LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENERGY AUDIT PROGRAM: ENERGY AUDIT REPORT

Transcription

1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENERGY AUDIT PROGRAM: ENERGY AUDIT REPORT PREPARED FOR: EAST ORANGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 199 FOURTH AVENUE EAST ORANGE, NJ ATTN: CRAIG SMITH ACTING ASSISTANT BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: CONCORD ENGINEERING GROUP 520 S. BURNT MILL ROAD VOORHEES, NJ TELEPHONE: (856) FACSIMILE: (856) CEG CONTACT: KEVIN BLANKENBUEHLER, CEM DIRECTOR, ENERGY SERVICES REPORT ISSUANCE: FINAL, AUGUST 31, 2015 PROJECT NO:

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 4 II. INTRODUCTION... 9 III. METHOD OF ANALYSIS IV. HISTORIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST A. ENERGY USAGE B. ENERGY USE INDEX (EUI) C. EPA ENERGY BENCHMARKING SYSTEM V. RENEWABLE/DISTRIBUTED ENERGY MEASURES VI. ENERGY PURCHASING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGY VII. INSTALLATION FUNDING OPTIONS A. INCENTIVE PROGRAMS: B. FINANCING OPTIONS: VIII. ENERGY AUDIT ASSUMPTIONS Enclosures: Document 1 Hart Complex Energy Report Document 2 Cicely Tyson Middle & High School Energy Report Document 3 Langston Hughes Elementary School Energy Report Document 4 Dionne Warwick Institute Energy Report Document 5 STEM Academy Energy Report Document 6 Robeson Stadium Energy Report Document 7 Whitney Houston Academy Energy Report Document 8 Ecole T. Louverture School Energy Report Document 9 Gordon Parks Academy Energy Report Document 10 Edmonson High School Energy Report Document 11 Carver Annex Energy Report Document 12 Althea Gibson Academy Energy Report August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 1 of 53

3 Document 13 Mildred Barry Garvin School Energy Report Document 14 Edward Bowser Elementary School Energy Report Document 15 Benjamin Banneker Academy Energy Report Document 16 EOSD Central Office Energy Report Document 17 East Orange Campus High School Energy Report Document 18 Johnnie Cochran Academy Energy Report Document 19 Carver Institute Energy Report Document 20 Jackson Academy Energy Report Document 21 Cicely Tyson Elementary School Energy Report Document 22 Wahlstrom Academy Energy Report August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 2 of 53

4 REPORT DISCLAIMER The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person designated as responsible for delivering such messages to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this report, in whole or in part, without written authorization from Group, Inc., 520 S. Burnt Mill Road, Voorhees, NJ This report may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you have received this report in error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 3 of 53

5 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of the energy audit conducted for: Entity: Facilities: East Orange School District 22 District Facilities 2,104,289 square-feet Contact Person: Mr. Craig Smith Acting Assistant School Business Administrator This audit is performed in connection with the New Jersey Clean Energy - Local Government Energy Audit Program for the East Orange School District. The purpose of this analysis is to provide the owner insight into the energy savings potential that exists within the facilities. Energy Efficiency changes and upgrades require support from the building occupants, operations personnel, and the administrators of the building in order to maximize the savings and overall benefit. The efficiency improvement of public buildings provides a benefit for the environment and the residents of New Jersey. The Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) identified within the reports represent the potential annual savings at each facility. It is recommended the owner consider all ECMs as part of an initiative to save energy, reduce emissions, and lower operating costs. The owner should review and be familiar with all measures presented in the reports prior to making a decision on which projects to move forward with. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 4 of 53

6 Overall Assessment: Overall, the District s many facilities vary in overall building energy efficiency from excellent to below average. The District s overall cost per square-foot for energy is $2.31 above industry standard typical costs of $2.00 per square-foot, and while this is not a definitive metric of energy inefficiency it does provide guidance on facilities that are more energy cost intensive and likely have energy efficiency opportunities. The report outlines many recommendations across the District facilities audited, which in totality could result in an energy cost reduction of nearly 25%. It is recommended the District take a hard look at the facilities with aging systems that are in need of replacement as priorities in developing an overall energy project strategy. Facilities in this type of condition are usually the most energy intensive and the implementation of energy improvements will provide the most benefit over the long term. On the whole, recommends the District review and be familiar with all measures presented in each facility report prior to making a decision on which projects to move forward with. This will enable the District to effectively align report recommendations with those outlined in their mid/long range facility plans and financial plans. The District should also review all conventional and unconventional funding options, along with all NJCEP funding opportunities for these projects and determine which options fit their budget most positively in the short and long term. The combination of this information will enable the District to put together an effective Energy Savings Improvement Strategy that maximizes the received benefits of the selected projects. The Installation and Funding Options Section further outlines what programs are potentially available to the District for funding the project. Concord has outlined below a combined project summary summing up all of the proposed projects for all audited facilities for consideration by the District. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 5 of 53

7 Table 1 Combined Energy Conservation Project Summary COMBINED POTENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT FACILITY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS ($) PROJECT COST ($) SMART START INCENTIVES CUSTOMER COST SIMPLE PAYBACK Hart Complex $182,963 $3,521,076 $109,420 $3,411, Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School Langston Hughes Elementary Dionne Warwick Institute $26,713 $307,140 $32,995 $274, $22,557 $282,809 $17,915 $264, $105,112 $1,160,761 $16,705 $1,144, STEM Academy $48,554 $761,444 $98,722 $662, Robeson Stadium $4,693 $88,619 $4,558 $84, Whitney Houston Academy Ecole T. Louverture School Gordon Parks Academy Edmonson High School $75,764 $714,445 $8,820 $705, $39,955 $116,720 $7,650 $109, $118,498 $540,923 $9,875 $531, $13,714 $220,946 $9,287 $211, Carver Annex $4,166 $47,363 $2,325 $45, Althea Gibson Academy Mildred Barry Garvin School Edward Bowser Elementary School Benjamin Banneker Academy $15,459 $301,515 $9,098 $292, $14,735 $145,197 $19,405 $125, $71,707 $1,223,988 $72,395 $1,151, $21,449 $215,483 $17,690 $197, EOSD Central Office $7,828 $54,434 $6,735 $47, August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 6 of 53

8 COMBINED POTENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT FACILITY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS ($) PROJECT COST ($) SMART START INCENTIVES CUSTOMER COST SIMPLE PAYBACK East Orange Campus High School Johnnie Cochran Academy $76,670 $2,442,850 $111,582 $2,331, $10,332 $172,121 $6,945 $165, Carver Institute $93,865 $988,485 $31,670 $956, Jackson Academy $16,792 $690,460 $16,960 $673, Cicely Tyson Elementary $12,186 $173,303 $13,285 $160, Wahlstrom Academy $13,700 $283,760 $12,840 $270, Total Entity Project $997,414 $14,453,837 $636,877 $13,816, Total Entity Energy Costs: $4,332,837 Est. Total Entity Energy Savings: $997,414 Overall Percent Cost Reduction: 23.0% Other Considerations: Renewable Energy Conservation Measures: Renewable Energy Measures (REMs) were also reviewed for implementation at East Orange School District Facilities. The District has potential for solar installations at some of its facilities with a total estimated capacity of 1,348 kwdc. Further details regarding the District s solar potential is outlined in the Renewable Energy section and each facility report. The potential for wind generation was also reviewed for the District; however based on historical wind speed data, make it not a viable option. Energy Procurement Recommendations: The District is currently contracted with a third party supplier for electric and natural gas through the ACES Agreement, recommends they continue to purchase their electric and natural gas commodity through a third party supplier once the current contract has expired. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 7 of 53

9 Furthermore Concord strongly recommends the district look into a 3 rd party utility bill auditing consultant that can review both electric, gas, fuel oil, water, sewer, telephone, cable, and other services for missed, incorrect, and/or incomplete billings. These services can typically be performed on a shared savings payment structure, meaning no out of pocket costs for the District. Maintenance and Operational Recommendations: In addition to the ECMs and REMs, there are maintenance and operational measures that can provide significant energy savings and provide immediate benefit, many of which the owner are already performing. The ECMs listed above represent investments that can be made to the facility which are justified by the savings seen over time. However, the maintenance items and small operational improvements below are typically achievable with on-site staff or maintenance contractors and in turn have the potential to provide substantial operational savings compared to the costs associated. The following are recommendations which should be considered a priority in achieving energy efficient buildings since they are low cost/no cost energy conservation measures that include good operation & maintenance practices. Further recommendations per building are provided in the individual building reports: 1. Chemically clean the condenser and evaporator coils periodically to optimize efficiency. Poorly maintained heat transfer surfaces can reduce efficiency 5-10%. 2. Maintain all weather stripping on windows and doors. 3. Clean all light fixtures to maximize light output. 4. Provide more frequent air filter changes to decrease overall system power usage and maintain better IAQ. 5. Verify all control systems are utilizing setback and scheduling capabilities. 6. Replacement of older CRT style monitors with newer LCD/LED style monitors. Older CRT style monitors use up to four times more energy than LCD/LED monitor types. 7. Educate staff and students on awareness of wasteful energy practices such as leaving lights on unnecessarily, leaving on of non-essential computer and/or equipment at the end of the day, leaving of outside doors/windows open as a means to control room temperature, etc. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 8 of 53

10 II. INTRODUCTION The comprehensive energy audit covers the following buildings in East Orange School District: ENERGY AUDIT FACILITY SUMMARY FACILITY AREA (SQ-FT) ADDRESS Hart Complex 320,888 Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School 287,000 Langston Hughes Elementary 101,805 Dionne Warwick Institute 99,000 STEM Academy 149,000 Robeson Stadium 17,461 Whitney Houston Academy 103,000 Ecole T. Louverture School 60,000 Gordon Parks Academy 50,000 Edmonson High School 17,500 Carver Annex 40,618 Althea Gibson Academy 20,670 Mildred Barry Garvin School 75,853 Edward Bowser Elementary School 100,000 Benjamin Banneker Academy 91,505 EOSD Central Office 24,585 Hamilton & N. Clinton Street East Orange, NJ Winans Street East Orange, NJ Rhode Island Avenue East Orange, NJ Central avenue East orange, NJ Renshaw Avenue East orange, NJ N. Clinton Avenue East Orange, NJ Dodd Street East Orange, NJ Central Avenue East Orange, NJ Greenwood Avenue East Orange, NJ Halstead Street East Orange, NJ Glenwood Avenue East Orange, NJ William Street East Orange, NJ Grove place East Orange, NJ Lincoln Street East Orange, NJ S. Clinton Street East Orange, NJ th Avenue East Orange, NJ August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 9 of 53

11 ENERGY AUDIT FACILITY SUMMARY FACILITY AREA (SQ-FT) ADDRESS East Orange Campus High School 231,664 Johnnie Cochran Academy 50,000 Carver Institute 102,800 Jackson Academy 35,300 Cicely Tyson Elementary 85,640 Wahlstrom Academy 40, Prospect Street East Orange, NJ Midland Avenue East Orange, NJ Glenwood Avenue East Orange, NJ Prospect Street East Orange, NJ N. Arlington Avenue East Orange, NJ Propsect Street East Orange, NJ This audit is performed in connection with the New Jersey Clean Energy - Local Government Energy Audit Program. The energy audit is conducted to promote the mission of the office of Clean Energy, which is to use innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. Electrical and natural gas utility information is collected and analyzed for one full year s energy use of each building. The utility information allows for analysis of the building s operational characteristics; calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimated savings potential, and baseline usage/cost to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. A computer spreadsheet is used to calculate benchmarks and to graph utility information (see the utility profiles below). The Energy Use Index (EUI) is established for the building. Energy Use Index (EUI) is expressed in British Thermal Units/square foot/year (BTU/ft 2 /yr), which is used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting the annual consumption of all energy sources to BTU s and dividing by the area (gross square footage) of the building. Blueprints (where available) are utilized to verify the gross area of the facility. The EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A low EUI indicates less potential for energy savings, while a high EUI indicates poor building performance therefore a high potential for energy savings. Existing building architectural and engineering drawings (where available) are utilized for additional background information. The building envelope, lighting systems, HVAC equipment, August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 10 of 53

12 and controls information gathered from building drawings allow for a more accurate and detailed review of the building. The information is compared to the energy usage profiles developed from utility data. Through the review of the architectural and engineering drawings a building profile can be defined that documents building age, type, usage, major energy consuming equipment or systems, etc. The preliminary audit information is gathered in preparation for the site survey. The site survey provides critical information in deciphering where energy is spent and opportunities exist within a facility. The entire site is surveyed to inventory the following to gain an understanding of how each facility operates: Building envelope (roof, windows, etc.) Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC) Lighting systems and controls Facility-specific equipment The building site visit is performed to survey all major building components and systems. The site visit includes detailed inspection of energy consuming components. Summary of building occupancy schedules, operating and maintenance practices, and energy management programs provided by the building manager are collected along with the system and components to determine a more accurate impact on energy consumption. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 11 of 53

13 III. METHOD OF ANALYSIS This audit is consistent with an ASHRAE level 2 audit. The cost and savings for each measure is ± 20%. The evaluations are based on engineering estimations and industry standard calculation methods. More detailed analyses would require engineering simulation models, hard equipment specifications, and contractor bid pricing. Post site visit work includes evaluation of the information gathered, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on HVAC, lighting and building envelope improvements. Data collected is processed using energy engineering calculations to anticipate energy usage for each of the proposed energy conservation measures (ECMs). The actual building s energy usage is entered directly from the utility bills provided by the owner. The anticipated energy usage is compared to the historical data to determine energy savings for the proposed ECMs. It is pertinent to note, that the savings noted in this report are not additive. The savings for each recommendation is calculated as standalone energy conservation measures. Implementation of more than one ECM may in some cases affect the savings of each ECM. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual ECM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended ECMs. For example implementing reduced operating schedules for inefficient lighting will result in a greater relative savings. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. The project / Entity summary tables are based on the implementation of multiple measures. The analysis is reviewed and determined if the nature of the ECMs will cause a major conflict of the overall savings. When additive measures do not cause a major effect on the overall savings the ECMs are included. Where a major conflict is identified, the combined savings is evaluated appropriately to ensure the overall estimates are ± 20%. ECMs are determined by identifying the building s unique properties and deciphering the most beneficial energy saving measures available that meet the specific needs of the facility. The building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans are critical in the evaluation and final recommendations. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. Energy consumption is calculated based on manufacturer s cataloged information when new equipment is proposed. Cost savings are calculated based on the actual historical energy costs for the facility. Installation costs include labor and equipment costs to estimate the full up-front investment required to implement a change. Costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, and local contractors and equipment suppliers. The NJ Smart Start Building program incentives savings (where applicable) are included for the appropriate ECM s and subtracted from the installed cost. Maintenance savings are calculated where applicable and added to the energy savings for each ECM. The life-time for each ECM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The costs and savings are applied and a simple payback, simple lifetime savings, and simple return on investment are calculated. See below for calculation methods: August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 12 of 53

14 ECM Calculation Equations: Net Cost Simple Payback Yearly Savings Simple Lifetime Savings Yearly Savings ECM Lifetime Simple Lifetime Return on Investment ROI Simple Lifetime Savings Net Cost Net Cost Lifetime Maintenance Savings Yearly Maintenance Savings ECM Lifetime Net Present Value Cash Flow of Period 1 DR Internal Rate of Return IRR Net Present Value 0 Cash Flow of Period 1 IRR Net Present Value calculations are based on Discount Rate (DR) of 3%. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 13 of 53

15 IV. HISTORIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION/COST A. Energy Usage The energy usage for the facilities is tabulated and plotted in graph form as depicted within each facility report (see the individual facility energy audit reports for details). Each energy source has been identified and monthly consumption and cost noted per the information provided by the Owner. The electric, natural gas, and fuel oil utilities are shown below in Table 2, 3, & 4 for all facilities: Table 2 Electric Utility Summary ELECTRIC UTILITY USAGE PER FACILITY FACILITY ANNUAL ELECTRIC UTILITY DESCRIPTION USAGE (KWH) COST ($) AVE RATE ($/KWH) Hart Complex 3,899,704 $513,116 $0.132 Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School 2,667,981 $428,997 $0.161 Langston Hughes Elementary 1,248,340 $191,088 $0.153 Dionne Warwick Institute 310,154 $51,048 $0.165 STEM Academy 933,457 $142,942 $0.153 Robeson Stadium 326,889 $55,307 $0.169 Whitney Houston Academy 116,010 $19,311 $0.166 Ecole T. Louverture School 224,400 $37,379 $0.167 Gordon Parks Academy 219,690 $35,040 $0.159 Edmonson High School 215,940 $34,135 $0.158 Carver Annex 35,886 $6,196 $0.173 August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 14 of 53

16 ELECTRIC UTILITY USAGE PER FACILITY FACILITY ANNUAL ELECTRIC UTILITY DESCRIPTION USAGE (KWH) COST ($) AVE RATE ($/KWH) Althea Gibson Academy 245,170 $41,615 $0.170 Mildred Barry Garvin School 1,084,800 $165,840 $0.153 Edward Bowser Elementary School 1,278,176 $182,192 $0.143 Benjamin Banneker Academy 1,136,400 $166,571 $0.147 EOSD Central Office 497,448 $68,611 $0.138 East Orange Campus High School 3,346,958 $487,507 $0.146 Johnnie Cochran Academy 177,760 $30,423 $0.171 Carver Institute 614,118 $98,855 $0.161 Jackson Academy 368,010 $57,074 $0.155 Cicely Tyson Elementary Wahlstrom Academy 406,560 $67,753 $0.167 Total 19,353,851 $2,881,002 $0.149 Note: Cicely Tyson Elementary School and Cicely Tyson Middle & High School share a single electric account. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 15 of 53

17 Table 3 Natural Gas Summary NATURAL GAS UTILTY USAGE PER FACILITY FACILITY ANNUAL NATURAL GAS UTILITY DESCRIPTION USAGE (THERMS) COST ($) AVE RATE ($/THERM) Hart Complex 124,814 $103,734 $0.83 Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School 120,389 $96,105 $0.80 Langston Hughes Elementary 63,618 $57,096 $0.90 Dionne Warwick Institute 1,977 $1,712 $0.87 STEM Academy 165,329 $149,965 $0.91 Robeson Stadium 15,594 $13,928 $0.89 Whitney Houston Academy 1,128 $1,196 $1.06 Ecole T. Louverture School 762 $788 $1.03 Gordon Parks Academy 1,531 $1,424 $0.93 Edmonson High School 12,086 $10,419 $0.86 Carver Annex 253 $331 $1.31 Althea Gibson Academy 15,753 $15,612 $0.99 Mildred Barry Garvin School 17,947 $16,239 $0.90 Edward Bowser Elementary School 42,691 $34,608 $0.81 Benjamin Banneker Academy 77,258 $62,311 $0.81 August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 16 of 53

18 NATURAL GAS UTILTY USAGE PER FACILITY FACILITY ANNUAL NATURAL GAS UTILITY DESCRIPTION USAGE (THERMS) COST ($) AVE RATE ($/THERM) EOSD Central Office 21,019 $17,676 $0.84 East Orange Campus High School 97,623 $77,993 $0.80 Johnnie Cochran Academy 29,042 $24,560 $0.85 Carver Institute 10,790 $10,258 $0.95 Jackson Academy 16,039 $14,360 $0.90 Cicely Tyson Elementary 46,509 $38,961 $0.84 Wahlstrom Academy 89,878 $73,539 $0.82 Total 972,032 $822,817 $0.85 August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 17 of 53

19 Table 4 Fuel Oil Summary #2 FUEL OIL UTILTY USAGE PER FACILITY FACILITY ANNUAL #2 FUEL OIL UTILITY DESCRIPTION USAGE (GALLONS) COST ($) AVE RATE ($/GALLON) Hart Complex 0 $0 - Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School 0 $0 - Langston Hughes Elementary 0 $0 - Dionne Warwick Institute 47,692 $118,843 $2.49 STEM Academy 0 $0 - Robeson Stadium 0 $0 - Whitney Houston Academy 54,620 $124,803 $2.28 Ecole T. Louverture School 36,124 $82,554 $2.29 Gordon Parks Academy 47,716 $129,665 $2.72 Edmonson High School 0 $0 - Carver Annex 0 $0 - Althea Gibson Academy 0 $0 - Mildred Barry Garvin School 0 $0 - Edward Bowser Elementary School 25,887 $57,945 $2.24 Benjamin Banneker Academy 0 $0 - August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 18 of 53

20 #2 FUEL OIL UTILTY USAGE PER FACILITY FACILITY ANNUAL #2 FUEL OIL UTILITY DESCRIPTION USAGE (GALLONS) COST ($) AVE RATE ($/GALLON) EOSD Central Office 0 $0 - East Orange Campus High School 0 $0 - Johnnie Cochran Academy 0 $0 - Carver Institute 49,904 $115,209 $2.31 Jackson Academy 0 $0 - Cicely Tyson Elementary 0 $0 - Wahlstrom Academy 0 $0 - Total 261,942 $629,018 $2.40 August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 19 of 53

21 B. Energy Use Index (EUI) Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of a building s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (BTU) and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The Energy Cost Index (ECI) can be used as another metric to assist in benchmarking a building s energy performance. In instances where entities own multiply buildings the ECI can allow them to quickly compare energy costs between buildings based on a common unit. Facility s with high costs per square-foot can alert the owner to the potential for energy efficiency improvements and/or warrant further investigation to determine why the costs are higher. The site and source EUI, and ECI for each facility is calculated as follows: Building Site EUI Electric Usage in kbtu Fuel Usage in kbtu Building Square Footage Building Source EUI Electric Usage in kbtu SS Ratio Fuel Usage in kbtu SS Ratio Building Sqaure Footage Building ECI Electric Cost Natural Gas Cost Fuel Oil Cost Propane Cost Building Square Footage August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 20 of 53

22 Table 5 Energy Use Index Summary ENERGY USE INDEX PER FACILITY FACILITY BUILDING AREA ENERGY USE INDEX ENERGY COST INDEX DESCRIPTION (SF) SITE (KBTU/SF /YR) SOURCE (KBTU/SF /YR) $/SF/YR Hart Complex 320, $1.92 Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School 278, $1.89 Langston Hughes Elementary 101, $2.44 Dionne Warwick Institute 99, $1.73 STEM Academy 149, $1.97 Robeson Stadium 17, $3.97 Whitney Houston Academy 103, $1.41 Ecole T. Louverture School 60, $2.01 Gordon Parks Academy 50, $3.32 Edmonson High School 17, $2.55 Carver Annex 40, $0.16 Althea Gibson Academy 20, $2.77 Mildred Barry Garvin School 75, $2.40 Edward Bowser Elementary School 100, $2.75 Benjamin Banneker Academy 91, $2.50 August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 21 of 53

23 ENERGY USE INDEX PER FACILITY FACILITY BUILDING AREA ENERGY USE INDEX ENERGY COST INDEX DESCRIPTION (SF) SITE (KBTU/SF /YR) SOURCE (KBTU/SF /YR) $/SF/YR EOSD Central Office 24, $3.51 East Orange Campus High School 231, $2.44 Johnnie Cochran Academy 50, $1.10 Carver Institute 102, $2.18 Jackson Academy 35, $2.02 Cicely Tyson Elementary 85, Wahlstrom Academy 40, $3.53 Total 2,095, $2.31 See the Appendix C - Statement of Energy Performance for comparison to other facilities Note: A further comparison of Site and Source EUI to Peer Group Comparison building data published by the Energy and Information Administration is provided in each individual building report. It should be cautioned that not all buildings perfectly match a Peer Group Comparison Type. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 22 of 53

24 C. EPA Energy Benchmarking System The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an effort to promote energy management has created a system for benchmarking energy use amongst various end users. The benchmarking tool utilized for this analysis is entitled Portfolio Manager. The Portfolio Manager tool allows tracking and assessment of energy consumption via the template forms located on the ENERGY STAR website ( The importance of benchmarking for local government municipalities is becoming more important as utility costs continue to increase and emphasis is being placed on carbon reduction, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts. Based on information gathered from the ENERGY STAR website, Government agencies spend more than $10 billion a year on energy to provide public services and meet constituent needs. Furthermore, energy use in commercial buildings and industrial facilities is responsible for more than 50 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. It is vital that local government municipalities assess facility energy usage, benchmark energy usage utilizing Portfolio Manager, set priorities and goals to lessen energy usage and move forward with priorities and goals. In accordance with the Local Government Energy Audit Program, CEG has created an ENERGY STAR account for the owner to access and monitoring the facility s yearly energy usage as it compares to facilities of similar type. The login page for the account can be accessed at the following web address; the username and password are also listed below: Note: It is recommended the owner change the account password once the audit process is complete. The utility bills and other information gathered during the energy audit process are entered into the Portfolio Manager. The following is a summary of the results for the facility: August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 23 of 53

25 Table 6 Energy Star Performance Summary ENERGY STAR PERFORMANCE RATING PER FACILITY FACILITY ENERGY STAR PERFORMANCE RATING DESCRIPTION SCORE AVERAGE POTENTIAL CERTIFICATIONS Hart Complex No Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School Yes Langston Hughes Elementary No Dionne Warwick Institute No STEM Academy No Robeson Stadium N/A 50 No Whitney Houston Academy No Ecole T. Louverture School No Gordon Parks Academy No Edmonson High School No Carver Annex No Althea Gibson Academy No Mildred Barry Garvin School No Edward Bowser Elementary School No Benjamin Banneker Academy No August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 24 of 53

26 ENERGY STAR PERFORMANCE RATING PER FACILITY FACILITY ENERGY STAR PERFORMANCE RATING DESCRIPTION SCORE AVERAGE POTENTIAL CERTIFICATIONS EOSD Central Office 9 50 No East Orange Campus High School No Johnnie Cochran Academy Yes Carver Institute No Jackson Academy No Cicely Tyson Elementary Yes Wahlstrom Academy 1 50 No See the Appendix C - Statement of Energy Performance for comparative facilities Score: "N/A" represents facility that could not receive a rating. See Energy Star website for details. Note: Cicely Tyson Elementary School and Cicely Tyson Middle & High School share a single electric account. Because of this, an individual Energy Star score could not be awarded. The score given to both facilities is based on a 2-building K-12 school with the combined total electric and gas usage of both facilities. Refer to Statement of Energy Performance Appendix for the detailed energy summary for each facility. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 25 of 53

27 V. RENEWABLE/DISTRIBUTED ENERGY MEASURES Globally, renewable energy has become a priority affecting international and domestic energy policy. The State of New Jersey has taken a proactive approach, and has recently adopted in its Energy Master Plan a goal of 30% renewable energy by To help reach this goal New Jersey created the Office of Clean Energy under the direction of the Board of Public Utilities and instituted a Renewable Energy Incentive Program to provide additional funding to private and public entities for installing qualified renewable technologies. A renewable energy source can greatly reduce a building s operating expenses while producing clean environmentally friendly energy. Solar Generation Solar energy produces clean energy and reduces a building s carbon footprint. This is accomplished via photovoltaic panels which are mounted on all south and southwestern facades of the building. Flat roof, as well as sloped areas can be utilized; flat areas will have the panels turned to an optimum solar absorbing angle. (A structural survey of the roof would be necessary before the installation of PV panels is considered). Parking lots can also be utilized for the installation of a solar array. A truss system can be installed that is high enough to park vehicles under the array and no parking lot area is lost. The State of NJ has instituted a program in which one Solar Renewable Energy Certificate (SREC) is given to the Owner for every 1000 kwh of generation. SREC s can be sold anytime on the market at their current market value. The value of the credit varies upon the current need of the power companies. The average value per credit used in our financial calculations is $191 per MWH. This equates to $0.191 per kwh generated. CEG has reviewed the existing roof, ground, and parking lot area potential of the facilities being audited for the purposes of determining a potential for a photovoltaic system. The facilities were evaluated for the most economical and feasible areas for the installation of solar arrays. It should be noted a structural analysis was not performed on the areas where roof systems were recommended. A depiction of the areas utilized at each facility is shown in Renewable / Distributed Energy Measures Calculation Appendix. The system sizes are shown below for each building where installation of a solar PV system is feasible. The total KWH production for all facilities combined is 1,586,947 kwh annually, reducing the overall utility bill for the District by approximately 8.2% percent. A detailed financial analysis can be found in the Renewable / Distributed Energy Measures Calculation Appendix within each facility report. This analysis illustrates the payback of the system over a 15 year period. The eventual degradation of the solar panels and the price of accumulated SREC s are factored into the payback. Most of the facilities that were audited are good candidates for new solar PV systems (see Table 7 below). August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 26 of 53

28 Table 7 Renewable Energy Summary POWER PRODUCTION SUMMARY - PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM PER FACILITY FACILITY PRODUCTION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION SYSTEM SIZE (KW DC ) ELECTRIC PRODUCTION (KWH) % REDUCTION Hart Complex , % Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School , % Langston Hughes Elementary , % Dionne Warwick Institute , % STEM Academy , % Robeson Stadium % Whitney Houston Academy , % Ecole T. Louverture School % Gordon Parks Academy , % Edmonson High School , % Carver Annex % Althea Gibson Academy % Mildred Barry Garvin School , % Edward Bowser Elementary School , % Benjamin Banneker Academy % August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 27 of 53

29 POWER PRODUCTION SUMMARY - PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM PER FACILITY FACILITY PRODUCTION SUMMARY DESCRIPTION SYSTEM SIZE (KW DC ) ELECTRIC PRODUCTION (KWH) % REDUCTION EOSD Central Office , % East Orange Campus High School % Johnnie Cochran Academy , % Carver Institute , % Jackson Academy , % Cicely Tyson Elementary ,298 - Wahlstrom Academy , % Total 1,348 1,586, % The proposed photovoltaic array layout is designed based on the specifications for the Sharp Model ND-240QCJ panel. This panel has a DC rated full load output of 240 watts, and has a total panel conversion efficiency of 14.4%. Although panels rated at higher wattages are available through Sharp and other various manufacturers, in general most manufacturers who produce commercially available solar panels produce a similar panel in the 200 to 250 watt range. This provides more manufacturer options to the public entity if they wish to pursue the proposed solar recommendation without losing significant system capacity. The array system capacity was sized based on available roof space, ground area, or parking canopy style system area available at each existing facility. Estimated solar array generation is calculated based on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory PVWatts Version 1.0 Calculator. In order to calculate the array generation an appropriate location with solar data on file must be selected. In addition the system DC rated kilowatt (kw) capacity must be inputted, a DC to AC de-rate factor, panel tilt angle, and array azimuth angle. The DC to AC de-rate factor is based on the panel nameplate DC rating, inverter and transformer efficiencies (95%), mismatch factor (98%), diodes and connections (100%), dc and ac wiring(98%, 99%), soiling, (95%), system availability (95%), shading (if applicable), and age(new/100%). The overall DC to AC de-rate factor has been calculated at an overall rating of 86%. The PVWatts Calculator program then August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 28 of 53

30 calculates estimated system generation based on average monthly solar irradiance and user provided inputs. The monthly energy generation and offset electric costs from the PVWatts calculator is shown in the Renewable/Distributed Energy Measures Calculation Appendix. The proposed solar array for each facility is qualified by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Net Metering Guidelines as a Class I Renewable Energy Source. These guidelines allow onsite customer generation using renewable energy sources such as solar and wind with a capacity of 2 megawatts (MW) or less. This limits a customer system design capacity to being a net user and not a net generator of electricity on an annual basis. Although these guidelines state that if a customer does net generate (produce more electricity than they use), the customer will be credited those kilowatt-hours generated to be carried over for future usage on a month to month basis. Then, on an annual basis if the customer is a net generator the customer will then be compensated by the utility the average annual PJM Grid LMP price per kilowatt-hour for the over generation. The PJM Interconnection uses a system called Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP) to establish the price of energy purchases or sales to the PJM wholesale electricity market. LMP takes into account the effect of actual operating conditions on the transmission system in determining the price of electricity at different locations in the PJM region. Due to the aforementioned legislation, the customer is at limited risk if they generate more than they use at times throughout the year. With the inefficiency of today s energy storage systems, such as batteries, the added cost of storage systems is not warranted and was not considered in the proposed design. Direct purchase involves the District paying for 100% of the total project cost upfront in lieu of one of the methods noted in the Installation Funding Options section below. Calculations include a utility inflation rate as well as the degradation of the solar panels over time. The financial summary per facility is as follows: Total Savings from photovoltaic projects at the District facilities as calculated in the table above is defined as the first year s kwh reduction by the system generating its own electricity plus the revenue from the SREC. This value obviously declines each year as the amount of electricity generated by the photovoltaic system declines and the value of the SREC also is assumed to decline. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) calculations are commonly used to evaluate the desirability of investments or energy projects. The higher an energy project s IRR, the more desirable it is to undertake the project. The District should, in theory, undertake all energy projects or investments available with IRRs that exceed the cost of capital. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 29 of 53

31 Table 8 Renewable Financial Summary FINANCIAL SUMMARY - PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM PER FACILITY FACILITY DIRECT PURCHASE FINANCIAL SUMMARY DESCRIPTION INSTALATION COST ($) TOTAL SAVINGS ($) INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN Hart Complex $1,746,268 $138, % Cicely L. Tyson Middle & High School $522,013 $43, % Langston Hughes Elementary $69,554 $6, % Dionne Warwick Institute $243,868 $19, % STEM Academy $552,039 $39, % Robeson Stadium $0 $0 0.0% Whitney Houston Academy $118,957 $9, % Ecole T. Louverture School $7,680 $ % Gordon Parks Academy $131,962 $10, % Edmonson High School $189,875 $13, % Carver Annex $0 $0 0.0% Althea Gibson Academy $0 $0 0.0% Mildred Barry Garvin School $596,209 $49, % Edward Bowser Elementary School $370,094 $28, % Benjamin Banneker Academy $0 $0 0.0% August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 30 of 53

32 FINANCIAL SUMMARY - PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM PER FACILITY FACILITY DIRECT PURCHASE FINANCIAL SUMMARY DESCRIPTION INSTALATION COST ($) TOTAL SAVINGS ($) INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN EOSD Central Office $158,886 $11, % East Orange Campus High School $0 $0 0.0% Johnnie Cochran Academy $76,217 $6, % Carver Institute $675,051 $56, % Jackson Academy $111,342 $8, % Cicely Tyson Elementary $287,943 $23, % Wahlstrom Academy $144,912 $11, % Total $6,002,872 $475,011 recommends the District review all options available for installation of new or expanded solar PV systems at their facilities including a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). This option utilizes providers who will own, operate, and maintain the system for a period of 15 years. During this time the PPA Provider would sell all of the electric generated by Solar Array to the District at a reduced rate compared to their existing electric rate. It should be noted that current SREC pricing has significantly impacted the PPA market for public entities in addition to the end of the 30% grant in lieu of the investment tax credit. These recent market changes have made it more difficult for public entities to secure low cost power purchase price options. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 31 of 53

33 Wind Generation In addition to evaluating solar, Concord also conducted a review of the applicability of wind energy for the District. Wind energy production is another option available through the Renewable Energy Incentive Program. Wind turbines of various types can be utilized to produce clean energy on a per building basis. Cash incentives are available per kwh of electric usage. Concord investigated the potential for smaller building mountable wind turbines, and horizontal turbines to maximize the available free space. In order to be economically viable a site requires a minimum average wind speed of 6 meters per second (13.5 mph). Based on the obtained wind data shown in Figure 3 for Freehold the annual average wind speed is 10.1 mph with a peak of 12.0 mph, making this area unattractive for wind development. Therefore, wind energy is not a viable option to implement. Figure 3: Monthly Wind Speed (East Orange, New Jersey) August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 32 of 53

34 VI. ENERGY PURCHASING AND PROCUREMENT STRATEGY Load Profile: Load Profile analysis was performed to determine the seasonal energy usage of the facilities. Irregularities in the load profile will indicate potential problems within the facilities. Consequently based on the profile a recommendation will be made to remedy the irregularity in energy usage. For this report, the facilities energy consumption data was gathered in table format and plotted in graph form to create the load profile. Refer to The Electric, Natural Gas, and Fuel Oil Usage Profiles included within this report to reference the respective load profiles. Electricity: The electricity usage profile demonstrates a cooling dominated load profile from winter to summer. As depicted in the table below you can see the average monthly consumption and demand profiles for each season for the district facilities as a whole. The historical usage profile is unfavorable as typically summer commodity rates are higher due to increased demand on the grid, compared with winter. Natural Gas: ELECTRIC UTILITY SEASONAL LOAD PROFILE SEASONAL AVERAGES FACILITY WINTER (OCT - APR) SUMMER (MAY - SEP) KWH PER KW PER KWH PER KW PER DESCRIPTION MONTH MONTH MONTH MONTH All District Facilities 1,487,788 3, ,787,867 4, The Natural Gas Usage Profile demonstrates a heating load dominated profile, with significant consumption drop off during the summer months. The table below shows the monthly average consumption for gas during the winter and summer seasons for the district facilities as a whole. NATURAL GAS UTILITY SEASONAL LOAD PROFILE SEASONAL AVERAGES FACILITY WINTER (OCT - APR) SUMMER (MAY - SEP) DESCRIPTION THERM PER MONTH THERM PER MONTH All District Facilities 128,440 14,591 This load profile will yield less than favorable natural gas prices due to the heating dominated profile. Higher winter month consumption will yield higher pricing which will not be offset by the summer month consumption. NYMEX commodity pricing is generally higher in the winter months of November March and lower in the summer months of April October. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 33 of 53

35 Fuel Oil: The Fuel Oil Profile demonstrated a heating dominated load profile, with fuel use in the summer attributed to the swing heating season periods in May and September. The average summer (May September) consumption is 98% less than the average winter (October- April) consumption. The follow table outlines the seasonal average monthly consumption for the district facilities that use fuel oil. Tariff Analysis: Electricity: #2 FUEL OIL UTILITY SEASONAL LOAD PROFILE SEASONAL AVERAGES FACILITY WINTER (OCT - APR) SUMMER (MAY - SEP) GALLONS PER GALLONS PER DESCRIPTION MONTH MONTH All District Facilities (5) 37, The District receives electrical service from Public Service Electric and Gas under commercial rate Large Power and Lighting Service (LPLS), and General Power and Lighting Service (GLP). The facility has contracted a Third Party Supplier (TPS), through the ACES agreement to provide electric commodity service. Direct Energy is the current contract holder however; the contract particulars such as product structure, price, term and conditions were not available for review or comments. For electric supply (generation) service, the client has a choice to either use PSE&G s default service rate BGS or contract with a Third Party Supplier (TPS) to supply electricity. Each year since 2002, the four New Jersey Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs) - Public Service Gas & Electric Company (PSE&G), Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE), Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L), and Rockland Electric Company (RECO) - have procured several billion dollars of electric supply to serve their Basic Generation Service (BGS) customers through a statewide auction process held in February. BGS refers to the service of customers who are not served by a third party supplier or competitive retailer. This service is sometimes known as Standard Offer Service, Default Service, or Provider of Last Resort Service. The Auction Process has consisted of two auctions that are held concurrently, one for larger customers on an hourly price plan (BGS-CIEP) and one for smaller commercial and residential customers on a fixed-price plan (BGS-FP). This facility s rate structure is based on the fixedprice plan (BGS-FP). The utility will continue to be responsible for maintaining the existing network of wires, pipes and poles that make up the delivery system, which will serve all consumers, regardless of whom August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 34 of 53

36 they choose to purchase their electricity or natural gas from. PSEG s delivery service rate includes the following charges: Customer Service Charge, Distribution Charge (kwh and Demand), Societal Benefits Charge (SBC), and Securitization Transition Charge. Natural Gas: The facilities currently receive natural gas distribution service from Public Service Electric & Gas (PSEG) under rate schedules General Service Gas (GSG), and Large Volume Service (LVG). The facility has contracted with a Third Party Supplier (TPS) under the ACES Agreement, with a current provider of South Jersey Industries, however, the contract particulars such as product structure, price, term and conditions were not available for review or comments. For natural gas supply service, the client has a choice to either use the utility s default service rate BGSS or contract with a Third Party Supplier (TPS) to supply natural gas commodity service. The utility provides basic gas supply service (BGSS) to customers who choose not to shop from a Third Party Supplier (TPS) for natural gas commodity. The option is essential to protect the reliability of service to consumers as well as protecting consumers if a third party supplier defaults or fails to provide commodity service. The utilities are responsible for maintaining the existing network of wires, pipes and poles that make up the delivery system, which will serve all consumers, regardless of whom they choose to purchase their electricity or natural gas from the utility s delivery service rate includes the following charges: Customer Service Charge, Distribution Charge, & Societal Benefits Charge (SBC). Fuel Oil: Fuel Oil is typically purchased on a time of delivery price basis, meaning with every delivery the cost per gallon fluctuates. Some fuel oil providers do offer fixed price structures for yearlong contracts that vary dependent on the client s consumption rate. While these structures can be beneficial for the owner on a fixed budget, they do not typically offer savings back to the owner if oil prices drastically dip below the agreed on price. Electric and Natural Gas Commodities Market Overview: In our region, electricity is produced by natural gas, nuclear, coal and renewables. Much of the recent electricity price fluctuations can be attributed to the spot natural gas pricing variations on generation that produces electricity and the retirement of coal plants that result in increased production demand from other sources of generation. It is important to note that both natural gas and electric commodity market prices are moved by supply and demand, political conditions, market technicals and trader sentiment. The market is continuously changing Energy commodity pricing is also correlated to weather forecasts. Because weather forecasts are dependable only in the short-term, prolonged temperature extremes can really cause extreme price swings. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 35 of 53

37 Short Term Energy Outlook - US Energy Information Administration (June 2015): U.S. Natural Gas Prices. Natural gas spot prices averaged $2.78/MMBtu at the Henry Hub in June, an decrease of $0.07/MMBtu from May. The monthly average natural gas price is expected to reamain lower than $3/MMBtu, and will remain below $4/MMBtu throughout the forecast period. Projected Henry Hub natural gas price averages $2.97/MMBtu in 2015 and $3.31/MMBtu in Natural gas futures prices for October 2015 delivery (for the five-day period ending July 1, 2015) averaged $2.85/MMBtu. Current options and futures prices imply that market participants place the lower and upper bounds for the 95% confidence interval for September 2015 contracts at around $1.79/MMBtu and $4.03/MMBtu, respectively. U.S. Electricity Retail Prices. EIA expects the U.S. residential price of electricity to raise an average 2.5% more than in 2014, with pricing in June 2015 of cents per kilowatt-hour. Residential electricity prices are expected to increase 2.4% during August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 36 of 53

38 U.S. Petroleum Product Prices. EIA expected even with the recent cold weather that heating oil prices will be lower than last winter, due to lower projected crude oil prices compared to last winter. Compared to last winter retail heating oil prices are expected to average $3.00/Gal this winter. August 31, 2015 FINAL Page 37 of 53