

292
244
289
269
1,093

127
157
128
82
493

Project: PJC
Area: Computer Ctr Bldg 13
From
To
# Days
01/05/03
02/05/03
32
02/06/03
03/06/03
29
03/07/03
04/04/03
29
04/05/03
05/05/03
31
05/06/03
06/05/03
31
06/06/03
07/03/03
28
07/04/03
08/05/03
33
08/06/03
09/04/03
30
09/05/03
10/06/03
32
10/07/03
11/04/03
29
11/05/03
12/03/03
29
Sum/Average/Max
333
12/04/03
01/04/04
01/05/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max
12/04/04
01/06/05
02/04/05
03/05/05
04/06/05
05/04/05
06/03/05
07/02/05

01/05/05
02/03/05
03/04/05
04/05/05
05/03/05
06/02/05
07/01/05
08/03/05

Site:
Campus
Meter: 15 Elect Mtr # 3260687
kWh
Demand
Cost
31,120
110 $
2,038
31,960
109 $
2,068
35,480
95 $
2,139
55,840
122 $
3,182
59,120
113 $
3,271
49,000
91 $
2,702
57,920
90 $
3,083
50,720
90 $
2,771
47,400
82 $
2,579
46,800
92 $
2,612
45,880
90 $
2,560
511,240
122 $
29,005

32
31
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
29
33
31
366

49,600
44,840
46,040
53,880
50,040
58,080
56,680
59,200
55,680
47,960
62,840
49,600
634,440

33
29
29
32
28
30
29
33

52,240
47,000
49,600
51,760
47,560
55,960
56,800
62,800

90 $
94 $
131 $
100 $
102 $
104 $
99 $
101 $
101 $
105 $
105 $
105 $
131 $
95
92
97
103
95
96
104
106

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.088474
19560
0.088177 17963.64
0.092913
15920
0.102763 12214.29
0.089455
8562.5
0.098153
14190
0.119379
0.097742
0.09662
0.100747
0.103109

7380.645
9075.862
8632.258
8093.333
8295.525

LF
69%
64%
58%
45%
64%
50%
29%
54%
53%
48%
33%

8
38
178
393
405
499
503
341
158
70
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 09490-93001
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.065488
972.5
37%
0.064706 1102.069
42%
0.060287 1223.448
54%
0.056984 1801.29
62%
0.055328 1907.097
70%
0.055143
1750
80%
0.053229 1755.152
81%
0.054633 1690.667
78%
0.054409 1481.25
75%
0.055812 1613.793
73%
0.055798 1582.069
73%
0.056735 1534.485
52%

CDD
-

2,850
2,655
2,928
3,106
2,941
3,322
3,229
3,356
3,194
2,863
3,547
2,938
36,929

433
481
329
120
34
1
5
141
1,542

6
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
448
407
316
41
2,656

0.05746
0.059211
0.063597
0.057647
0.058773
0.057197
0.056969
0.056689
0.057364
0.059696
0.056445
0.059234
0.058207

1550
1446.452
1644.286
1632.727
1787.143
1936
1889.333
1909.677
1856
1653.793
1904.242
1600
1734.138

72%
64%
52%
68%
73%
78%
80%
79%
77%
66%
76%
63%
55%

3,287
3,000
3,163
3,438
3,165
3,624
3,716
4,052

390
323
246
153
26
-

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575

0.062921
0.06383
0.06377
0.066422
0.066548
0.064761
0.065423
0.064522

1583.03
1620.69
1710.345
1617.5
1698.571
1865.333
1958.621
1903.03

69%
73%
73%
65%
74%
81%
78%
75%
Campus

Page A-46

From
To
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
32
30
30
364

kWh
55,880
60,760
46,800
49,280
636,440

Demand
104 $
102 $
88 $
94 $
106 $

Cost
3,667
3,918
3,082
3,252
41,364

HDD
59
159
1,353

CDD
508
545
166
82
2,716

$/kWh
0.065623
0.064483
0.065855
0.06599
0.064993

kWh/Day
1926.897
1898.75
1560
1642.667
1748.786

LF
77%
78%
74%
73%
69%

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

50,800
46,600
45,200
47,480
50,760
53,720
53,000
55,120
65,960
53,400
49,200
49,680
620,920

94 $
96 $
99 $
96 $
102 $
88 $
104 $
102 $
105 $
100 $
101 $
89 $
105 $

3,574
3,339
3,275
3,389
3,616
3,707
3,759
3,872
4,525
3,759
3,519
3,476
43,810

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.070354
0.071652
0.072456
0.071377
0.071237
0.069006
0.070925
0.070247
0.068602
0.070393
0.071524
0.069968
0.070557

1539.394
1606.897
1558.621
1531.613
1692
1627.879
1766.667
1968.571
1940
1841.379
1696.552
1552.5
1693.506

68%
70%
66%
66%
69%
77%
71%
80%
77%
77%
70%
73%
67%

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

50,400
42,920
36,040
32,360
35,560
44,480
42,440
48,480
50,960
40,360
35,960
29,280
489,240

106 $
107 $
57 $
56 $
74 $
74 $
82 $
82 $
84 $
80 $
73 $
56 $
107 $

4,125
3,617
2,850
2,591
2,917
3,530
3,437
3,852
4,034
3,282
2,939
2,380
39,554

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
530
652
412
212
16
2,850

0.081845
0.084273
0.079079
0.080068
0.08203
0.079362
0.080985
0.079455
0.07916
0.081318
0.08173
0.081284
0.080848

1575
1532.857
1126.25
1115.862
1185.333
1434.839
1463.448
1563.871
1544.242
1441.429
1198.667
915
1341.4

62%
60%
82%
83%
67%
81%
74%
79%
77%
75%
68%
68%
52%

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/03/08
11/04/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
31
31
366

38,840
36,440
37,280
40,440
40,240
43,920
43,000
50,080
46,920
42,520
44,640
42,480
506,800

72 $
70 $
67 $
80 $
72 $
73 $
80 $
84 $
80 $
76 $
72 $
72 $
84 $

3,136
2,959
2,999
3,293
3,232
3,491
3,469
3,980
4,314
3,933
4,082
3,907
42,794

306
336
253
175
49
85
293
1,497

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.080742
0.081202
0.080445
0.081429
0.080318
0.079485
0.080674
0.079473
0.091944
0.092498
0.091435
0.091963
0.08444

1142.353
1256.552
1285.517
1394.483
1387.586
1372.5
1433.333
1565
1513.548
1466.207
1440
1370.323
1385.617

66%
75%
80%
73%
80%
78%
75%
77%
79%
80%
83%
79%
68%

32
30
29

42,520
40,000
37,560

4,359
4,133
3,909

204
422
309

50
9
6

0.102508 1328.75
0.103325 1333.333
0.104067 1295.172

79%
78%
76%

12/05/08
01/06/09
02/05/09

01/05/09
02/04/09
03/05/09

70
71
71

$
$
$

Campus
Page A-47

From
To
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

kWh
41,760
40,320
43,240
44,320
42,200
45,640
44,080
42,200
42,960
506,800

Demand
76 $
81 $
74 $
84 $
88 $
88 $
73 $
80 $
80 $
88 $

Cost
4,324
4,221
4,448
4,499
4,333
4,640
4,412
4,285
4,353
51,917

HDD
53
29
56
148
1,220

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

44,960
42,520
43,160
40,000
47,440
42,720
43,480
50,080
48,720
49,520
42,000
37,640
532,240

76 $
80 $
76 $
77 $
84 $
86 $
78 $
89 $
87 $
80 $
79 $
72 $
89 $

4,712
4,506
4,543
4,252
4,992
4,560
4,585
5,270
5,130
5,164
4,451
4,000
56,164

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
29
30
364

42,480
38,480
41,640
39,840
48,960
45,920
41,280
50,600
46,680
45,760
41,400
43,560
526,600

70 $
74 $
81 $
78 $
77 $
78 $
82 $
80 $
81 $
88 $
78 $
81 $
88 $

4,291
3,953
4,280
4,099
4,918
4,649
4,253
5,084
4,735
4,805
4,340
4,558
53,963

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
90
203
1,818

33
29
30
31
30
30
32
29
33
29
30
31

45,120
40,680
41,320
46,960
45,520
45,360
46,480
44,560
47,120
43,320
38,320
42,920

4,598
4,254
4,153
4,650
4,544
4,543
4,163
4,010
4,167
3,883
3,495
3,795

322
248
207
39
32
52
267

12/02/11
01/04/12
02/02/12
03/03/12
04/03/12
05/03/12
06/02/12
07/04/12
08/02/12
09/04/12
10/03/12
11/02/12

01/03/12
02/01/12
03/02/12
04/02/12
05/02/12
06/01/12
07/03/12
08/01/12
09/03/12
10/02/12
11/01/12
12/02/12

74
83
81
82
84
86
88
87
81
82
81
73

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

CDD
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

$/kWh
0.103549
0.104697
0.102878
0.101503
0.102667
0.101672
0.100096
0.101549
0.101334
0.10244

kWh/Day
1305
1390.345
1394.839
1429.677
1455.172
1573.793
1335.758
1507.143
1432
1398.415

LF
72%
72%
79%
71%
69%
75%
76%
78%
75%
66%

0.1048
0.105976
0.105251
0.10629
0.105229
0.106749
0.10544
0.105225
0.105297
0.10428
0.105984
0.106277
0.105524

1362.424
1466.207
1438.667
1428.571
1437.576
1473.103
1499.31
1565
1624
1500.606
1448.276
1254.667
1458.201

75%
76%
79%
77%
71%
72%
80%
73%
78%
78%
76%
73%
68%

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.101005
0.102723
0.102778
0.102894
0.100443
0.101237
0.10303
0.100467
0.10144
0.104994
0.104839
0.104632
0.102475

1213.714
1374.286
1435.862
1422.857
1483.636
1481.29
1528.889
1533.333
1556
1476.129
1427.586
1452
1448.799

72%
77%
74%
76%
80%
79%
78%
80%
80%
70%
76%
75%
68%

10
17
22
95
98
314
440
469
503
320
111
13

0.101904
0.104576
0.100507
0.099011
0.099815
0.100145
0.089562
0.089987
0.088427
0.089635
0.091201
0.088409

1367.273
1402.759
1377.333
1514.839
1517.333
1512
1452.5
1536.552
1427.879
1493.793
1277.333
1384.516

77%
71%
71%
77%
76%
73%
69%
74%
73%
76%
65%
79%

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
-

Campus
Page A-48

From
To
Sum/Average/Max
12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
367

kWh
527,680

Demand
88 $

Cost
50,252

HDD
1,165

CDD
2,409

31
29
31
30
121

43,040
35,880
37,920
40,480
157,320

81 $
83 $
81 $
82 $
83 $

3,936
3,390
3,536
3,743
14,606

292
244
289
269
1,093

7
32
13
1
53

Project: PJC
Area: CSAT Bldg 21
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/03/03
07/04/03
08/05/03
08/06/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

Site:
Campus
Meter: 16 Elect Mtr # 3260736
kWh
Demand
Cost
70,800
154 $
4,020
70,320
156 $
4,011
65,760
154 $
3,801
73,680
154 $
4,145
68,400
139 $
3,827
98,640
276 $
5,948
140,640
288 $
7,842
146,400
302 $
8,174
162,240
290 $
8,791
147,120
264 $
7,981
136,800
295 $
7,716
1,180,800
302 $
66,256

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
28
33
30
32
29
29
333

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/04/04
03/05/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
29
32
28
30
30
31
30
29
33
31
366

71,040
70,800
20,400
64,080
85,920
65,040
65,280
66,480
107,520
91,200
105,120
68,160
881,040

252 $
154 $
149 $
161 $
259 $
259 $
139 $
142 $
307 $
312 $
296 $
132 $
312 $

4,792
4,202
1,855
3,935
5,517
4,557
3,860
3,933
6,794
6,073
6,613
3,951
56,082

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

87,360
67,200
75,840
69,120
63,600
65,040
63,120
63,600
96,720
167,040
152,400
77,040
1,048,080

271 $
154 $
266 $
146 $
144 $
137 $
144 $
142 $
331 $
329 $
326 $
218 $
331 $

6,133
4,405
5,510
4,629
4,319
4,356
4,293
4,307
7,210
10,992
10,184
5,481
71,819

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.095233 1438.676
0.091461
0.094477
0.093258
0.092463
0.09284

1388.387
1237.241
1223.226
1349.333
1299.547

LF
68%
72%
62%
63%
68%
65%

8
38
178
393
405
499
503
341
158
70
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 09700-93004
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.05678
2212.5
60%
0.057039 2424.828
65%
0.057801 2267.586
61%
0.056257 2376.774
64%
0.05595 2206.452
66%
0.0603 3522.857
53%
0.055759 4261.818
62%
0.055833
4880
67%
0.054185
5070
73%
0.054248 5073.103
80%
0.056404 4717.241
67%
0.056111 3546.651
49%

438
476
329
120
34
1
5
141
1,542

6
3
8
29
75
332
461
533
448
407
316
41
2,656

0.067455
0.05935
0.090931
0.061408
0.064211
0.070065
0.05913
0.059161
0.063188
0.06659
0.062909
0.057967
0.063654

2152.727
2360
703.4483
2002.5
3068.571
2168
2176
2144.516
3584
3144.828
3185.455
2198.71
2407.396

36%
64%
20%
52%
49%
35%
65%
63%
49%
42%
45%
69%
32%

390
323
246
153
26
59
159
1,353

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

0.070204
0.065551
0.072653
0.06697
0.067909
0.066974
0.068013
0.06772
0.074545
0.065805
0.066824
0.071145
0.068524

2647.273
2317.241
2615.172
2160
2271.429
2168
2176.552
1927.273
3335.172
5220
5080
2568
2873.843

41%
63%
41%
62%
66%
66%
63%
57%
42%
66%
65%
49%
36%

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111

CDD
-

Campus
Page A-49

From

To

# Days

kWh

Demand

Cost

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

60,720
61,440
66,240
66,240
106,560
154,080
162,720
164,640
196,320
168,000
108,960
71,040
1,386,960

151 $
142 $
154 $
151 $
305 $
302 $
307 $
314 $
319 $
324 $
322 $
149 $
324 $

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

62,880
64,080
74,400
62,880
74,880
142,800
142,800
129,360
158,400
148,320
148,320
134,880
1,344,000

142
168
269
154
259
252
278
281
310
302
298
233
310

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/03/08
11/04/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
31
31
366

107,760
55,680
64,800
61,680
60,720
62,400
121,440
143,040
143,040
77,040
66,240
58,080
1,021,920

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29

50,400
56,160
55,920
56,400
50,640
48,480
90,480
140,160

12/05/08
01/06/09
02/05/09
03/06/09
04/07/09
05/06/09
06/06/09
07/07/09

01/05/09
02/04/09
03/05/09
04/06/09
05/05/09
06/05/09
07/06/09
08/04/09

HDD

CDD

$/kWh

kWh/Day

LF

4,493
4,482
4,834
4,813
8,086
10,855
11,391
11,545
13,432
11,801
8,327
5,083
99,142

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.073995
0.072949
0.072977
0.07266
0.075882
0.07045
0.070004
0.070123
0.068419
0.070244
0.076423
0.071551
0.071482

1840
2118.621
2284.138
2136.774
3552
4669.091
5424
5880
5774.118
5793.103
3757.241
2220
3787.424

51%
62%
62%
59%
49%
64%
74%
78%
75%
74%
49%
62%
49%

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,195
5,431
6,736
5,266
6,710
11,333
11,487
10,581
12,747
12,007
11,984
10,677
110,154

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
530
652
412
212
16
2,850

0.082618
0.084753
0.090538
0.083747
0.08961
0.079363
0.080441
0.081795
0.080473
0.080953
0.080798
0.079159
0.08196

1965
2288.571
2325
2168.276
2496
4606.452
4924.138
4172.903
4800
5297.143
4944
4215
3683.54

58%
57%
36%
59%
40%
76%
74%
62%
65%
73%
69%
75%
49%

245 $
132 $
142 $
137 $
134 $
130 $
218 $
274 $
264 $
266 $
137 $
130 $
274 $

8,899
4,649
5,335
5,091
5,007
5,099
10,053
11,498
13,191
7,853
6,216
5,513
88,405

306
336
253
175
49
85
293
1,497

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.082582
0.083495
0.08233
0.082539
0.08246
0.081715
0.082782
0.080385
0.092221
0.101934
0.093844
0.094928
0.086509

3169.412
1920
2234.483
2126.897
2093.793
1950
4048
4470
4614.194
2656.552
2136.774
1873.548
2774.471

54%
61%
66%
65%
65%
63%
77%
68%
73%
42%
65%
60%
43%

120
137
132
182
122
106
288
293

5,378
6,008
5,956
6,295
5,412
5,119
9,832
14,306

204
422
309
53
29
-

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474

0.106704
0.106972
0.106508
0.111616
0.106867
0.105586
0.108663
0.102066

1575
1872
1928.276
1762.5
1746.207
1563.871
2918.71
4833.103

55%
57%
61%
40%
60%
61%
42%
69%

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Campus
Page A-50

From
To
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
33
28
30
363

kWh
132,240
65,760
53,760
54,720
855,120

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

60,960
56,160
62,400
56,160
61,680
61,440
87,600
134,400
131,760
100,080
54,480
53,760
920,880

125
132
137
132
127
216
262
283
290
293
127
127
293

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
29
30
364

12/02/11
01/04/12
01/05/12
02/02/12
02/03/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/01/12
05/02/12
05/31/12
06/01/12
07/02/12
07/03/12
08/02/12
08/03/12
09/04/12
09/05/12
10/02/12
10/03/12
11/01/12
11/02/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max
12/03/12
01/04/13
02/01/13

01/03/13
01/31/13
03/03/13

Demand
271 $
274 $
130 $
127 $
293 $

Cost
13,467
7,538
5,615
5,683
90,607

HDD
56
148
1,220

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,505
6,095
6,711
6,095
6,584
7,087
9,817
14,339
14,132
11,172
5,907
5,840
100,282

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

54,960
49,920
55,440
50,400
62,160
54,480
75,840
157,680
143,280
62,400
55,200
56,160
877,920

120 $
127 $
134 $
132 $
132 $
118 $
274 $
286 $
290 $
133 $
137 $
133 $
290 $

5,714
5,300
5,840
5,372
6,435
5,659
8,510
15,978
14,700
6,620
5,985
6,048
92,159

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
90
203
1,818

34
29
29
31
29
30
32
31
33
28
30
31
367

50,880
54,240
57,840
56,640
60,000
65,520
60,960
81,840
131,760
57,600
58,560
59,760
795,600

125 $
135 $
139 $
139 $
139 $
234 $
127 $
287 $
283 $
142 $
140 $
136 $
287 $

5,447
5,815
5,961
5,857
6,156
7,247
5,519
8,143
11,929
5,359
5,420
5,486
78,338

32
28
31

54,960
56,880
60,240

5,218
5,420
5,644

135
143
137

$
$
$

CDD
459
507
213
16
2,910
6

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.10184
4560
0.114627 1992.727
0.104437
1920
0.103851
1824
0.105958
2374.7

LF
70%
30%
62%
60%
33%

0.106703
0.108526
0.107544
0.108526
0.106745
0.115344
0.112062
0.106686
0.107255
0.111635
0.108433
0.108626
0.108898

1847.273
1936.552
2080
2005.714
1869.091
2118.621
3020.69
4200
4392
3032.727
1878.621
1792
2514.441

62%
61%
63%
63%
61%
41%
48%
62%
63%
43%
62%
59%
36%

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.103962
0.10616
0.105335
0.106595
0.103528
0.103865
0.112207
0.101329
0.102594
0.106091
0.108429
0.107686
0.104975

1570.286
1782.857
1911.724
1800
1883.636
1757.419
2808.889
4778.182
4776
2012.903
1903.448
1872
2404.779

55%
58%
59%
57%
59%
62%
43%
70%
69%
63%
58%
59%
35%

347
223
207
39
32
52
267
1,165

10
17
21
95
88
312
436
502
500
306
111
13
2,409

0.107047
0.107203
0.103066
0.103408
0.102594
0.110601
0.090541
0.0995
0.090533
0.093044
0.092551
0.091795
0.098464

1496.471
1870.345
1994.483
1827.097
2068.966
2184
1905
2640
3992.727
2057.143
1952
1927.742
2159.664

50%
58%
60%
55%
62%
39%
62%
38%
59%
60%
58%
59%
32%

315
221
289

7
32
13

0.094941
1717.5
0.095285 2031.429
0.093685 1943.226

53%
59%
59%

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
-

Campus
Page A-51

From
To
03/04/13
04/03/13
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
122

kWh
54,480
226,560

Project: PJC
Area: Bldgs 17 & 18
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/03/03
07/04/03
08/05/03
08/06/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
28
33
30
32
29
29
333

Site:
Campus
Meter: 09 Elect Mtr # 3260859
kWh
Demand
Cost
67,200
128 $
3,710
64,480
126 $
3,580
60,080
119 $
3,348
65,760
120 $
3,600
64,880
118 $
3,550
62,080
120 $
3,441
71,280
117 $
3,822
65,120
124 $
3,596
70,560
122 $
3,820
63,040
120 $
3,482
60,240
114 $
3,325
714,720
128 $
39,274

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
10/04/04
10/05/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/02/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
33
29
30
365

63,440
63,440
58,560
66,880
57,840
60,800
59,120
60,080
59,840
72,800
47,200
65,760
735,760

116 $
118 $
118 $
111 $
110 $
107 $
107 $
106 $
111 $
122 $
125 $
122 $
125 $

3,640
3,652
3,427
3,768
3,347
3,465
3,388
3,426
3,445
4,106
2,946
3,782
42,392

12/03/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
365

70,560
65,040
64,880
69,520
61,520
62,880
60,880
64,720
56,720
69,440
59,840
57,280
763,280

125 $
126 $
127 $
131 $
121 $
110 $
110 $
108 $
113 $
116 $
115 $
108 $
131 $

33
29
29
31

56,720
54,960
59,600
64,640

12/03/05
01/05/06
02/03/06
03/04/06

01/04/06
02/02/06
03/03/06
04/03/06

Demand
136 $
143 $

108
107
114
115

Cost
5,187
21,468

$
$
$
$

HDD
269
1,093

CDD
1
53

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.095208 1757.419
0.094758 1862.393

LF
54%
54%

8
38
178
393
405
499
503
341
158
70
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 09910-93004
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.055208
2100
68%
0.055521 2223.448
74%
0.055726 2071.724
73%
0.054745 2121.29
74%
0.054716 2092.903
74%
0.055428 2217.143
77%
0.05362
2160
77%
0.055221 2170.667
73%
0.054138
2205
75%
0.055235 2173.793
75%
0.055196 2077.241
76%
0.05495 2146.655
70%

438
476
329
120
34
1
5
126
1,527

6
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
448
462
260
41
2,656

0.057377
0.057566
0.058521
0.05634
0.057867
0.05699
0.057307
0.057024
0.05757
0.056401
0.062415
0.057512
0.057617

1922.424
2114.667
2091.429
2026.667
2065.714
2026.667
1970.667
1938.065
1994.667
2206.061
1627.586
2192
2014.718

69%
75%
74%
76%
78%
79%
77%
76%
75%
75%
54%
75%
67%

4,407
4,129
4,126
4,562
4,071
4,080
3,972
4,167
3,765
4,469
3,945
3,766
49,459

404
323
246
153
26
59
159
1,368

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

0.062457
0.063484
0.063594
0.065621
0.066174
0.064885
0.065243
0.064385
0.066379
0.064358
0.065926
0.065747
0.064798

2075.294
2242.759
2237.241
2172.5
2197.143
2096
2099.31
1961.212
1955.862
2170
1994.667
1909.333
2092.61

69%
74%
73%
69%
76%
79%
80%
76%
72%
78%
72%
74%
67%

4,004
3,895
4,209
4,507

352
234
287
112

19
7
10
82

0.070592
0.07087
0.070621
0.069725

1718.788
1895.172
2055.172
2085.161

66%
74%
75%
76%

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111

CDD
-

Campus
Page A-52

From
To
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

kWh
62,480
66,160
54,320
48,640
61,200
53,920
54,880
62,160
699,680

Demand
114 $
107 $
100 $
92 $
102 $
109 $
113 $
118 $
118 $

Cost
4,374
4,549
3,813
3,433
4,228
3,843
3,923
4,379
49,157

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

61,280
57,520
64,320
49,760
57,440
55,440
53,200
57,680
60,160
53,440
59,280
60,560
690,080

117 $
120 $
118 $
110 $
114 $
100 $
100 $
101 $
111 $
116 $
114 $
114 $
120 $

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/03/08
11/04/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
31
31
366

61,360
56,080
55,920
50,080
40,320
41,200
40,960
44,240
40,560
39,680
42,320
36,240
548,960

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

30,880
36,160
34,400
30,800
29,040
28,480
28,640
28,000
26,560
30,400
26,160
26,080
355,600

HDD

57
267
1,308

CDD
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

$/kWh
0.070006
0.068758
0.070195
0.07058
0.069085
0.071272
0.071483
0.070447
0.070256

kWh/Day
2082.667
2004.848
1810.667
1737.143
1800
1859.31
1892.414
1942.5
1906.987

LF
76%
78%
75%
79%
74%
71%
70%
69%
67%

4,937
4,697
5,152
4,105
4,656
4,436
4,282
4,596
4,825
4,393
4,782
4,870
55,731

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
530
652
412
212
16
2,850

0.080565
0.081659
0.0801
0.082496
0.081058
0.080014
0.080489
0.079681
0.080203
0.082204
0.080668
0.080416
0.08076

1915
2054.286
2010
1715.862
1914.667
1788.387
1834.483
1860.645
1823.03
1908.571
1976
1892.5
1891.119

68%
71%
71%
65%
70%
75%
76%
77%
68%
69%
72%
69%
66%

111 $
118 $
112 $
112 $
91 $
84 $
85 $
100 $
93 $
92 $
90 $
90 $
118 $

4,916
4,594
4,547
4,145
3,350
3,369
3,358
3,673
3,875
3,798
4,000
3,507
47,131

306
336
253
175
49
85
293
1,497

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.080117
0.081919
0.081313
0.082768
0.083085
0.081772
0.081982
0.083015
0.095534
0.095706
0.094513
0.09677
0.085855

1804.706
1933.793
1928.276
1726.897
1390.345
1287.5
1365.333
1382.5
1308.387
1368.276
1365.161
1169.032
1502.517

68%
68%
72%
64%
64%
64%
67%
58%
59%
62%
63%
54%
53%

90 $
108 $
92 $
88 $
89 $
76 $
94 $
94 $
94 $
78 $
79 $
81 $
108 $

3,407
3,998
3,742
3,388
3,232
3,104
3,155
3,098
2,969
3,218
2,845
2,849
39,005

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

0.110331
0.110577
0.108788
0.109995
0.111295
0.108983
0.110157
0.110631
0.111779
0.105853
0.108736
0.109248
0.109687

965
1205.333
1186.207
962.5
1001.379
918.7097
923.871
965.5172
915.8621
921.2121
934.2857
869.3333
980.7676

45%
47%
54%
46%
47%
50%
41%
43%
41%
49%
49%
45%
38%

1
-

Campus
Page A-53

From

To

# Days

kWh

Demand

Cost

HDD

CDD

kWh/Day

LF

0.115236
0.11241
0.11127
0.112301
0.108701
0.115987
0.117034
0.114663
0.11567
0.114291
0.11356
0.114636
0.113633

727.2727
998.6207
949.3333
971.4286
880
753.1034
780.6897
797.5
829.3333
831.5152
794.4828
728
836.7733

38%
50%
51%
52%
56%
42%
40%
40%
41%
39%
47%
43%
40%

621.7143
842.8571
915.8621
702.8571
768.4848
727.7419
788.1481
787.8788
850.6667
807.7419
914.2857
860
799.0199

35%
45%
47%
40%
43%
41%
42%
43%
41%
42%
49%
46%
38%

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

24,000
28,960
28,480
27,200
29,040
21,840
22,640
25,520
24,880
27,440
23,040
21,840
304,880

80 $
84 $
77 $
78 $
66 $
75 $
82 $
83 $
85 $
88 $
70 $
70 $
88 $

2,766
3,255
3,169
3,055
3,157
2,533
2,650
2,926
2,878
3,136
2,616
2,504
34,644

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
10/31/11
11/01/11
12/02/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
28
32
365

21,760
23,600
26,560
19,680
25,360
22,560
21,280
26,000
25,520
25,040
25,600
27,520
290,480

74 $
78 $
81 $
73 $
74 $
74 $
79 $
77 $
87 $
80 $
77 $
78 $
87 $

2,442
2,631
2,917
2,248
2,767
2,514
2,428
2,842
2,858
2,852
2,885
3,067
32,450

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
80
227
1,832

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.112204
0.111503
0.109816
0.11421
0.109106
0.11143
0.114083
0.109327
0.111995
0.113915
0.112677
0.111449
0.111713

12/03/11
01/03/12
01/04/12
02/02/12
02/03/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/01/12
05/02/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/03/12
07/04/12
08/02/12
08/03/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/02/12
10/03/12
11/01/12
11/02/12
12/03/12
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
31
29
31
32
30
32
29
30
32
367

25,200
26,880
26,960
25,200
26,480
23,120
25,040
24,240
25,440
26,240
25,840
25,280
305,920

76 $
81 $
82 $
76 $
74 $
63 $
66 $
74 $
82 $
81 $
71 $
74 $
82 $

2,809
2,993
2,911
2,720
2,825
2,462
2,384
2,375
2,518
2,573
2,478
2,454
31,502

307
248
207
39
32
52
269
1,153

10
17
21
95
88
324
440
485
486
320
111
13
2,409

0.11147
0.11135
0.107988
0.107931
0.10668
0.106494
0.095222
0.097969
0.098973
0.098038
0.095884
0.09708
0.102974

787.5
896
929.6552
812.9032
913.1034
745.8065
782.5
808
795
904.8276
861.3333
790
835.5524

43%
46%
47%
45%
51%
49%
49%
46%
40%
47%
50%
45%
42%

12/04/12
01/03/13
01/04/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/04/13
03/05/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
28
32
29
120

20,160
25,840
28,160
25,440
99,600

2,084
2,586
2,761
2,567
9,997

312
221
302
255
1,090

7
32
13
1
53

0.103348
0.100067
0.098032
0.100921
0.100374

650.3226
922.8571
880
877.2414
832.6053

38%
48%
47%
45%
42%

Project: PJC
Area: WSRE #23

71
80
79
82
82

$
$
$
$
$

Site:
Campus
Meter: 23 Elect Mtr # 3260746

$/kWh

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
-

Utility: Electric
Account: 15370-93003
Campus

Page A-54

From
To
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/03/03
07/04/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/04/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
# Days
32
29
29
31
31
28
34
29
32
29
30
334

kWh
kWh
101,040
104,000
129,520
126,800
128,560
116,240
138,640
125,280
144,240
119,520
102,400
1,336,240

Demand
Demand
206 $
258 $
246 $
233 $
222 $
233 $
235 $
276 $
284 $
238 $
215 $
284 $

Cost
Cost
5,639
6,074
7,111
6,916
6,928
6,458
7,442
7,104
7,974
6,630
5,751
74,027

HDD
HDD
540
289
71
34
13
167
1,113

12/05/03
01/06/04
01/07/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/04/04
03/05/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/03/04
06/04/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/03/04
08/04/04
09/02/04
09/03/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/02/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
32
28
31
29
32
30
29
32
30
364

107,280
64,400
104,000
102,160
99,440
128,560
119,920
130,480
129,600
222,640
165,600
136,800
1,510,880

214 $
309 $
259 $
309 $
309 $
222 $
344 $
235 $
276 $
385 $
350 $
318 $
385 $

6,234
4,823
6,343
6,559
6,434
7,260
7,582
7,425
7,626
12,547
9,718
8,205
90,756

12/03/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
365

133,440
122,960
127,840
153,200
137,600
150,000
154,400
177,600
160,240
175,760
149,360
137,280
1,779,680

268
255
262
281
294
299
322
346
339
318
306
306
346

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34

133,760
119,360
135,200
138,800
147,280
173,360
166,000
164,880
215,440

282
320
278
247
266
313
348
358
366

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12/03/05
01/05/06
02/03/06
03/04/06
04/04/06
05/04/06
06/06/06
07/06/06
08/03/06

01/04/06
02/02/06
03/03/06
04/03/06
05/03/06
06/05/06
07/05/06
08/02/06
09/05/06

CDD
CDD
8
38
178
393
405
514
488
341
158
70
2,590

$/kWh
$/kWh
0.05581
0.058404
0.054903
0.054543
0.053889
0.055557
0.053679
0.056705
0.055283
0.055472
0.056162
0.055399

kWh/Day
kWh/Day
3157.5
3586.207
4466.207
4090.323
4147.097
4151.429
4077.647
4320
4507.5
4121.379
3413.333
4003.511

LF
LF
64%
58%
76%
73%
78%
74%
72%
65%
66%
72%
66%
59%

456
455
329
120
34
1
5
126
1,525

6
3
8
29
75
346
447
551
445
402
305
41
2,656

0.05811
0.074891
0.06099
0.064203
0.064702
0.056472
0.063225
0.056905
0.058843
0.056356
0.058684
0.059978
0.060068

3250.909
2220.69
3586.207
3192.5
3551.429
4147.097
4135.172
4077.5
4320
7677.241
5175
4560
4157.812

63%
30%
58%
43%
48%
78%
50%
72%
65%
83%
62%
60%
45%

8,486
7,870
8,163
9,962
9,197
9,895
10,268
11,662
10,684
11,397
9,902
9,250
116,736

404
323
246
153
26
59
159
1,368

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

0.063594
0.064005
0.063853
0.065026
0.066839
0.065967
0.066503
0.065664
0.066675
0.064844
0.066296
0.067381
0.065594

3924.706
4240
4408.276
4787.5
4914.286
5000
5324.138
5381.818
5525.517
5492.5
4978.667
4576
4879.451

61%
69%
70%
71%
70%
70%
69%
65%
68%
72%
68%
62%
59%

9,552
8,932
9,613
9,634
10,243
12,050
11,825
11,818
14,830

352
234
287
112
1
-

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600

0.071411
0.074832
0.071102
0.069409
0.069548
0.069509
0.071235
0.071676
0.068836

4053.333
4115.862
4662.069
4477.419
4909.333
5253.333
5533.333
5888.571
6336.471

60%
54%
70%
76%
77%
70%
66%
69%
72%
Campus

Page A-55

From
To
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
29
32
367

kWh
164,240
154,480
146,240
1,859,040

Demand
299
332
259
366

$
$
$
$

Cost
11,433
11,055
10,141
131,126

HDD
57
267
1,308

CDD
356
121
13
2,861

$/kWh
0.069612
0.071563
0.069345
0.070534

kWh/Day
5663.448
5326.897
4570
5065.839

LF
79%
67%
74%
58%

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

150,880
133,920
141,680
133,840
138,400
155,040
152,080
161,200
178,960
148,400
139,600
131,520
1,765,520

254
263
274
279
366
286
302
293
315
299
326
266
366

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

11,900
10,788
11,386
10,877
11,704
12,375
12,266
12,839
14,189
11,995
11,550
10,641
142,510

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
530
652
412
212
16
2,850

0.078871
0.080556
0.080364
0.081269
0.084566
0.079818
0.080655
0.079646
0.079286
0.080829
0.082736
0.080908
0.080718

4715
4782.857
4427.5
4615.172
4613.333
5001.29
5244.138
5200
5423.03
5300
4653.333
4110
4840.471

77%
76%
67%
69%
53%
73%
72%
74%
72%
74%
59%
64%
55%

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
366

133,600
118,080
134,960
130,080
140,480
165,040
160,960
179,920
179,600
158,880
146,880
127,280
1,775,760

264
297
277
301
322
346
315
288
328
293
278
244
346

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

10,790
9,916
10,960
10,766
11,605
13,437
12,973
14,119
16,533
14,647
13,585
11,796
151,126

306
336
253
175
49
88
290
1,497

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.080763
0.083977
0.081209
0.082764
0.08261
0.081417
0.080598
0.078472
0.092053
0.092186
0.092492
0.092676
0.085105

3929.412
4071.724
4653.793
4485.517
4844.138
5157.5
5365.333
5622.5
5793.548
5478.621
4590
4242.667
4852.896

62%
57%
70%
62%
63%
62%
71%
81%
74%
78%
69%
72%
58%

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

126,240
124,800
121,920
137,520
138,160
157,760
172,800
157,200
156,720
172,480
131,520
126,320
1,723,440

228
252
302
280
303
318
341
305
340
312
332
275
341

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12,985
12,994
13,024
14,328
14,523
16,412
17,509
15,901
16,064
17,309
13,763
12,961
177,774

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

0.102857
0.104119
0.106827
0.10419
0.105115
0.104034
0.101324
0.10115
0.102504
0.100354
0.104645
0.102607
0.10315

3945
4160
4204.138
4297.5
4764.138
5089.032
5574.194
5420.69
5404.138
5226.667
4697.143
4210.667
4749.442

72%
69%
58%
64%
65%
67%
68%
74%
66%
70%
59%
64%
58%

33
29
30
29

120,720
113,920
115,120
124,640

261
236
238
280

$
$
$
$

12,923
12,137
12,261
13,404

437
467
526
206

0.107051
0.106536
0.106508
0.107539

3658.182
3928.276
3837.333
4297.931

58%
69%
67%
64%

12/03/09
01/05/10
02/03/10
03/05/10

01/04/10
02/02/10
03/04/10
04/02/10

Campus
Page A-56

From
To
04/03/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

kWh
138,160
151,760
172,880
188,640
172,560
184,160
125,920
126,960
1,735,440

Demand
288
326
358
330
334
358
309
309
358

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
14,722
16,224
18,397
19,713
18,226
19,458
13,695
13,793
184,952

HDD
15
3
8
180
1,840

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/03/11
06/04/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
30
28
33
30
31
29
30
364

140,640
119,520
128,240
125,840
156,400
156,960
151,600
192,160
174,160
158,160
139,520
143,440
1,786,640

284
258
270
270
318
326
354
348
338
292
271
258
354

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

14,426
12,363
13,222
13,005
16,051
16,149
15,829
19,460
17,774
16,426
14,581
14,857
184,143

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
90
203
1,818

12/02/11
01/04/12
01/05/12
02/02/12
02/03/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/03/12
07/04/12
08/02/12
08/03/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/02/12
10/03/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
31
30
30
32
30
32
29
29
32
367

134,240
123,280
123,920
137,840
131,920
142,480
159,200
150,400
174,800
155,840
141,280
142,000
1,717,200

244
247
272
282
285
268
319
312
335
309
306
262
335

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

13,751
12,779
12,559
13,833
13,344
14,152
14,255
13,538
15,549
13,934
12,804
12,575
163,074

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/04/13
03/05/13
04/03/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
29
32
30
122

134,160
128,480
139,200
132,240
534,080

259 $
279 $
293 $
336 $
336 $

12,211
11,897
12,825
12,560
49,493

Project: PJC
Area: Maintenance #9
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03

# Days
32
29
29
31

Site:
Campus
Meter: 20 Elect Mtr # 3260720
kWh
Demand
Cost
13,640
50.0 $
925
11,400
48.0 $
816
10,680
45.0 $
767
13,520
47.0 $
902

CDD
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880

$/kWh
0.106554
0.106905
0.106418
0.104502
0.10562
0.105656
0.108761
0.10864
0.106574

kWh/Day
4317.5
5233.103
5961.379
5895
5752
5580.606
4342.069
4232
4752.948

LF
62%
67%
69%
74%
72%
65%
59%
57%
55%

2
20
54
176
316
589
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.102571
0.103441
0.103105
0.103348
0.102626
0.102883
0.104415
0.101269
0.102055
0.103856
0.104509
0.103577
0.103067

4018.286
4268.571
4422.069
4494.286
4739.394
5232
5414.286
5823.03
5805.333
5101.935
4811.034
4781.333
4909.297

59%
69%
68%
69%
62%
67%
64%
70%
72%
73%
74%
77%
58%

347
223
207
39
32
48
270
1,165

10
17
21
95
98
314
440
485
486
320
111
13
2,409

0.102434
0.103656
0.101345
0.100354
0.101153
0.099328
0.089543
0.090016
0.088955
0.089415
0.090625
0.088559
0.094965

3948.235
4251.034
4273.103
4446.452
4397.333
4749.333
4975
5013.333
5462.5
5373.793
4871.724
4437.5
4683.279

67%
72%
66%
66%
64%
74%
65%
67%
68%
73%
66%
71%
58%

292
244
302
255
1,093

7
32
13
1
53

0.09102 4327.742
0.092597 4430.345
0.092136
4350
0.094979
4408
0.092671 4379.022

70%
66%
62%
55%
54%

HDD
540
289
71
34

CDD
8
38
178

Utility: Electric
Account: 16840-93008
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.067815
426.25
36%
0.071579 393.1034
34%
0.071816 368.2759
34%
0.066716 436.129
39%
Campus

Page A-57

From
To
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333

kWh
17,920
21,240
22,080
22,040
22,000
17,000
13,880
185,400

Demand
54.0 $
60.0 $
60.0 $
58.0 $
58.0 $
48.0 $
53.0 $
60.0 $

Cost
1,135
1,314
1,350
1,337
1,335
1,059
953
11,893

HDD
13
165
1,111

CDD
393
456
463
488
341
158
70
2,590

$/kWh
0.063337
0.061864
0.061141
0.060662
0.060682
0.062294
0.06866
0.064148

kWh/Day
578.0645
663.75
736
760
687.5
586.2069
478.6207
555.8091

LF
45%
46%
51%
55%
49%
51%
38%
39%

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/02/04
09/03/04
10/04/04
10/05/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
31
32
29
31
366

13,560
15,360
13,400
13,080
12,040
16,920
19,680
20,720
19,600
22,680
12,480
13,760
193,280

48.0
54.0
54.0
43.0
43.0
52.0
56.0
57.0
59.0
58.0
58.0
44.0
59.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

945
1,063
973
893
845
1,123
1,274
1,327
1,288
1,423
954
930
13,038

438
476
329
120
34
1
5
141
1,542

6
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
463
447
260
41
2,656

0.06969
0.069206
0.072612
0.068272
0.070183
0.066371
0.064736
0.064044
0.065714
0.062743
0.076442
0.067587
0.067457

410.9091
512
478.5714
396.3636
430
564
656
668.3871
632.2581
708.75
430.3448
443.871
527.6213

36%
40%
37%
38%
42%
45%
49%
49%
45%
51%
31%
42%
37%

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

13,680
13,520
13,360
12,400
12,440
16,280
18,480
20,720
18,600
23,440
15,440
14,720
193,080

45.0
51.0
38.0
38.0
40.0
48.0
57.0
52.0
50.0
54.0
52.0
52.0
57.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,008
1,035
950
931
945
1,200
1,372
1,463
1,337
1,621
1,178
1,139
14,179

390
323
246
153
26
59
159
1,353

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

0.073684
0.076553
0.071108
0.075081
0.075965
0.07371
0.074242
0.070608
0.071882
0.069155
0.076295
0.077378
0.073436

414.5455
466.2069
460.6897
387.5
444.2857
542.6667
637.2414
627.8788
641.3793
732.5
514.6667
490.6667
530.0189

38%
38%
51%
42%
46%
47%
47%
50%
53%
57%
41%
39%
39%

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

16,000
13,600
13,600
12,600
15,000
17,720
18,880
17,280
20,920
16,920
14,040
14,320
190,880

44.0 $
47.0 $
45.0 $
46.0 $
47.0 $
48.0 $
51.0 $
49.0 $
50.0 $
49.0 $
48.0 $
44.0 $
51.0 $

1,237
1,114
1,102
1,048
1,195
1,360
1,446
1,340
1,560
1,319
1,145
1,137
15,003

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.077313
0.081912
0.081029
0.083175
0.079667
0.076749
0.076589
0.077546
0.07457
0.077955
0.081553
0.079399
0.078599

484.8485
468.9655
468.9655
406.4516
500
536.9697
629.3333
617.1429
615.2941
583.4483
484.1379
447.5
520.2548

46%
42%
43%
37%
44%
47%
51%
52%
51%
50%
42%
42%
42%

Campus
Page A-58

From
To
12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

kWh
12,240
14,000
14,720
11,880
13,680
15,600
17,480
18,640
19,880
16,400
15,440
12,280
182,240

Demand
40.0 $
50.0 $
53.0 $
41.0 $
46.0 $
45.0 $
50.0 $
50.0 $
52.0 $
49.0 $
48.0 $
44.0 $
53.0 $

Cost
1,168
1,295
1,362
1,096
1,249
1,381
1,534
1,613
1,710
1,454
1,382
1,141
16,385

HDD
291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
366

12,920
14,800
12,400
10,720
12,080
16,200
17,800
19,000
19,840
17,440
14,880
12,400
180,480

42.0 $
49.0 $
42.0 $
42.0 $
41.0 $
48.0 $
51.0 $
52.5 $
50.3 $
50.4 $
45.0 $
40.8 $
52.5 $

1,175
1,346
1,139
1,024
1,111
1,436
1,564
1,652
1,941
1,747
1,510
1,285
16,931

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

11,120
13,840
11,200
11,680
11,720
14,800
17,400
16,080
15,680
17,440
12,840
9,520
163,320

47.1 $
47.0 $
47.4 $
47.4 $
41.3 $
45.0 $
53.0 $
51.0 $
50.0 $
50.0 $
50.0 $
36.0 $
53.0 $

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30

10,600
14,480
13,960
9,680
12,960
14,640
17,320
19,120
18,520

12/03/09
01/05/10
02/03/10
03/05/10
04/02/10
05/05/10
06/03/10
07/02/10
08/03/10

01/04/10
02/02/10
03/04/10
04/01/10
05/04/10
06/02/10
07/01/10
08/02/10
09/01/10

52.0
58.0
52.0
37.0
40.0
49.3
53.0
51.0
50.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

CDD
4
4
10
89
111
321
492
530
652
412
212
16
2,850

$/kWh
0.095425
0.0925
0.092527
0.092256
0.091301
0.088526
0.087757
0.086534
0.086016
0.088659
0.089508
0.092915
0.089909

kWh/Day
382.5
500
460
409.6552
456
503.2258
602.7586
601.2903
602.4242
585.7143
514.6667
383.75
500.1654

LF
40%
42%
36%
42%
41%
47%
50%
50%
48%
50%
45%
36%
39%

306
336
253
175
49
88
290
1,497

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.090944
0.090946
0.091855
0.095522
0.09197
0.088642
0.087865
0.086971
0.097856
0.100167
0.101471
0.103649
0.093811

380
510.3448
427.5862
369.6552
416.5517
506.25
593.3333
593.75
640
601.3793
465
413.3333
493.0987

38%
43%
42%
37%
42%
44%
48%
47%
53%
50%
43%
42%
39%

1,337
1,587
1,345
1,389
1,357
1,664
1,907
1,778
1,736
1,893
1,482
1,102
18,577

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

0.120267
0.114691
0.120064
0.118907
0.115794
0.112416
0.109623
0.110545
0.110706
0.108563
0.115407
0.115777
0.113748

347.5
461.3333
386.2069
365
404.1379
477.4194
561.2903
554.4828
540.6897
528.4848
458.5714
317.3333
450.2042

31%
41%
34%
32%
41%
44%
44%
45%
45%
44%
38%
37%
35%

1,341
1,741
1,657
1,166
1,492
1,703
1,979
2,136
2,074

437
467
526
202
19
-

0.126523
0.120247
0.118689
0.12047
0.115131
0.116331
0.114236
0.111711
0.111967

321.2121
499.3103
465.3333
345.7143
392.7273
504.8276
597.2414
597.5
617.3333

26%
36%
37%
39%
41%
43%
47%
49%
51%

6
131
375
528
646
553

Campus
Page A-59

From
To
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
33
29
30
365

kWh
20,120
14,240
10,840
176,480

Demand
52.0 $
48.0 $
38.0 $
58.0 $

Cost
2,236
1,660
1,281
20,465

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
10/31/11
11/01/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
28
31
364

13,600
12,920
12,480
10,080
14,680
14,960
16,680
17,080
16,080
14,040
11,040
10,200
163,840

52.0 $
53.0 $
51.0 $
42.0 $
46.0 $
49.0 $
51.0 $
46.0 $
47.0 $
44.0 $
37.0 $
37.4 $
53.0 $

1,574
1,519
1,467
1,197
1,636
1,679
1,847
1,853
1,769
1,612
1,292
1,215
18,660

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
80
213
1,818

12/02/11
01/04/12
01/05/12
02/01/12
02/02/12
03/01/12
03/02/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/03/12
07/04/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/04/12
09/05/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
11/01/12
11/02/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

34
28
29
32
30
30
32
29
34
29
29
31
367

9,480
10,560
10,960
10,360
11,680
13,400
15,080
15,480
15,560
13,960
10,560
9,520
146,600

52.0 $
47.0 $
42.4 $
37.9 $
40.4 $
43.8 $
46.7 $
50.7 $
44.8 $
42.5 $
40.4 $
36.9 $
52.0 $

1,233
1,299
1,264
1,186
1,320
1,495
1,502
1,558
1,525
1,384
1,112
1,013
15,890

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
02/01/13
02/02/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
30
30
30
121

9,240
10,920
11,480
10,400
42,040

1,113
1,212
1,269
1,152
4,747

Project: PJC
Area: Building #3
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32

52.9
48.3
49.7
45.2
52.9

$
$
$
$
$

Site:
Campus
Meter: 12 Elect Mtr #3260719
kWh
Demand
Cost
73,360
193 $
4,361
71,600
199 $
4,320
62,720
163 $
3,722
69,600
183 $
4,139
75,200
180 $
4,364
81,520
192 $
4,709
74,000
190 $
4,371
73,360
200 $
4,402
87,760
197 $
5,010

HDD

CDD
446
151
40
2,880

$/kWh
0.111123
0.116545
0.11818
0.115963

kWh/Day
609.697
491.0345
361.3333
483.6054

LF
49%
43%
40%
35%

2
20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.11575
0.117542
0.117554
0.118753
0.111471
0.112261
0.110712
0.108508
0.110002
0.114821
0.117023
0.119105
0.113895

388.5714
461.4286
430.3448
360
444.8485
482.5806
617.7778
517.5758
536
452.9032
394.2857
329.0323
451.2791

31%
36%
35%
36%
40%
41%
50%
47%
48%
43%
44%
37%
35%

347
223
207
39
32
52
267
1,165

10
17
17
100
98
314
440
469
517
310
107
13
2,409

0.130063
0.12297
0.115313
0.114479
0.113027
0.111593
0.099581
0.100643
0.098037
0.099141
0.10526
0.106392
0.108393

278.8235
377.1429
377.931
323.75
389.3333
446.6667
471.25
533.7931
457.6471
481.3793
364.1379
307.0968
400.746

22%
33%
37%
36%
40%
42%
42%
44%
43%
47%
38%
35%
32%

292
258
275
269
1,093

7
32
13
1
53

0.120501
0.111019
0.110545
0.110793
0.112918

298.0645
364
382.6667
346.6667
347.8495

23%
31%
32%
32%
27%

3
8
180
1,840

HDD
540
289
71
34
-

CDD
8
38
178
393
456
463
488
341

Utility: Electric
Account: 17050-93000
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.059447
2292.5
49%
0.060335 2468.966
52%
0.059343 2162.759
55%
0.059468 2245.161
51%
0.058032 2425.806
56%
0.057765
2547.5
55%
0.059068 2466.667
54%
0.060005 2529.655
53%
0.057088
2742.5
58%
Campus

Page A-60

From
To
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
29
333

kWh
76,880
73,200
819,200

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
30
32
31
366

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/04/05
02/05/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/02/05
08/03/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max
12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max
12/05/06
01/06/07
02/03/07
03/07/07
04/05/07

01/05/07
02/02/07
03/06/07
04/04/07
05/04/07

Demand
176 $
190 $
200 $

Cost
4,413
4,336
48,147

HDD
13
165
1,111

CDD
158
70
2,590

$/kWh
0.057401
0.059235
0.058773

kWh/Day
2651.034
2524.138
2459.699

LF
63%
55%
51%

74,640
76,320
68,640
72,480
64,640
69,280
73,840
74,640
70,400
69,200
65,440
67,600
847,120

182
187
185
162
173
177
174
182
186
187
152
171
187

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,544,733
4,651
4,286
4,327
4,031
4,268
4,460
4,544
4,373
4,324
3,944
4,156
4,592,097

438
476
329
120
34
1
5
141
1,542

6
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
448
417
305
41
2,656

60.88871
0.060941
0.062442
0.059699
0.062361
0.061605
0.060401
0.060879
0.062116
0.062486
0.060269
0.061479
5.420834

2261.818
2544
2451.429
2196.364
2308.571
2309.333
2461.333
2407.742
2346.667
2306.667
2045
2180.645
2318.297

52%
57%
55%
56%
56%
54%
59%
55%
53%
51%
56%
53%
52%

33
30
28
32
28
30
29
32
30
32
30
30
364

60,400
61,760
55,200
55,200
46,400
57,920
59,520
65,600
44,960
61,200
56,800
56,640
681,600

159 $
143 $
118 $
118 $
135 $
162 $
158 $
154 $
162 $
157 $
148 $
146 $
162 $

4,085
4,060
3,649
3,649
3,338
4,119
4,182
4,486
3,420
4,266
3,976
3,956
47,186

390
335
233
153
26
59
159
1,353

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
560
523
545
166
82
2,716

0.067632
0.065738
0.066105
0.066105
0.07194
0.071115
0.070262
0.068384
0.076068
0.069706
0.07
0.069845
0.069228

1830.303
2058.667
1971.429
1725
1657.143
1930.667
2052.414
2050
1498.667
1912.5
1893.333
1888
1872.343

48%
60%
70%
61%
51%
50%
54%
55%
39%
51%
53%
54%
48%

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

61,200
60,320
56,560
52,480
55,760
52,480
50,720
44,560
59,600
49,120
62,160
68,160
673,120

151 $
158 $
152 $
105 $
150 $
133 $
131 $
124 $
130 $
119 $
154 $
161 $
161 $

4,521
4,511
4,255
3,735
4,193
3,900
3,785
3,383
4,300
3,620
4,592
4,985
49,780

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.073873
0.074784
0.07523
0.07117
0.075197
0.074314
0.074625
0.07592
0.072148
0.073697
0.073874
0.073137
0.073954

1854.545
2080
1950.345
1692.903
1858.667
1590.303
1690.667
1591.429
1752.941
1693.793
2143.448
2130
1835.753

51%
55%
53%
67%
52%
50%
54%
53%
56%
59%
58%
55%
47%

32
28
32
29
30

63,440
61,680
68,640
58,960
66,080

5,334
5,207
5,679
4,996
5,574

291
343
375
61
85

4
4
10
89
111

0.084079
1982.5
0.08442 2202.857
0.082736
2145
0.084735 2033.103
0.084352 2202.667

52%
58%
57%
55%
54%

159
158
157
154
169

$
$
$
$
$

Campus
Page A-61

From
To
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/06/07
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
29
31
33
28
30
34
367

kWh
70,640
70,640
88,800
72,160
66,240
70,960
73,040
831,280

Demand
162 $
165 $
230 $
177 $
169 $
173 $
166 $
230 $

Cost
5,846
5,864
7,494
6,039
5,585
5,933
6,034
69,585

HDD
34
223
1,410

CDD
321
492
530
652
412
212
16
2,850

$/kWh
0.082758
0.083012
0.084392
0.083689
0.084315
0.08361
0.082612
0.083708

kWh/Day
2278.71
2435.862
2864.516
2186.667
2365.714
2365.333
2148.235
2267.597

LF
59%
62%
52%
51%
58%
57%
54%
41%

12/07/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

32
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
364

67,520
67,040
64,960
62,480
63,280
70,240
70,160
71,920
68,400
63,040
68,880
62,080
800,000

166 $
169 $
171 $
143 $
178 $
180 $
183 $
178 $
173 $
159 $
154 $
168 $
183 $

5,664
5,649
5,517
5,182
5,443
5,934
5,946
6,038
6,604
6,087
6,531
6,062
70,656

284
336
253
175
49
88
290
1,474

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.083886
0.084263
0.084929
0.082939
0.086015
0.084482
0.084749
0.083949
0.096546
0.096552
0.094811
0.097647
0.088319

2110
2311.724
2240
2154.483
2182.069
2195
2338.667
2247.5
2206.452
2173.793
2152.5
2069.333
2198.46

53%
57%
55%
63%
51%
51%
53%
53%
53%
57%
58%
51%
50%

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/04/09
06/05/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
30
32
29
29
33
28
30
363

58,640
68,640
59,360
62,480
52,800
60,813
64,867
57,760
51,760
60,000
52,480
53,840
703,440

192 $
202 $
163 $
143 $
150 $
158 $
158 $
156 $
146 $
142 $
114 $
154 $
202 $

6,560
7,538
6,455
6,624
5,775
6,559
6,773
6,126
5,530
6,244
5,406
5,763
75,353

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

50
9
6
67
125
386
602
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

0.111869
0.109819
0.108744
0.106013
0.109384
0.107856
0.10442
0.106056
0.10684
0.10406
0.103003
0.107046
0.107121

1832.5
2288
2046.897
1952.5
1820.69
2027.1
2027.094
1991.724
1784.828
1818.182
1874.286
1794.667
1938.205

40%
47%
52%
57%
50%
53%
53%
53%
51%
53%
69%
49%
40%

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

58,480
58,320
58,560
49,040
62,400
52,960
62,240
78,080
64,320
66,400
59,360
58,880
729,040

150 $
161 $
155 $
63 $
150 $
156 $
160 $
219 $
158 $
152 $
157 $
170 $
219 $

6,419
6,469
6,456
5,019
6,787
5,936
6,831
8,668
7,015
7,175
6,543
6,575
79,893

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

0.109765
0.110921
0.110248
0.102335
0.108773
0.112079
0.109759
0.111017
0.109066
0.108059
0.110227
0.111662
0.109587

1772.121
2011.034
1952
1751.429
1890.909
1826.207
2146.207
2440
2144
2012.121
2046.897
1962.667
1996.299

49%
52%
52%
116%
53%
49%
56%
46%
57%
55%
54%
48%
38%

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880

Campus
Page A-62

From
To
12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
29
30
364

kWh
65,200
56,880
59,680
53,760
66,800
62,320
60,640
70,880
63,680
61,520
65,040
68,000
754,400

Demand
170 $
148 $
156 $
59 $
161 $
164 $
164 $
165 $
166 $
160 $
169 $
170 $
170 $

Cost
6,934
6,053
6,353
5,245
7,026
6,639
6,487
7,418
6,773
6,713
7,094
7,371
80,106

HDD
588
481
290
112
35
13
8
90
203
1,818

12/02/11
01/03/12
01/04/12
02/01/12
02/02/12
03/01/12
03/02/12
04/01/12
04/02/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
05/31/12
06/01/12
07/02/12
07/03/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/02/12
10/03/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
31
29
32
30
33
29
29
32
367

64,080
58,560
60,800
60,160
62,240
59,120
66,800
65,200
65,920
64,080
58,080
54,480
739,520

168 $
164 $
177 $
169 $
168 $
170 $
167 $
154 $
153 $
169 $
164 $
154 $
177 $

6,917
6,392
6,463
6,356
6,537
6,279
6,223
6,017
6,065
6,028
5,538
5,198
74,011

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/03/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
29
31
31
122

53,920
56,720
56,800
55,040
222,480

160 $
179 $
158 $
158 $
179 $

5,299
5,641
5,511
5,373
21,823

Project: PJC
Area: Baars #1 East
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max
12/04/03

01/05/04

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333
33

Site:
Campus
Meter: 05 Elect Mtr #3260747
kWh
Demand
Cost
19,560
60.0 $
1,241
17,880
60.0 $
1,168
16,200
55.0 $
1,066
18,720
58.0 $
1,193
8,640
51.0 $
714
6,480
36.0 $
532
10,680
37.0 $
720
14,400
41.0 $
905
15,480
43.0 $
964
14,640
42.0 $
921
13,800
45.0 $
903
156,480
60.0 $
10,327
12,720

40.0 $

859

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

$/kWh
0.106355
0.106409
0.106448
0.097569
0.105177
0.106525
0.106972
0.104659
0.106366
0.109116
0.109064
0.108404
0.106184

kWh/Day
1862.857
2031.429
2057.931
1920
2024.242
2010.323
2245.926
2147.879
2122.667
1984.516
2242.759
2266.667
2076.433

LF
46%
57%
55%
136%
52%
51%
57%
54%
53%
52%
55%
55%
51%

322
248
207
39
32
48
270
1,165

10
17
17
91
107
302
436
485
503
320
111
13
2,409

0.107938
0.109148
0.106294
0.105646
0.105027
0.106202
0.093153
0.092282
0.092011
0.094067
0.095343
0.095417
0.100079

1941.818
2019.31
2096.552
1940.645
2007.742
2038.621
2087.5
2173.333
1997.576
2209.655
2002.759
1702.5
2018.168

48%
51%
49%
48%
50%
50%
52%
59%
54%
54%
51%
46%
47%

292
244
289
269
1,093

7
32
13
1
53

0.098268
0.099446
0.097021
0.097624
0.09809

1739.355
1955.862
1832.258
1775.484
1825.74

45%
45%
48%
47%
42%

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111
438

CDD
2
-

CDD
8
38
178
393
456
463
488
341
158
70
2,590
6

Utility: Electric
Account: 17260-93000
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.063446
611.25
42%
0.065324 616.5517
43%
0.065802 558.6207
42%
0.063729 603.871
43%
0.082639 278.7097
23%
0.082099
202.5
23%
0.067416
356
40%
0.062847 496.5517
50%
0.062274
483.75
47%
0.06291 504.8276
50%
0.065435 475.8621
44%
0.065996 471.6813
33%
0.067531 385.4545

40%
Campus

Page A-63

From
To
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
30
32
31
366

kWh
14,880
14,280
15,240
13,800
13,920
13,320
12,480
13,080
10,920
15,000
12,480
162,120

Demand
43.0
45.0
46.0
42.0
45.0
45.0
40.0
41.0
48.0
37.0
38.0
48.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

976
960
1,010
921
944
916
848
882
823
946
836
10,921

HDD
476
329
120
34
1
5
141
1,542

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
03/07/05
03/08/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
32
29
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

11,160
11,160
11,400
9,360
10,440
13,080
12,360
12,720
12,000
14,880
14,040
13,200
145,800

39.0
43.0
32.0
30.0
34.0
37.0
35.0
35.0
37.0
41.0
40.0
40.0
43.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

843
866
814
720
802
962
911
931
904
1,083
1,032
986
10,854

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

11,760
12,480
12,240
12,120
12,600
12,120
11,520
11,160
14,280
15,600
16,080
16,320
158,280

35.0
41.0
37.0
40.0
37.0
38.0
42.0
37.0
44.0
47.0
47.0
50.0
50.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28

14,520
13,560
14,760
12,360
13,200
13,320
12,720
13,680
12,360
11,880

42.0
42.0
40.0
40.0
37.0
42.0
43.0
44.0
38.0
38.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12/05/06
01/06/07
02/03/07
03/07/07
04/05/07
05/05/07
06/05/07
07/04/07
08/04/07
09/06/07

01/05/07
02/02/07
03/06/07
04/04/07
05/04/07
06/04/07
07/03/07
08/03/07
09/05/07
10/03/07

Cost

CDD
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
448
417
305
41
2,656

$/kWh
0.065591
0.067227
0.066273
0.066739
0.067816
0.068769
0.067949
0.067431
0.075366
0.063067
0.066987
0.067364

kWh/Day
496
510
461.8182
492.8571
464
444
402.5806
436
364
468.75
402.5806
444.0034

LF
48%
47%
42%
49%
43%
41%
42%
44%
32%
53%
44%
38%

390
323
261
137
26
59
159
1,353

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

0.075538
0.077599
0.071404
0.076923
0.07682
0.073547
0.073706
0.073192
0.075333
0.072782
0.073504
0.074697
0.074444

338.1818
384.8276
356.25
322.7586
372.8571
436
426.2069
385.4545
413.7931
465
468
440
400.7775

36%
37%
46%
45%
46%
49%
51%
46%
47%
47%
49%
46%
39%

935
1,012
975
985
995
973
961
911
1,135
1,230
1,258
1,290
12,660

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.079507
0.08109
0.079657
0.081271
0.078968
0.080281
0.08342
0.081631
0.079482
0.078846
0.078234
0.079044
0.079985

356.3636
430.3448
422.069
390.9677
420
367.2727
384
398.5714
420
537.931
554.4828
510
432.6669

42%
44%
48%
41%
47%
40%
38%
45%
40%
48%
49%
43%
36%

1,283
1,217
1,288
1,123
1,163
1,201
1,166
1,237
1,111
1,078

291
343
375
61
85
-

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
530
652
412

0.088361
0.089749
0.087263
0.090858
0.088106
0.090165
0.091667
0.090424
0.089887
0.090741

453.75
484.2857
461.25
426.2069
440
429.6774
438.6207
441.2903
374.5455
424.2857

45%
48%
48%
44%
50%
43%
43%
42%
41%
47%
Campus

Page A-64

From
To
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
32
365

kWh
13,320
13,800
159,480

Demand
40.0 $
42.0 $
44.0 $

Cost
1,189
1,234
14,290

HDD
34
201
1,387

CDD
212
16
2,850

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
366

12,600
12,240
12,360
11,520
10,920
13,200
13,800
13,440
13,080
13,320
13,440
12,240
152,160

40.0 $
41.0 $
44.0 $
48.0 $
41.0 $
42.0 $
42.0 $
44.4 $
37.2 $
40.8 $
41.0 $
44.4 $
48.0 $

1,141
1,122
1,148
1,114
1,032
1,194
1,236
1,223
1,317
1,360
1,370
1,290
14,546

306
336
253
175
49
88
290
1,497

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.090556
0.091667
0.09288
0.096701
0.094505
0.090455
0.089565
0.090969
0.10067
0.102089
0.101902
0.105391
0.095595

370.5882
422.069
426.2069
397.2414
376.5517
412.5
460
420
421.9355
459.3103
420
408
416.2003

39%
43%
40%
34%
38%
41%
46%
39%
47%
47%
43%
38%
36%

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

12,480
14,400
13,200
12,720
12,480
12,840
12,120
11,640
9,960
12,840
11,040
10,680
146,400

43.2 $
43.2 $
48.0 $
48.0 $
39.6 $
38.0 $
35.0 $
34.0 $
32.0 $
37.2 $
38.0 $
40.0 $
48.0 $

1,439
1,615
1,534
1,490
1,421
1,442
1,329
1,280
1,118
1,405
1,250
1,230
16,554

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

0.115284
0.112165
0.116243
0.117162
0.113865
0.11233
0.109644
0.10997
0.112245
0.109431
0.113222
0.115128
0.113071

390
480
455.1724
397.5
430.3448
414.1935
390.9677
401.3793
343.4483
389.0909
394.2857
356
403.5319

38%
46%
40%
35%
45%
45%
47%
49%
45%
44%
43%
37%
35%

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

10,680
11,040
11,520
10,560
11,520
9,840
10,080
11,280
11,760
13,560
11,760
10,680
134,280

36.0 $
46.0 $
44.0 $
41.0 $
37.0 $
37.2 $
32.0 $
37.0 $
36.0 $
38.0 $
38.0 $
40.0 $
46.0 $

1,254
1,347
1,380
1,272
1,339
1,181
1,174
1,317
1,356
1,537
1,368
1,278
15,803

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

0.117437
0.122018
0.119825
0.120499
0.116239
0.12004
0.116492
0.116713
0.115283
0.113325
0.116287
0.119647
0.117687

323.6364
380.6897
384
377.1429
349.0909
339.3103
347.5862
352.5
392
410.9091
405.5172
356
368.1986

37%
34%
36%
38%
39%
38%
45%
40%
45%
45%
44%
37%
33%

35
28
29
28
33

10,200
9,600
10,800
9,360
11,640

1,172
1,142
1,256
1,091
1,291

588
481
290
112
35

0.114948
0.118943
0.116315
0.116521
0.110895

291.4286
342.8571
372.4138
334.2857
352.7273

34%
36%
38%
40%
43%

12/03/10
01/07/11
02/04/11
03/05/11
04/02/11

01/06/11
02/03/11
03/04/11
04/01/11
05/04/11

36.0
40.0
41.0
35.0
34.0

$
$
$
$
$

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
20
54
176

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.089264
444
0.08942
431.25
0.089604 437.4302

LF
46%
43%
41%

Campus
Page A-65

From
To
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/02/11
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
27
33
30
31
29
31
365

kWh
10,920
9,480
11,280
10,920
11,640
11,400
12,360
129,600

Demand
32.0 $
31.0 $
38.0 $
42.0 $
37.0 $
40.0 $
44.8 $
44.8 $

Cost
1,214
1,078
1,282
1,273
1,347
1,344
1,464
14,954

HDD
13
8
90
218
1,832

CDD
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

$/kWh
0.111167
0.113701
0.113643
0.116571
0.115718
0.117914
0.118479
0.115388

kWh/Day
352.2581
351.1111
341.8182
364
375.4839
393.1034
398.7097
355.8497

LF
46%
47%
37%
36%
42%
41%
37%
33%

12/03/11
01/03/12
01/04/12
02/01/12
02/02/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/02/12
07/03/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
11/01/12
11/02/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

32
29
30
31
30
30
31
30
33
30
29
31
366

11,640
12,720
13,080
12,000
12,960
12,480
13,320
14,160
12,960
12,960
12,360
11,400
152,040

44.5 $
45.6 $
47.5 $
42.4 $
46.1 $
40.2 $
42.2 $
42.7 $
39.2 $
40.9 $
40.8 $
40.9 $
47.5 $

1,383
1,488
1,487
1,354
1,470
1,390
1,335
1,406
1,288
1,301
1,255
1,182
16,339

307
248
207
39
32
52
267
1,151

10
17
22
95
98
314
424
485
503
324
107
13
2,409

0.118848
0.116943
0.113657
0.112852
0.113425
0.111352
0.100235
0.099273
0.09941
0.100404
0.10157
0.103694
0.107468

363.75
438.6207
436
387.0968
432
416
429.6774
472
392.7273
432
426.2069
367.7419
416.1517

34%
40%
38%
38%
39%
43%
42%
46%
42%
44%
44%
37%
36%

12/03/12
01/03/13
01/04/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
31
30
121

10,680
11,760
12,360
10,920
45,720

1,181
1,284
1,331
1,212
5,009

315
221
289
269
1,093

7
32
13
1
53

0.110545
333.75
0.109223
420
0.107716 398.7097
0.111019
364
0.109553 379.1149

30%
36%
34%
32%
32%

Project: PJC
Area: Baars #1 West
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max
12/04/03
01/06/04
02/05/04
03/04/04
04/06/04
05/04/04

01/05/04
02/04/04
03/03/04
04/05/04
05/03/04
06/02/04

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333
33
30
28
33
28
30

46.4
48.9
48.8
47.5
48.9

$
$
$
$
$

Site:
Campus
Meter: 06 Elect Mtr # 3540938
kWh
Demand
Cost
56,480
141 $
3,321
55,680
139 $
3,275
47,840
131 $
2,887
53,440
131 $
3,131
47,040
120 $
2,788
46,400
109 $
2,695
46,240
120 $
2,753
46,240
134 $
2,836
59,680
136 $
3,431
56,320
134 $
3,273
49,440
131 $
2,957
564,800
141 $
33,347
42,560
54,720
53,280
56,640
51,680
50,560

125
136
136
131
130
122

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,733
3,357
3,291
3,416
3,182
3,083

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111
438
476
329
120
34
1

CDD
8
38
178
393
456
463
488
341
158
70
2,590
6
3
5
32
75
332

Utility: Electric
Account: 17680-93000
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.0588
1765
52%
0.058818
1920
58%
0.060347 1649.655
52%
0.058589 1723.871
55%
0.059269 1517.419
53%
0.058082
1450
55%
0.059537 1541.333
54%
0.061332 1594.483
50%
0.05749
1865
57%
0.058114 1942.069
60%
0.05981 1704.828
54%
0.059042 1697.605
50%
0.064215
0.061349
0.061768
0.060311
0.061571
0.060977

1289.697
1824
1902.857
1716.364
1845.714
1685.333

43%
56%
58%
55%
59%
58%
Campus

Page A-66

From
To
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
10/04/04
10/05/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
31
30
33
29
31
366

kWh
49,600
51,680
45,120
61,600
56,320
52,800
626,560

Demand
122 $
120 $
130 $
136 $
134 $
131 $
136 $

Cost
3,039
3,123
2,880
3,673
3,419
3,239
38,435

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/04/05
02/05/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

29,120
54,720
52,160
53,760
52,960
52,800
51,040
48,320
44,480
60,640
56,960
53,600
610,560

136 $
133 $
131 $
136 $
131 $
125 $
122 $
118 $
128 $
131 $
131 $
131 $
136 $

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

47,200
50,880
53,760
48,000
55,520
51,360
46,720
43,680
47,200
50,880
51,360
54,880
601,440

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/04/07
08/05/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/06/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
32
32
28
30
34
367

50,560
51,360
57,440
48,480
55,040
47,040
48,960
53,440
51,040
52,640
56,960
59,360
632,320

32

44,480

12/07/07

01/07/08

5
141
1,542

CDD
461
533
448
462
260
41
2,656

$/kWh
0.06127
0.06043
0.06383
0.059627
0.060707
0.061345
0.061343

kWh/Day
1653.333
1667.097
1504
1866.667
1942.069
1703.226
1716.696

LF
56%
58%
48%
57%
60%
54%
52%

2,339
3,639
3,495
3,741
3,668
3,624
3,512
3,341
3,193
4,083
3,884
3,703
42,222

390
335
233
153
26
59
159
1,353

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

0.080323
0.066502
0.067005
0.069587
0.06926
0.068636
0.068809
0.069143
0.071785
0.067332
0.068188
0.069086
0.069153

882.4242
1824
1862.857
1680
1891.429
1760
1760
1464.242
1533.793
1895
1898.667
1786.667
1686.59

27%
57%
59%
51%
60%
59%
60%
52%
50%
60%
60%
57%
51%

130 $
131 $
128 $
123 $
123 $
117 $
114 $
112 $
122 $
122 $
125 $
126 $
131 $

3,575
3,797
3,949
3,578
4,019
3,740
3,450
3,260
3,526
3,741
3,787
3,999
44,421

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.075742
0.074627
0.073456
0.074542
0.072388
0.072819
0.073844
0.074634
0.074703
0.073526
0.073734
0.072868
0.073858

1430.303
1754.483
1853.793
1548.387
1850.667
1556.364
1557.333
1560
1388.235
1754.483
1771.034
1715
1645.007

46%
56%
60%
52%
63%
55%
57%
58%
47%
60%
59%
57%
52%

130 $
130 $
128 $
124 $
126 $
118 $
120 $
120 $
130 $
131 $
131 $
141 $
141 $

4,278
4,333
4,739
4,106
4,562
3,965
4,109
4,417
4,311
4,427
4,723
4,947
52,917

291
343
375
61
85
34
223
1,410

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
548
634
412
212
16
2,850

0.084612
0.084365
0.082503
0.084695
0.082885
0.08429
0.083926
0.082653
0.084463
0.0841
0.082918
0.083339
0.083687

1580
1834.286
1795
1671.724
1834.667
1517.419
1688.276
1670
1595
1880
1898.667
1745.882
1725.91

51%
59%
58%
56%
61%
54%
59%
58%
51%
60%
60%
52%
51%

3,931

284

25

0.088377

1390

41%

141

HDD
-

Campus
Page A-67

From
To
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
364

kWh
48,640
47,200
42,560
45,120
43,840
42,240
43,680
41,600
46,880
50,400
46,560
543,200

Demand
131 $
128 $
120 $
118 $
160 $
109 $
107 $
123 $
123 $
123 $
128 $
160 $

Cost
4,158
4,041
3,675
3,839
3,698
3,588
3,675
4,136
4,564
4,850
4,568
48,723

HDD
336
253
175
49
88
290
1,474

CDD
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

$/kWh
0.085485
0.085614
0.086349
0.085084
0.084352
0.084943
0.084143
0.099428
0.09736
0.096221
0.098105
0.089696

kWh/Day
1677.241
1627.586
1467.586
1555.862
1370
1408
1365
1341.935
1616.552
1575
1552
1495.564

LF
53%
53%
51%
55%
36%
54%
53%
45%
55%
53%
51%
39%

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

40,160
48,160
45,440
41,920
42,560
37,440
33,920
33,920
34,080
45,600
39,360
38,720
481,280

126 $
123 $
123 $
123 $
114 $
101 $
93 $
94 $
118 $
120 $
120 $
115 $
126 $

4,472
5,190
4,940
4,616
4,622
4,075
3,621
3,627
3,783
4,826
4,267
4,181
52,220

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

0.111361
0.10776
0.10871
0.110121
0.1086
0.108835
0.106761
0.106935
0.11101
0.105824
0.108418
0.10797
0.108502

1255
1605.333
1566.897
1310
1467.586
1207.742
1094.194
1169.655
1175.172
1381.818
1405.714
1290.667
1327.482

41%
54%
53%
44%
54%
50%
49%
52%
41%
48%
49%
47%
44%

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

37,280
41,600
41,120
34,240
39,360
33,600
33,600
36,000
34,240
43,200
39,360
37,920
451,520

114 $
115 $
122 $
112 $
109 $
96 $
101 $
101 $
115 $
118 $
117 $
118 $
122 $

4,214
4,626
4,622
3,917
4,380
3,762
3,792
4,017
3,935
4,794
4,428
4,298
50,786

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

0.113045
0.111206
0.112412
0.114393
0.111288
0.111972
0.11285
0.111592
0.11491
0.110978
0.112487
0.113345
0.112477

1129.697
1434.483
1370.667
1222.857
1192.727
1158.621
1158.621
1125
1141.333
1309.091
1357.241
1264
1238.695

41%
52%
47%
45%
46%
50%
48%
46%
41%
46%
48%
45%
42%

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31

36,960
35,360
36,000
30,240
39,040
30,400
30,720
37,600
34,880
38,880

4,099
3,925
3,941
3,432
4,228
3,335
3,393
4,021
3,869
4,392

588
481
290
112
35
13
8

0.110894
0.110988
0.109474
0.113501
0.10829
0.10969
0.11045
0.106935
0.110933
0.112959

1056
1262.857
1241.379
1080
1183.03
980.6452
1137.778
1139.394
1162.667
1254.194

36%
45%
47%
40%
44%
44%
48%
48%
42%
43%

12/03/10
01/07/11
02/04/11
03/05/11
04/02/11
05/05/11
06/05/11
07/02/11
08/04/11
09/03/11

01/06/11
02/03/11
03/04/11
04/01/11
05/04/11
06/04/11
07/01/11
08/03/11
09/02/11
10/03/11

122
117
110
112
112
93
98
99
115
122

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292

Campus
Page A-68

From
To
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/02/11
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
31
365

kWh
40,320
41,440
431,840

Demand
120 $
117 $
122 $

Cost
4,511
4,595
47,739

HDD
90
218
1,832

CDD
77
57
2,674

$/kWh
0.111882
0.110872
0.110549

kWh/Day
1390.345
1336.774
1185.422

LF
48%
48%
40%

12/03/11
01/04/12
01/05/12
02/01/12
02/02/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/01/12
04/02/12
05/01/12
05/02/12
05/31/12
06/01/12
07/03/12
07/04/12
08/02/12
08/03/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/03/12
Sum/Average/Max

33
28
30
30
30
30
33
30
32
30
28
33
367

32,320
36,320
38,880
35,680
39,200
34,080
36,960
37,280
32,160
38,400
37,600
38,880
437,760

111 $
119 $
121 $
118 $
112 $
93 $
100 $
102 $
113 $
115 $
113 $
114 $
121 $

3,678
4,091
4,198
3,900
4,175
3,608
3,513
3,551
3,230
3,720
3,645
3,750
45,059

332
223
207
39
32
48
273
1,153

10
17
22
86
97
312
452
485
486
324
107
13
2,409

0.113795
0.112639
0.10797
0.109318
0.106496
0.105854
0.095055
0.09524
0.100448
0.096867
0.096951
0.096449
0.10293

979.3939
1297.143
1296
1189.333
1306.667
1136
1120
1242.667
1005
1280
1342.857
1178.182
1197.77

37%
46%
45%
42%
48%
51%
47%
51%
37%
46%
49%
43%
41%

12/04/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

30
29
31
30
120

32,960
35,840
38,400
34,560
141,760

111 $
113 $
115 $
107 $
115 $

3,343
3,581
3,794
3,442
14,160

289
244
289
269
1,090

7
32
13
1
53

0.101427 1098.667
0.099919 1235.862
0.098805 1238.71
0.0996
1152
0.09989 1181.31

41%
46%
45%
45%
43%

Project: PJC
Area: Administration #7
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max
12/04/03
01/06/04
02/05/04
03/04/04
04/06/04
05/04/04
06/03/04
07/03/04
08/03/04
09/02/04
10/05/04

01/05/04
02/04/04
03/03/04
04/05/04
05/03/04
06/02/04
07/02/04
08/02/04
09/01/04
10/04/04
11/02/04

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333
33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
33
29

Site:
Campus
Meter: 04 Elect Mtr #3540963
kWh
Demand
Cost
79,200
194 $
4,620
60,000
156 $
3,563
44,880
127 $
2,735
46,560
127 $
2,808
45,120
115 $
2,675
50,400
115 $
2,904
51,840
127 $
3,037
46,320
103 $
2,656
54,000
134 $
3,173
55,440
132 $
3,223
68,640
170 $
4,020
602,400
194 $
35,414
87,120
81,120
66,720
61,920
43,920
35,280
47,040
40,320
44,640
55,680
55,440

173
173
158
158
125
94
106
115
115
134
132

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,065
4,789
4,038
3,818
2,795
2,215
2,827
2,571
2,769
3,389
3,366

HDD
700
427
184
70
16
53
261
1,709

CDD
-

598
623
464
254
113
8
17

2
30
176
232
253
285
141
23
10
1,150

2
133
251
316
239
231
81

Utility: Electric
Account: 17890-93000
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.058333
2475
53%
0.059383 2068.966
55%
0.06094 1547.586
51%
0.060309 1501.935
49%
0.059286 1455.484
53%
0.057619
1575
57%
0.058584
1728
57%
0.05734 1597.241
65%
0.058759
1687.5
52%
0.058135 1911.724
60%
0.058566 2366.897
58%
0.058788 1810.485
39%
0.058138
0.059036
0.060522
0.06166
0.063638
0.062783
0.060098
0.063765
0.06203
0.060866
0.060714

2640
2704
2382.857
1876.364
1568.571
1176
1568
1300.645
1488
1687.273
1911.724

64%
65%
63%
49%
52%
52%
62%
47%
54%
52%
60%
Campus

Page A-69

From
To
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
366

kWh
73,440
692,640

Demand
170 $
173 $

Cost
4,418
42,060

HDD
266
2,342

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/04/05
02/05/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

68,640
79,200
66,720
68,640
53,280
53,280
47,280
52,080
44,400
60,000
69,840
77,280
740,640

185 $
175 $
158 $
166 $
151 $
132 $
118 $
113 $
120 $
134 $
170 $
199 $
199 $

4,662
5,146
4,404
4,721
3,804
3,692
3,285
3,515
3,142
4,066
4,809
5,382
50,628

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

93,360
71,760
74,880
67,440
54,960
54,000
43,920
42,960
52,080
57,600
62,640
87,360
762,960

194 $
187 $
185 $
173 $
139 $
125 $
113 $
118 $
118 $
130 $
151 $
178 $
194 $

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/04/07
08/05/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/06/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
32
32
28
30
34
367

90,480
76,320
83,760
53,280
60,240
56,640
46,080
51,360
62,640
60,720
64,320
61,440
767,280

197 $
194 $
185 $
151 $
173 $
142 $
122 $
137 $
149 $
154 $
154 $
158 $
197 $

32
29
29
29
29
32

52,320
57,600
52,320
50,160
40,320
36,480

12/07/07
01/08/08
02/06/08
03/06/08
04/04/08
05/03/08

01/07/08
02/05/08
03/05/08
04/03/08
05/02/08
06/03/08

252
235
216
199
173
115

$
$
$
$
$
$

CDD
7
1,258

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.060158 2369.032
0.060724 1889.372

545
479
360
291
129
11
114
253
2,179

108
246
344
305
321
41
12
1,377

0.06792
0.064975
0.066007
0.068779
0.071396
0.069294
0.06948
0.067492
0.070766
0.067767
0.068857
0.069643
0.068357

2080
2640
2382.857
2145
1902.857
1776
1630.345
1578.182
1531.034
1875
2328
2576
2037.106

47%
63%
63%
54%
53%
56%
58%
58%
53%
58%
57%
54%
43%

6,662
5,353
5,524
5,013
4,018
3,942
3,280
3,253
3,788
4,183
4,602
6,211
55,829

500
372
424
212
32
7
3
132
414
2,094

0.071358
0.074596
0.073771
0.074333
0.073108
0.073
0.074681
0.075722
0.072734
0.072622
0.073467
0.071097
0.073174

2829.091
2474.483
2582.069
2175.484
1832
1636.364
1464
1534.286
1531.765
1986.207
2160
2730
2077.979

61%
55%
58%
52%
55%
55%
54%
54%
54%
64%
60%
64%
45%

7,415
6,425
6,883
4,589
5,197
4,766
3,923
4,374
5,220
5,117
5,365
5,190
64,464

447
479
525
138
153
2
81
379
2,203

0.081952
0.084185
0.082175
0.08613
0.086272
0.084145
0.085135
0.085164
0.083333
0.084272
0.083411
0.084473
0.084016

2827.5
2725.714
2617.5
1837.241
2008
1827.097
1588.966
1605
1957.5
2168.571
2144
1807.059
2092.846

60%
59%
59%
51%
48%
54%
54%
49%
55%
59%
58%
48%
44%

5,126
5,389
4,913
4,664
3,834
3,227

419
463
388
294
126
13

0.097974
0.093559
0.093903
0.092982
0.095089
0.088459

1635
1986.207
1804.138
1729.655
1390.345
1140

27%
35%
35%
36%
33%
41%

12
46
178
343
314
362
160
32
1,445
8
11
112
289
324
410
216
81
1,450
10
129

LF
58%
46%

Campus
Page A-70

From
To
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
32
31
29
32
30
364

kWh
34,560
35,280
36,480
38,160
49,680
60,480
543,840

Demand
115 $
96 $
106 $
122 $
242 $
262 $
262 $

Cost
3,095
3,032
3,621
3,851
5,493
6,487
52,733

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/04/09
06/05/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
30
32
29
29
33
28
30
363

65,520
68,400
57,600
50,160
38,640
34,320
49,440
42,960
44,160
51,120
53,280
72,720
628,320

266 $
230 $
199 $
199 $
199 $
115 $
118 $
103 $
118 $
115 $
221 $
230 $
266 $

7,629
7,681
6,506
5,822
4,763
3,871
5,157
4,489
4,685
5,290
6,109
7,901
69,903

316
563
449
153
83
4
2
112
282
1,962

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

102,240
105,600
89,760
66,000
45,840
32,650
31,920
36,960
38,400
41,520
42,000
46,560
679,450

245 $
247 $
254 $
240 $
144 $
98 $
98 $
108 $
110 $
110 $
132 $
242 $
254 $

11,092
11,420
9,972
7,657
5,196
3,684
3,616
4,149
4,296
4,589
4,764
5,842
76,277

596
612
676
336
100
1
8
58
296
2,681

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
10/31/11
11/01/11
12/02/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
28
32
365

74,880
62,640
56,640
42,480
37,680
32,400
28,080
32,880
31,680
31,920
44,400
64,320
540,000

230 $
245 $
238 $
216 $
144 $
108 $
101 $
94 $
106 $
92 $
183 $
206 $
245 $

8,163
7,146
6,562
5,152
4,294
3,604
3,172
3,565
3,527
3,561
5,290
7,265
61,300

761
621
416
212
101
52
23
162
346
2,693

32

75,360

8,284

458

12/03/11

01/03/12

222

HDD
3
169
428
2,302

CDD
257
325
274
169
28
1
1,192

$/kWh
0.089554
0.085952
0.099255
0.100929
0.110577
0.107258
0.096964

kWh/Day
1152
1102.5
1176.774
1315.862
1552.5
2016
1500.082

LF
42%
48%
46%
45%
27%
32%
24%

0.116437
0.112298
0.112947
0.116069
0.123276
0.112782
0.104314
0.104494
0.10609
0.103481
0.114651
0.108647
0.111253

2047.5
2280
1986.207
1567.5
1332.414
1144
1545
1481.379
1522.759
1549.091
1902.857
2424
1731.892

32%
41%
42%
33%
28%
41%
55%
60%
54%
56%
36%
44%
27%

0.108491
0.108141
0.111101
0.116014
0.113346
0.112828
0.113289
0.112252
0.111874
0.110529
0.113431
0.125468
0.112262

3098.182
3641.379
2992
2357.143
1389.091
1125.862
1100.69
1155
1280
1258.182
1448.276
1552
1866.484

53%
61%
49%
41%
40%
48%
47%
45%
48%
48%
46%
27%
31%

7
45
179
378
340
314
103
8
6
1,379

0.109019
0.114074
0.115854
0.121288
0.113948
0.111231
0.112967
0.108414
0.111332
0.111549
0.119145
0.112953
0.113519

2139.429
2237.143
1953.103
1517.143
1141.818
1045.161
1040
996.3636
1056
1029.677
1585.714
2010
1479.296

39%
38%
34%
29%
33%
40%
43%
44%
42%
47%
36%
41%
25%

0.109924

2355

44%

2
20
184
378
271
256
279
103
1,490
26
175
325
422
343
228
37
1,554
-

Campus
Page A-71

From
To
01/04/12
02/02/12
02/03/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
05/31/12
06/01/12
07/02/12
07/03/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
29
31
30
29
32
30
33
30
28
32
366

kWh
64,080
66,240
56,400
47,040
39,600
40,800
38,880
47,280
45,840
59,280
71,520
652,320

Demand
210 $
205 $
192 $
153 $
126 $
113 $
109 $
130 $
126 $
210 $
223 $
223 $

Cost
7,187
7,115
6,177
5,120
4,299
3,890
3,718
4,494
4,359
5,925
6,943
67,511

HDD
381
332
121
109
4
3
114
417
1,937

CDD
-

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
29
31
30
121

68,400
72,720
74,400
62,640
278,160

218 $
216 $
227 $
232 $
232 $

6,806
7,131
7,333
6,447
27,717

440
359
431
408
1,637

Project: PJC
Area: Fine Arts #8
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
30
32
31
366

38,640
37,200
34,800
41,280
34,800
39,360
43,440
37,920
32,400
28,560
39,120
39,840
447,360

31
31

36,480
36,240

12/04/04
01/04/05

01/03/05
02/03/05

Site:
Campus
Meter: 17 Elect Mtr # 3260684
kWh
Demand
Cost
40,320
105 $
2,408
37,920
85 $
2,185
36,720
146 $
2,493
41,520
165 $
2,814
42,240
122 $
2,591
44,400
124 $
2,697
39,840
137 $
2,576
33,600
133 $
2,281
41,520
99 $
2,424
38,160
135 $
2,491
37,200
140 $
2,479
433,440
165 $
27,439
126 $
116 $
107 $
133 $
117 $
117 $
119 $
96 $
66 $
73 $
117 $
142 $
142 $
132
100

$
$

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111

7
9
106
212
275
272
123
19
1,021

$/kWh
0.112149
0.107418
0.109515
0.108837
0.108573
0.095345
0.095621
0.095055
0.095081
0.099952
0.097082
0.103493

kWh/Day
2136
2284.138
1819.355
1568
1365.517
1275
1296
1432.727
1528
2117.143
2235
1784.323

LF
42%
46%
39%
43%
45%
47%
50%
46%
51%
42%
42%
33%

0.099504 2206.452
0.098058 2507.586
0.098566
2400
0.102915
2088
0.099643 2300.509

42%
48%
44%
38%
41%

8
38
178
393
456
463
488
341
158
70
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 18520-93005
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.059722
1260
50%
0.057621 1307.586
64%
0.067892 1266.207
36%
0.067775 1339.355
34%
0.06134 1362.581
47%
0.060743
1387.5
47%
0.064659
1328
40%
0.067887 1158.621
36%
0.058382
1297.5
55%
0.065278 1315.862
41%
0.06664 1282.759
38%
0.063305 1300.543
33%
0.066201
0.065403
0.06523
0.065916
0.066925
0.064482
0.063029
0.06192
0.059167
0.062395
0.064596
0.067972
0.064532

CDD
-

2,558
2,433
2,270
2,721
2,329
2,538
2,738
2,348
1,917
1,782
2,527
2,708
28,869

438
476
329
120
34
1
5
141
1,542

6
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
448
417
305
41
2,656

2,694
2,493

385
328

12
6

1170.909
1240
1242.857
1250.909
1242.857
1312
1448
1223.226
1080
952
1222.5
1285.161
1222.535

39%
45%
48%
39%
44%
47%
51%
53%
68%
54%
44%
38%
36%

0.073849 1176.774
0.068791 1169.032

37%
49%
Campus

Page A-72

From
To
02/04/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

kWh
37,200
36,960
34,560
36,960
36,960
37,920
33,600
39,840
39,840
36,960
443,520

Demand
116 $
116 $
117 $
119 $
94 $
95 $
95 $
107 $
125 $
97 $
132 $

Cost
2,637
2,717
2,593
2,734
2,587
2,645
2,412
2,819
2,925
2,605
31,861

HDD
246
153
26
59
159
1,353

CDD
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

$/kWh
0.070887
0.073512
0.075029
0.073972
0.069995
0.069752
0.071786
0.070758
0.073419
0.070482
0.071837

kWh/Day
1282.759
1155
1234.286
1232
1274.483
1149.091
1158.621
1245
1328
1232
1219.754

LF
46%
41%
44%
43%
56%
50%
51%
48%
44%
53%
38%

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

35,280
34,080
36,000
35,520
37,440
38,160
36,720
36,480
34,560
30,480
34,080
38,400
427,200

120 $
101 $
106 $
106 $
106 $
89 $
103 $
106 $
106 $
137 $
139 $
134 $
139 $

2,817
2,634
2,776
2,746
2,859
2,801
2,799
2,803
2,690
2,634
2,857
3,080
33,496

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.079847
0.077289
0.077111
0.077309
0.076362
0.073401
0.076225
0.076837
0.077836
0.086417
0.083832
0.080208
0.078408

1069.091
1175.172
1241.379
1145.806
1248
1156.364
1224
1302.857
1016.471
1051.034
1175.172
1200
1167.112

37%
48%
49%
45%
49%
54%
50%
51%
40%
32%
35%
37%
35%

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

32,640
30,480
36,000
34,320
34,800
34,800
33,840
39,120
34,800
32,880
36,240
38,400
418,320

130 $
96 $
89 $
118 $
127 $
158 $
130 $
127 $
115 $
115 $
127 $
113 $
158 $

3,047
2,698
3,056
3,092
3,178
3,361
3,130
3,474
3,107
2,975
3,277
3,342
37,737

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
530
652
412
212
16
2,850

0.093352
0.088517
0.084889
0.090093
0.091322
0.09658
0.092494
0.088804
0.089282
0.090481
0.090425
0.087031
0.090211

1020
1088.571
1125
1183.448
1160
1122.581
1166.897
1261.935
1054.545
1174.286
1208
1200
1147.105

33%
47%
53%
42%
38%
30%
37%
41%
38%
43%
40%
44%
30%

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32

33,840
30,720
32,640
29,280
35,760
34,800
32,880
35,520
33,120
31,920
39,360

3,045
2,831
2,809
2,891
3,219
2,858
2,796
3,320
3,278
3,275
3,978

306
336
253
175
49
88

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133

0.089982
0.092155
0.08606
0.098736
0.090017
0.082126
0.085036
0.093479
0.098963
0.102594
0.101073

995.2941
1059.31
1125.517
1009.655
1233.103
1087.5
1096
1110
1068.387
1100.69
1230

36%
38%
53%
30%
42%
63%
54%
33%
48%
42%
40%

12/05/07
01/08/08
02/06/08
03/06/08
04/04/08
05/03/08
06/04/08
07/04/08
08/05/08
09/05/08
10/04/08

01/07/08
02/05/08
03/05/08
04/03/08
05/02/08
06/03/08
07/03/08
08/04/08
09/04/08
10/03/08
11/04/08

115
115
89
142
122
72
84
142
94
110
127

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Campus
Page A-73

From
To
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
366

kWh
37,200
407,040

Demand
128 $
142 $

Cost
3,986
38,286

HDD
290
1,497

CDD
16
2,511

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

36,720
36,000
36,240
37,680
35,760
36,000
34,320
33,600
32,160
36,960
34,560
33,600
423,600

158 $
134 $
125 $
137 $
127 $
108 $
89 $
98 $
103 $
137 $
127 $
118 $
158 $

4,345
4,137
4,106
4,309
4,074
3,984
3,634
3,622
3,523
4,153
3,879
3,740
47,506

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

0.118328
0.114922
0.113304
0.114365
0.113921
0.110659
0.105872
0.107804
0.109543
0.112364
0.112247
0.111318
0.112149

1147.5
1200
1249.655
1177.5
1233.103
1161.29
1107.097
1158.621
1108.966
1120
1234.286
1120
1168.168

30%
37%
42%
36%
40%
45%
52%
49%
45%
34%
40%
40%
31%

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

33,600
29,280
34,320
32,160
39,600
34,800
30,960
33,840
31,920
31,680
35,520
32,880
400,560

115 $
110 $
113 $
149 $
146 $
151 $
122 $
110 $
103 $
120 $
127 $
144 $
151 $

3,874
3,439
3,930
3,940
4,621
4,200
3,668
3,867
3,646
3,723
4,126
3,978
47,012

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

0.115309
0.117449
0.114517
0.122503
0.116697
0.120678
0.118462
0.114285
0.114213
0.117533
0.116149
0.120981
0.117365

1018.182
1009.655
1144
1148.571
1200
1200
1067.586
1057.5
1064
960
1224.828
1096
1099.194

37%
38%
42%
32%
34%
33%
36%
40%
43%
33%
40%
32%
30%

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
10/31/11
11/01/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
28
31
364

34,560
28,800
31,920
31,440
38,160
33,360
27,840
37,200
29,760
32,880
31,920
34,560
392,400

125 $
118 $
103 $
118 $
134 $
118 $
91 $
137 $
137 $
102 $
122 $
117 $
137 $

3,899
3,338
3,531
3,576
4,278
3,750
3,091
4,209
3,536
3,713
3,753
3,963
44,638

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
80
213
1,818

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.112831
0.115886
0.11062
0.113745
0.112105
0.1124
0.111042
0.113141
0.118831
0.112924
0.117586
0.114682
0.113756

987.4286
1028.571
1100.69
1122.857
1156.364
1076.129
1031.111
1127.273
992
1060.645
1140
1114.839
1078.159

33%
36%
45%
40%
36%
38%
47%
34%
30%
43%
39%
40%
33%

33
29
30
31
30
30

34,560
28,080
29,760
30,480
31,680
26,640

3,958
3,269
3,367
3,558
3,734
3,025

322
248
207
39
32
-

10
17
22
95
98
314

0.114513 1047.273
0.116406 968.2759
0.113128
992
0.116724 983.2258
0.117853
1056
0.113566
888

36%
38%
36%
30%
30%
36%

12/02/11
01/04/12
02/02/12
03/03/12
04/03/12
05/03/12

01/03/12
02/01/12
03/02/12
04/02/12
05/02/12
06/01/12

123
107
115
135
145
103

$
$
$
$
$
$

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
-

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.107153
1240
0.09406 1112.955

LF
40%
33%

Campus
Page A-74

From
To
06/02/12
07/02/12
07/03/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/04/12
09/05/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
11/01/12
11/02/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
30
34
29
29
31
367

kWh
33,840
32,400
29,040
28,800
34,080
29,280
368,640

Demand
132 $
129 $
151 $
93 $
137 $
131 $
151 $

Cost
3,481
3,352
3,237
2,845
3,531
3,126
40,482

HDD
52
267
1,165

CDD
424
485
517
310
107
13
2,409

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
29
31
30
121

21,840
25,680
29,760
29,520
106,800

138 $
130 $
126 $
145 $
145 $

2,649
2,897
3,190
3,294
12,031

292
244
289
269
1,093

7
32
13
1
53

Project: PJC
Area: Liberal Arts #4
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
10/04/04
10/05/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
33
29
31
366

51,280
47,680
43,200
50,720
43,920
44,800
45,120
46,000
44,640
20,800
46,000
49,600
533,760

33
29
29
32
28
30
29

44,160
44,800
46,560
48,240
43,040
43,280
39,520

12/04/04
01/06/05
02/04/05
03/05/05
04/06/05
05/04/05
06/03/05

01/05/05
02/03/05
03/04/05
04/05/05
05/03/05
06/02/05
07/01/05

Site:
Campus
Meter: 18 Elect Mtr # 3260683
kWh
Demand
Cost
46,480
101 $
2,651
47,120
101 $
2,679
45,200
100 $
2,590
48,800
99 $
2,740
46,160
91 $
2,579
47,680
89 $
2,633
45,440
92 $
2,553
43,280
99 $
2,501
53,120
101 $
2,940
48,880
102 $
2,761
47,760
102 $
2,713
519,920
102 $
29,340
104 $
102 $
98 $
101 $
96 $
98 $
84 $
86 $
98 $
98 $
99 $
101 $
104 $
98
99
99
99
98
92
81

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

HDD
700
427
184
70
16
53
261
1,709

CDD
-

3,010
2,832
2,603
2,966
2,624
2,676
2,608
2,661
2,669
1,573
2,737
2,915
31,874

598
623
464
254
113
8
17
266
2,342

2,889
2,928
3,018
3,225
2,939
2,916
2,648

545
462
377
291
129
11
-

6
59
238
296
313
343
197
53
21
1,523

1
14
189
311
378
298
297
128
12
1,626
2
2
2
3
156
304

$/kWh
0.102865
0.103448
0.111458
0.098791
0.103622
0.106775
0.109815

kWh/Day
1091.613
1080
854.1176
993.1034
1175.172
944.5161
1006.108

LF
34%
35%
24%
45%
36%
30%
28%

0.121286 704.5161
0.112818 885.5172
0.107195
960
0.111601
984
0.112646 883.5083

21%
28%
32%
28%
25%

Utility: Electric
Account: 18730-93005
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.057035
1452.5
60%
0.056855 1624.828
67%
0.057301 1558.621
65%
0.056148 1574.194
66%
0.055871 1489.032
68%
0.055222
1490
70%
0.056184 1514.667
69%
0.057787 1492.414
63%
0.055346
1660
68%
0.056485 1685.517
69%
0.056805 1646.897
67%
0.056432 1562.606
64%
0.058697
0.059396
0.060255
0.058478
0.059745
0.059732
0.057801
0.057848
0.059789
0.075625
0.0595
0.05877
0.059716

1553.939
1589.333
1542.857
1536.97
1568.571
1493.333
1504
1483.871
1488
630.303
1586.207
1600
1464.782

62%
65%
66%
63%
68%
63%
75%
72%
63%
27%
67%
66%
58%

0.065421
0.065357
0.06482
0.066853
0.068285
0.067375
0.067004

1338.182
1544.828
1605.517
1507.5
1537.143
1442.667
1362.759

57%
65%
68%
63%
65%
65%
70%
Campus

Page A-75

From
To
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
33
29
32
30
30
364

kWh
38,640
36,160
46,640
43,760
43,280
518,080

Demand
78 $
89 $
91 $
95 $
93 $
99 $

Cost
2,583
2,514
3,091
2,960
2,922
34,633

HDD
114
253
2,179

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

42,480
40,080
41,520
41,200
43,600
43,840
39,200
35,680
44,160
41,760
42,240
44,960
500,720

95 $
91 $
94 $
90 $
92 $
82 $
76 $
75 $
91 $
92 $
94 $
94 $
95 $

3,092
2,927
3,030
2,985
3,137
3,093
2,785
2,573
3,164
3,030
3,070
3,229
36,115

500
372
424
212
32
7
3
132
414
2,094

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/04/07
08/05/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
32
32
28
30
32
365

41,520
39,040
44,720
38,240
40,160
40,320
37,920
40,720
40,320
38,160
41,280
43,120
485,520

93 $
97 $
97 $
92 $
91 $
76 $
78 $
78 $
87 $
89 $
88 $
90 $
97 $

3,439
3,292
3,682
3,207
3,333
3,256
3,103
3,295
3,321
3,184
3,393
3,531
40,036

447
479
525
138
153
2
81
347
2,171

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
366

42,480
33,440
26,960
24,960
28,560
27,440
26,640
26,240
24,640
26,880
28,160
26,240
342,640

88 $
85 $
74 $
72 $
80 $
69 $
62 $
66 $
75 $
78 $
74 $
71 $
88 $

3,481
2,841
2,330
2,181
2,476
2,334
2,237
2,233
2,478
2,677
2,758
2,584
30,611

451
463
388
294
126
13
3
169
428
2,335

32
30

24,320
26,800

2,686
2,932

316
563

12/05/08
01/06/09

01/05/09
02/04/09

70
73

$
$

CDD
410
363
385
71
26
1,722

$/kWh
0.066848
0.069524
0.066274
0.067642
0.067514
0.066849

kWh/Day
1170.909
1246.897
1457.5
1458.667
1442.667
1426.269

LF
63%
58%
67%
64%
65%
60%

0.072787
0.073029
0.072977
0.072451
0.07195
0.070552
0.071046
0.072113
0.071649
0.072557
0.07268
0.071819
0.072126

1287.273
1382.069
1431.724
1329.032
1453.333
1328.485
1306.667
1274.286
1298.824
1440
1456.552
1405
1366.104

56%
63%
63%
62%
66%
68%
72%
71%
59%
65%
65%
62%
60%

0.082828
0.084324
0.082335
0.083865
0.082993
0.080754
0.08183
0.080918
0.082366
0.083438
0.082195
0.081888
0.08246

1297.5
1394.286
1397.5
1318.621
1338.667
1300.645
1307.586
1272.5
1260
1362.857
1376
1347.5
1331.138

58%
60%
60%
60%
61%
71%
70%
68%
60%
64%
65%
62%
57%

0.081944
0.084958
0.086424
0.08738
0.086695
0.085058
0.083971
0.08511
0.100573
0.099606
0.097924
0.098483
0.089337

1249.412
1153.103
929.6552
860.6897
984.8276
857.5
888
820
794.8387
926.8966
880
874.6667
934.9658

59%
57%
52%
50%
51%
52%
60%
51%
44%
50%
50%
51%
44%

0.11045
760
0.109393 893.3333

45%
51%

2
27
82
234
403
370
430
213
51
1,812
22
29
168
347
388
474
272
109
2
1,809
1
24
175
317
389
336
222
55
3
1,519
2
-

Campus
Page A-76

From
To
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

kWh
25,680
23,920
23,440
23,360
23,920
22,960
21,840
29,360
26,560
27,680
299,840

Demand
74 $
74 $
69 $
66 $
58 $
58 $
73 $
79 $
77 $
74 $
79 $

Cost
2,835
2,673
2,599
2,574
2,520
2,434
2,423
3,131
2,869
2,951
32,627

HDD
449
153
83
4
2
112
282
1,962

CDD
-

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

30,000
29,040
29,520
26,080
26,960
22,800
25,280
25,120
21,040
24,640
22,320
22,000
304,800

72 $
82 $
78 $
74 $
74 $
70 $
68 $
58 $
71 $
71 $
70 $
74 $
82 $

3,282
3,251
3,273
2,926
3,008
2,594
2,815
2,741
2,434
2,773
2,549
2,542
34,188

596
612
676
336
100
1
8
58
296
2,681

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
10/31/11
11/01/11
12/02/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
28
32
365

24,880
26,160
27,600
20,320
26,960
21,040
19,280
27,120
25,840
29,520
29,120
29,840
307,680

72 $
72 $
73 $
74 $
66 $
66 $
57 $
53 $
70 $
72 $
73 $
75 $
75 $

2,712
2,827
2,964
2,311
2,864
2,329
2,117
2,802
2,787
3,212
3,182
3,261
33,368

761
621
416
212
101
52
23
162
346
2,693

32
29
30
31
29
31
31
30
33
29
29

26,480
26,560
28,080
30,240
32,400
30,960
33,360
30,720
32,160
29,280
25,920

2,912
2,900
2,964
3,145
3,359
3,195
2,994
2,773
2,992
2,766
2,516

458
377
336
121
109
4
1
116

12/03/11
01/04/12
02/02/12
03/03/12
04/03/12
05/02/12
06/02/12
07/03/12
08/02/12
09/04/12
10/03/12

01/03/12
02/01/12
03/02/12
04/02/12
05/01/12
06/01/12
07/02/12
08/01/12
09/03/12
10/02/12
10/31/12

74
71
75
74
77
71
62
59
76
75
76

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7
34
247
435
329
314
343
129
1,837

46
231
383
486
403
287
56
6
1,897
1
15
77
222
432
406
374
152
18
15
1,710
1
23
19
173
269
335
338
176
33

$/kWh
0.110387
0.111746
0.110895
0.110202
0.10536
0.106026
0.110928
0.106635
0.108001
0.106611
0.108814

kWh/Day
885.5172
747.5
808.2759
753.5484
771.6129
791.7241
753.1034
889.697
948.5714
922.6667
827.1292

LF
50%
42%
49%
48%
55%
57%
43%
47%
51%
52%
44%

0.10941
0.111952
0.11086
0.112183
0.111588
0.113766
0.111358
0.109119
0.115702
0.112528
0.114192
0.115559
0.112166

909.0909
1001.379
984
931.4286
816.9697
786.2069
871.7241
785
701.3333
746.6667
769.6552
733.3333
836.399

53%
51%
53%
52%
46%
47%
53%
56%
41%
44%
46%
41%
42%

0.108993
0.108082
0.107373
0.11375
0.106244
0.110706
0.109808
0.103322
0.107845
0.108808
0.109263
0.10927
0.10845

710.8571
934.2857
951.7241
725.7143
816.9697
678.7097
714.0741
821.8182
861.3333
952.2581
1040
932.5
845.0204

41%
54%
54%
41%
52%
43%
52%
65%
51%
55%
59%
52%
47%

0.109968
0.109184
0.105546
0.104003
0.10366
0.103193
0.089744
0.090267
0.093045
0.094468
0.097064

827.5
915.8621
936
975.4839
1117.241
998.7097
1076.129
1024
974.5455
1009.655
893.7931

47%
53%
52%
55%
61%
59%
72%
72%
54%
56%
49%
Campus

Page A-77

From
To
11/01/12
12/03/12
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
33
367

kWh
24,080
350,240

12/04/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

30
29
31
30
120

19,600
24,080
23,280
23,040
90,000

Project: PJC
Area: Building # 2
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
29
33
31
366

29,880
30,360
24,360
28,680
27,960
29,640
28,320
28,320
31,440
21,480
53,880
66,000
400,320

33
29
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30

42,000
29,160
27,600
29,160
27,120
29,760
27,720
26,160
27,960
35,760
34,560
34,560

12/04/04
01/06/05
02/04/05
03/05/05
04/06/05
05/04/05
06/03/05
07/02/05
08/04/05
09/02/05
10/04/05
11/03/05

01/05/05
02/03/05
03/04/05
04/05/05
05/03/05
06/02/05
07/01/05
08/03/05
09/01/05
10/03/05
11/02/05
12/02/05

Demand
74 $
77 $
77
75
70
73
77

Cost
2,363
34,878

HDD
425
1,944

CDD
1,365

2,079
2,416
2,321
2,322
9,137

433
359
431
408
1,629

$
$
$
$
$

Site:
Campus
Meter: 10 Elect Mtr #3540949
kWh
Demand
Cost
49,200
119 $
2,876
42,360
158 $
2,809
25,560
100 $
1,738
26,400
72 $
1,609
31,800
89 $
1,943
29,280
79 $
1,775
28,680
76 $
1,731
29,640
80 $
1,797
31,200
80 $
1,864
29,640
78 $
1,785
26,640
73 $
1,625
350,400
158 $
21,552
84 $
82 $
73 $
73 $
78 $
79 $
79 $
78 $
78 $
70 $
90 $
155 $
155 $
160
77
73
77
76
74
76
76
84
83
88
85

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111

2
2

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.098113 729.697
0.099582 956.5514
0.106052
0.100324
0.099694
0.100762
0.10152

653.3333
830.3448
750.9677
768
750.6615

LF
41%
52%
36%
46%
45%
44%
41%

8
38
178
393
456
463
488
341
158
70
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 19150-93007
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.058455
1537.5
54%
0.066313 1460.69
39%
0.067997 881.3793
37%
0.060947 851.6129
49%
0.061101 1025.806
48%
0.060622
915
48%
0.060356
956
52%
0.060628 1022.069
53%
0.059744
975
51%
0.060223 1022.069
55%
0.060998 918.6207
52%
0.061507 1051.432
28%

CDD
-

1,908
1,918
1,589
1,788
1,784
1,867
1,807
1,801
1,944
1,439
3,047
3,988
24,880

438
476
329
120
34
1
5
141
1,542

6
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
448
407
316
41
2,656

0.063855
0.063175
0.06523
0.062343
0.063805
0.062989
0.063806
0.063595
0.061832
0.066993
0.056552
0.060424
0.06215

905.4545
1012
870
869.0909
998.5714
988
944
913.5484
1048
740.6897
1632.727
2129.032
1087.593

45%
51%
50%
50%
53%
52%
50%
49%
56%
44%
76%
57%
29%

3,144
1,993
1,889
2,066
1,950
2,080
1,982
1,898
2,042
2,457
2,422
2,404

390
323
246
153
26
59
159

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82

0.074857
0.068347
0.068442
0.07085
0.071903
0.069892
0.071501
0.072554
0.073033
0.068708
0.070081
0.06956

1272.727
1005.517
951.7241
911.25
968.5714
992
955.8621
792.7273
964.1379
1117.5
1152
1152

33%
54%
54%
49%
53%
56%
52%
43%
48%
56%
55%
56%
Campus

Page A-78

From
To
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
364

kWh
371,520

Demand
160 $

Cost
26,327

HDD
1,353

CDD
2,716

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

37,560
35,040
34,560
33,720
37,800
39,600
34,440
3,216
40,200
34,080
59,280
67,800
457,296

89 $
86 $
84 $
83 $
89 $
86 $
85 $
84 $
89 $
83 $
122 $
145 $
145 $

2,768
2,602
2,562
2,505
2,780
2,868
2,559
2,419
2,920
2,526
4,234
4,869
35,612

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

19
7
10
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

0.073695
0.074258
0.074132
0.074288
0.073545
0.072424
0.074303
0.752177
0.072637
0.07412
0.071424
0.071814
0.077875

1138.182
1208.276
1191.724
1087.742
1260
1200
1148
114.8571
1182.353
1175.172
2044.138
2118.75
1239.1

53%
59%
59%
55%
59%
58%
56%
6%
55%
59%
70%
61%
36%

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/04/07
08/05/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
32
32
28
30
32
365

67,680
52,080
37,920
31,800
35,880
34,800
34,320
56,640
42,480
55,560
59,040
41,160
549,360

132 $
126 $
94 $
88 $
86 $
89 $
88 $
84 $
88 $
234 $
173 $
94 $
234 $

5,466
4,359
3,197
2,742
3,010
2,954
2,915
4,424
3,475
5,235
5,114
3,420
46,311

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
548
634
412
212
16
2,850

0.080762
0.083698
0.084309
0.086226
0.083891
0.084885
0.084936
0.078107
0.081803
0.094222
0.086619
0.08309
0.0843

2115
1860
1185
1096.552
1196
1122.581
1183.448
1770
1327.5
1984.286
1968
1286.25
1507.885

67%
62%
53%
52%
58%
53%
56%
88%
63%
35%
47%
57%
27%

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
366

40,320
38,160
36,840
32,160
32,760
35,280
35,280
36,480
56,280
48,360
30,960
29,160
452,040

97 $
98 $
96 $
92 $
85 $
85 $
90 $
88 $
263 $
166 $
83 $
83 $
263 $

3,385
3,242
3,140
2,794
2,794
2,967
2,997
3,068
6,152
4,938
3,038
2,892
41,406

306
336
253
175
49
88
290
1,497

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.083953
0.084958
0.085233
0.086878
0.085287
0.084099
0.084949
0.084095
0.109318
0.102108
0.098115
0.099167
0.091599

1185.882
1315.862
1270.345
1108.966
1129.655
1102.5
1176
1140
1815.484
1667.586
967.5
972
1237.648

51%
56%
55%
50%
55%
54%
54%
54%
29%
42%
49%
49%
20%

32
30
29
32
29
31
31

25,680
29,760
26,160
29,400
31,200
30,360
24,720

2,852
3,263
2,932
3,230
3,401
3,318
2,674

204
422
309
53
29
-

50
9
6
67
125
398
590

0.111076
802.5
0.109636
992
0.112078 902.069
0.109853
918.75
0.109007 1075.862
0.109286 979.3548
0.108189 797.4194

44%
50%
45%
46%
53%
49%
46%

12/05/08
01/06/09
02/05/09
03/06/09
04/07/09
05/06/09
06/06/09

01/05/09
02/04/09
03/05/09
04/06/09
05/05/09
06/05/09
07/06/09

77
83
83
83
84
83
72

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.070863 1019.668

LF
27%

Campus
Page A-79

From
To
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
29
33
28
30
363

kWh
24,000
26,400
29,160
24,720
24,120
325,680

Demand
77 $
85 $
80 $
80 $
80 $
85 $

Cost
2,640
2,901
3,119
2,722
2,668
35,719

HDD
56
148
1,220

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

20,880
27,480
23,880
19,800
24,600
22,800
24,240
32,160
32,040
25,080
22,800
21,360
297,120

77 $
85 $
79 $
76 $
74 $
78 $
78 $
257 $
253 $
74 $
77 $
72 $
257 $

2,455
3,122
2,748
2,347
2,787
2,641
2,776
4,577
4,542
2,832
2,635
2,470
35,933

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
10/31/11
11/01/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
28
31
364

23,880
21,840
22,560
18,240
24,720
27,600
17,880
26,640
27,960
24,960
24,120
24,240
284,640

89 $
80 $
77 $
71 $
77 $
82 $
80 $
84 $
86 $
81 $
85 $
76 $
89 $

2,722
2,484
2,532
2,106
2,727
3,017
2,126
2,942
3,073
2,852
2,800
2,753
32,132

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
80
213
1,818

12/02/11
01/03/12
01/04/12
02/01/12
02/02/12
03/02/12
03/03/12
04/01/12
04/02/12
05/01/12
05/02/12
05/31/12
06/01/12
07/02/12
07/03/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/02/12
10/03/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
30
30
30
32
30
33
29
29
32
367

23,880
24,360
24,120
22,560
25,080
25,320
26,520
27,840
28,320
24,720
23,400
23,760
299,880

79 $
76 $
85 $
84 $
76 $
83 $
84 $
84 $
88 $
250 $
78 $
78 $
250 $

2,709
2,733
2,684
2,542
2,716
2,782
2,613
2,714
2,776
3,544
2,336
2,364
32,514

31
30

20,520
24,360

2,176
2,477

12/03/12
01/03/13

01/02/13
02/01/13

81
81

$
$

CDD
474
459
507
213
16
2,910

$/kWh
0.109979
0.109902
0.106955
0.110098
0.110611
0.109677

kWh/Day
827.5862
910.3448
883.6364
882.8571
804
898.0316

LF
45%
45%
46%
46%
42%
44%

0.117564
0.113617
0.115095
0.118553
0.113278
0.115837
0.114538
0.142322
0.141766
0.112908
0.115578
0.115654
0.120939

632.7273
947.5862
796
707.1429
745.4545
786.2069
835.8621
1005
1068
760
786.2069
712
815.1822

34%
46%
42%
39%
42%
42%
45%
16%
18%
43%
43%
41%
13%

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.113974
0.113745
0.112215
0.115444
0.110307
0.109297
0.118919
0.110422
0.109898
0.114243
0.116092
0.113587
0.112887

682.2857
780
777.931
651.4286
749.0909
890.3226
662.2222
807.2727
932
805.1613
861.4286
781.9355
781.7566

32%
41%
42%
38%
41%
45%
34%
40%
45%
41%
42%
43%
37%

322
248
207
39
32
48
270
1,165

10
17
22
86
97
312
436
485
503
320
111
13
2,409

0.113438
0.112195
0.111269
0.112668
0.108299
0.109874
0.098537
0.097485
0.098036
0.143365
0.099845
0.099489
0.108422

723.6364
840
804
752
836
844
828.75
928
858.1818
852.4138
806.8966
742.5
818.0315

38%
46%
39%
37%
46%
42%
41%
46%
41%
14%
43%
39%
14%

292
258

7
32

0.106064 661.9355
0.101665
812

34%
42%

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
-

Campus
Page A-80

From
To
02/02/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
30
121

kWh
24,720
21,840
91,440

Project: PJC
Area: Student Affairs # 6
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333

Site:
Campus
Meter: 22 Elect Mtr #3260685
kWh
Demand
Cost
35,680
90.0 $
2,118
32,560
80.0 $
1,923
29,760
79.0 $
1,796
21,280
79.0 $
1,862
31,520
81.0 $
1,884
30,480
73.0 $
1,792
27,040
74.0 $
1,648
28,000
86.0 $
1,761
31,680
84.0 $
1,909
28,400
74.0 $
1,707
28,160
76.0 $
1,709
324,560
90.0 $
20,109

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/05/04
02/06/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
10/04/04
10/05/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
31
27
33
28
30
30
31
30
33
29
31
366

29,360
30,080
26,080
30,960
28,400
31,040
31,280
31,760
31,040
32,640
28,400
30,080
361,120

79.0 $
70.0 $
77.0 $
85.0 $
86.0 $
88.0 $
87.0 $
90.0 $
91.0 $
84.0 $
74.0 $
76.0 $
91.0 $

1,854
1,834
1,692
1,963
1,851
2,985
1,990
2,030
2,002
2,035
1,781
1,870
23,887

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/04/05
02/05/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

27,200
30,800
30,080
31,120
27,680
31,120
29,440
29,200
28,720
36,320
36,000
32,240
369,920

89.0 $
81.0 $
82.0 $
74.0 $
79.0 $
82.0 $
82.0 $
78.0 $
83.0 $
81.0 $
71.0 $
79.0 $
89.0 $

33
29
29

32,960
31,600
30,800

12/03/05
01/05/06
02/03/06

01/04/06
02/02/06
03/03/06

Demand
77
79
81

82.0
81.0
82.0

$
$
$

Cost
2,479
2,267
9,398

$
$
$

HDD
275
269
1,093

CDD
13
1
53

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.100274
824
0.103784
728
0.102782 756.4839

LF
45%
38%
39%

8
38
178
393
456
463
488
341
158
70
2,590

Utility: Electric
Account: 19360-93007
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.059361
1115
52%
0.05906 1122.759
58%
0.060349 1026.207
54%
0.0875 686.4516
36%
0.059772 1016.774
52%
0.058793
952.5
54%
0.060947 901.3333
51%
0.062893 965.5172
47%
0.060259
990
49%
0.060106 979.3103
55%
0.060689 971.0345
53%
0.061958 975.1715
45%

438
480
325
120
34
1
5
141
1,542

6
3
5
32
75
332
461
533
448
462
260
41
2,656

0.063147
0.060971
0.064877
0.063404
0.065176
0.096166
0.063619
0.063917
0.064497
0.062347
0.062711
0.062168
0.066147

889.697
970.3226
965.9259
938.1818
1014.286
1034.667
1042.667
1024.516
1034.667
989.0909
979.3103
970.3226
987.8044

47%
58%
52%
46%
49%
49%
50%
47%
47%
49%
55%
53%
45%

1,963
2,101
2,070
2,154
1,998
2,201
2,110
2,074
2,077
2,476
2,399
2,244
25,867

390
335
233
153
26
59
159
1,353

12
6
15
24
40
295
449
575
508
545
166
82
2,716

0.072169
0.068214
0.068816
0.069216
0.072182
0.070726
0.071671
0.071027
0.072319
0.068172
0.066639
0.069603
0.069926

824.2424
1026.667
1074.286
972.5
988.5714
1037.333
1015.172
884.8485
990.3448
1135
1200
1074.667
1018.636

39%
53%
55%
55%
52%
53%
52%
47%
50%
58%
70%
57%
48%

2,456
2,371
2,330

352
234
287

19
7
10

0.074515 998.7879
0.075032 1089.655
0.075649 1062.069

51%
56%
54%

HDD
540
289
71
34
13
165
1,111

CDD
-

Campus
Page A-81

From
To
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

kWh
30,480
36,160
36,800
35,440
34,960
37,040
32,080
34,240
34,000
406,560

Demand
70.0 $
87.0 $
79.0 $
85.0 $
94.0 $
86.0 $
81.0 $
85.0 $
90.0 $
94.0 $

Cost
2,238
2,672
2,662
2,618
2,643
2,717
2,397
2,547
2,563
30,214

HDD
112
1
57
267
1,308

CDD
82
201
392
553
510
600
356
121
13
2,861

$/kWh
0.073425
0.073894
0.072337
0.073871
0.075601
0.073353
0.074719
0.074387
0.075382
0.074316

kWh/Day
983.2258
1205.333
1115.152
1181.333
1248.571
1089.412
1106.207
1180.69
1062.5
1110.245

LF
59%
58%
59%
58%
55%
53%
57%
58%
49%
49%

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/04/07
08/05/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/06/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
32
32
28
30
34
367

32,400
29,840
34,160
30,720
32,080
34,080
30,000
35,040
34,880
30,640
34,160
40,640
398,640

94.0 $
87.0 $
94.0 $
81.0 $
83.0 $
92.0 $
89.0 $
88.0 $
91.0 $
86.0 $
76.0 $
94.0 $
94.0 $

2,818
2,601
2,939
2,626
2,731
2,922
2,624
2,964
2,971
2,650
2,833
3,384
34,063

291
343
375
61
85
34
223
1,410

4
4
10
89
111
321
492
548
634
412
212
16
2,850

0.086975
0.087165
0.086036
0.085482
0.085131
0.085739
0.087467
0.084589
0.085178
0.086488
0.082933
0.083268
0.085448

1012.5
1065.714
1067.5
1059.31
1069.333
1099.355
1034.483
1095
1090
1094.286
1138.667
1195.294
1085.12

45%
51%
47%
54%
54%
50%
48%
52%
50%
53%
62%
53%
48%

12/07/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

32
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
364

32,400
34,400
30,800
27,040
26,320
28,240
27,600
29,120
29,440
28,160
32,400
31,840
357,760

94.0 $
96.0 $
91.0 $
34.0 $
74.0 $
74.0 $
74.0 $
85.6 $
81.6 $
77.6 $
79.0 $
82.4 $
96.0 $

2,822
2,972
2,695
2,099
2,286
2,418
2,374
2,549
2,909
2,781
3,131
3,103
32,139

284
336
253
175
49
88
290
1,474

25
18
10
27
92
322
467
549
491
364
133
16
2,511

0.087099
0.086395
0.0875
0.077626
0.086854
0.085623
0.086014
0.087551
0.098795
0.098762
0.096628
0.097458
0.089834

1012.5
1186.207
1062.069
932.4138
907.5862
882.5
920
910
949.6774
971.0345
1012.5
1061.333
983.9851

45%
51%
49%
114%
51%
50%
52%
44%
48%
52%
53%
54%
43%

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30

26,080
28,320
25,280
27,200
27,680
30,160
29,920
23,600
24,080
26,480
24,240
26,160

2,942
3,101
2,839
2,927
3,042
3,294
3,234
2,562
2,664
2,814
2,626
2,815

204
422
309
53
29
56
148

50
9
6
67
125
398
590
474
459
507
213
16

0.112819
0.109496
0.112313
0.107617
0.109903
0.109205
0.108088
0.108577
0.110647
0.106275
0.108316
0.107608

815
944
871.7241
850
954.4828
972.9032
965.1613
813.7931
830.3448
802.4242
865.7143
872

40%
50%
45%
53%
51%
49%
46%
48%
43%
48%
51%
49%

12/05/08
01/06/09
02/05/09
03/06/09
04/07/09
05/06/09
06/06/09
07/07/09
08/05/09
09/03/09
10/06/09
11/03/09

01/05/09
02/04/09
03/05/09
04/06/09
05/05/09
06/05/09
07/06/09
08/04/09
09/02/09
10/05/09
11/02/09
12/02/09

85.6
78.4
80.8
66.4
78.4
82.0
88.0
70.0
80.0
69.0
71.0
74.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Campus
Page A-82

From
To
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
363

kWh
319,200

Demand
88.0 $

Cost
34,861

HDD
1,220

12/03/09
01/04/10
01/05/10
02/02/10
02/03/10
03/04/10
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

24,080
25,840
23,280
21,040
28,080
25,680
27,040
27,040
26,800
27,920
24,560
22,240
303,600

80.0 $
79.0 $
72.0 $
40.0 $
78.0 $
74.0 $
75.0 $
74.0 $
70.0 $
70.4 $
62.0 $
69.0 $
80.0 $

2,773
2,933
2,651
2,251
3,137
2,888
3,022
3,016
2,970
3,075
2,712
2,535
33,963

437
467
526
202
19
3
8
180
1,840

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/03/11
10/04/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
31
29
30
364

22,000
20,800
24,800
22,640
28,960
26,960
23,840
27,440
27,680
28,240
27,440
28,080
308,880

74.0 $
74.0 $
72.0 $
37.0 $
67.0 $
82.0 $
83.0 $
76.0 $
81.0 $
80.0 $
76.0 $
73.4 $
83.0 $

2,463
2,355
2,705
2,303
3,051
2,959
2,683
2,967
3,018
3,146
3,047
3,086
33,782

588
481
290
112
35
13
8
90
203
1,818

12/02/11
01/03/12
01/04/12
02/02/12
02/03/12
03/01/12
03/02/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/02/12
07/03/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/02/12
10/03/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
32
30
30
31
30
33
29
29
32
367

26,880
24,560
26,160
27,120
29,520
29,360
29,200
30,000
28,560
28,160
28,400
27,680
335,600

74.3 $
72.2 $
76.1 $
77.8 $
81.4 $
70.6 $
74.6 $
80.0 $
82.1 $
72.5 $
71.9 $
75.9 $
82.1 $

2,948
2,725
2,803
2,900
3,134
3,056
2,760
2,853
2,756
2,661
2,680
2,650
33,926

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
29
31
30
121

24,480
27,520
27,760
25,600
105,360

80.9 $
83.8 $
78.4 $
84.7 $
84.7 $

2,486
2,743
2,723
2,599
10,551

Project: PJC

Site:

Campus

CDD
2,910
6

$/kWh kWh/Day
0.109214 879.7957

LF
42%

0.115165
0.113493
0.113866
0.107007
0.111727
0.112466
0.111754
0.111536
0.110813
0.110137
0.110426
0.113999
0.111869

729.697
891.0345
776
751.4286
850.9091
885.5172
932.4138
845
893.3333
846.0606
846.8966
741.3333
832.4687

38%
47%
45%
78%
45%
50%
52%
48%
53%
50%
57%
45%
43%

20
54
176
337
567
571
524
292
77
57
2,674

0.111966
0.113211
0.109053
0.101712
0.105352
0.109746
0.112528
0.108118
0.109029
0.111401
0.111038
0.109912
0.109368

628.5714
742.8571
855.1724
808.5714
877.5758
869.6774
882.963
831.5152
922.6667
910.9677
946.2069
936
851.0621

35%
42%
49%
91%
55%
44%
44%
46%
47%
47%
52%
53%
43%

322
248
207
39
32
48
270
1,165

10
17
17
100
98
314
424
485
503
320
111
13
2,409

0.109678
0.110971
0.107159
0.106916
0.106168
0.104081
0.094517
0.095105
0.096501
0.094503
0.094349
0.095747
0.101092

814.5455
818.6667
934.2857
847.5
984
978.6667
941.9355
1000
865.4545
971.0345
979.3103
865
916.6999

46%
47%
51%
45%
50%
58%
53%
52%
44%
56%
57%
47%
46%

292
244
289
269
1,093

7
32
13
1
53

0.101549
0.099671
0.098085
0.101538
0.100143

789.6774
948.9655
895.4839
853.3333
871.865

41%
47%
48%
42%
43%

6
131
375
528
646
553
446
151
40
2,880
2
-

Utility: Electric
Campus

Page A-83

From
To
Area: Student Affairs # 5
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/07/03
07/08/03
08/06/03
08/07/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
# Days
32
29
29
31
31
32
30
29
32
29
29
333

kWh

Demand
Cost
Meter: 21 Elect Mtr # 3260721
kWh
Demand
Cost
34,000
102 $
2,116
34,480
107 $
2,166
31,840
106 $
2,046
35,040
113 $
2,226
33,440
95 $
2,050
34,320
87 $
2,041
32,240
90 $
1,968
32,640
94 $
2,009
38,880
121 $
2,440
38,000
142 $
2,525
36,800
146 $
2,497
381,680
146 $
24,084

HDD

CDD

HDD
245
68
12
6
36
366

CDD
25
77
269
460
703
776
763
778
661
435
231
5,176

$/kWh

kWh/Day
LF
Account: 19570-93007
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.062235
1062.5
43%
0.062819 1188.966
46%
0.064259 1097.931
43%
0.063527 1130.323
42%
0.061304 1078.71
47%
0.05947
1072.5
51%
0.061042 1074.667
50%
0.06155 1125.517
50%
0.062757
1215
42%
0.066447 1310.345
38%
0.067853 1268.966
36%
0.0631 1147.766
33%

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
10/01/04
10/02/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/03/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
30
32
31
366

38,400
37,520
37,200
41,120
38,960
36,640
36,720
38,080
38,000
31,600
46,320
40,080
460,640

136 $
133 $
137 $
137 $
142 $
115 $
110 $
130 $
129 $
136 $
161 $
142 $
161 $

2,608
2,548
2,557
2,737
2,668
2,402
2,376
2,556
2,547
2,294
3,118
2,719
31,130

170
200
106
8
2
26
512

68
28
62
250
324
631
761
843
748
717
621
236
5,286

0.067917
0.06791
0.068737
0.066561
0.06848
0.065557
0.064706
0.067122
0.067026
0.072595
0.067314
0.067839
0.06758

1163.636
1250.667
1328.571
1246.061
1391.429
1221.333
1224
1228.387
1266.667
1053.333
1447.5
1292.903
1259.541

36%
39%
40%
38%
41%
44%
46%
39%
41%
32%
37%
38%
33%

12/04/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
364

37,360
41,280
46,160
45,520
43,440
40,720
40,160
42,720
38,160
46,640
44,240
44,240
510,640

143 $
159 $
94 $
145 $
144 $
122 $
132 $
129 $
206 $
145 $
145 $
148 $
206 $

2,804
3,101
2,968
3,250
3,232
2,955
2,984
3,104
3,313
3,410
3,281
3,298
37,700

162
126
51
16
3
35
391

114
100
110
208
295
595
739
905
798
865
410
258
5,394

0.075054
0.075121
0.064298
0.071397
0.074401
0.072569
0.074303
0.072659
0.086819
0.073113
0.074164
0.074548
0.073829

1132.121
1423.448
1591.724
1422.5
1551.429
1357.333
1384.828
1294.545
1315.862
1457.5
1474.667
1474.667
1406.719

33%
37%
71%
41%
45%
46%
44%
42%
27%
42%
42%
42%
28%

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28

41,360
41,200
45,200
43,680
46,400
44,000
42,080
39,680

3,233
3,247
3,511
3,425
3,597
3,303
3,302
3,167

106
58
91
7
-

103
121
104
287
500
722
853
790

0.078167
0.078811
0.077677
0.078411
0.077522
0.075068
0.07847
0.079814

1253.333
1420.69
1558.621
1409.032
1546.667
1333.333
1402.667
1417.143

40%
44%
47%
42%
45%
48%
43%
43%

12/03/05
01/05/06
02/03/06
03/04/06
04/04/06
05/04/06
06/06/06
07/06/06

01/04/06
02/02/06
03/03/06
04/03/06
05/03/06
06/05/06
07/05/06
08/02/06

130
134
139
140
142
116
135
136

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Campus
Page A-84

From
To
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
34
29
29
32
367

kWh
46,880
43,200
44,240
47,120
525,040

Demand
130 $
142 $
146 $
146 $
146 $

Cost
3,554
3,409
3,494
3,663
40,905

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/04/07
08/05/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
32
32
28
30
32
365

43,360
40,560
49,200
42,320
45,760
43,440
42,880
43,040
40,960
41,280
45,920
45,680
524,400

159 $
138 $
145 $
145 $
142 $
144 $
131 $
138 $
121 $
142 $
153 $
144 $
159 $

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
366

42,800
41,360
44,000
41,360
41,200
38,320
39,840
43,760
41,520
40,960
45,120
43,440
503,680

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

38,560
42,880
43,040
43,600
43,040
40,160
38,320
36,400
36,720
44,560
38,720
36,160
482,160

33
29
30

35,040
33,440
38,560

12/03/09
01/05/10
02/03/10

01/04/10
02/02/10
03/04/10

1
64
326

CDD
940
646
355
131
5,549

$/kWh
0.075811
0.078912
0.078978
0.077738
0.077908

kWh/Day
1378.824
1489.655
1525.517
1472.5
1433.998

LF
44%
44%
44%
42%
41%

3,955
3,638
4,273
3,800
4,019
3,872
3,756
3,809
3,565
3,711
4,095
4,025
46,518

110
128
153
2
14
3
32
440

143
69
108
321
340
631
782
868
954
692
481
167
5,553

0.091213
0.089694
0.08685
0.089792
0.087828
0.089134
0.087593
0.088499
0.087036
0.089898
0.089177
0.088113
0.088707

1355
1448.571
1537.5
1459.31
1525.333
1401.29
1478.621
1345
1280
1474.286
1530.667
1427.5
1438.59

36%
44%
44%
42%
45%
41%
47%
41%
44%
43%
42%
41%
38%

138 $
142 $
144 $
150 $
149 $
113 $
123 $
139 $
117 $
126 $
153 $
155 $
155 $

3,798
3,722
3,916
3,769
3,753
3,342
3,506
3,870
4,094
4,102
4,599
4,474
46,945

111
119
54
37
3
14
93
429

170
91
101
179
335
642
767
869
801
654
379
118
5,103

0.088738
0.08999
0.089
0.091127
0.091092
0.087213
0.088002
0.08843
0.098611
0.100147
0.101919
0.102997
0.093204

1258.824
1426.207
1517.241
1426.207
1420.69
1197.5
1328
1367.5
1339.355
1412.414
1410
1448
1379.328

38%
42%
44%
40%
40%
44%
45%
41%
48%
47%
38%
39%
37%

146 $
144 $
152 $
152 $
150 $
131 $
133 $
134 $
129 $
139 $
145 $
139 $
152 $

4,443
4,828
4,890
4,942
4,879
4,502
4,251
4,085
4,084
4,845
4,358
4,093
54,200

65
181
97
4
1
13
361

231
68
84
334
390
708
900
764
749
837
438
181
5,681

0.11523
0.112604
0.113624
0.113344
0.113349
0.112096
0.110935
0.11223
0.111228
0.108721
0.112542
0.113197
0.112411

1205
1429.333
1484.138
1362.5
1484.138
1295.484
1236.129
1255.172
1266.207
1350.303
1382.857
1205.333
1329.716

34%
41%
41%
37%
41%
41%
39%
39%
41%
40%
40%
36%
36%

4,145
3,954
4,476

170
215
241

69
38
15

0.118306 1061.818
0.118234 1153.103
0.116085 1285.333

32%
37%
39%

138
131
138

$
$
$

HDD
-

Campus
Page A-85

From
To
03/05/10
04/01/10
04/02/10
05/04/10
05/05/10
06/02/10
06/03/10
07/01/10
07/02/10
08/02/10
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
28
33
29
29
32
30
33
29
30
365

kWh
31,120
36,240
28,640
30,480
35,280
34,800
38,800
36,080
34,800
413,280

Demand
130 $
124 $
108 $
109 $
116 $
127 $
124 $
133 $
121 $
138 $

Cost
3,730
4,176
3,367
3,546
4,038
4,058
4,416
4,214
4,023
48,142

HDD
31
43
699

CDD
115
442
665
818
966
853
774
433
204
5,390

$/kWh
0.119853
0.11522
0.117561
0.116331
0.114461
0.116608
0.113819
0.116787
0.115591
0.116488

kWh/Day
1111.429
1098.182
987.5862
1051.034
1102.5
1160
1175.758
1244.138
1160
1132.573

LF
36%
37%
38%
40%
40%
38%
40%
39%
40%
34%

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/02/11
10/03/11
10/31/11
11/01/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
30
29
31
364

34,960
31,680
34,960
33,280
43,360
34,400
31,120
38,960
37,760
41,120
40,960
44,000
446,560

128 $
124 $
120 $
133 $
136 $
107 $
122 $
134 $
137 $
143 $
150 $
147 $
150 $

3,953
3,633
3,906
3,831
4,760
3,779
3,571
4,350
4,259
4,732
4,763
5,022
50,559

277
219
122
22
1
3
62
704

41
18
141
244
472
635
837
901
824
588
286
216
5,200

0.113081
0.114685
0.11173
0.115113
0.109772
0.109847
0.114743
0.111659
0.112804
0.115083
0.116272
0.114139
0.11322

998.8571
1131.429
1205.517
1188.571
1313.939
1109.677
1152.593
1180.606
1258.667
1370.667
1412.414
1419.355
1228.524

33%
38%
42%
37%
40%
43%
39%
37%
38%
40%
39%
40%
34%

12/02/11
01/03/12
01/04/12
02/01/12
02/02/12
03/01/12
03/02/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/02/12
05/03/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/03/12
07/04/12
08/02/12
08/03/12
09/04/12
09/05/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
10/31/12
11/01/12
12/02/12
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
32
30
30
32
30
33
29
28
32
367

38,240
37,840
41,200
39,760
43,280
35,440
38,960
39,520
39,360
40,240
40,640
41,520
476,000

143 $
149 $
146 $
149 $
147 $
136 $
126 $
144 $
137 $
152 $
149 $
148 $
152 $

4,419
4,421
4,560
4,454
4,754
4,002
3,833
3,992
3,935
4,098
4,110
4,170
50,749

107
83
50
1
4
48
293

125
142
150
382
366
614
760
785
830
600
343
111
5,206

0.115557
0.116841
0.110682
0.112028
0.109851
0.112934
0.098389
0.101008
0.099963
0.101846
0.10112
0.10044
0.106615

1158.788
1304.828
1420.69
1242.5
1442.667
1181.333
1217.5
1317.333
1192.727
1387.586
1451.429
1297.5
1301.24

34%
37%
40%
35%
41%
36%
40%
38%
36%
38%
41%
36%
36%

12/03/12
01/02/13
01/03/13
02/01/13
02/02/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/02/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
30
30
30
121

35,520
37,360
42,000
38,640
153,520

144 $
132 $
142 $
150 $
150 $

3,757
3,823
4,250
4,040
15,870

102
83
89
69
343

127
157
128
82
493

0.105769 1145.806
0.102328 1245.333
0.1012
1400
0.104545
1288
0.103374 1269.785

33%
39%
41%
36%
35%

Project: PJC
Area: Building #16
From
To
01/05/03
02/05/03
02/06/03
03/06/03
03/07/03
04/04/03

# Days
32
29
29

Site:
Campus
Meter: 11 Elect Mtr # 3260691
kWh
Demand
Cost
11,760
30.0 $
726
11,560
26.0 $
693
8,920
25.0 $
573

HDD
540
289
71

CDD
25
77
269

Utility: Electric
Account: 26223-77004
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.061735
367.5
51%
0.059948 398.6207
64%
0.064238 307.5862
51%
Campus

Page A-86

From
To
04/05/03
05/05/03
05/06/03
06/05/03
06/06/03
07/03/03
07/04/03
08/05/03
08/06/03
09/04/03
09/05/03
10/06/03
10/07/03
11/04/03
11/05/03
12/03/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
31
28
33
30
32
29
29
333

kWh
2,600
1,520
2,240
3,160
2,360
5,640
7,480
6,320
63,560

Demand
11.0
9.0
11.0
15.0
10.0
21.0
24.0
20.0
30.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
216
157
200
264
200
407
504
430
4,370

HDD
34
13
165
1,111

CDD
460
703
685
829
803
661
435
231
5,176

$/kWh
0.083077
0.103289
0.089286
0.083544
0.084746
0.072163
0.06738
0.068038
0.068754

kWh/Day
83.87097
49.03226
80
95.75758
78.66667
176.25
257.931
217.931
192.1042

LF
32%
23%
30%
27%
33%
35%
45%
45%
27%

12/04/03
01/05/04
01/06/04
02/04/04
02/05/04
03/03/04
03/04/04
04/05/04
04/06/04
05/03/04
05/04/04
06/02/04
06/03/04
07/02/04
07/03/04
08/02/04
08/03/04
09/01/04
09/02/04
09/30/04
10/01/04
11/02/04
11/03/04
12/02/04
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
33
28
30
30
31
30
29
33
30
365

6,120
7,360
6,760
7,000
7,120
7,960
7,320
7,040
7,360
4,920
8,080
7,800
84,840

20.0
22.0
24.0
21.0
23.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
22.0
20.0
19.0
20.0
26.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

438
506
491
484
501
558
516
492
506
382
522
515
5,911

438
476
329
120
34
1
5
126
1,527

68
28
62
250
324
631
761
843
748
697
641
236
5,286

0.071569
0.06875
0.072633
0.069143
0.070365
0.070101
0.070492
0.069886
0.06875
0.077642
0.064604
0.066026
0.069672

185.4545
245.3333
241.4286
212.1212
254.2857
265.3333
244
227.0968
245.3333
169.6552
244.8485
260
232.9075

39%
46%
42%
42%
46%
43%
42%
43%
46%
35%
54%
54%
37%

12/03/04
01/05/05
01/06/05
02/03/05
02/04/05
03/04/05
03/05/05
04/05/05
04/06/05
05/03/05
05/04/05
06/02/05
06/03/05
07/01/05
07/02/05
08/03/05
08/04/05
09/01/05
09/02/05
10/03/05
10/04/05
11/02/05
11/03/05
12/02/05
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
32
28
30
29
33
29
32
30
30
365

7,560
7,800
8,360
7,720
8,200
8,680
7,880
8,240
8,000
8,960
8,680
7,720
97,800

25.0
26.0
24.0
25.0
27.0
26.0
24.0
30.0
27.0
27.0
30.0
25.0
30.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

575
593
610
602
640
660
605
660
629
681
683
602
7,540

404
323
246
153
26
59
159
1,368

114
100
110
208
295
595
739
905
798
865
410
258
5,394

0.076058
0.076026
0.072967
0.077979
0.078049
0.076037
0.076777
0.080097
0.078625
0.076004
0.078687
0.077979
0.077096

222.3529
268.9655
288.2759
241.25
292.8571
289.3333
271.7241
249.697
275.8621
280
289.3333
257.3333
268.9154

37%
43%
50%
40%
45%
46%
47%
35%
43%
43%
40%
43%
37%

12/03/05
01/04/06
01/05/06
02/02/06
02/03/06
03/03/06
03/04/06
04/03/06
04/04/06
05/03/06
05/04/06
06/05/06
06/06/06
07/05/06
07/06/06
08/02/06
08/03/06
09/05/06
09/06/06
10/04/06
10/05/06
11/02/06
11/03/06
12/04/06
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
29
31
30
33
30
28
34
29
29
32
367

6,840
7,280
7,160
8,120
8,800
9,360
8,600
7,560
9,320
8,240
8,160
9,080
98,520

25.0
26.0
26.0
27.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
22.0
29.0
29.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

587
619
612
674
708
740
696
605
709
645
646
742
7,983

352
234
287
112
1
57
267
1,308

103
121
104
287
500
722
853
790
940
646
355
131
5,549

0.085819
0.085027
0.085475
0.083005
0.080455
0.07906
0.08093
0.080026
0.076073
0.078277
0.079167
0.081718
0.081029

207.2727
251.0345
246.8966
261.9355
293.3333
283.6364
286.6667
270
274.1176
284.1379
281.3793
283.75
268.68

35%
40%
40%
40%
47%
45%
46%
54%
54%
56%
53%
41%
39%
Campus

Page A-87

From

To

# Days

kWh

Demand

Cost

HDD

CDD

$/kWh

kWh/Day

LF

12/05/06
01/05/07
01/06/07
02/02/07
02/03/07
03/06/07
03/07/07
04/04/07
04/05/07
05/04/07
05/05/07
06/04/07
06/05/07
07/03/07
07/04/07
08/03/07
08/04/07
09/05/07
09/06/07
10/03/07
10/04/07
11/02/07
11/03/07
12/04/07
Sum/Average/Max

32
28
32
29
30
31
29
31
33
28
30
32
365

8,560
8,080
9,240
7,840
8,480
9,120
8,920
9,800
10,120
8,880
8,800
9,120
106,960

26.0
26.0
27.0
27.0
21.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
23.0
25.0
23.0
22.0
27.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

779
747
832
736
744
818
804
865
869
796
778
794
9,562

291
343
375
61
85
34
201
1,387

143
69
108
321
340
631
782
840
982
692
481
167
5,553

0.091005
0.09245
0.090043
0.093878
0.087736
0.089693
0.090135
0.088265
0.08587
0.08964
0.088409
0.087061
0.089398

267.5
288.5714
288.75
270.3448
282.6667
294.1935
307.5862
316.129
306.6667
317.1429
293.3333
285
293.157

43%
46%
45%
42%
56%
47%
49%
51%
56%
53%
53%
54%
45%

12/05/07
01/07/08
01/08/08
02/05/08
02/06/08
03/05/08
03/06/08
04/03/08
04/04/08
05/02/08
05/03/08
06/03/08
06/04/08
07/03/08
07/04/08
08/04/08
08/05/08
09/04/08
09/05/08
10/03/08
10/04/08
11/04/08
11/05/08
12/04/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
29
29
32
30
32
31
29
32
30
366

8,920
8,680
8,600
8,480
8,600
9,480
9,000
9,080
9,240
8,640
8,880
7,440
105,040

24.0
25.0
22.0
25.0
25.0
26.0
26.0
25.2
25.0
24.4
22.0
23.6
26.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

794
783
760
769
777
844
811
810
935
880
888
783
9,834

306
336
253
175
49
88
290
1,497

170
91
101
179
335
642
767
869
801
654
379
118
5,103

0.089013
0.090207
0.088372
0.090684
0.090349
0.08903
0.090111
0.08926
0.101155
0.101867
0.099975
0.105222
0.093621

262.3529
299.3103
296.5517
292.4138
296.5517
296.25
300
283.75
298.0645
297.931
277.5
248
287.3897

46%
50%
56%
49%
49%
47%
48%
47%
50%
51%
53%
44%
46%

12/05/08
01/05/09
01/06/09
02/04/09
02/05/09
03/05/09
03/06/09
04/06/09
04/07/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
06/05/09
06/06/09
07/06/09
07/07/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
09/02/09
09/03/09
10/05/09
10/06/09
11/02/09
11/03/09
12/02/09
Sum/Average/Max

32
30
29
32
29
31
31
29
29
33
28
30
363

7,560
8,240
6,120
6,040
5,760
6,320
6,560
6,280
6,200
6,880
5,320
5,520
76,800

26.0
28.4
22.0
20.8
23.2
24.0
27.0
28.0
26.0
21.2
24.0
19.0
28.4

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

886
961
730
717
703
761
784
765
746
778
656
644
9,131

204
422
309
53
29
56
148
1,220

231
68
84
334
390
708
900
764
749
837
438
181
5,681

0.117233
0.116575
0.119338
0.118724
0.122076
0.120337
0.119555
0.121838
0.120355
0.113009
0.123246
0.116674
0.118891

236.25
274.6667
211.0345
188.75
198.6207
203.871
211.6129
216.5517
213.7931
208.4848
190
184
211.4696

38%
40%
40%
38%
36%
35%
33%
32%
34%
41%
33%
40%
31%

33
29
30
28
33
29
29
32

5,240
6,240
5,880
4,720
6,240
6,040
6,840
8,240

20.0
20.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
24.0
23.0
21.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

649
743
721
612
754
747
817
936

437
467
526
202
19
-

69
38
15
115
442
665
818
966

0.123771
0.118998
0.122537
0.129555
0.120889
0.123735
0.119392
0.113641

158.7879
215.1724
196
168.5714
189.0909
208.2759
235.8621
257.5

33%
45%
37%
32%
36%
36%
43%
51%

12/03/09
01/05/10
02/03/10
03/05/10
04/02/10
05/05/10
06/03/10
07/02/10

01/04/10
02/02/10
03/04/10
04/01/10
05/04/10
06/02/10
07/01/10
08/02/10

Campus
Page A-88

From
To
08/03/10
09/01/10
09/02/10
10/04/10
10/05/10
11/02/10
11/03/10
12/02/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
33
29
30
365

kWh
8,520
8,520
6,200
5,400
78,080

Demand
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
24.0

$
$
$
$
$

Cost
957
957
739
670
9,300

12/03/10
01/06/11
01/07/11
02/03/11
02/04/11
03/04/11
03/05/11
04/01/11
04/02/11
05/04/11
05/05/11
06/04/11
06/05/11
07/01/11
07/02/11
08/03/11
08/04/11
09/02/11
09/03/11
10/02/11
10/03/11
11/01/11
11/02/11
12/01/11
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
29
28
33
31
27
33
30
30
30
30
364

5,480
5,080
5,200
4,120
5,640
5,120
5,160
5,760
5,920
5,440
5,000
4,720
62,640

22.0
20.0
17.0
20.0
17.0
19.0
20.0
16.0
19.0
17.0
18.0
18.8
22.0

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12/02/11
01/03/12
01/04/12
02/02/12
02/03/12
03/01/12
03/02/12
04/02/12
04/03/12
05/01/12
05/02/12
06/01/12
06/02/12
07/03/12
07/04/12
08/01/12
08/02/12
09/03/12
09/04/12
10/03/12
10/04/12
11/01/12
11/02/12
12/03/12
Sum/Average/Max

33
30
28
32
29
31
32
29
33
30
29
32
368

3,920
3,680
4,040
3,680
4,440
4,360
4,560
4,440
4,000
4,200
4,800
4,640
50,760

18.7
14.3
14.3
16.6
17.3
16.3
16.4
16.7
18.3
17.8
18.5
16.3
18.7

12/04/12
01/03/13
01/04/13
01/31/13
02/01/13
03/03/13
03/04/13
04/03/13
Sum/Average/Max

31
28
31
31
121

4,160
5,160
4,080
3,360
16,760

19.1
19.1
18.2
14.6
19.1

HDD
3
8
180
1,840

CDD
853
774
433
204
5,390

$/kWh
0.112303
0.112303
0.11916
0.123983
0.119106

kWh/Day
284
258.1818
213.7931
180
213.7696

LF
59%
54%
45%
36%
37%

663
615
608
529
648
613
623
653
685
650
616
597
7,500

588
481
290
112
35
13
4
93
203
1,818

41
18
141
244
472
635
837
901
824
588
287
215
5,200

0.121031
0.121118
0.117006
0.128282
0.114929
0.119727
0.120641
0.113392
0.115762
0.119436
0.123158
0.126386
0.119727

156.5714
181.4286
179.3103
147.1429
170.9091
165.1613
191.1111
174.5455
197.3333
181.3333
166.6667
157.3333
172.4039

30%
38%
44%
31%
42%
36%
40%
45%
43%
44%
39%
35%
33%

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

518
464
483
471
543
530
499
496
469
484
537
505
5,999

322
248
207
39
32
52
269
1,168

125
152
140
382
346
634
760
759
833
624
350
112
5,214

0.132171
0.126163
0.119443
0.127864
0.122318
0.121491
0.109434
0.111777
0.117285
0.115333
0.111802
0.108862
0.118181

118.7879
122.6667
144.2857
115
153.1034
140.6452
142.5
153.1034
121.2121
140
165.5172
145
138.4851

26%
36%
42%
29%
37%
36%
36%
38%
28%
33%
37%
37%
31%

$
$
$
$
$

496
574
483
408
1,961

312
221
289
269
1,090

120
157
128
82
486

0.11926
0.111293
0.11848
0.121339
0.117034

134.1935
184.2857
131.6129
108.3871
139.6198

29%
40%
30%
31%
30%

Campus
Page A-89

Bill Data for Site: Warrington Campus

Project: PJC
Area: Entire Warrington Camp
From
To
# Days
01/08/03
02/08/03
32
02/09/03
03/08/03
28
03/09/03
04/08/03
31
04/09/03
05/08/03
30
05/09/03
06/08/03
31
06/09/03
07/08/03
30
07/09/03
08/08/03
31
08/09/03
09/08/03
31
09/09/03
10/08/03
30
10/09/03
11/08/03
31
11/09/03
12/08/03
30
Sum/Average/Max
335

Site: Warrington Campus

Meter: 61 Gas Mtr # 85803-not
Therm
Demand
Cost
2,910
$
3,870
1,350
$
2,007
1,130
$
2,046
1,020
$
1,578
1,260
$
1,868
1,240
$
1,935
1,190
$
1,843
1,130
$
1,789
1,340
$
2,163
1,860
$
3,043
2,060
$
3,232
16,490
$
25,374

12/09/03
01/08/04
01/09/04
02/08/04
02/09/04
03/08/04
03/09/04
04/08/04
04/09/04
05/08/04
05/09/04
06/08/04
06/09/04
07/08/04
07/09/04
08/08/04
08/09/04
09/08/04
09/09/04
10/08/04
10/09/04
11/08/04
11/09/04
12/08/04
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
29
31
30
31
30
31
31
30
31
30
366

3,450
3,690
9,550
10,960
7,438
6,619
5,731
4,440
5,495
5,625
5,681
10,906
79,585

12/09/04
01/08/05
01/09/05
02/08/05
02/09/05
03/08/05
03/09/05
04/11/05
04/12/05
05/06/05
05/07/05
06/09/05
06/10/05
07/13/05
07/14/05
08/05/05
08/06/05
09/08/05
09/09/05
10/14/05
10/15/05
11/04/05
11/05/05
12/08/05
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
34
25
34
34
23
34
36
21
34
365

14,117
14,237
10,330
11,356
8,092
8,365
7,094
4,653
2,618
5,495
7,107
13,958
107,422

31
31
28
31
30

17,917
14,544
7,743
6,997
6,766

12/09/05
01/09/06
02/09/06
03/09/06
04/09/06

01/08/06
02/08/06
03/08/06
04/08/06
05/08/06

HDD
1,022
658
470
283
84
30
15
14
142
309
656
3,681

Utility: Natural Gas

Account: 008723-52262150-notes
CDD
$/Therm Therm/Day
LF
1.329897 90.9375
8 1.486667 48.21429
62 1.810619 36.45161
198 1.547059
34
387
1.48254 40.64516
434 1.560484 41.33333
477 1.548739 38.3871
510 1.583186 36.45161
309 1.614179 44.66667
169 1.636022
60
38 1.568932 68.66667
2,590 1.538751 49.06854

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,207
6,371
15,110
17,693
11,794
12,202
10,832
8,637
10,087
9,310
10,030
20,564
137,837

888
926
698
553
384
88
14
3
35
73
250
559
4,468

6
3
16
27
99
385
475
540
461
383
236
31
2,661

1.509275
1.726558
1.582199
1.614325
1.585641
1.843481
1.890072
1.94527
1.835669
1.655111
1.765534
1.885568
1.731947

111.2903
119.0323
329.3103
353.5484
247.9333
213.5161
191.0333
143.2258
177.2581
187.5
183.2581
363.5333
218.3699

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

2,618
27,085
19,364
20,296
14,774
14,831
12,175
8,348
5,108
12,428
17,187
32,698
186,912

831
826
633
608
359
129
22
9
3
63
314
638
4,432

10
3
15
32
41
391
546
398
599
537
61
86
2,718

0.18545
1.902437
1.87454
1.787249
1.825754
1.772983
1.716239
1.794111
1.951108
2.261692
2.41832
2.342599
1.739979

455.3871
459.2581
368.9286
334
323.68
246.0294
208.6471
202.3043
77
152.6389
338.4286
410.5294
298.0693

$
$
$
$
$

40,890
35,398
16,328
14,746
10,934

811
706
639
453
222

12
7
13
103
230

2.28219
2.433856
2.108743
2.107475
1.616021

577.9677
469.1613
276.5357
225.7097
225.5333
Warrington Campus

Page A-90

From
To
05/09/06
06/08/06
06/09/06
07/13/06
07/14/06
08/11/06
08/12/06
09/12/06
09/13/06
10/11/06
10/12/06
11/13/06
11/14/06
12/12/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
35
29
32
29
33
29
369

Therm
6,478
8,098
4,656
5,614
6,014
9,637
11,359
105,823

12/13/06
01/10/07
01/11/07
02/14/07
02/15/07
03/13/07
03/14/07
04/10/07
04/11/07
05/10/07
05/11/07
06/13/07
06/14/07
07/12/07
07/13/07
08/10/07
08/11/07
09/08/07
09/09/07
10/10/07
10/11/07
11/09/07
11/10/07
12/12/07
Sum/Average/Max

29
35
27
28
30
34
29
29
29
32
30
33
365

10,501
13,043
8,652
7,971
6,975
5,398
4,582
3,926
3,926
5,676
7,519
9,720
87,889

12/13/07
01/14/08
01/15/08
02/12/08
02/13/08
03/11/08
03/12/08
04/10/08
04/11/08
05/09/08
05/10/08
06/10/08
06/11/08
07/09/08
07/10/08
08/11/08
08/12/08
09/11/08
09/12/08
10/13/08
10/14/08
11/10/08
11/11/08
12/11/08
Sum/Average/Max

33
29
28
30
29
32
29
33
31
32
28
31
365

13,409
12,804
10,535
9,283
3,962
6,715
5,423
7,439
7,404
8,208
10,626
14,209
110,017

12/12/08
01/14/09
01/15/09
02/11/09
02/12/09
03/12/09
03/13/09
04/14/09
04/15/09
05/13/09
05/14/09
06/11/09
06/12/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
08/10/09
08/11/09
09/11/09
09/12/09
10/12/09
10/13/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
12/10/09
Sum/Average/Max

34
28
29
33
29
29
33
27
32
31
36
23
364

13,792
12,800
12,079
11,581
7,855
6,495
6,106
5,189
6,734
7,448
12,211
9,400
111,690

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
9,274
11,806
7,241
8,863
9,994
13,974
19,071
198,519

HDD
99
1
13
126
536
772
4,376

CDD
383
651
521
542
317
68
9
2,854

$/Therm Therm/Day
1.431615 208.9677
1.457891 231.3714
1.555198 160.5517
1.578732 175.4375
1.661789 207.3793
1.450036 292.0303
1.678933 391.6897
1.875953 286.8613

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

19,903
21,768
14,137
13,768
11,534
7,788
6,626
5,464
5,268
7,508
9,623
13,063
136,450

634
991
622
438
302
113
3
10
31
425
647
4,213

4
4
14
85
166
423
497
515
554
470
106
31
2,866

1.895343
1.668941
1.633957
1.727261
1.65362
1.442757
1.446093
1.391747
1.341824
1.322763
1.279824
1.34393
1.552526

362.1034
372.6571
320.4444
284.6786
232.5
158.7647
158
135.3793
135.3793
177.375
250.6333
294.5455
240.2051

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

18,814
17,912
15,136
14,218
6,487
12,485
10,548
14,948
12,449
12,712
15,489
22,359
173,557

800
774
681
492
378
112
14
5
5
166
491
786
4,700

19
9
10
60
106
397
440
566
501
333
44
18
2,498

1.403087
1.398938
1.436735
1.531617
1.637304
1.85922
1.94503
2.009374
1.681368
1.548713
1.457675
1.573609
1.577544

406.3333
441.5172
376.25
309.4333
136.6207
209.8438
187
225.4242
238.8387
256.5
379.5
458.3548
302.1347

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

21,964
19,349
15,924
15,661
8,639
7,913
6,826
5,829
7,835
7,858
13,573
9,622
140,993

677
820
672
477
225
80
1
12
30
28
527
540
4,087

55
3
10
84
216
363
635
460
481
486
115
3
2,909

1.592551
1.511649
1.318319
1.352311
1.09984
1.218319
1.117909
1.123315
1.163543
1.055015
1.111514
1.0236
1.262363

405.6471
457.1429
416.5172
350.9394
270.8621
223.9655
185.0303
192.1852
210.4375
240.2581
339.1944
408.6957
308.4063

LF

Warrington Campus
Page A-91

From
To
12/11/09
01/11/10
01/12/10
02/11/10
02/12/10
03/08/10
03/09/10
04/08/10
04/09/10
05/08/10
05/09/10
06/07/10
06/08/10
07/06/10
07/07/10
08/09/10
08/10/10
09/07/10
09/08/10
10/07/10
10/08/10
11/07/10
11/08/10
12/07/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
31
25
31
30
30
29
34
29
30
31
30
362

Therm
12,164
14,914
13,055
9,784
7,804
6,851
6,118
7,096
6,002
6,476
7,746
9,274
107,284

12/08/10
01/07/11
01/08/11
02/07/11
02/08/11
03/07/11
03/08/11
04/07/11
04/08/11
05/06/11
05/07/11
06/06/11
06/07/11
07/07/11
07/08/11
08/07/11
08/08/11
09/07/11
09/08/11
10/07/11
10/08/11
11/07/11
11/08/11
12/07/11
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
31
29
31
31
31
31
30
31
30
365

10,862
11,954
8,044
7,268
6,174
5,104
4,886
5,888
4,248
5,280
7,012
8,378
85,098

12/08/11
01/07/12
01/08/12
02/07/12
02/08/12
03/06/12
03/07/12
04/07/12
04/08/12
05/06/12
05/07/12
06/07/12
06/08/12
07/06/12
07/07/12
08/06/12
08/07/12
09/07/12
09/08/12
10/07/12
10/08/12
11/07/12
11/08/12
12/07/12
Sum/Average/Max

31
31
28
32
29
32
29
31
32
30
31
30
366

8,912
8,440
8,156
7,016
5,992
5,538
4,854
5,460
5,768
5,682
6,404
7,048
79,270

12/08/12
01/06/13
01/07/13
02/07/13
02/08/13
03/06/13
Sum/Average/Max

30
32
27
89

3,376
11,142
7,349
21,867

Project: PJC
Area: Health Science
From
To
12/24/02
01/24/03

# Days
32

Demand

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
14,212
16,948
15,683
11,523
6,663
7,031
6,293
7,256
6,738
6,789
8,113
9,112
116,360

HDD
1,025
863
826
588
308
55
1
16
120
372
631
4,802

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

9,409
10,549
6,800
7,039
6,103
5,202
4,966
5,884
3,994
5,650
6,501
8,007
80,104

984
1,012
642
501
285
163
6
35
200
521
603
4,949

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,325
7,708
7,372
6,439
5,407
4,474
4,407
5,686
5,684
5,548
5,843
6,477
73,370

$
$
$
$

3,469
10,225
7,012
20,707

Site: Warrington Campus

Meter: 25 Elect Mtr # 3241948
kWh
Demand
Cost
233,520
422 $
11,900

CDD
3
22
157
417
531
702
500
361
150
38
2,878

20
63
168
379
629
547
490
259
64
60
2,677

0.866235
0.882464
0.845353
0.968554
0.988484
1.019175
1.016353
0.999299
0.940252
1.070051
0.927124
0.955666
0.941311

350.3871
385.6129
287.2857
234.4516
212.8966
164.6452
157.6129
189.9355
137.0323
176
226.1935
279.2667
233.4433

790
661
615
391
337
137
48
9
22
154
464
688
4,314

7
18
20
108
126
353
404
507
480
300
79
8
2,408

0.934081
0.913219
0.903889
0.917749
0.902371
0.8079
0.907993
1.04143
0.985442
0.976429
0.912438
0.919004
0.925576

287.4839
272.2581
291.2857
219.25
206.6207
173.0625
167.3793
176.129
180.25
189.4
206.5806
234.9333
217.0528

808
688
643
2,138

4
32
13
49

HDD
561

$/Therm Therm/Day
1.168334 380.125
1.136402 481.0968
1.2013
522.2
1.177689 315.6129
0.85378 260.1333
1.026222 228.3667
1.028666 210.9655
1.02259 208.7059
1.122622 206.9655
1.048266 215.8667
1.047322 249.871
0.982574 309.1333
1.084599 299.0869

CDD
2

LF

1.027672 112.5333
0.917715 348.1875
0.954157 272.1852
0.946938 244.302
Utility: Electric
Account: 39234-50009
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.050959
7297.5
72%
Warrington Campus

Page A-92

From
To
01/25/03
02/24/03
02/25/03
03/24/03
03/25/03
04/24/03
04/25/03
05/22/03
05/23/03
06/24/03
06/25/03
07/24/03
07/25/03
08/22/03
08/23/03
09/23/03
09/24/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
11/19/03
11/20/03
12/19/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
31
28
31
28
33
30
29
32
30
27
30
361

Therm
233,520
221,040
278,160
251,040
294,960
266,880
302,880
328,320
275,760
241,200
235,920
3,163,200

Demand
422
473
502
701
480
432
730
730
730
730
730
730

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
11,900
11,948
14,079
14,977
14,431
13,081
16,934
17,767
16,046
14,915
14,742
172,720

HDD
385
86
88
4
40
377
1,539

12/20/03
01/22/04
01/23/04
02/20/04
02/21/04
03/22/04
03/23/04
04/21/04
04/22/04
05/20/04
05/21/04
06/22/04
06/23/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
08/19/04
08/20/04
09/20/04
09/21/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
12/20/04
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
31
30
29
33
30
28
32
31
28
32
367

250,320
237,120
241,200
258,000
250,560
299,520
271,200
256,320
253,320
253,320
248,880
264,000
3,083,760

730
730
730
730
730
730
456
720
686
686
516
461
730

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

15,807
15,343
15,486
16,076
15,815
17,534
14,081
15,928
15,517
15,517
13,836
13,873
184,813

12/21/04
01/21/05
01/22/05
02/22/05
02/23/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/24/05
04/25/05
05/24/05
05/25/05
06/23/05
06/24/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
08/23/05
08/24/05
09/22/05
09/23/05
10/21/05
10/22/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
12/21/05
Sum/Average/Max

32
32
29
32
30
30
27
34
30
29
28
33
366

255,360
271,440
230,400
258,000
258,000
268,320
245,520
309,120
369,120
281,040
237,120
2,983,440

463
456
437
653
653
708
708
691
691
590
485
708

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

35
28
30
28
33
29
32
31
29
31

537,600
224,880
238,080
228,240
281,040
272,640
614,400
252,760
270,192

466
466
437
480
540
518
667
401
401

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12/22/05
01/26/06
02/23/06
03/25/06
04/22/06
05/25/06
06/23/06
07/25/06
08/25/06
09/23/06

01/25/06
02/22/06
03/24/06
04/21/06
05/24/06
06/22/06
07/24/06
08/24/06
09/22/06
10/23/06

CDD
7
76
165
392
555
524
548
576
279
175
18
3,313

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.050959 7532.903
0.054054 7894.286
0.050615 8972.903
0.05966 8965.714
0.048925 8938.182
0.049015
8896
0.05591 10444.14
0.054115
10260
0.058188
9192
0.061837 8933.333
0.062487
7864
0.054603 8765.913

LF
74%
70%
74%
53%
78%
86%
60%
59%
52%
51%
45%
50%

488
405
176
84
3
5
46
298
1,502

13
9
65
86
287
588
576
523
585
404
194
71
3,398

0.063147
0.064706
0.064204
0.06231
0.063119
0.05854
0.051921
0.062141
0.061255
0.061255
0.055593
0.052549
0.059931

7362.353
8176.552
7780.645
8600
8640
9076.364
9040
9154.286
7916.25
8171.613
8888.571
8250
8421.386

42%
47%
44%
49%
49%
52%
83%
53%
48%
50%
72%
75%
48%

14,876
15,459
13,640
17,206
17,206
18,135
17,173
19,702
22,232
17,612
14,818
188,059

324
323
228
52
8
106
369
1,408

26
32
22
103
294
516
528
696
622
427
117
35
3,416

0.058255
0.056952
0.059201
0.06669
0.06669
0.067587
0.069945
0.063736
0.06023
0.062667
0.062492
0
0.063034

7980
8482.5
7944.828
8062.5
8600
8944
9093.333
9091.765
12304
9691.034
8468.571
0
8221.878

72%
78%
76%
51%
55%
53%
54%
55%
74%
68%
73%

33,164
15,104
15,458
15,386
18,380
17,792
41,471
15,817
16,628

270
299
118
42
19

45
15
96
220
380
577
705
641
514
334

0.061689
0.067165
0.064928
0.067411
0.0654
0.065258
0
0.067498
0.062577
0.061541

15360
8031.429
7936
8151.429
8516.364
9401.379
0
19819.35
8715.862
8715.871

137%
72%
76%
71%
66%
76%
124%
91%
91%

Warrington Campus
Page A-93

From
To
10/24/06
11/21/06
11/22/06
12/21/06
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
30
365

Therm
252,760
261,476
3,434,068

Demand
401
401
667

$
$
$

Cost
15,817
16,223
221,240

HDD
194
266
1,206

CDD
35
33
3,593

12/22/06
01/26/07
01/27/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
03/23/07
03/24/07
04/23/07
04/24/07
05/22/07
05/23/07
06/21/07
06/22/07
07/23/07
07/24/07
08/22/07
08/23/07
09/21/07
09/22/07
10/23/07
10/24/07
11/20/07
11/21/07
12/20/07
Sum/Average/Max

36
26
30
31
29
30
32
30
30
32
28
30
364

313,772
214,320
245,280
261,360
250,560
264,960
292,080
278,640
286,560
302,160
228,000
243,840
3,181,532

401
444
451
470
463
655
701
703
547
526
485
502
703

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

21,871
16,399
18,187
19,254
18,589
21,115
23,040
22,309
21,350
22,031
17,529
18,565
240,239

352
424
138
85
124
203
1,324

29
5
60
173
343
518
653
673
585
464
61
62
3,622

0.069703
0.076516
0.074148
0.073669
0.07419
0.079691
0.078882
0.080064
0.074504
0.072912
0.076882
0.076136
0.07551

8715.889
8243.077
8176
8430.968
8640
8832
9127.5
9288
9552
9442.5
8142.857
8128
8726.566

91%
77%
76%
75%
78%
56%
54%
55%
73%
75%
70%
67%
52%

12/21/07
01/23/08
01/24/08
02/22/08
02/23/08
03/21/08
03/22/08
04/22/08
04/23/08
05/21/08
05/22/08
06/20/08
06/21/08
07/22/08
07/23/08
08/21/08
08/22/08
09/23/08
09/24/08
10/22/08
10/23/08
11/19/08
11/20/08
12/19/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
30
28
32
29
30
32
30
33
29
28
30
365

261,360
248,640
239,040
275,520
263,760
304,560
318,960
313,920
341,040
276,960
244,560
260,880
3,349,200

482
466
526
463
511
715
730
734
734
528
485
475
734

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

19,410
18,555
18,574
20,060
19,826
23,988
24,930
24,670
30,059
23,962
21,309
22,320
267,663

407
303
210
107
1
7
190
302
1,525

25
34
29
125
273
537
616
578
622
279
42
35
3,192

0.074265
0.074626
0.077702
0.072808
0.075167
0.078763
0.07816
0.078587
0.088139
0.086519
0.087133
0.085555
0.079918

7687.059
8288
8537.143
8610
9095.172
10152
9967.5
10464
10334.55
9550.345
8734.286
8696
9176.338

66%
74%
68%
77%
74%
59%
57%
59%
59%
75%
75%
76%
52%

12/20/08
01/22/09
01/23/09
02/20/09
02/21/09
03/23/09
03/24/09
04/22/09
04/23/09
05/21/09
05/22/09
06/22/09
06/23/09
07/22/09
07/23/09
08/21/09
08/22/09
09/23/09
09/24/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
12/21/09
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
31
30
29
32
30
30
33
29
26
34
367

273,600
241,200
258,240
253,200
265,920
298,080
298,560
289,680
321,840
285,600
217,440
271,920
3,275,280

439
451
475
473
485
533
610
521
610
634
605
446
634

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

25,599
23,192
24,815
24,308
25,499
28,401
28,505
26,966
30,240
27,722
22,348
24,993
312,589

352
303
190
51
32
69
317
1,313

79
17
61
149
375
599
618
617
596
420
91
20
3,639

0.093563
0.096153
0.096093
0.096004
0.095891
0.095279
0.095476
0.09309
0.093959
0.097064
0.102777
0.091915
0.095439

8047.059
8317.241
8330.323
8440
9169.655
9315
9952
9656
9752.727
9848.276
8363.077
7997.647
8932.417

76%
77%
73%
74%
79%
73%
68%
77%
67%
65%
58%
75%
59%

31
32
28
31
28

184,320
234,720
205,200
225,120
222,960

430
420
425
439
523

$
$
$
$
$

18,960
22,869
20,576
22,283
22,842

556
475
351
48
7

3
3
15
105
342

0.102865
0.09743
0.100271
0.098985
0.102447

5945.806
7335
7328.571
7261.935
7962.857

58%
73%
72%
69%
63%

12/22/09
01/22/10
02/23/10
03/23/10
04/23/10

01/21/10
02/22/10
03/22/10
04/22/10
05/20/10

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.062577 8715.862
0.062044 8715.867
0.064425 9339.951

LF
91%
91%
59%

Warrington Campus
Page A-94

From
To
05/21/10
06/21/10
06/22/10
07/22/10
07/23/10
08/19/10
08/20/10
09/21/10
09/22/10
10/20/10
10/21/10
11/19/10
11/20/10
12/20/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
32
31
28
33
29
30
31
364

Therm
278,160
289,920
274,080
311,520
235,440
235,200
217,440
2,914,080

Demand
600
674
624
619
578
662
468
674

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Cost
27,964
29,525
27,854
30,784
24,388
25,105
22,012
295,162

12/21/10
01/21/11
01/22/11
02/22/11
02/23/11
03/23/11
03/24/11
04/19/11
04/20/11
05/19/11
05/20/11
06/20/11
06/21/11
07/20/11
07/21/11
08/21/11
08/22/11
09/20/11
09/21/11
10/19/11
10/20/11
11/17/11
11/18/11
12/19/11
Sum/Average/Max

32
32
29
27
30
32
30
32
30
29
29
32
364

193,920
213,360
205,200
181,920
216,000
278,400
283,440
299,040
270,240
243,600
209,760
225,120
2,820,000

403
451
437
487
482
703
642
652
676
609
570
498
703

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

12/20/11
01/22/12
01/23/12
02/20/12
02/21/12
03/20/12
03/21/12
04/19/12
04/20/12
05/20/12
05/21/12
06/20/12
06/21/12
07/22/12
07/23/12
08/21/12
08/22/12
09/20/12
09/21/12
10/21/12
10/22/12
11/18/12
11/19/12
12/18/12
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
30
31
31
32
30
30
31
28
30
365

219,600
211,200
213,840
229,680
240,000
277,680
291,600
273,600
273,120
249,840
189,840
195,600
2,865,600

595
493
529
604
581
622
636
717
717
602
464
513
717

12/19/12
01/21/13
01/22/13
02/19/13
02/20/13
03/20/13
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
92

189,360
205,920
200,880
596,160

Project: PJC
Area: 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600
From
To
# Days
12/23/02
01/23/03
32
01/24/03
02/22/03
30
02/23/03
03/24/03
30
03/25/03
04/24/03
31
04/25/03
05/22/03
28
05/23/03
06/24/03
33

6
103
402
1,946

CDD
644
678
670
628
268
148
56
3,557

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.100531
8692.5
0.101839 9352.258
0.101626 9788.571
0.098819
9440
0.103585 8118.621
0.106741
7840
0.101232 7014.194
0.101288 8006.693

LF
60%
58%
65%
64%
59%
49%
62%
49%

18,854
20,745
20,002
18,745
21,333
27,968
27,829
29,087
27,125
25,154
22,183
22,684
281,708

554
468
111
50
15
19
162
308
1,686

2
11
80
154
253
709
647
660
470
268
69
49
3,370

0.097224
6060
0.097231
6667.5
0.097474 7075.862
0.103039 6737.778
0.098763
7200
0.100459
8700
0.098183
9448
0.097267
9345
0.100373
9008
0.10326
8400
0.105754 7233.103
0.100766
7035
0.099897 7742.52

63%
62%
67%
58%
62%
52%
61%
60%
56%
57%
53%
59%
46%

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

22,937
21,334
21,161
23,370
23,885
27,040
25,271
24,935
24,908
22,296
17,206
18,045
272,387

317
225
86
11
21
4
186
222
1,070

42
40
89
197
288
494
583
575
496
292
59
28
3,181

0.104447
0.101014
0.098955
0.101751
0.09952
0.097378
0.086662
0.091136
0.091198
0.089242
0.090634
0.092257
0.095054

6458.824
7282.759
7373.793
7656
7741.935
8957.419
9112.5
9120
9104
8059.355
6780
6520
7847.215

45%
62%
58%
53%
56%
60%
60%
53%
53%
56%
61%
53%
46%

538 $
513 $
436 $
538 $

18,200
19,012
17,936
55,148

382
263
247
891

42
34
36
112

0.096113 5569.412
0.092326 7100.69
0.089287 6926.897
0.092505 6532.333

43%
58%
66%
50%

Site: Warrington Campus

Meter: 24 Elect Mtr # 3237611
kWh
Demand
Cost
70,800
132 $
3,664
68,400
132 $
3,566
55,200
132 $
3,029
69,600
132 $
3,615
60,000
132 $
3,224
64,800
120 $
3,359

HDD
-

HDD
530
398
108
88
-

CDD
4
29
102
308
456

Utility: Electric
Account: 51431-20008
$/kWh kWh/Day
LF
0.051751
2212.5
70%
0.052135
2280
72%
0.054873
1840
58%
0.05194 2245.161
71%
0.053733 2142.857
68%
0.051836 1963.636
68%
Warrington Campus

Page A-95

From
To
06/25/03
07/23/03
07/24/03
08/22/03
08/23/03
09/23/03
09/24/03
10/23/03
10/24/03
11/19/03
11/20/03
12/19/03
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
29
30
32
30
27
30
362

Therm
58,800
66,000
75,600
70,800
63,600
68,400
792,000

Demand
132 $
132 $
144 $
132 $
132 $
132 $
144 $

Cost
3,175
3,469
3,920
3,664
3,371
3,566
41,622

12/20/03
01/22/04
01/23/04
02/20/04
02/21/04
03/22/04
03/23/04
04/21/04
04/22/04
05/20/04
05/21/04
06/22/04
06/23/04
07/22/04
07/23/04
08/19/04
08/20/04
09/20/04
09/21/04
10/21/04
10/22/04
11/18/04
11/19/04
12/20/04
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
31
30
29
33
30
28
32
31
28
32
367

69,600
63,600
64,800
66,000
60,000
67,200
63,600
60,000
59,400
59,400
62,400
73,200
769,200

132 $
120 $
132 $
120 $
108 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
132 $
132 $
132 $

12/21/04
01/21/05
01/22/05
02/22/05
02/23/05
03/23/05
03/24/05
04/22/05
04/23/05
05/24/05
05/25/05
06/23/05
06/24/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
08/28/05
08/29/05
09/22/05
09/23/05
10/21/05
10/22/05
11/18/05
11/19/05
12/21/05
Sum/Average/Max

32
32
29
30
32
30
27
39
25
29
28
33
366

70,800
72,000
62,400
66,000
72,000
64,800
54,000
86,400
73,200
73,200
70,800
78,000
843,600

12/22/05
01/25/06
01/26/06
02/22/06
02/23/06
03/24/06
03/25/06
04/21/06
04/22/06
05/24/06
05/25/06
06/22/06
06/23/06
07/24/06
07/25/06
08/24/06
08/25/06
09/22/06
09/23/06
10/20/06
10/21/06
11/20/06
11/21/06
12/20/06
Sum/Average/Max

35
28
30
28
33
29
32
31
29
28
31
30
364

80,400
69,600
72,000
70,800
84,000
74,400
63,600
92,400
73,200
70,800
76,800
73,200
901,200

35

79,200

12/21/06

01/24/07

4
40
377
1,543

CDD
419
475
480
192
116
11
2,590

3,784
3,465
3,577
3,568
3,249
3,620
3,465
3,309
3,284
3,284
3,474
3,940
42,019

488
405
176
84
3
5
46
298
1,502

6
3
27
36
203
489
486
439
489
314
140
38
2,667

0.054368
0.054481
0.055201
0.054061
0.05415
0.053869
0.054481
0.05515
0.055286
0.055286
0.055673
0.053825
0.054627

2047.059
2193.103
2090.323
2200
2068.966
2036.364
2120
2142.857
1856.25
1916.129
2228.571
2287.5
2098.927

65%
76%
66%
76%
80%
71%
74%
74%
64%
67%
70%
72%
66%

144 $
132 $
132 $
120 $
132 $
132 $
120 $
132 $
144 $
144 $
144 $
144 $
144 $

4,262
4,259
3,796
4,062
4,427
4,064
3,456
5,158
4,550
4,550
4,428
4,793
51,805

324
323
228
44
16
106
369
1,408

6
15
9
41
208
426
447
688
438
340
73
22
2,711

0.060198
0.059153
0.060833
0.061545
0.061486
0.062716
0.064
0.059699
0.062158
0.062158
0.062542
0.061449
0.061409

2212.5
2250
2151.724
2200
2250
2160
2000
2215.385
2928
2524.138
2528.571
2363.636
2315.33

64%
71%
68%
76%
71%
68%
69%
70%
85%
73%
73%
68%
67%

132 $
144 $
144 $
144 $
144 $
144 $
120 $
132 $
144 $
144 $
132 $
144 $
144 $

5,213
4,678
4,810
4,741
5,468
4,939
4,223
5,870
4,873
4,741
5,011
4,873
59,440

270
299
118
42
8
185
284
1,204

18
3
56
152
281
490
609
548
427
249
14
10
2,856

0.064838
0.067213
0.066806
0.066963
0.065095
0.066384
0.066399
0.063528
0.066571
0.066963
0.065247
0.066571
0.065957

2297.143
2485.714
2400
2528.571
2545.455
2565.517
1987.5
2980.645
2524.138
2528.571
2477.419
2440
2480.056

73%
72%
69%
73%
74%
74%
69%
94%
73%
73%
78%
71%
72%

5,953

321

0.075164 2262.857

65%

144

HDD
-

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.053997 2027.586
0.052561
2200
0.051852
2362.5
0.051751
2360
0.053003 2355.556
0.052135
2280
0.052553 2189.15

LF
64%
69%
68%
74%
74%
72%
63%

Warrington Campus
Page A-96

From
To
01/25/07
02/21/07
02/22/07
03/23/07
03/24/07
04/23/07
04/24/07
05/22/07
05/23/07
06/21/07
06/22/07
07/23/07
07/24/07
08/22/07
08/23/07
09/21/07
09/22/07
10/23/07
10/24/07
11/20/07
11/21/07
12/20/07
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
28
30
31
29
30
32
30
30
32
28
30
365

Therm
69,600
68,400
73,200
54,000
40,800
42,000
39,600
43,200
61,200
58,800
54,000
684,000

Demand
144 $
132 $
132 $
120 $
72 $
72 $
72 $
84 $
108 $
120 $
120 $
144 $

Cost
5,333
5,195
5,505
4,205
3,110
3,188
3,033
3,326
4,609
4,515
4,205
52,177

HDD
457
138
85
124
203
1,326

CDD
23
105
256
428
557
583
495
368
23
32
2,873

12/21/07
01/23/08
01/24/08
02/22/08
02/23/08
03/21/08
03/22/08
04/22/08
04/23/08
05/21/08
05/22/08
06/20/08
06/21/08
07/22/08
07/23/08
08/21/08
08/22/08
09/23/08
09/24/08
10/22/08
10/23/08
11/19/08
11/20/08
12/19/08
Sum/Average/Max

34
30
28
32
29
30
32
30
33
29
28
30
365

56,400
62,400
55,200
64,800
61,200
62,400
68,400
64,800
67,200
61,200
57,600
62,400
744,000

144 $
144 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
132 $
120 $
108 $
120 $
144 $

4,488
4,876
4,289
4,910
4,677
4,755
5,143
4,910
5,902
5,384
5,049
5,475
59,858

407
303
210
107
1
7
190
302
1,525

10
16
15
64
187
447
520
488
523
198
20
15
2,501

0.079574
0.078141
0.077699
0.075772
0.076422
0.076202
0.07519
0.075776
0.087821
0.087968
0.087656
0.087742
0.080454

1658.824
2080
1971.429
2025
2110.345
2080
2137.5
2160
2036.364
2110.345
2057.143
2080
2042.246

48%
60%
68%
70%
73%
72%
74%
75%
64%
73%
79%
72%
59%

12/20/08
01/22/09
01/23/09
02/20/09
02/21/09
03/23/09
03/24/09
04/22/09
04/23/09
05/21/09
05/22/09
06/22/09
06/23/09
07/22/09
07/23/09
08/21/09
08/22/09
09/23/09
09/24/09
10/22/09
10/23/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
12/21/09
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
31
30
29
32
30
30
33
29
26
34
367

62,400
56,400
58,800
54,000
52,800
56,400
54,000
55,200
63,600
57,600
48,000
61,200
680,400

120 $
108 $
120 $
120 $
108 $
108 $
108 $
108 $
132 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
132 $

6,112
5,533
5,801
5,386
5,222
5,533
5,201
5,302
6,130
5,565
4,757
5,868
66,409

352
303
190
51
32
69
317
1,313

44
6
26
81
288
503
528
527
497
345
53
6
2,901

0.097947
0.098103
0.098653
0.09974
0.098895
0.098098
0.09632
0.096055
0.096386
0.09661
0.099107
0.095876
0.097603

1835.294
1944.828
1896.774
1800
1820.69
1762.5
1800
1840
1927.273
1986.207
1846.154
1800
1854.977

64%
75%
66%
63%
70%
68%
69%
71%
61%
69%
64%
63%
59%

31
32
28
31
28
32
31
28
33
29

49,200
52,800
48,000
48,000
46,800
50,400
48,000
44,400
55,200
48,000

5,007
5,325
4,901
4,901
4,795
5,113
4,961
4,583
5,598
4,901

556
475
351
48
7
6

0.101766
0.100854
0.102101
0.102101
0.102452
0.101447
0.103364
0.103213
0.101409
0.102101

1587.097
1650
1714.286
1548.387
1671.429
1575
1548.387
1585.714
1672.727
1655.172

61%
64%
66%
60%
64%
61%
54%
61%
58%
64%

12/22/09
01/22/10
02/23/10
03/23/10
04/23/10
05/21/10
06/22/10
07/23/10
08/20/10
09/22/10

01/21/10
02/22/10
03/22/10
04/22/10
05/20/10
06/21/10
07/22/10
08/19/10
09/21/10
10/20/10

108
108
108
108
108
108
120
108
120
108

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6
41
263
548
585
586
529
187

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.076624 2485.714
0.07595
2280
0.075205 2361.29
0.07787 1862.069
0.076225
1360
0.075905
1312.5
0.076591
1320
0.076991
1440
0.07531
1912.5
0.076786
2100
0.07787
1800
0.076282 1874.744

LF
72%
72%
75%
65%
79%
76%
76%
71%
74%
73%
63%
54%

Warrington Campus
Page A-97

From
To
10/21/10
11/19/10
11/20/10
12/20/10
Sum/Average/Max

# Days
30
31
364

Therm
49,200
48,000
588,000

Demand
108 $
108 $
120 $

Cost
5,007
4,901
59,992

HDD
103
402
1,946

CDD
100
32
2,876

$/Therm Therm/Day
0.101766
1640
0.102101 1548.387
0.102027 1616.382

LF
63%
60%
56%

12/21/10
01/21/11
01/22/11
02/22/11
02/23/11
03/23/11
03/24/11
04/22/11
04/23/11
05/20/11
05/21/11
06/21/11
06/22/11
07/21/11
07/22/11
08/22/11
08/23/11
09/21/11
09/22/11
10/20/11
10/21/11
11/18/11
11/19/11
12/20/11
Sum/Average/Max

32
32
29
30
28
32
30
32
30
29
29
32
365

44,400
51,600
48,000
45,600
44,400
49,200
49,200
51,600
51,600
50,400
49,200
51,600
586,800

108 $
108 $
120 $
120 $
120 $
122 $
112 $
118 $
116 $
121 $
114 $
115 $
122 $

4,432
5,044
4,799
4,595
4,493
4,911
4,861
5,095
5,085
5,134
4,991
5,204
58,644

554
468
111
50
15
31
163
295
1,686

4
33
126
153
629
554
564
375
178
36
27
2,678

0.099828
0.097759
0.099979
0.100768
0.101194
0.099819
0.098792
0.098738
0.098542
0.101858
0.101451
0.100851
0.099939

1387.5
1612.5
1655.172
1520
1585.714
1537.5
1640
1612.5
1720
1737.931
1696.552
1612.5
1609.822

54%
62%
57%
53%
55%
53%
61%
57%
62%
60%
62%
58%
55%

12/21/11
01/23/12
01/24/12
02/21/12
02/22/12
03/21/12
03/22/12
04/20/12
04/21/12
05/20/12
05/21/12
06/20/12
06/21/12
07/22/12
07/23/12
08/21/12
08/22/12
09/21/12
09/22/12
10/22/12
10/23/12
11/19/12
11/20/12
12/19/12
Sum/Average/Max

34
29
29
30
30
31
32
30
31
31
28
30
365

51,600
49,200
46,800
49,200
46,800
48,000
49,200
50,400
46,800
50,400
46,800
48,000
583,200

116 $
121 $
120 $
113 $
110 $
107 $
114 $
128 $
119 $
118 $
114 $
115 $
128 $

5,147
4,971
4,605
4,786
4,573
4,654
4,606
4,469
4,159
4,412
4,131
4,223
54,735

317
231
80
11
21
4
194
223
1,079

18
8
50
112
202
401
487
485
416
194
33
6
2,409

0.099748
0.101029
0.098396
0.097274
0.097707
0.09695
0.09362
0.088671
0.088875
0.08754
0.088266
0.087973
0.093852

1517.647
1696.552
1613.793
1640
1560
1548.387
1537.5
1680
1509.677
1625.806
1671.429
1600
1600.066

54%
58%
56%
61%
59%
60%
56%
55%
53%
58%
61%
58%
52%

12/20/12
01/22/13
01/23/13
02/19/13
02/20/13
03/20/13
Sum/Average/Max

34
28
29
91

48,000
46,800
44,400
139,200

119 $
114 $
113 $
119 $

4,332
4,215
4,033
12,580

390
246
247
882

17
19
11
47

0.09025
0.090067
0.090835
0.090375

1411.765
1671.429
1531.034
1538.076

50%
61%
57%
54%

Warrington Campus
Page A-98

APPENDIX H
COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE NOX
EMISSION IMPACTS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROJECTS: SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA CASE STUDY
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY
TECHNICAL REPORT NREL/TP-710-37721
REVISED JULY 2005

A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Innovation for Our Energy Future

Comparison of Methods for

Estimating the NOx Emission
Impacts of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Projects:
Shreveport, Louisiana Case Study
(Base Year of Data for Analysis 2000)
A. Chambers, D.M. Kline, and L. Vimmerstedt
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

A. Diem
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

D. Dismukes and D. Mesyanzhinov

Louisiana State University

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute Battelle

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

Technical Report
NREL/TP-710-37721
Revised July 2005

Comparison of Methods for

Estimating the NOx Emission
Impacts of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Projects:
Shreveport, Louisiana Case Study
(Base Year of Data for Analysis 2000)
A. Chambers, D.M. Kline, and L. Vimmerstedt
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

A. Diem
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

D. Dismukes and D. Mesyanzhinov

Louisiana State University
Prepared under Task No. 6020.1060

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
303-275-3000 www.nrel.gov
Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
by Midwest Research Institute Battelle
Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

Technical Report
NREL/TP-710-37721
Revised July 2005

NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy
and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov
Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ iii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ................................................................................................................................. 2
Scope of the Three Methods ....................................................................................................... 2
Summary of Results.................................................................................................................... 3
Methodologies Used to Develop Alternative Estimates ................................................................. 4
Economic Dispatch Method........................................................................................................ 5
Power Control Area Marginal Dispatch Method ........................................................................ 5
Plant Average Method ................................................................................................................ 6
Results............................................................................................................................................. 7
More Detailed Comparison Across Methods.............................................................................. 7
Alternative Assumptions............................................................................................................. 9
Summary and Recommendations on Methods for Use in SIPs .................................................... 10
Appendix 1: Unifying Framework for Comparing Methodologies .............................................. 12
Basic Framework ...................................................................................................................... 12
Description of the Three Methods in Terms of this Framework .............................................. 12
Power Control Area Marginal Dispatch Modeling Approach .......................................... 12
Plant Average Method ...................................................................................................... 13
Economic Dispatch Method.............................................................................................. 13
Appendix 2: Early Action Compact Progress Report .................................................................. 14
Shreveport-Bossier City Metropolitan Statistical Area ............................................................ 14
*Appendix 3: Federal Register Notice......................................................................................... 25
References..................................................................................................................................... 30

*Not included in original report dated March 2005.

Other minor revisions have been included throughout this report.

iii

Acknowledgements
This analysis was prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at the request
of the State of Louisiana Energy Office, the US Department of Energy (USDOE), and the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). USDOEs Technical Assistance Program and
USEPAs State and Local Capacity Building Branch provided support for the project. This
paper is a revised version of a study done for the Louisiana State Energy Office, which was used
in Shreveports Early Action Compact (EAC) submission to USEPA for the 8-Hour Ozone
Standard under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. NREL developed this analysis in
close collaboration with Art Diem in the USEPA State and Local Capacity Building Branch;
Louis McArthur at the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources; and David Dismukes and
Dmitry Mesyanzhinov from the Louisiana State University Center for Energy Studies
(LSUCES). This paper also benefited from comments provided by David Solomon (USEPA),
Michael Morton (USEPA), Shannon Snyder (USEPA), and Jim Orgeron, Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality. We would like to express special thanks to Jerry Kotas of USDOE
for the benefit of innumerable useful conversations on this and related topics, and for his strong
leadership in the effort to harmonize energy and environmental strategies. Typographical errors
or technical oversights are the responsibility of the authors.

Abstract
Measures to increase the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) technologies are
among the many tools available to planners for improving local air quality. These technologies
can both reduce generation from fossil fuel power plants and reduce their emissions. However,
quantifying the electric-sector emissions reduction caused by given levels of EERE technology is
complicated, since this calculation requires determining which power plants were offset by
renewable energy generation or demand-side reductions. Until recently, there had been little
discussion of what methods of quantification would be acceptable for the purposes of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This
situation began to change when USEPA issued general guidelines for including EERE projects in
SIP proceedings (USEPA, 2004). That document endorsed the use of EERE projects in SIP
submissions and laid the groundwork for quantification methods to be proposed. This paper
aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion of these issues by comparing three alternative
methods that were used in a recent SIP submission for the Shreveport-Bossier City Metropolitan
Statistical Area Early Action Compact. That submission had been posted in the Federal Register,
completed the public comment period, and was being formally adopted into the Louisiana SIP by
USEPA at the time of publication.
This analysis suggests that the energy conservation measures that were submitted for the
Shreveport SIP will reduce NOx emissions on the order of 0.04 tons per day during the ozone
season. Comparing three different methods for estimating this impact suggests that a simple
approach, which uses an average of the emissions rates for nearby power plants drawn from the
eGRID database, is precise and accurate enough to be used for very small projects like this one.

Introduction
Background
The Shreveport-Bossier City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in northwest Louisiana is in
the process of taking several proactive measures to maintain and improve local ambient air
quality. The primary ambient air pollutant of concern is ozone; hence measures are being taken
to reduce the ozone precursors of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOx). One innovative measure that the MSA has pursued is the indirect reduction of NOx
through the installation of energy conservation equipment in 33 municipal buildings. This paper
outlines three different methodologies for calculating the power plant NOx emissions reduced by
implementing these permanent grid-connected energy efficiency projects in the ShreveportBossier City region of Louisiana.
The Shreveport-Bossier City MSA is comprised of Bossier, Caddo, and Webster Parishes in
northwest Louisiana. The MSA has recorded ambient ozone concentrations that approach the
maximum concentration permitted by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
8-hour ozone concentrations. In order to ensure that air quality is maintained or even improved,
the MSA has committed to implement several candidate control measures through an Early
Action Compact (EAC) with USEPA. All EAC areas have voluntarily agreed to proactively
reduce ozone precursors, thereby reducing ozone, earlier than required by the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. One innovative NOx reduction measure that the
Shreveport-Bossier City MSA selected for inclusion in their EAC is a 20-year contract with
Johnson Controls, Inc. for the purpose of installing and maintaining energy conservation
equipment in 33 municipal buildings. Large energy efficiency projects such as this one will
reduce end-use demand, which in turn reduces generation at nearby power plants, ultimately
reducing their emissions.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows: The first section describes the results of the
analysis, summarizing results from three different methods used to quantify the emissions
reductions resulting from Shreveports contract with Johnson Controls. The discussion then
examines each of those methods in turn, and compares their results. The paper concludes with
recommendations for the use of quantification methods in the SIP process. Appendix 1 presents
a framework that may be useful in comparing different quantification methodologies and in
developing better estimates of the uncertainty in their results. Appendix 2 is Shreveports Early
Action Compact Progress Report and Appendix 3 is the Federal Register Notice for this project.
Scope of the Three Methods
This analysis compares three different methods for estimating the impacts of the energy
efficiency program, as described in the next section. These methods all estimate the marginal
impact of the end-use demand reductions. That is, the reduced generation after the demand
reductions is allocated across the power plants supplying the Shreveport area. After that
allocation, the emissions reductions are estimated for each plant and summed to yield to total
emissions reduction. The three approaches differ in how they allocate the generation reductions
among different power plants.

These approaches do not consider the potential impact of the demand reductions on timing or
technology of future power plant investments. Finally, none of the approaches considered here
assess baselines or additionalitythe question of whether some or all of the energy conservation
measures included in Shreveports EAC submission would have occurred had the city not
engaged Johnson Controls to undertake specific measures. These effects are beyond the scope of
the current effort.
Summary of Results
Table 1 compares the results of the different estimates. A calculation method developed by Art
Diem at USEPA, which we call the Power Control Area Dispatch Method, and the calculation
method developed by the LSU Center for Energy Studies (LSUCES), the Economic Dispatch
Method, produced estimates of 0.042 and 0.036 tons per day respectively. A third method, the
Plant Average Method, uses average emission rates for different subsets of power plants
serving the Shreveport area, and suggests that the impact might range from 0.024 to 0.058 tons
per ozone season day.

Table 1: Summary of Estimates

Result
Tons/O3 day
0.036
0.042
0.033
(0.024 to 0.058)1

Method
Economic Dispatch
Power Control Area Dispatch
Plant Average

Figure 1 provides an estimate of the probabilities associated with these estimates, in the form of
a curve tracing the probability that the true value is greater than the value shown on the x-axis.
This estimate suggests that the value will be between 0.035 and 0.045 tons per day with a
probability of 95 percent.

The range of results from the plant average method is from 0.024 to 0.058 pounds per ozone-season day. The
average of all the variants of this method, leaving out the US average figure, is 0.033 pounds per ozone-season day.

Figure 1: Range of Estimates of NOx Reductions2

Probability that
True Value >

1.2

Range of Results
Tons of NOx per Ozone Season Day
Estimates from this study

Economic
Dispatch

0.8

Plant Average

PCA
Dispatch

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.02

95%
confidence
interval

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Reduction "X"(tons NOx/O3 season day)

NOx reductions in the range of the estimates shown in Figure 1 will assist Shreveport in meeting
and maintaining compliance with the 8-Hour Ozone Standard. One of the suggestions from the
following discussion is that relatively straightforward methods are adequate to characterize the
impact of such small projects, while more complex methods may be required to assess the
impacts of larger projects. Adopting this viewpoint could significantly lower the staff and
technical resources needed by public agencies to quantify the emissions impact of EE and RE
measures.

Methodologies Used to Develop Alternative Estimates

As mentioned above, each of the approaches considered takes a different path in identifying the
generating units displaced by the electricity savings. Once the changes in generation in each
plant are estimated, the emissions reduction is calculated by multiplying each of those changes
by the appropriate NOx emission factor. To some extent all three approaches use the emissions
factors in the Environmental Protection Agencys eGRID air emissions database. The
differences among them arise from their differing approaches to estimating the generation
reduction of each plant.
2

The confidence interval mentioned in the discussion of Figure 1 was estimated as follows. First, a single value for
the plant average method was calculated as the average of all the estimates except for the U.S. National average.
This was done so that the plant average method would have the same weight as the other two methods in the rest of
the calculations. That estimate, along with those for the economic dispatch and power control area dispatch methods
were then treated as three samples from a population of emissions estimates. Based on those three samples, we
calculated the standard error of the mean, which estimates the standard deviation of an average of three samples
from the population. Figure 1 uses a normal distribution with the mean equal to the average of the three samples
and standard deviation equal to the standard error of the mean. The 95% percent confidence interval is estimated as
the mean +/- two standard deviations. As discussed above, the result is a range of estimates from 0.035 to 0.045
tons per ozone season day.

Despite being subject to the limitations discussed in the previous section, all of the approaches
described below do present a generalized estimate of the opportunities for increased energy
efficiency to reduce overall power generation, air emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions.
More sophisticated power market modeling approaches could develop more detailed, and
arguably more accurate, results. Nevertheless, the results from these methods support the basic
premise that more energy efficiency can lead to displaced generation, which in turn, can lead to
lower emissions.
Ultimately, the State of Louisiana and USEPA determined which methodology should be
adopted into the EAC due to their regulatory authority and accountability. The intent of this
paper is to provide a neutral assessment of different estimation methods and critique the
strengths and weaknesses of those methodologies. All methodologies were conducted in parallel
and were provided the same amount of raw data. The base year for the analysis was calendar
year 2000 and the guaranteed energy savings of the contract is 9,121,335 kWh/yr as detailed in
the energy service contract between Johnson Controls and the City of Shreveport.
Economic Dispatch Method
David Dismukes and Dmitry Mesyanzhinov from the LSUCES developed an economic dispatch
model of the combined American Electric Power (AEP) and Southwest Electric Power Company
(SWEPCO) control area and applied it in this analysis. The model economically dispatches each
of the AEP-SWEPCO generating facilities on an hour-to-hour basis. Under an optimal economic
dispatch, generators are ranked, or stacked based upon their costs, with the lowest cost unit
being utilized first, and the highest cost unit being utilized last. The LSUCES model simulated
this economic dispatch for each hour of calendar year 2000.
Estimating the emissions reduction associated with energy efficiency measures follows a threestep approach. In the first step, a baseline economic dispatch case for the AEP-SWEPCO control
area is developed in order to approximate the normal dispatch of the system. The second step
develops a change case dispatch. In this instance, the change case is the introduction of
energy efficiency measures. The third step is to calculate the difference between baseline and
change case, which gives the plant-specific generation displaced by the energy efficiency
measures, and calculate the air emission reduction associated with that displacement.
The data used in this analysis came from a variety of sources that included Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) Form 1s, Energy Information Administration Form EIA-411,
RDI International Power Generation Database, Utility Data Institute, information provided by
AEP-SWEPCO, and the eGRID database. The economic dispatch, or rank ordering, of facilities
was based upon fuel costs as a measure of marginal costs. Per information provided by AEPSWEPCO, imports to the system were assumed to be 15 percent of total load.
Power Control Area Marginal Dispatch Method
Art Diem from USEPAs State and Local Capacity Building Branch has developed an
approximate regional marginal dispatch model that assesses emissions reductions in two stages.
First, this method estimates the percentage contribution of each relevant Power Control Area
(PCA) to the electricity consumption of the region where the demand reductions occur. These

estimates are developed using data on the power flows between all the PCAs in both directions.
Second, this method develops estimates for the share of generation from each power plant based
on the total power generated in that PCA. Combining the two stages yields a percentage
contribution to the target region for each power plant within all contributing PCAs.
Plant Average Method
This calculation approach relied strictly on the eGRID database using simple averages of the
emissions coefficients of different sets of power plants from the calendar year 2000 data (Source:
eGRID 2002PC). The generation reductions are assumed to be shared equally among all power
plants in each set of plants. The following are the different sets of power plants for which
emissions rates were averaged. Data was compiled for NOx emissions on an annual average and
for the ozone season. There may be other methods of dividing the eGRID data but these seemed
the most appropriate for calculating emission reductions for Shreveport-Bossier City MSA.

US National
NERC Region Southwest Power Pool (SPP)
NERC Sub-Region (SPP - South)
State-level (Louisiana)
State and primary power provider for Shreveport3(Louisiana and AEP)
Electric Generating Company for Southwest Electric Power Company (SWEPCO)
Power Control Area for American Electric Power (AEP West SPP/PCA)
Local Plants in the City of Shreveport and the Caddo Parish
Local Plants Supplying Shreveport4

The emissions rates were calculated directly from the eGRID database and multiplied by the
guaranteed annual and monthly load reduction of the 20-year energy efficiency contract.
Monthly load demand/reduction estimates are not currently available so the monthly load
reduction was calculated by dividing the guaranteed annual reduction by twelve. Johnson
Controls, Inc. has agreed to provide monthly load profile data, but the monthly load demand
profiles were not available at the time of publication.

Per telephone discussions in February 2004 between RJ Robertson of the Southwestern Electric Power Company
(SWEPCO) and Adam Chambers of NREL, American Electric Power (SWEPCO's parent company) supplies all of
the electricity consumed by the city of Shreveport. This was confirmed through subsequent telephone conversations
between David Dismukes of LSUCES, Louis McArthur of Louisiana DEP and Adam Chambers
4
Relies on LSUCES load distribution data and weighted eGRID emission factors.

Results
The emissions coefficients estimated here range from a low estimate of 2.0 lbs NOx/megawatthour (MWh) to a high value of 4.6 lbs NOx/MWh. The lowest emissions impact estimate
considers only two natural gas fired plants within the Caddo Parish. The highest calculated
values were ozone season estimates obtained from the average of the plants in the State of
Louisiana. These extremes serve as upper and lower limits for all of the emission estimation
methods in this study.
Using the upper and lower emission estimates mentioned above, we calculated the maximum and
minimum emission reductions that could be achieved by the City of Shreveport and Johnson
Controls, Inc. energy conservation contract. Relying on the firm contracting obligation of
9,121,335 kWh/yr and the upper and lower bound of 2.0 lbs/MWh and 4.6 lbs/MWh we
estimated the lower and upper emission reduction bounds to be 8.9 and 21 tons of NOx/yr
respectively. (See Table 3.) In typical units used in SIP planning, these figures are equivalent to
0.024 - 0.058 ton/day.
More Detailed Comparison Across Methods
Table 2 gives the range of estimates developed for the emissions coefficients used in developing
the ozone season impacts summarized in Table 1. In particular, it shows all the variants of the
plant average method, and compares those values to the emissions coefficients of the two other
methodologies.
The average of all emission factors for the ozone season, shown in Table 2, is 3.32 lbs/MWh.
The average emission factor aligns most closely with the NERC Sub-Region emission factors
calculation methodology and the PCA Marginal Dispatch Modeling Approach. Although these
two are nearest the average emission value, all of the ozone-season emissions factors are within
the range 3.3 1.4 lbs/MWh.

Table 2: Comparison of NOx Emissions Factors for

Assessing EE Projects in the Shreveport Area
Region

Annual NOx
Emissions
(Tons/yr)

PLANT AVERAGE METHOD

VARIANTS
National

5644353.87

O3 Season
NERC Region - SPP
O3 Season
NERC Sub-Region SPP South
O3 Season
State La.
O3 Season
State and Power Provider Louisiana
& AEP
O3 Season
Electric Generating Company
SWEPCO
O3 Season
Power Control Area
O3 Season
Local Plants Supplying Shreveport
AEP Information
O3 Season
Local Plants in Shreveport and Caddo
Parish
O3 Season
POWER CONTROL AREA
DISPATCH METHOD
O3 Season
ECONOMIC DISPATCH METHOD

Average O3 Season
NOx
NOx
(Output
(Output
Rate
Rate
lbs/MWh) lbs/MWh)

2.96
2.92

2431268.00
354187.80

3.79
3.73

164189.51
219962.16

3.42
3.38

103484.54
118263.58

2.54
2.59

55812.95
11501.24

4.57
4.63

5107.37
40310.00

3.45
3.39

18674.85
73796.33

3.70
3.67

35478.18
3.72

3.79
632.77

1.95
1.95

488.07
3.47

3.37
35,169

O3 Season

2.95

17,967

AVERAGES

3.32

2.85
3.30

Alternative Assumptions
Making the assumption that all energy conservation will occur during the ozone season (which is
not overly ambitious for Shreveport, LA) 5, the emission reduction increases to a range of 0.0490.12 ton/day (TPD). The total ozone season reduction using the midpoint of this range is shown
in Table 3 below as the least conservative case.

Table 3: Average, Upper and Lower NOx Emissions (Estimates)

Emissions Reduction
Average (3.3 lbs/MWh)
Conservative
Ef (1.95 lbs/MWh)
Least Conservative
Ef (4.63 lbs/MWh)

Annual Savings, tons

Ozone season,
tons

Ozone season,
tons/day

15.05

1.25

0.04

8.89

0.74

0.024

21.12

1.76

0.058

The above emission reductions are relatively small in SIP planning terms, so the next question to
be answered is What quantity of energy savings is necessary to realize a 1 TPD reduction in
NOx emissions at the upper and lower bounds of the emission coefficients? Achieving this
emissions reduction would require an energy savings in the range of 430 1,000 MWh/day to
reduce 1 ton of NOx in the Shreveport Bossier City area, an annual energy savings of 160 370
GWh. At the project level, this magnitude of energy savings is unlikely but an aggregation of
several municipal projects, for example those arising in response to a policy, could achieve such
a significant emissions reduction.
Other Quantifiable Ancillary Benefits of Energy Efficiency
In addition to the NOx benefits realized by energy efficiency, there are other air pollutants and
greenhouse gas emissions that have also been avoided. Avoided pollutants include sulfur
dioxide, mercury, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide. In Table 4 we have estimated the
emission reductions of SO2, CO2, and Hg through the same methodologies that we have
quantified NOx.
The annual SO2, CO2, and Hg emission benefits estimated below were calculated by relying on
the averages in Table 4 and the previously mentioned contracted power savings of 9,121,335
kWh/yr. Other estimated emission reductions are:
SO2 41,228 lbs/yr or 20.6 tons/year
CO2 16,377,266 lbs/yr or 8,189 TPY
-4
Hg 0.27 lbs/yr or 1.4 x 10 TPY
5

The energy efficiency project could, in principle, concentrate most or all of its impact on the ozone season by
concentrating exclusively on air-conditioning loads, which occur almost entirely during the ozone season.

Particulate matter is more difficult to quantify accurately due to the broad variation in plantspecific control technologies, emission factors, and individual plant O & M. Qualitatively, there
will be emission reductions in particulate matter of all fractions (TSP, PM10, and PM2.5) because
fossil-fueled generation has particulate emissions and energy efficiency measures do not.

Table 4: Ancillary Benefits

Region

SO2 Annual
Reduction
(Output Rate
lbs/MWh)

PLANT AVERAGE
METHOD VARIANTS
National
NERC Region SPP
NERC Sub-Region SPP
South
State La.
State and Power Provider
Louisiana & AEP
Electric Generating
Company SWEPCO
Power Control Area
Local Plants Supplying
Shreveport - Contact AEP
Local Plants in Shreveport
and Caddo Parish
POWER CONTROL AREA
DISPATCH METHOD
ECONOMIC DISPATCH
METHOD
AVERAGES

CO2 Annual
Reduction
(Output Rate
lbs/MWh)

Hg Annual
Reduction (Output
Rate lbs/GWh)

6.04

1392.49

0.0272

4.77

1959.93

0.0345

4.27

1936.65

0.0322

3.53

1386.28

0.0120

7.47

2135.38

0.0038

6.11

2180.52

0.0607

4.53

1932.30

0.0408

6.79

2263.99

0.0607

0.33

1304.10

0.0000

1.36

1463.27

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

4.52

1795.49

0.0302

Summary and Recommendations on Methods for Use in SIPs

This project represents an initial attempt to accurately quantify displaced emissions from gridconnected energy efficiency measures for SIP purposes. We applied three different methods to
quantify displaced emissions of NOx. We identified a lower bound of 0.024 tons per day and an
upper bound of 0.058 tons per day, with 95 percent confidence that the value lies between 0.035
and 0.045 tons per day. We also estimated reductions of other pollutants, the ancillary benefits
of a NOx emissions reduction measure.

10

Based on the experience of this project, we recommend that SIP decision-makers may wish to
consider the consistency among different estimation methods, and the size of the project in
determining what types of analysis serve as sufficient basis for quantification of displaced
emissions. In this project, the relatively narrow 95 percent confidence interval shows that the
results are consistent across the different methods. The small project size also contributed to our
judgment that this analysis is a sufficient basis for SIP decision makers to select the quantity of
displaced emissions that will be attributed to these energy efficiency measures within the
Louisiana SIP.
Assessing the permanence of the emissions reduction is another key issue. A high level of
project certainty and permanence is required for SIP planning purposes. In the Shreveport
project, there is a high level of certainty that permanent emissions benefits will result from this
project due to the longevity and nature of the Performance Contract between Johnson Controls,
Inc. and the City of Shreveport. The 20-year Performance Contract provides details of the
expense, duration, and magnitude of the lighting system upgrades, mechanical system upgrades,
control system upgrades, water conservation upgrades, and other miscellaneous upgrades, and
guarantees the energy performance of the overall system.
Because this was one of the first projects to quantify EE emissions benefits for use in a SIP, there
was some uncertainty as to how the estimation methods would compare. The comparison of the
methods discussed above suggests that plant average methodology provides an adequate level of
detail for calculating the emission benefits of small projects, and we suggest a threshold of 500
MWh/O3 season day. The plant average approach provides a method that public agencies can
use with at a modest cost in staff resources. Above this or another agreed-upon threshold, more
accurate (and expensive) modeling approaches such as Power Control Area Marginal Dispatch
Modeling Approach and the LSUCES Economic Dispatch Modeling Approach may be required.
The purpose of this paper has been to contribute to the published literature documenting case
studies where energy efficiency and renewable energy has been used to improve ambient air
quality per USEPAs Guidance on State Implementation Plan (SIP) Credits for Emission
Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures6. Although
the focus of this paper is on the quantification of emissions benefits, SIP submittals must also
demonstrate enforceability, permanence, and emission reductions must be surplus to prevent
double counting. Appendix 3 contains the May 12, 2005 Federal Register Notice for the
measures proposed under the Early Action Compact SIP submittal.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/ereseerem_gd.pdf

11

Appendix 1: Unifying Framework for Comparing

Methodologies
This section gives a more precise characterization of each method used to develop estimates.

Basic Framework
As mentioned, the three methods described here represent three different ways of estimating the
fraction of the conserved electricity to be allocated to different power plants. That is, all three
methods can be represented by Equation 1.
Equation 1

T = S wk E k
k

where
T is the emission reduction
S is the energy savings,
wk is the weight that gives the fraction of the energy savings allocated to the k-th plant,
Ek is the emission factor of the k-th plant
The summation is then the average emission factor of the plants offset by the electricity
conservation measure. In principle, k can be thought of as ranging over all the power plants in
the U.S. system, in which case some of the wk may be zero. In all three methods, the plant
emission factors are taken from the eGRID database.

Description of the Three Methods in Terms of this Framework

Power Control Area Marginal Dispatch Modeling Approach
This method proceeds in two stages. It first uses information about the exchanges of power
between power control areas (PCAs) to determine the shares of the generation from each PCA in
the electricity consumed in each PCA. This first stage of the analysis uses the shares of the
generation of all PCAs in the PCA where the conservation occurs, say PCA1.
Equation 2

PCA1 = s k 1 PCAk
k

where sk1 gives the fraction of the consumption in PCA1 that comes from the generation in PCAk.

12

The second stage combines the shares sk1 with estimates of the probability that each plant will be
on the margin, and thus be offset by reduced demand. This estimation procedure yields pj, the
probability that plant j is on the margin. The pj and sk1 can then be combined to yield the
weights wk in equation 1:

Equation 3

wk = s j1
j

pE
i

iPCAj

Plant Average Method

The plant average defines the weights wk as follows
Equation 4

wk =

Gk
Gk
k

where Gk is the annual energy output of the k-th plant. In this case, the wk is simply the
generation share. The variants on this method allow k to range across different subsets of US
power plants.
Economic Dispatch Method
The LSUCES economic dispatch model is based upon the AEP-SWEPCO control area. The
model economically dispatches each of the AEP-SWEPCO generating facilities on an hour-tohour basis. Under an optimal economic dispatch, generators are essentially ranked, or stacked
based upon their costs, with the lowest cost unit being utilized first, and the highest cost unit
being utilized last. The LSUCES model conducted this dispatch for each hour of the year under
a 2000 test year. The LSUCES economic dispatch model relies on load contributions (in
percentages) from each plant supplying electricity to Shreveport. Load contribution data and the
corresponding supply percentages that were consumed by the Shreveport Metropolitan Area
were provided by AEP.

13

Appendix 2: Early Action Compact Progress Report

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Appendix 3: Federal Register Notice

25

26

27

28

29

References
USEPA, 2004. Guidance on State Implementation Plan (SIP) Credits for Emissions Reductions
from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures, Air Quality Strategies and Standards
Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Global Programs Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs.
Shreveport-Bossier, Louisiana, 2003. Shreveport-Bossier City MSA Early Action Compact
Progress Report, December 31.
Available on the City of Shreveport Web site at
http://www.ci.shreveport.la.us/AirQuality/Shreveport_Appendix%20A_FINAL.pdf
(Also
included here as Appendix 2.)

30

Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents
should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a
currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
2. REPORT TYPE

July 2005
4.

3.

DATES COVERED (From - To)

Technical Report

TITLE AND SUBTITLE

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

Comparisons of Methods for Estimating the NOx Emission Impacts

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects: Shreveport
Louisiana Case Study (Revised)

DE-AC36-99-GO10337
5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6.

AUTHOR(S)

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

A. Chambers, D.M. Kline, L. Vimmerstedt, A. Diem, D. Dismukes,

and D. Mesyanzhinov

NREL/TP-710-37721
5e. TASK NUMBER

6020.1060
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393
9.

8.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-710-37721

SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL
11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This is a case study comparing methods of estimating the NOx emission impacts of energy efficiency and renewable
energy projects in Shreveport, Louisiana.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

NOx; emissions; Shreveport; Louisiana; energy efficiency; renewable energy; air quality; State Implementation Plan
(SIP);
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
a. REPORT

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION
18. NUMBER
OF ABSTRACT
OF PAGES

UL

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

F1147-E(12/2004)

APPENDIX I
FEMP REPORTING GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL AGENCY
ANNUAL REPORT ON ENERGY MANAGEMENT
SEPTEMBER 2013

Reporting Guidance for

Federal Agency Annual Report on
Energy Management
(per 42 U.S.C. 8258)

September 2013

Federal Energy Management Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
U.S. Department of Energy

-1-

(Page Left Intentionally Blank)

-2-

Introduction
Thispurposeofthisupdatedguidanceistoclarifythechangesthathaveoccurredconcerningagencies
reportingprocedureswithrespecttotheirannualenergyandwatermanagementactivitiesmandated
bytheNationalEnergyConservationPolicyAct(NECPA),EnergyPolicyActof2005(EPACT05),Energy
IndependenceandSecurityActof2007(EISA),ExecutiveOrder(E.O.)13423StrengtheningFederal
Environmental,Energy,andTransportationManagementandExecutiveOrder(E.O.)13514;Federal
LeadershipinEnvironmental,Energy,andEconomicPerformance.TheDepartmentofEnergys(DOE)
FederalEnergyManagementProgram(FEMP)haspreparedthisreportingguidancetoaddressthese
requirementswiththeintentofdetailingthereportingconsolidationeffortsthathavetakenplace.

Purpose of Reporting
Section548(a)ofNECPA(42U.S.C.8258(a))requireseachFederalagencytosubmitareporteachyear
totheDepartmentofEnergyontheiractivitiestomeettheenergymanagementrequirementsof
Section543ofNECPA(42U.S.C.8253).Informationanddatacollectedfromtheagencieswillbeusedto
developDOEsAnnualReporttoCongressonFederalGovernmentEnergyManagement.Thisreportis
requiredunderSection548ofNECPA(42U.S.C.8258(b))anddescribesenergymanagementactivitiesin
FederalfacilitiesandoperationsandprogressinimplementingtherequirementsofNECPA,EPACT05,
EISA,E.O.13423andE.O13514.FinaldistributionofthereportincludestheHouseCommitteeson
Appropriations,EnergyandCommerce,GovernmentReform,andScience,aswellastheSenate
CommitteesonAppropriations,EnergyandNaturalResources,andHomelandSecurityand
GovernmentalAffairs.Inadditiontothedistributionindicatedabove,datacontainedintheannual
reportareprovidedtootherFederalagencies,includingtheBureauofEconomicAnalysisandEnergy
InformationAdministration;Stateandlocalgovernments;privatecompaniesandcitizens,andnon
governmentorganizations.

Thisguidancedocumentisalsoavailableatthefollowingwebsite:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/facility_requirements.html

Summary of Changes from Prior Energy Reporting Guidance

OnOctober5,2009,PresidentObamasignedExecutiveOrder(E.O.)13514(74FederalRegister52117)
toestablishanintegratedstrategytowardsustainabilityintheFederalgovernmentandtomake
reductionofgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsapriorityforFederalagencies.Amongotherprovisions,
E.O.13514requiresagenciestomeasure,report,andreducetheirgreenhousegasemissionsfrom
directandindirectactivities.

Section9ofE.O.13514directstheDepartmentofEnergys(DOEs)FederalEnergyManagement
Program(FEMP),incoordinationwiththeEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),Departmentof
Defense(DOD),GeneralServicesAdministration(GSA),DepartmentoftheInterior(DOI),Departmentof
Commerce(DOC),andotheragenciesasappropriatetodeveloprecommendedFederalGHGreporting
andaccountingproceduresandprovideelectronicreportingcapabilities.FEMPhassubsequently
developedtheFEMPGHGandSustainabilityDataReportworkbook,tobecompletedbyeachagency.
(see:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/facility_requirements.html)

Tostreamlinereportingrequirements,FEMPhasincorporatedtheAnnualEnergyManagementData
Reportdatacollectionspreadsheet(lastusedinFY2009)intotheFEMPGHGandSustainabilityData
Report.However,thereisstilladditionalnarrativeinformationrequiredfromagenciesfortheirannual
-3

energymanagementwhichisnotcapturedinthedatareport.Thepurposeofthisupdatedguidanceis
toassistagencieswithprovidingonlythespecificadditionalnarrativeinformationrequired,withthe
intentofminimizinganyunnecessaryreportingburdenonagencies.

InformationcollectedfromtheagenciesintheirAnnualEnergyManagementReports,alongwiththe
energydatareportedintheFEMPGHGandSustainabilityDataReportwillbeusedtodevelopDOEs
AnnualReporttoCongressonFederalGovernmentEnergyManagement.

Reporting Package Components

Due Date

ThecompletedFY2013AnnualEnergyManagementReportisrequiredtobesubmittedtoDOEnolater
thanJanuary31,2014.ThisalignswiththeduedateestablishedbyE.O.13415forothersustainability
reporting.ThisincludestheEnergyManagementReportSummarywithallrequirednarratives,a
completedEnergyPerformanceExcludedBuildingsListand,ifapplicable,theDataReportfor
AdjustmenttoFiscalYearsPriorto2008.
Attachments

Attachment1EnergyManagementReportSummaryTemplateThisrevisedformprovidesa
standardtemplatefortheagencytoprovidetherequirednarrativeinformation
detailingtheirprogressinimplementingenergyandwatermanagementactivities.

Asnotedabove,agencyenergydatawillbecollectedfromtheFEMPGHGand
SustainabilityDataReport.

AnelectronicversionoftheEnergyManagementReportSummaryTemplateinWordis
availableonFEMPswebsiteat:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/facility_requirements.html

Attachment2EnergyPerformanceExcludedBuildingsListThisspreadsheetprovidesatemplatefor
agencystosubmitthelistoffacilitiesexcludedfromthe30percentenergy
performancerequirementandanexplanationofwhytheywereexcluded.

RefertoDOEsCriteriaGuidelinesEstablishingCriteriaforExcludingBuildingsfromthe
EnergyPerformanceRequirement.Theseguidelinesestablishcriteriaforexclusionsfrom
theenergyperformancerequirementforafiscalyear,anyFederalbuildingorcollection
ofFederalbuildings,withinthestatutoryframeworkprovidedbythelaw.
(see:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/exclusion_criteria.pdf)

-4-

Attachment3GuidanceforReceivingCreditonEnergyPerformanceGoalsforProjectsThatSave
SourceEnergyButIncreaseSiteDeliveredEnergyThisguidancedescribeshow
agenciescanreceivecredittowardstheirenergyreductiongoalsforlifecyclecost
effectiveprojectsinwhichsourceenergydecreasesevenwhenifsitedeliveredenergy
useincreases(asproductionismovedonsite).Thisguidanceprovidescalculatortools
andinstructionsonhowtodocumenttheproject(s)andcorrectlycalculatethe
necessaryadjustmenttothesiteBtupersquarefootperformancemetric.

Attachment4DataReportforAdjustmentstoFiscalYearsPriorto2008AblankDataReportfor
AdjustmentstoFiscalYearsPriorto2008spreadsheetisavailable.Thepurposeofthis
formistoallowagenciestocorrectoradjusttheirinitial2003baselineorintervening
yeardata,whennecessary,usingthepreviousformatandconversionfactorsforthat
period.Thisformisonlytobecompletedifanagencyhasdiscoveredanerrorina
previouslyestablishedbaselinepriortoFY2010and/orcanprovideanexplanationand
significantneedtoreadjustthebaseline.

AnelectronicversionoftheDataReportforAdjustmentstoFiscalYearsPriorto2008in
ExcelisavailableonFEMPswebsiteat:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/facility_requirements.html

Point of Contact

PersubmittalinstructionsfromtheWhiteHouseCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ),therequested
information,alongwiththeFEMPGHGandSustainabilityDataReportworkbook(s)shouldbesent
electronicallyto:chris.tremper@ee.doe.gov.

Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactChrisTremperat(202)5867632.Thankyouforyour
cooperationanddiligenceinpromotingenergyefficiencyandtheuseofrenewableenergy.

-5-

(Page Left Intentionally Blank)

-6-

ATTACHMENT 1

Energy Management Report Summary Template

Table of Contents
INSTRUCTIONS
InstructionsofUse/Submission
SECTION1MANAGEMENTANDADMINISTRATIONSUMMARY
A. EnergyManagementInfrastructure
B. ManagementTools
SECTION2ENERGYEFFICIENCYPERFORMANCESUMMARY
A. EnergyIntensityReductionPerformance
B. RenewableEnergy
C. WaterConservation
D. MeteringofElectricityUse
E. FederalBuildingEnergyEfficiencyStandards
SECTION3IMPLEMENTATIONHIGHLIGHTSOFFY2013
a. LifeCycleCostAnalysis
b. RetrofitsandCapitalImprovementProjects
c. UseofPerformanceContracts
i)EnergySavingsPerformanceContracts(ESPCs)
ii)UtilityEnergyServicesContracts(UESCs).
iii)OtherTypesofContracts
d. UseofENERGYSTARandOtherEnergyEfficientProducts
e. SustainableBuildingDesignandHighPerformanceBuildings
f. EnergyEfficiency/SustainableDesigninLeaseProvisions
g. DistributedGeneration,includinguseononsiterenewableenergyresourcesandcombined
cooling,heating,andpowersystems

-7-

EnergyManagementReportSummaryInstructions
DOEhasdevelopedarevisedstandardtemplatethatFederalDepartmentandagenciesmayuseto
providetherequirednarrativedescriptionofprogressonimplementingenergyandwatermanagement
activitiesfortheirannualreportstoDOE.

SectionExplanations

SectionIManagementandAdministration
Thissectionwilldescribetheagencysestablishmentofanenergymanagement
infrastructureandtheagencysuseofmanagementtoolstoimplementEISA2007,E.O.
13423andE.O.13514.

SectionIIEnergyEfficiencyPerformance
Thissectionwillhighlightprogresstowardtheperformancemetricscompiledand
calculatedintheGHGandSustainabilityDataReport.Thepurposeofthesectionisto
providenarrativeinformationinsupportofthesedataaswellasshowcaseparticular
agencyinitiativesandprojectscontributingtothegoalsofEPACT05,E.O.13423E.O.
13514,andEISA.

SectionIIIImplementationHighlightsofFY2013
Thepurposeofthissectionistoidentifyanddescriberesultsandaccomplishmentsto
reduceenergyconsumptionandimproveenergyefficiency.Itisnotexpectedthateach
agencywillhaveemployedeverystrategy;rather,thestrategiesidentifiedbeloware
intendedtoremindagencyofficialsoftheexistenceofthesestrategiesandto
encouragetheirusewherepracticalandlifecyclecosteffective.

Instructions

Instructionsareprovidedforeachsection.Agenciesmayprovidetheresponsesintheprovidedtext
boxesorformattheirannualreportsbasedontheirprioryearsubmittals.

-8-

SECTION 1 Management and Administration Summary

InstructionofUsePleaseresponddirectlyintheblanktextboxtoeachquestionwithabriefsummaryofthe
Agencyscurrentactionsandprogress.Pleaseoverwrite/deletethe(entertexthere)textwhenresponding.

Agency Information
Agency

(enter Name of Agency)

Agency Contact(s)

(enter Name of agency contact(s) responsible for completing this form)

Contact(s) Information

(Please provide email address for contact (s))

A. Energy Management Infrastructure

1.

Senior Agency
Official

(enter Name of agencys Senior Sustainability Officer)

Describe the officials role and responsibilities, particularly as they pertain to energy and water
management.

(enter text here)

2.

Agency Energy
Team

(Identify the members of the team)

Describe the teams responsibilities and interactions with cross-functional teams designated to
expedite the implementation of the energy and water provisions in E.O. 1342, ESIA 2007 and E.O
13514.

(enter text here)

-9-

B. Management Tools
1.

Awards
Describe the agencys use of employee incentive programs to reward exceptional performance in
implementing the energy and water requirements in EISA 2007, E.O. 13423 & E.O. 13514.

(enter text here)

2.

Performance Evaluations
Describe agency efforts to include successful implementation of the energy and water of provisions
of EISA 2007, E.O. 13423 & E.O. 13514 in the position descriptions and performance evaluations of
senior energy officials, members of the agency energy team, heads of field offices, and
facility/energy managers.

(enter text here)

3.

Training and Education

Describe activities undertaken to ensure that all appropriate personnel receive training for energy
management requirements.

(enter text here)

Describe agency outreach programs that include education, training, and promotion of ENERGY
STAR and other energy efficient and low standby power products for Federal purchase card users.

(enter text here)

4.

Use of Energy and Water Efficiency measures in Facilities Covered under EISA
Section 432
Briefly summarize agency efforts under 42 U.S.C 8253(f) in evaluating facilities to identify potential
ECMs, implement and follow up on projects, and benchmarked metered buildings. (Detailed data is
collected in the EISA 432 Compliance Tracking System, see
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/facility_cts.html)

(enter text here)

-10-

SECTION 2 Energy Efficiency Performance Summary

InstructionforUsePleaseresponddirectlyintheblanktextboxtoeachquestionwithabriefsummaryofthe
Agencyscurrentactionsandprogress.Pleaseoverwrite/deletethe(entertexthere)textwhenresponding.

A. Energy Intensity Reduction Performance Summary

1.

Goal Subject Buildings

Discuss any extenuating factors that may be skewing the agency performance toward the energy
intensity reductions reported in FY2013. (Note: The energy intensity reductions will be calculated
and reported in the performance summary spreadsheet located in the GHG and Sustainability Data
Report)

(enter text here)

2.

Non-Fleet Vehicle and Equipment Fuel Use

Discuss trends pertaining to this category of fuel use and methods employed to reduce fuel use for
non-fleet vehicles and other equipment not captured by the Federal Automotive Statistical Tool
(FAST) reporting system.

(enter text here)

-11-

B. Renewable Energy
1.

On-Site generated renewable energy

Highlight specific recent projects related to energy use from electricity generated on-site from
renewable sources and renewable energy thermal projects.
If applicable, discuss energy generated on Federal or Indian lands, but which may be sold to other
parties.

(enter text here)

2.

Purchased renewable energy

Discuss highlights of major purchases and approaches taken to obtain renewable energy through
purchases

(enter text here)

3.

Water Conservation
Highlight activities undertaken to improve water efficiency. In addition, summarize any agencyspecific issues or obstacles related to the implementation of reduction strategies or the collection of
water consumption data.

(enter text here)

4.

Metering of Electricity Use

Describe progress made in FY 2013 in meeting the milestones for the building metering
requirements. If applicable, highlight plans for installing advanced meters.

(enter text here)

5.

Federal Building Energy Efficiency Standards

For all new Federal buildings owned, operated, or controlled by the Federal agency, for which
designs were started since the beginning of FY 2007, provide a statement specifying whether the
Federal buildings are expected to meet or exceed the Federal building efficiency standards. If they
will not, provide an explanation of the obstacles.

(enter text here)

-12-

SECTION 3 Implementation Highlights during FY 2013

InstructionforUsePleaseresponddirectlyintheblanktextboxtoeachquestionwithabriefsummaryofthe
Agencyscurrentactionsandprogress.Pleaseoverwrite/deletethegreytextwhenresponding.

A. HIGHLIGHTS OF FY 2013
1.

Where applicable, Agencies should provide a summary highlights of the following

strategies their energy management programs employed during FY 2013:
a) Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

(enter text here)

b) Retrofits and Capital Improvement Projects

(enter text here)

c) Use of Performance Contracts
i) Use of Energy-Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)

(enter text here)

ii) Use of Utility Energy Services Contracts (UESCs)

(enter text here)

iii) Use of Other Types of Contracts

(enter text here)

f) Use of ENERGY STAR and Other Energy-Efficient Products

(enter text here)

g) Sustainable Building Design and High-Performance Buildings

(enter text here)

h) Energy Efficiency/Sustainable Design in Lease Provisions

(enter text here)

i) Distributed Generation, including use on on-site renewable energy resources and
combined cooling, heating, and power systems

(enter text here)

-13-

ATTACHMENT 2

Format for Reporting Buildings Excluded from the

NECPA Energy Performance Requirement
Background

TherequirementunderSection543(c)(3)oftheNationalEnergyConservationPolicyAct(NECPA)as
amendedbytheEnergyPolicyActof2005(EPACT)andtheEnergyIndependenceandSecurityActof
2007(EISA2007),allowsforspecificexclusionsfromtheenergyperformancerequirementsforcertain
Federalprocesses,structuresandfacilities.Theseexclusionsapplyonlytothegoaltoreduceenergy
intensity(Btupergrosssquarefoot)by30percentinFY2015comparedtoFY2003.

ForadetailedguidetothetypesofstructuresandfacilitieseligibletobeexcludedpleaserefertoDOEs
GuidelinesEstablishingCriteriaforExcludingBuildingsfromtheEnergyPerformanceRequirement.

See:http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/exclusion_criteria.pdf.

Reporting

Forthosespecificprocesses,structuresandfacilitieswhichmeettheexclusioncriteria,itisstillrequired
toreporttheenergyuseandcosts.Howeverthisdataisreportedseparatelyfromtheconsumptionand
costsofbuildingssubjecttotheenergygoal.

Thisrecommendedtemplatewasdevelopedtoassisttheagencyinlistingthestructuresandfacilities
thathavebeenexcludedfromthe30percentenergyperformancerequirement.Thetemplatealso
allowstheagencytoreportthereasonfortheexclusion.

SubmissiontoDOE

Agenciesneedonlytosubmitrelevanttableiftheagencyisseekingtoexcludebuildingsfromthe30
percentenergyperformancerequirement.Agencyenergydataforexcludedbuildingswillbecollected
fromtheFEMPGHGandSustainabilityDataReport.

PointofContact

Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactChrisTremperat(202)5867632oremail
chris.tremper@ee.doe.gov.

-14-

Template for Reporting Buildings Excluded

from the
NECPA Energy Performance Requirement
BuildingInformation
#

Facility/StructureName

Location(City,State)

ReasonforExclusion
Size(GSF)
(optional)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

*Insert extras rows when necessary.

-15-

SeeDOEsCriteriaforExcludingBuildingsfromthe
EnergyPerformanceRequirement.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/exclusion_cri
teria.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 3

Guidance for Receiving Credit on Energy Performance

Goals for Projects That Save Source Energy But
Increase Site-Delivered Energy
Intent

TheFederalGovernmentshallstrivetoreducetotalenergyuseandassociatedgreenhousegasand
otherairemissions,asmeasuredatthesourceofgenerationandincludingconversionandtransmission
losses.Tothatend,agenciesshallundertakelifecyclecosteffectiveprojectsinwhichsourceenergy
decreases,evenifsitedeliveredenergyuseincreases(asproductionismovedonsite).Insuchcases,
agencieswillreceivecredittowardtheBtupergrosssquarefootperformancerequirementsofNECPA
(42U.S.C.8253).Thereasonforthecreditistonotpenalizeagenciesunderthesiteenergybased
performancemetricforimplementingcosteffectiveprojectswheresourceenergydecreasesbutsite
deliveredenergyincreases(cogenerationprojects,forexample).

Background

ExecutiveOrder13123requiredtheSecretaryofEnergytoissueguidanceforprovidingcredittoward
energyefficiencygoalsforcosteffectiveprojectswheresourceenergyusedeclinesbutsiteenergyuse
increases.EventhoughthisE.O.hasbeensupersededbyE.O.13423andE.O.13514,thecreditstill
appliesforthereasonstatedabove.

Energymeasuredatthepointofuseistermedsiteenergy.Energymeasurementthataccountsforthe
generation,transmissionanddistributionoftheenergyiscalledsourceenergy.

Whicheverwayconsumptionismeasured,costeffectivenessremainsthemandatedcriteriafor
assessing,selecting,andfundingpotentialFederalenergyefficiencyprojects.InJune1996,theFederal
InteragencyEnergyPolicyCommittee(656Committee)unanimouslyapprovedapolicystatement
encouragescosteffectiveenergyprojectsthatresultinreducedenergyconsumptionregardlessof
whetherthatconsumptionismeasuredonasitebasisorsourcebasis.Sinceagencyprogresstowardthe
NECPAenergyperformancerequirement(30percentenergyreductionin2015comparedto2003)is
measuredintermsofsitedeliveredBtupergrosssquarefoot,anadjustmenttothemetricisrequired
forsourceenergysavingprojectsisrequired.

Forprojectsthatreducesourceenergyusealthoughsiteenergyuseincreases,DOEwillcreditthe
sourceenergysavingstotheagencysiteenergyusebeforethefinalcalculationofgoalperformancein
termsofsiteBtupergrosssquarefoot.Agenciesmayapplythecreditthemselveswhenreportingtheir
performancetotheOfficeofManagementandBudgetontheirAgencyEnergyScorecards.

-16-

CalculatingProjectSpecificSourceEnergyReductions

Agenciescanreceivecreditontheirscorecardevaluationsforlifecyclecosteffectiveprojectswhere
sourceenergydeclinesandsiteenergyincreases.Foreachsuchcompletedproject,agenciesshould
calculatesourceenergysavingsforthereportedfiscalyear.

HerearethefactorsthatDOEusestodeterminesiteBtuequivalentsfromnativeunitsforenergytypes
nottypicallyreportedasBtu:

EnergyType
SiteBtuConversionFactor
Electricity
3,412Btu/kWh
NaturalGas
1,028Btu/cubicfoot
FuelOil(DistillateNo.2)
138,000Btu/gallon
Propane&LiquidPropane
92,000Btu/gallon
Steam
1,000Btu/pound

ToconvertsiteBtutosourceBtu,agenciesmayusetheoneyearnationalaveragesourceconversion
factorspromulgatedbyDOEormaychoosethemultiyearnationalaveragefactorspromulgatedby
EPAsENERGYSTARProgramforitsPortfolioManagerbenchmarkingtool.

SourceSiteBtuRatiosforENERGYSTARPortfolioManagerFuelsand
433.301Fossilfuelgeneratedenergyconsumptiondetermination
SourceSiteRatio/Multipliers

EPAENERGYSTAR
calculatorRatios

DOE433.301Fossil
FuelRatios

FuelType

Electricity(GridPurchase)
3.34
3.16
Electricity(onSiteSolarorWindInstallation)
1.0
n/a
NaturalGas
1.047
1.046
FuelOil(1,2,4,5,6,Diesel,Kerosene)
1.01
1.00
Propane&LiquidPropane
1.01
1.00
Steam
1.21
n/a
DistrictSteam(nonCHP)
n/a
1.35
DistrictSteam(CHP)
n/a
2.30
HotWater
1.28
1.28
ChilledWater
1.05
1.28
Wood
1.0
n/a
Coal/Coke
1.0
1.00
Other
1.0
n/a
Sources:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/notices_rules.html

-17-


Agenciesshouldusethefollowingworksheettocalculatetheannualsiteenergyincreaseandenergy
savedwiththeprojects,foreachapplicableprojectforwhichsourceenergyisreducedbutsiteenergy
increases.

Example:XYZ
ProjectWorksheet
BaseCase(withoutProject)

Line1 AnnualSourceEnergyUsed
MMBtu

MMBtu 225,900
(ifusingconversionfactors;multipleSiteEnergyby
Ratioamount)

Line2 AnnualSiteEnergyUsed
WithProject
Line3 AnnualSourceEnergyUsed
Line4 AnnualSiteEnergyUsedAfterProject

MMBtu

MMBtu

107,770

MMBtu 178,800
MMBtu 128,170

MMBtu 47,100

MMBtu

MMBtu
MMBtu

(subtractLine3fromLine1,thisis:)

Line5

AnnualSourceEnergySavedAfterProject
(subtractLine2fromLine4,thisis:)
AnnualSiteEnergyIncreaseAfterProject

Line6

MMBtu 20,400
MMBtu

Qualifyingprojectsreceiveacreditintheamountoftheannualsourceenergysavings(line5above),
whichisusedtoadjustdownwardtheagencysiteenergyusebeforethefinalcalculationofgoal
performanceintermsofsiteBtupergrosssquarefoot.However,sincemanyqualifyingprojectshave
thecharacteristicthatonsiteutilizationofenergyformsotherthanelectricityincrease,whilepurchases
ofgridelectricityarereduced;anagencysexistingsiteenergyusetrackingsystemmayautomatically
recognizepartofthecredit.Thepurposeoftheadjustmentistoaccountfortherestofthesource
energysavingscredit.

Forexample,consideralargecogeneration(combinedheatandpowerorCHP)project.Electricityis
generatedonsitewithnaturalgasbackedupwithliquidfuel,andheatisrecoveredfromthegeneration
processandrecycledtoreducepurchasesofboilerfuels,and/ortogeneratechilledwater,further
reducinggridelectricitypurchases.Asaresultoftheproject,fueluseforonsitepowergeneration
increases,fueluseforboilersdecreases,andgridelectricitypurchasesdecrease.SiteBtuandsourceBtu
aresubstantiallyidenticalforallenergyformsimpactedbytheprojectexceptforgridelectricity,where
1kWhequals11,396sourceBtu(usingtheENERGYSTARratio)butonly3,412siteBtu.Withtheexception
ofgridelectricity,allformsofenergyaffectedbytheprojecthaveessentiallythesameBtuvalue
whethersiteorsource.Therefore,backingoutthegridelectricitydisplacedbytheproject(self
generation,electricchillerloaddisplacedbychilledwaterfromrecycledheat,etc.),onasourceBtu
basis,isallthatneedstobedone.Theagencyssiteenergytrackingsystemwillalreadyhavebackedout
displacedgridelectricitybecauseitnolongerappearsontheutilitymeter,butonlyatarateof3,412
BtuperkWh.Anadjustmentisneededtoaccountfortherestofthesourceenergysavings,atarateof
7,984BtuperkWh(11,396minus3,412).Theadjustmentforthecogenerationprojectequalsthe
displacedgridelectricityinkWhperyearmultipliedby7,984BtuperkWh.

Aftercalculatingadjustmentsforeachqualifyingproject,compilethedataintotheworksheetlistedin
theFEMPGHGandSustainabilityDataReport,Section4.3,asillustratedbelowandlocatedat:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/facility_requirements.html

-18-


AGENCY COMPILATION WORKSHEET FOR CREDIT FOR PROJECTS THAT INCREASE SITE
ENERGY USE BUT SAVE SOURCE ENERGY
NECPA Goal Subject Buildings
Name of Project Saving Source
Energy in Current Fiscal Year
(insert additional rows as
necessary)
Project No. 1
Project No. 2
Project No. 3
Totals

Annual Site
Energy Increase
with the Project
(line 6 from
worksheet)

(Million Btu)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Annual Source
Energy Saved
with the Project
(line 5 from
worksheet)

(Million Btu)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Adjustment to Annual
Site Energy
(If CHP project,typically kWh of grid
electricity displaced
x 7,984 Btu/kWh)

(Million Btu)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

SubmissiontoDOE

AgenciesdonotneedtosubmitanyadditionalinformationbesideswhatisenteredintheFEMPGHG
andSustainabilityDataReport,Section4.3worksheet.DOEwillcompilethedatainthisworkbookand
applythecreditautomaticallyintotheAgencysEnergyReport.

PointofContact

Ifyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactChrisTremperat(202)5867632oremail
chris.tremper@ee.doe.gov.

-19-

ATTACHMENT 4

Data Report for Adjustments to

Fiscal Years Prior to 2008
(link: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/facility_requirements.html)

-20-

APPENDIX J
RESOURCES FOR CREDITING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS

Resources for Crediting Energy Efficiency Emissions Reductions

in Regulatory Compliance Programs

A. Crediting Energy Efficiency Emission Reductions

State and Utility Financial Incentives

o http://www.aceee.org/topics/financial-incentives-energy-efficiency
o http://dsireusa.org/

Utility Customized Solutions (Southern Cal Edison (SCE) example)

o For most projects, 100% of the approved incentive amount is paid after the
Installation Report is approved. In a few cases where there is uncertainty of energy savings,
SCE may require measurement and verification (M&V), up to two years after
implementation of the project. If SCE determines that M&V is necessary, the customer or
Customers Authorized Agent must prepare and submit an M&V plan upon SCEs request
for review and approval. For projects where M&V is required, 60% of the approved
incentive is paid after the project installation is confirmed. The incentive payment will be
increased by 10% (up to $50,000) to help defray the M&V costs. The balance of the
incentive amount for the solution installed is paid upon approval of the final M&V report.
o https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/09bf3c39-40af-4cd2-81a11abaf09e118b/Solutions+Directory+Q3+2014+FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

PJM Capacity Market

o The Energy Efficiency Capacity Program rewards consumers who reduce their
consumption on the peak times of the year. Qualifying projects are eligible for up to four
years of incentive payments. Payments are earned based on the average load reduction
during summer weekday afternoons.
o http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f6/bbnp_webinar11-15-12.pdf
o http://www.epcschools.org/documents/contentdocuments/document_23_5_864.pdf
o https://www.pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m18b.ashx

Energy Savings Certificates

o Energy savings certificates (ESCs) are tradable certificates, similar to renewable energy
certificates (RECs), that typically represent one megawatt-hour (MWh) of energy savings
from efficiency projects. Several states (including Connecticut, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and
New Jersey) have included provisions in their legislation that would allow third parties,
such as commercial and industrial customers, to generate ESCs and sell them to utilities
that are seeking to comply with energy efficiency targets.
o http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45970.pdf
o http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/pdf/bottom_line_energy_savings_certificates.pdf

CO2toEE Initiative
o CO2toEE is a market-based mechanism that would enable aggregators (managed under a
Public Utilities Commission or Energy Commission contract) to efficiently document,
aggregate, and sell CO2 reductions in the Cap-and-Trade market on behalf of the
businesses, schools, and real estate owners that invest in EE. This would allow businesses
and building owners investing in electrical or natural gas efficiency to receive the value of
the associated CO2 reductions. The value of CO2 would offset a significant part of the
capital cost of EE investments, increasing the depth and volume of energy efficiency
investments.

http://usgbc-california.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CO2toEE-20.pdf

B. Energy Efficiency in Regulatory Compliance

Shreveport, LA Performance Contracting project

o Shreveports Early Action Compact (EAC) submission to USEPA for the 8-Hour Ozone
Standard under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
o 20-year Performance Contract for 33 Municipal Buildings - Energy Savings of 9,121,335
kWh/Yr Guaranteed with annual true-up to ensure energy savings
o http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/energy/policypapers/workshop/AdamChambersNREL.p
df
o Assessing the permanence of the emissions reduction is another key issue. A high level of
project certainty and permanence is required for SIP planning purposes. In the Shreveport
project, there is a high level of certainty that permanent emissions benefits will result from
this project due to the longevity and nature of the Performance Contract between Johnson
Controls, Inc. and the City of Shreveport. The 20-year Performance Contract provides
details of the expense, duration, and magnitude of the lighting system upgrades, mechanical
system upgrades, control system upgrades, water conservation upgrades, and other
miscellaneous upgrades, and guarantees the energy performance of the overall system.
o http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37721.pdf

Connecticut EERS Compliance using Energy Savings Certificates

o Most of the Connecticut ESCs are based on energy savings achieved by the states two
major EDCs, which jointly implement a wide variety of EE programs, called Conservation
and Load Management Fund (CLM) programs. The EE programs are supported through
the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund (CEEF), an EE public benefits fund (PBF) whose
revenues come from a 3 mill ($0.003) per kWh levy on electricity sales ESCs generated
from these CLM programs are owned by the CEEF or by the program participant, who
typically surrenders ownership of the ESCs to the CEEF in exchange for program
incentives. The CEEF then sells a portion of the ESCs to electric generators, who are
responsible for compliance with the state EERS. Additional ESCs are expected to be
issued to third-party providers, with an increasing share in future years.
o http://library.cee1.org/sites/default/files/library/8575/CEE_Eval_Energy%20Savings%20Cr
edits%20_Are%20Potential%20Benefits%20Being%20Realized_1Jan2010.pdf