UC STRATEGIC ENERGY PLAN

Transcription

1 UC STRATEGIC ENERGY PLAN University of California, San Francisco University of California, San Francisco Medical Center FINAL Prepared for University of California Office of the President September 2, 28 Prepared by: Newcomb Anderson McCormick, Inc. 21 Mission Street, Suite 21 San Francisco, CA 9415 Phone: (415) Fax: (415)

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Policy on Sustainable Practices Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Strategic Energy Plan Projects INTRODUCTION Strategic Energy Plan Methodology General Project Identification Categories and Approach Campus Overview Central Plant Strategic Energy Plan Buildings Recent Energy Project Inventory HISTORICAL CAMPUS ENERGY USE FY 99- and 6-7 Energy Baseline HISTORIC BUILDING ENERGY USE Existing Metering Infrastructure Individual Building Metering Building Energy Use Targets UTILITIES Providers & Tariffs Procurement Options CAMPUS ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION Technologies Existing Equipment Potential Projects RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Lighting Projects HVAC Projects Monitoring Based Commissioning Projects Capital Program Projects Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects Campus Wide Projects Other Projects Custom Projects BUILDING OVERVIEW & PROJECTS PROJECT SUMMARIES PROJECT LISTS & SUMMARY OF PROJECTS /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UCSF and UCSF MC.doc i September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 12. ENERGY & GHG FORECAST Electricity Emissions Factors Gas Emissions Factors Current Energy Usage and Emissions Goals Goals SEP Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects CONCLUSIONS Next Steps and Recommendations Funding Sources APPENDICES Appendix A Field Data Forms Appendix B Savings Calculations Appendix C Other Calculations and Data /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UCSF and UCSF MC.doc ii September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

5 PREFACE This report was produced by Newcomb Anderson McCormick for the University of California, Office of the President (UCOP) and the University of California, San Francisco. Valuable assistance and direction was provided for this project by George Getgen, Dirk VanUlden, Clifton Bowen, Matthew St. Clair and John Rolle of the UC Office of the President, and Michael Bade, Don Nurisso, Maric Munn, Michael Toporkoff, Dick Chan, Ken Olson, Bruno Cekovic, Donn Carpenter, Zoila Kelly, Sukhjeet Sandhu, Susan Simpson, Joe Rios, John Thomson, Yiorgos Andritsakis, Brian Bennett and many other campus staff /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UCSF and UCSF MC.doc iii September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

6

7 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Policy on Sustainable Practices The Regents of the University of California adopted a Policy on Sustainable Practices in March 27 which states that the University will develop a Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) for implementing energy efficiency projects in existing buildings. The initial goal for the retrofit projects is to reduce systemwide, growth adjusted energy consumption by 1% or more by 214 from the year 2 base consumption level. In addition, the Policy directs the campuses to pursue the goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to year 2 levels by 214 and to 199 levels by 22. This target is not growth adjusted. The 22 target follows the AB32 directive on GHG emissions. Because electricity and gas purchases are expected to represent perhaps three quarters of a campus GHG emissions, the energy and GHG reduction goals are closely linked. It is anticipated that the Strategic Energy Plan projects will be one of the main tools the campus uses to meet its GHG targets. 1.2 Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Table 1.1 lists past, current and projected energy purchases by UC San Francisco, starting with the baseline year 2. The energy purchases are divided by the gross building area of the campus to establish an Energy Use Index to evaluate the growth adjusted energy use targets. The energy purchases are also converted to GHG emissions, using emissions factors for electricity generation and natural gas use. Individual campuses are preparing plans for meeting the GHG goals, due by December 28. Those plans will address the historical campus emissions in detail. At present the emissions factors for the different electricity providers operating in 2 and 199 are not available. For this Strategic Energy Plan the GHG emissions factors are based on the statewide emissions factors for 2. The 199 utility purchases are not currently available from university or utility records so the 22 target is undefined. The UC San Francisco energy purchases in the most recent year (FY 6-7) are also shown in Table 1.1. The cost of this energy in this year is $7,321, for electricity and $12,828, for natural gas, for a combined cost of $2,149,. The Energy Use Index and GHG emissions for this year can be compared with the 2 baseline to see progress to date on achieving the 214 target. Table 1.1 also shows growth in building area and energy use projected to the year 214 without investment in new energy efficiency, based on new construction identified in the Five Year Capital Program (27-8 to ). Actual growth could be higher. Finally this growth number includes the energy savings anticipated by the end of 28 for the Partnership projects funded in the 26-8 Program. 1.3 Strategic Energy Plan Projects This Strategic Energy Plan provides initial identification of potential for energy efficiency retrofit projects at all buildings over 5, square feet at University of California San /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 1-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

8 Francisco, summarized in Table 1.2. This includes primarily lighting, HVAC, commissioning and central plant measures. A number of other measures that apply in all sizes of buildings are identified as well. The potential for energy efficiency in new construction and renovated buildings is also addressed, based on the same Capital Program. A number of these efficiency projects were initially identified and evaluated by the campuses. A separate line item shows the potential from addition of photovoltaic power to additional roof areas on campus. This report does not represent an investment grade audit so the numbers are expected to be refined in the engineering process before the campus submits them for All projects except photovoltaics were evaluated using the campus energy recharge rates. The Strategic Energy Plan attempts to be comprehensive in its identification of potential energy projects. As a result the total potential savings is significant and the payback periods for some of the measures are fairly long. During implementation the campus will select measures to implement which meet its investment and physical plant needs. The efficiency measures will be implemented through the UC/CSU Investor Owned Utility Partnership Program in the and funding cycles. Utility incentives are projected to be similar to past cycles, $.24/kWh and $1./therm annual savings. Energy savings have been calculated on a project by project basis, with incentives based on the building level savings. The photovoltaic projects would be implemented using the California Solar Initiative incentives. The magnitude of project investment is many times greater than the size of past Partnership cycles, which have been constrained by the limited capital available from the campuses. A new funding mechanism will offer bond money from the Office of the President to pay upfront the University portion of the project cost, with the 15 year bond to be repaid by the campus through utility savings. The effect of these potential projects on meeting the efficiency and GHG targets is illustrated in Table 1.1A. In this table the energy savings are reported as they would be measured at the utility meters, taking into account the effect of the cogeneration and incorporate the full project potential identified in this report. The indication is that with implementation of all potential projects identified in this report, the campus would be just short (by 6%) of the 214 energy goals, and that additional steps would be necessary to achieve the goal. Even more aggressive steps are needed to achieve greenhouse gas goals, as the campus GHG footprint has more than doubled since 2. Table 1.1B shows the effect of the projects planned and committed to by the campus for implementation as Tier 1 and Tier 2 Projects. The 22 goals cannot be addressed until the 199 baseline is established. The economics of these projects are described in Table 1.2, which lists the potential projects according to the funding source for the facility and the type of project. This table also lists the projected Partnership Program or Solar incentives and the net simple paybacks to the site, factoring in the incentives /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 1-2 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

9 Table 1.1A: Summary of Baseline and Projected Energy Usage, Emissions, and Goals, All Potential Projects Year Energy Use Basis Electricity (kwh/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) Campus Area (GSF) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index vs. 2 Baseline 214 Target: 9% GHG Emissions (tonne CO2 eq.) GHG Emissions vs. 2 Baseline 214 Target: 1% 199 Baseline FY 89-9 Data Not Available 2 Baseline FY 99- Historical Use per UCOP 22,678,98 8,794,58 6,24, % 54,863 1% Most Recent Year FY 6-7 Historical Use per UCOP 65,428, 16,72, 8,381, % 112,471 25% 214 Projected With Projected Growth minus Partnership Projects Energy Savings 87,914,691 17,524,81 9,353, % 124, % 214 Projected Add Potential Strategic Energy Plan Efficiency Projects 36,829,725 12,63,528 9,353, % 8, % 214 Projected Add Potential Full Roof PV 33,78,677 12,63,528 9,353, % 79, % 22 Growth Not Projected Notes: Source Energy 1,239 Btu/kWh Electric 1, Btu/th Gas Emissions.366 tonne CO2 eq/kwh.5295 tonne CO2 eq/th /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 1-3 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

10 Table 1.1B: Summary of Baseline and Projected Energy Usage, Emissions, and Goals, All Committed Projects Year Energy Use Basis 2 Baseline Electricity (kwh/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) Campus Area (GSF) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index vs. 2 Baseline 214 Target: 9% GHG Emissions (tonne CO2 eq.) GHG Emissions vs. 2 Baseline 214 Target: 1% FY 99- Historical Use per UCOP 22,678,98 8,794,58 6,24, % 54,863 1% Most Recent Year FY 6-7 Historical Use per UCOP 65,428, 16,72, 8,381, % 112,471 25% 214 Projected 214 Projected With Projected Growth minus Partnership Projects Energy Savings 87,914,691 17,524,81 9,353, % 124, % Add Committed Strategic Energy Plan Efficiency Projects (Tier 1 and Tier 2) 65,16,961 15,682,648 9,353, % 16, % Notes: Source Energy 1,239 Btu/kWh Electric 1, Btu/th Gas Emissions.366 tonne CO2 eq/kwh.5295 tonne CO2 eq/th /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 1-4 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

11 Table 1.2: SEP Project Savings and Economics Summary Purchased Utility Savings Efficiency Projects Electricity (kwh/yr) Demand (kw) Gas (th/yr) Monetary ($/yr) Project Cost ($) Anticipated Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Net Simple Payback Period (yr) State Funded MBCx 9,293,648 1,61 1,36,211 2,241,934 1,822,749 3,349,466 $ 7,473, HVAC Retrofits 16,571, ,813,823 4,292,827 39,195,29 6,475,827 $ 32,719, Lighting Retrofits 1,539,642 1,811-1,37,153 11,87,123 2,529,516 $ 8,557, Other Retrofits 1,1, , ,356 2,526,36 288,81 $ 2,237, New Construction 3,462, , ,214 9,599,253 1,27,8 $ 8,572, Deferred Maintenance & Capital Renewal 5,454, , ,643 14,552,967 1,479,558 $ 13,73, Subtotals 46,332,213 4,554 4,619,659 $ 9,534,128 $ 87,783,687 $ 15,15,185 $ 72,633, Non State Funded MBCx 886, ,94 $ 163,54 $ 864,41 $ 267,14 $ 596, HVAC Retrofits 652, ,53 15,515 2,988, ,194 $ 2,746, Lighting Retrofits 1,41, $ 182,187 $ 2,91,282 $ 336,343 $ 1,754, Other Retrofits 273, $ 35,57 $ 154,958 $ 65,551 $ 89, New Construction 1,539, ,216 $ 295,38 $ 3,39,596 $ 487,193 $ 2,822, Subtotals 4,752,753 1, ,623 $ 826,571 $ 9,48,22 $ 1,398,385 $ 8,9, Total Efficiency Projects 51,84,966 5,678 4,894,282 $ 1,36,7 $ 97,191,889 $ 16,548,57 $ 8,643, Campus Planned & Committed Projects Electricity (kwh/yr) Demand (kw) Gas (th/yr) Monetary ($/yr) Project Cost ($) Anticipated Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Net Simple Payback Period (yr) Tier 1 & 2 Project Totals 22,897,73 2,298 1,842,162 $ 4,376,752 $ 28,176,315 $ 7,337,618 $ 2,838, % of Planned vs Potential 45% 4% 38% 42% 29% 44% 26%

12 Table 1.2: SEP Project Savings and Economics Summary (continued) Renewable Projects Electricity (kwh/yr) Purchased Utility Savings Demand (kw) Gas (th/yr) Monetary ($/yr) Note Photovoltaics, UCSF 1st MW 1,345, 1, - $ (26,9) Assumes Power Purchase Agreement Method of Delivery Photovoltaics, UCSF Remaining Potential 1,119, $ (44,794) Assumes Power Purchase Agreement Method of Delivery Photovoltaics, UCSF MC Full Potential 584, $ (11,684) Assumes Power Purchase Agreement Method of Delivery Subtotals 3,49,48 2,267 - $ (83,378) Purchased Utility Savings Total Projects Electricity (kwh/yr) Demand (kw) Gas (th/yr) Monetary ($/yr) Project Cost ($) Anticipated Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Net Simple Payback Period (yr) State Funded Efficiency Projects 46,332,213 4,554 4,619,659 $ 9,534,128 $ 87,783,687 $ 15,15,185 $ 72,633, Non State Funded Efficiency Projects 4,752,753 1, ,623 $ 826,571 $ 9,48,22 $ 1,398,385 $ 8,9, Renewable Projects 3,49,48 2,267 - $ (83,378) TOTAL 54,134,14 7,945 4,894,282 $ 1,277,322 $ 97,191,889 $ 16,548,57 $ 8,643,

13 The campus has reviewed a preliminary version of the initial list of potential projects in this report and has initiated a planning process for engineering, scheduling and implementation of the projects over the next six years. It is anticipated that the list of potential projects will be continuously tuned and updated as projects are built, savings are measured, new technologies become commercially available, and campus loads change over the course of the next six years /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 1-7 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

14

15 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Strategic Energy Plan Methodology The University of California Office of the President has contracted with Newcomb Anderson McCormick (NAM) to create a Strategic Energy Plan for nine campuses and five medical centers. This Plan will identify potential energy saving projects throughout these campuses that can be implemented over the next six years, and will evaluate their contribution to helping the campuses meet the system-wide goals of reduced energy consumption and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In conjunction with the campus sub-consultant selection process, Newcomb Anderson McCormick assembled a team of highly respected engineering firms and experts to perform the work at the campus and assemble the Strategic Energy Plan. The team for UC Irvine included: Team Member Newcomb Anderson McCormick Cogent Energy Michael Wall Engineering Bart Wallace Role Program Manager, SEP Aggregation Campus Field Auditor, Efficiency Projects Renewable Energy Projects, Power Quality Lighting Field Auditor A kickoff meeting was held at the campus on January 11, 28, with good representation from the campus and appropriate auxiliaries. The kickoff meeting introduced the SEP team and process, collected valuable input and provided an understanding of the campus priorities and needs. Additionally, the list of 5, square foot and larger buildings to be included in the SEP was reviewed and substitutions and additions were made to align the effort of the SEP with campus priorities and the best opportunities for energy savings. The resulting list of buildings (referred to as SEP Building List, or SEP Buildings) became the basis for the field work and building specific project identification. Following the kickoff meeting the field investigation phase ensued. Collectively, the team performed audits and analysis of all SEP buildings and other specific opportunities to identify the list of projects included in this report. The energy efficiency projects identified by the Campus Field Auditor were focused on the SEP Buildings mechanical and lighting systems, with field data collected on standardized field data templates (included in Appendix A). Renewable energy potential was investigated by Michael Wall Engineering, along with a brief power quality and reliability investigation, while Newcomb Anderson McCormick s efforts focused on historical data collection, campus wide projects, projects outside of the SEP buildings and green house gas emission impacts. During the analysis phase, the previously compiled field data was analyzed to develop projects with consistency and reasonableness in mind, using the most detailed methods of analysis possible in the time available. To this end, a standardized analysis tool was used to analyze the majority of the air hander related projects. The analysis tool provides results which incorporate factors typical of a more detailed investigation as opposed to a strategic level project analysis, including system specifics, site specific weather data, operating schedules, control strategies and typical system setpoints as determined by field investigation. Analysis of other projects was performed using project-specific engineering /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

16 calculations and followed recognized engineering principles. Reasonable engineering judgment was applied to all project analyses. Construction costs of recommended projects are built up from contractor quotes, Means manuals, experience from past project cycles, and a variety of other sources. Project costs are the sum of the construction cost and contingency (1%), engineering and design (15%), construction management (5%) and project management (6%). In response to campus input after the preliminary list, the contingency costs were increased to 2% for the campus and to 3% for the Medical Center. The net effect, when coupled with the other soft costs is a 12.6% and 25.2% increase in estimated costs across all projects to address the additional campus overhead. While individual projects final costs and savings may vary from the results presented in this report, it is anticipated that the aggregate level of accuracy by campus or by utility service territory will be reasonable. A preliminary list of energy efficiency projects, delivered to UCOP on March 28, was the initial step in delivery of the Strategic Energy Plan results. This list of projects was reviewed, prioritized and scheduled by the individual campuses and returned to UCOP. The compiled results were then used to determine the level of savings commitment for the Investor Owned Utilities to use in support of their filings to the CPUC for the UC/CSU/IOU Partnership Program. The results will also assist UCOP in planning for a bond to finance the campus contributions for the construction of these projects. As of the writing of this report, the details of the Partnership Program have not been defined for the cycle, and discussions are ongoing with the Municipal utilities to solicit similar participation and incentive levels for the campuses. While these crucial details are not confirmed, this Strategic Energy Plan was in large part commissioned to determine overall potential for projects, and is a critical step in securing the incentive funding levels from both the IOU and Municipal utilities, and for UCOP Consequently, this report assumes that many of the aspects of the current plan will be carried forward, including the incentive rates of $.24/kWh and $1./therm of annual savings. These rates are used in the analyses of all projects in this report, including those at campuses served by Municipally Owned Utilities. Following delivery of the Preliminary List, the projects in this Strategic Energy Plan report were aggregated and assembled. The projects from the Preliminary List are included, with some refinements following additional quality control checks. Projects have been compared to historical energy use and project costs have been refined. Other projects have been added following the development of the Preliminary List, including renewable electric generation projects (such as photovoltaics, which qualify for different utility programs), and cogeneration projects (which do not qualify for Partnership incentives). The projects included in this SEP are the result of a survey of the campus, discussions with campus personnel, and preliminary engineering of projects. This effort is not an investment grade audit. This means that the projects will require additional detailed cost estimating and refinement of savings before the campuses or the utilities can commit to specific construction budgets and energy saving calculations. This effort was designed to identify significant physical modifications required to make buildings energy efficient. It did not concentrate on operational details that might be found in an investment grade audit, such as a broken economizer, or an improper control sequence /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-2 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

17 However, the Strategic Energy Plan does recommend the monitoring-based commissioning (MBCx) of each of these buildings over the next six years (excluding buildings that have already been commissioned through the Partnership). This process will ensure that the operational problems of each building are identified and corrected, so that all measures that might be identified in an investment grade audit will ultimately be included. The equivalent energy and cost savings for projects presented in the Preliminary List were been simplified to meet the financial criteria established for the UCOP funding mechanism, and to be consistent with utility incentive requirements. For HVAC projects, chilled water and hot water (or steam) savings calculated at the buildings were converted to electric (kwh) and natural gas (therm) savings using marginal central plant efficiencies, and summed with direct electric and natural gas savings, which include cooling or heating from local sources. For all other projects, the electric and gas savings were calculated directly, without involving the intricacies of the central plant. The sums of these savings for each project became the equivalent electric and gas savings, and are used for the basis of the utility incentive. The published FY6-7 recharge rates, as provided by UCOP, were applied to the equivalent electric and gas savings to estimate the energy cost savings of projects. Using the recharge rate builds in a level of conservatism for future energy savings, as no utility rate escalation is built in, and meets UCOP bond funding requirements. Operational and maintenance savings have generally been discounted in financial analysis of measures, as UCOP funding will involve only the purchased utility budgets as a repayment source. The equivalent energy savings methodology remains unchanged from the preliminary list to this SEP report. However, the central plant and any cogeneration impacts are incorporated to reflect a purchased utility cost savings and give a more true estimate of utility cost savings for the campus. The following tables show the recharge rates and marginal central plant efficiencies used in this report. The individual campuses may charge themselves different prices internally, or may calculate marginal utility costs differently, and so can use other pricing in their internal project evaluation. Table 2.1: Recharge Rates - Non-State Funded and Auxiliaries FY 6-7 Campus $/kwh $/Therm San Francisco and Med Center $.13 $.76 Table 2.2: Marginal Central Plant Efficiencies Plant kwh/ Plant Therm Plant Therm/ Campus Bldg ton-hr /Bldg ton-hr Bldg MMBTU San Francisco and Med Center /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-3 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

18 Table 2.3: Central Plant & Cogeneration Impacts on Purchased Utilities Campus San Francisco Med Center Mt. Zion San Francisco Med Center Parnassus San Francisco Other Than Parnassus Building Energy Saved Purchased Utility Savings Notes Steam 12.5 th gas/mbtu Steam is delivered by natural gas fired boilers. Chilled Water Gas engine driven chillers. New base load to.8 kwh/tonh be served by electric chillers. Electricity 1 kwh/kwh No cogenerated electricity Steam Steam is delivered from UC San Francisco 12.5 th gas/mbtu Parnassus. Chilled Water Single stage absorption chillers in Moffitt and.225 th gas/tonh Long Hospitals. Electricity Combined Cycle Cogen: Buys from San 1 kwh/kwh Francisco Parnassus Gas 1 th gas/th No Central Plant Chilled Water No central chiller plant Electricity 1 kwh/kwh No cogenerated electricity San Francisco Parnassus Steam Chilled Water 12.5 th gas/mbtu.8 kwh/tonh Steam is delivered by a combined cycle cogeneration system which normally operates with supplementary gas firing with duct burners. Campus operates steam chillers during day, electric at night. Duct fire most hours, so main savings is in steam. Electricity 1 kwh/kwh Combined Cycle Cogen: Reduction in electricity use lowers purchases from utility during day. Excess electricity is sold to utility at night, SO General Project Identification Categories and Approach The following is a general description of the projects that were identified by the Strategic Energy Plan. More detailed scope and savings information is included in the Project Descriptions section of the report. In general, projects were selected for this report that will bring campus systems up to the state of the art technology. This is intended to identify all of the possible energy savings available through retrofit projects. This results in some projects with longer paybacks where the existing system may be moderately efficient, but not necessarily state of the art. However, it defines a maximum savings target for the buildings evaluated. The campuses can decide on the appropriate level of investment based on their individual needs and their performance in meeting energy savings and green house gas emissions goals Lighting Projects The report identifies the potential to convert existing T12 and 32W T8 fluorescent fixtures to 28W T8 lamps with premium efficiency ballasts with low ballast factor, at 42 W per two lamp fixture. Several campuses have alternative standards, including UC Santa Barbara, which is emphasizing dimming ballasts. Also recommended are increased penetration of occupancy sensor controls, daylight harvesting, new stairwell fixtures, and replacement of interior HID /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-4 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

19 fixtures with fluorescent. Fluorescent conversion is also generally recommended for parking structures HVAC Projects A variety of HVAC projects are recommended for implementation at campus buildings. The general intention of these retrofits is to make all air handlers of 1 hp and above meet basic efficiency standards: variable air volume with economizers, operating only the hours necessary, with direct digital controls, demand control ventilation where warranted, and static pressure reset. Laboratory air handlers would also be converted to variable air volume, with variable flow fume hoods and minimum ventilation controls set at 6 air changes per hour. In some cases further savings will be achieved through air quality monitoring and automatic sash closers. Kitchen hoods are recommended for conversion to variable air volume as well. A variety of other chiller and boiler projects are recommended for other buildings that are not served by a central plant Monitoring Based Commissioning Projects This report includes a monitoring-based commissioning project at every Strategic Energy Plan building. This is an integral element of the retrofit projects that are recommended at most buildings. The combination of retrofits and commissioning will capture the majority of the energy saving potential of the HVAC systems. Monitoring based commissioning is also recommended for all main central plants where it has not yet been implemented New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program This report includes a number of planned construction and renovation projects at each campus. It is assumed that a Savings By Design process will be in place to generate a design which outperforms Title 24 by at least 3%. The campus contribution to the resulting construction costs are assumed to come from UCOP bond This removes the capital constraint from the construction budget and allows more efficient buildings to be designed and built Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects The campuses each spend up to $1 million per year on deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects. This report estimates that about 12% of these projects have an energy savings component. It is recommended that utility incentives be employed to make these measures marginally more efficient. It is also recommended that UCOP bond funds be used where possible to supplement project funding to allow construction of energy saving projects that otherwise might not be funded Campus Wide Projects Campus wide projects include the replacement of pre-21 refrigerators with Energy Star units, replacement of lab freezers with more efficient units, and the installation of occupancy sensor controls on vending machines. The campus wide use of power management software is recommended to reduce the energy consumption of network computers when they are not in use. The replacement of CRT monitors with LCD monitors is recommended /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-5 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

20 as well. Finally, an estimate of the potential energy savings from computer server virtualization was included Other Projects Several other miscellaneous projects were evaluated, including swimming pool projects. Pool covers with powered take up spools were recommended where they are not currently used. Variable speed drives are recommended for pool filter pumps during off hours operation. Solar collectors are also recommended for pools where adjacent roof space is available. In addition, boiler replacement was evaluated for swimming pool and other boilers for thermal loads not served by the central plant. 2.3 Campus Overview The University of California, San Francisco became part of the University of California in 1873 and is the only UC campus dedicated solely to health sciences. UC San Francisco s Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy and a Graduate Division offer 18 graduate academic programs. Graduate enrollment is 2951 students at four major campus sites within the city of San Francisco, as well as numerous other minor sites scattered through San Francisco and the Bay Area. The 17-acre Parnassus campus serves as the main campus and also houses two 6 bed hospitals of UCSF Medical Center. The central plant provides the majority of permanent buildings with chilled water and steam. The centralized control systems are located at the central plant. The utilities are distributed to the majority of the buildings in tunnels or are direct buried. Some of the buildings are cooled by local chiller plants located in individual buildings. A 43-acre Mission Bay Campus, opened in 23 with construction still ongoing, contains research space and facilities to foster biotechnology and life sciences companies. The San Francisco General Hospital campus at 11 Potrero Avenue cares for the indigent population of San Francisco. UCSF Medical Center is part of the University of California, San Francisco, one of the 1 campuses of the University of California. The medical center is primarily located on two sites UC San Francisco s 17-acre Parnassus campus and the Mount Zion campus. The Parnassus campus facilities include Moffitt and Long hospitals with 6-beds. The Mount Zion campus contains UCSF's Comprehensive Cancer Center, Women's Health Center, and outpatient resources. At the Parnassus Campus, gas and steam turbines owned by UC San Francisco generate MW electricity and steam. The steam is distributed to the Longs & Moffitt hospital which is purchased by UCSF Medical Center. The steam is distributed via steam piping located in tunnels or which is direct buried. Buildings are cooled by local chiller plants located in individual buildings or by packaged units. At the Mount Zion campus, a central plant using gas-fired chillers provides chilled water to the majority of permanent buildings though some of the buildings are cooled by local chillers. Heating requirements of majority of the buildings are provided by boilers located in /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-6 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

21 within the buildings. The utilities are distributed to the majority of the buildings in tunnels or are direct buried. 2.4 Central Plant The UC San Francisco Parnassus campus has a central plant which serves the University buildings as well as three Medical Center buildings: Moffitt Hospital, Long Hospital and the Ambulatory Care Center. The plant includes a cogeneration system which provides electricity to the whole Parnassus campus. The central plant also produces steam, which is distributed throughout the whole campus, and chilled water, which is distributed to University buildings on the south side of Parnassus. The Medical Center and the University buildings north of Parnassus have their own chillers, or do not have air conditioning. The cogeneration system comprises two Solar Taurus 6 combustion turbines burning natural gas and generating nominally 5 MW each. Each of the two heat recovery steam generators produces steam at 2 psig, generating 25, pounds per hour unfired and 54, pounds per hour with supplementary firing. Most of the steam produced by the heat recovery steam generators is passed through a back-pressure steam turbine, where its pressure is reduced from 2 psig to 15 psig, which is the steam distribution pressure. This steam turbine generator has a nominal capacity of 3.75 MW. It operates in cascade mode, which allows the power output to vary based on the low-pressure steam demand at any given time. A pressure reduction valve allows for production of low-pressure steam when the steam turbine is offline for maintenance. A small amount of 1 psig steam is produced at the central plant for laboratory autoclave loads. The two combustion turbines operate continuously at full output. During the day this supplies most of the campus load, with additional imports of 3 to 4 MW. At night this generates approximately 1 MW more than the campus load, and the excess power goes onto the utility grid. The power is sold to PG&E through a Standard Offer-1 contract at a varying value in the range of $.8/kWh. Steam fired boilers provide a backup steam source. The central plant main chilled water loop includes electric chillers (one centrifugal at 1,2 tons, three reciprocating at 2 tons) and low pressure steam single stage absorption chillers (three at 1,2 tons). The chiller plant is operated year round. There are also a 44 ton single stage absorption chiller at the Library and a 2 ton scroll chiller at Vision. The low pressure steam single stage absorption chillers in Moffitt and Long Hospitals (two at 385 tons, two at 18 tons) and screw chillers (two at 164 tons) provide chilled water year round. At the Mt. Zion Medical Center campus main chillers are two 35 ton Tecochill screw chillers which are driven by reciprocating gas fired engines serving Buildings A and B. There is also a 35 ton Governair chiller in the University Cancer Center building. These chilled water loops are tied together, with the Tecochill chillers taking the lead. Building J has several smaller scroll chillers. Buildings S and T have natural draft boilers for space heating, rated at 2. and 1.5 million Btu/hr output, respectively. These both run continuously. The Mission Bay University buildings are on a new campus which does not have a central plant, but has boilers and chillers distributed in each building. It was built, however, with the /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-7 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

22 intention that a central plant would be built at some point. Construction of this central plant and distribution system is planned but not yet funded. The potential central plant is not addressed directly in this report, but measures with long paybacks are not recommended for the existing boilers and chillers. The conversion to a central plant may offer some energy efficiency opportunities, although they will be partially offset by new distribution losses. The potential for staffing savings is expected to be a compelling reason for the installation of the central plant. Once the central plant is in place at Mission Bay, cogeneration will be an option. It is anticipated that the central plant will include steam boilers and electric chillers. The addition of cogeneration would likely add combustion turbines, heat recovery steam generators, possibly steam driven chillers, and possibly a condensing steam turbine generator. 2.5 Strategic Energy Plan Buildings The following 34 buildings were investigated as part of this SEP effort, and were selected using the criteria described above. The total gross area of the SEP buildings represents 5,662,277 square feet, or 78% of the campus gross area (exclusive of parking) /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-8 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

23 Building Key Table 2.4: SEP Buildings Basic Gross Area Non-assignable Parking Area Campus - Building Name 2C212 LIBRARY 128,76 2C237 MTZ CANCER RESEARCH (234 SUTTER) 19,671 2C2212 MILLBERRY 163,96 2C2251 CLINICAL SCI 17,647 2C2252 MED SCIENCES 392,649 2C229 LPPI 17,237 2C241 NURSING 88,668 2C2412 DENTISTRY 128,43 2C2415 MISSION CTR 29,883 2C2418 OYSTER POINT 144,429 2C245 LAUREL HTS 363,297 2C3 PSSRB 9,5 2C31 ROCK HALL 17,565 2C32 GENENTECH HA 438,361 2C33 COMMUNITY CE 158,65 2C38 HSIR EAST 26,35 2C39 HSIR WEST 233,516 2C329 FRESNO MERC 84,175 2C334 BYERS HALL 154,935 2C335 MB HOUSING W 65,866 2C336 MB HOUSING S 96,81 2C337 MB HOUSING N 142,197 2C338 MB HOUSING E 15,42 2C218 MTZ BLDG A 118,8 2C219 MTZ BLDG B 16,4 Building Key Basic Gross Area Non-assignable Parking Area Medical Center - Building Name 2C22 MTZ 233 POS (S Building) 5,491 2C222 MTZ BLDG C (22 Post) 65,95 2C231 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) 53,5 2C236 MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) 57,98 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP 378,718 2C2275 LONG HOSP 372,469 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) 33,681 2C34 MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) 89,862 2C HARRISO 65, Recent Energy Project Inventory The campus has actively and aggressively participated in the UC/CSU/IOU Partnership Programs. The projects in Table 2.5 were implemented during the 24-5 Partnership cycle. Since they were implemented no later than calendar year 25, the associated energy savings are considered to be reflected in the historical energy use data gathered for Therefore, no adjustment has been made to the campus baseline energy use /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-9 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

24 Table 2.5: 24-5 UC/CSU/IOU Project History Building Project Description Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Gas Savings (th/yr) Mission Center Building Mission Center Building (MCB) Retrofit Project 527,422 Rock Hall MBCx 72,38 76,987 The projects in Table 2.6 are planned, or may have begun during the current 26-8 UC/CSU/IOU Partnership, but were not substantially complete prior to the FY6-7 historical energy use baseline. Since they are scheduled for implementation, the SEP has considered these projects in a couple of ways. First, the projects recommended in this report have not included these projects, thereby avoiding duplication of measures. Second, the 26-7 baseline energy use has been adjusted by the anticipated energy savings for baseline energy use to compare the proposed projects to, and for the comparison of, building benchmarks. Details of savings for each project in SEP buildings and the associated adjustment in baseline energy are reflected on the building summary sheets later in this report. Table 2.6: 26-8 UC/CSU/IOU Project History Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Gas Savings (th/yr) Building Project Description SEP Buildings Install and Commission New VFDs, Reduce Air and Dentistry Temp Based on Demand 91,485 68,784 HSE HSE - Replace lighting with T8 lamps and ballasts 493,959 HS East - Reset FH Exhaust Fan Static Pressure HSE and Improve FH Ducting 179,71 HSW HSW - Replace lighting with T8 lamps and ballasts 427,16 HS West - Install 3rd Floor Fan VFD/Reduce Air HSW Flow and Temp Based on Demand 44,824 21,73 Install and Commission New VFDs, Correct Kalmanovitz Library Start/Stop Controls 676,37 147,757 Kalmanovitz Library Recommission Economizer Operation on AH-2 131,38 11,667 Kalmanovitz Library Replace Energy Management Control System 224,524 18,295 Library - Replace lighting w/more efficient T8 lamps Library and ballasts 216,332 Replace inlet guide vanes with VFDs on SFN & RFN Mission Center Building 4-1 & ,891 MSB MSB - Replace lighting w/more efficient T8 lamps and ballasts 68,269 Mt. Zion Research Center MBCx 1,681,968 1,554 MU MU - Replace lighting w/more efficient T8 lamps and ballasts 12,29 Nursing Reduce Supply Air and Exhaust Based on Demand 267,54 57,773 Non-SEP Buildings Koret Vision Center (Vision Rsch) Koret Vision Center - Replace lighting w/more efficient T8 lamps and ballasts 95, /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 2-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

25 3. HISTORICAL CAMPUS ENERGY USE 3.1 FY 99- and 6-7 Energy Baseline Purchased electricity and natural gas consumption for the University of California, San Francsico is provided in the graphs below. The University of California Office of the President has provided information on purchases for fiscal years , 25-26, and Reliable information is not currently available for the fiscal year The information is divided between state-funded buildings (shown in blue) and non state-funded buildings (shown in red). Savings from energy efficiency projects will use the fiscal year as the baseline for comparison. Data is not provided for the Medical Center. 1 Campus PU Costs & Usage State & NonSt.xls /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 3-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

26

27 4. HISTORIC BUILDING ENERGY USE 4.1 Existing Metering Infrastructure Three types of metered historical energy use data were requested from UC San Francisco energy management personnel total annual, total monthly, and interval data for one summer and one winter week. An effort was made to obtain this data for each of the four utilities present on the UC San Francisco campuses electric, gas, chilled water, and steam. However, building-level meter data was available only for electricity, gas, and steam consumption. No records of building-level chilled water consumption were available. The percentage of SEP buildings on the UC San Francisco campuses for which metered electricity and gas consumption was available is shown in Table 4.1. This table also shows estimates of the percentage of non-metered buildings, applying the assumption that if data was not provided it was because the building lacked a functioning meter. This may slightly overestimate the number of buildings without meters, as other causes for missing data were occasionally reported by energy management personnel throughout the UC system. Table 4.1: Building Electric and Gas Meters SEP Buildings SEP No Metered Data Bldgs w/ Total Metered Available Local SEP Campus Electric Gas Electric Gas Gas Bldgs San Francisco 19 83% 7 54% 4 17% 6 46% San Francisco MC 9 83% 3 5% 2 17% 3 5% 6 11 The number of SEP buildings for which chilled water and steam consumption was available is show in Table 4.2. Again, it is assumed that the SEP buildings with no metered data lacked a functioning meter. Table 4.2: Building BTU Meters SEP BUILDINGS No Metered Data Metered Available SEP Bldgs w/ Distr. Heat SEP Bldgs w/ Distr. Cooling Total SEP Bldgs Campus Heating Cooling Heating Cooling San Francisco 9 9% % 1 1% 5 1% San Francisco MC 3 6% % 2 4% 1 1% We recommend that all SEP buildings that currently lack metered data be outfitted with a meter for each utility. The Monitoring Based Commissioning (MBCx) measures that we have outlined in Section 8.3 should provide meters for all of the SEP buildings. However, additional meters are appropriate for buildings that are below the 5, SF threshold that are large energy consumers /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 4-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

28 4.2 Individual Building Metering Where available, the annual historical energy use for the SEP buildings has been incorporated in this study. Where no meter data was available, an estimate of building energy use was made based on campus average values. Generally, the campus average values were calculated for each utility using the sample of buildings with campus-supplied metered consumption. However, where the sample of buildings with metered data was too small to allow a reliable estimate of the campus average, a campus average was estimated based on total campus energy purchase data. The sources of building energy estimate data for UC San Francisco are summarized in Table 4.3. Table 4.3: Sources of Data Used for Baseline Building Energy Estimates PREFERRED METHOD Use actual metered consumption ALTERNATE METHOD Extrapolate use using average values from the following sources Basic Buildings Complex Buildings Electricity - Buildings with local cooling - Buildings receiving chilled water from the central plant Gas Steam (SEP buildings only) Hot Water (SEP buildings only) Chilled Water (SEP buildings only) UCSF: average of campussupplied meter data UCSF MC: one half the average for complex buildings [1a] one half the average for complex buildings [2a] UCSF: one half the average for complex buildings UCSF MC: average of campus-supplied meter data UCSF: average of campussupplied meter data UCSF MC: one half the average for complex buildings one half the average for complex buildings no hot water distribution average of campussupplied meter data [1b] average of campussupplied meter data [2b] UCSF: average of campus-supplied meter data UCSF MC: one half the average for basic buildings average of campussupplied meter data average of campussupplied meter data Using the various sources described in Table 4.3, factors with units of energy use kwh, therm, or MMBtu per gross square foot were developed for each of the energy use categories in the left column of the table. A procedure was required to apply the appropriate factors to each building. For SEP buildings, this procedure relied on the building classification basic or complex as well as field data that described the types of utilities present at the building. A sample of the decision structure applied to each building to /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 4-2 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

29 determine the appropriate energy use factors for electricity is shown in Figure 4.1. Similar structures were used to apply appropriate factors for gas, steam, and chilled water. Figure 4.1: Decision Structure for Estimating Building Electricity Consumption* Campus provided building consumption data Yes Report actual usage No Is it an SEP building? Yes Cooling is provided locally? No No Use non-central plant cooling electricity average Yes Use central plant cooling electricity average Building Type is Complex/Basic Building Type is Complex/Basic Complex Basic Complex Basic Extrapolate Using [1a] Extrapolate Using [1b] Extrapolate Using [2a] Extrapolate Using [2b] * [1a] [2b] refer to the factors described in Table 4.3 The building energy consumption estimated by applying campus averages to building area provides a rough measure of the baseline building energy use for buildings that lacked metered data. The overall accuracy of this method is evaluated based on the comparison of the resulting campus-wide energy consumption and the total reported campus energy purchase. The final comparison of the summed building energy estimates and the campus energy purchase is shown in Table /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 4-3 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

30 Table 4.4: Comparison of Estimated Building Energy Use to Campus Purchased Energy Electricity (kwh) Natural Gas (th) Purchased 65,428, 16,72, Cogen Balance 94,773, ,374,41 Net Campus Consumption 16,21,97 2,345,59 Estimated Building Consumption 28,857, ,126,222 3 Difference 48,655,978 2,78,632 Percent Difference 3% 119% 1 Includes electricity used by central plant chillers. 2 Includes chilled water. 3 Omits steam use, which is treated in this comparison as a byproduct of electricity production. Note that estimated building steam use differs from reported plant output by less than 3%. As shown in Table 4.4, electricity and gas consumption estimated on a building-level result in much higher overall energy consumption than was reportedly purchased. The divergence of the estimated building gas consumption and reported gas purchase is particularly dramatic. The average gas use factors for UC San Francisco are high relative to other campuses, but not unreasonably so given the cooler climate. Nor does cutting the average use factors in half bringing them substantially below those of other UC campuses bring overall building consumption into alignment with the reported gas purchase. The most likely explanation for the large discrepancy appears to be that the reported campus energy purchase significantly understates campus energy consumption. The building-level estimates have been used as the baseline against which project energy savings are compared. 4.3 Building Energy Use Targets The metered annual electricity use is shown for the buildings where it is available in Figure 4.2, grouped according to whether the building is identified as Basic or Complex. Note that there is a broad range in electricity use intensities, with a factor of three or four between the lowest and the highest in either group. In addition, some of the Basic buildings use more electricity per square foot than some of the Complex buildings. Although there are significant differences from one building to another, the performance of some buildings at a relatively low electricity use per square foot indicate that there is room to move many of the higher use buildings in that direction /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 4-4 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

31 Figure 4.2: Electricity Use Index for UC San Francisco Buildings with Meter Data 8 7 Electricity Consumption (kwh/gsf-yr) HUNTERPT 83 LIBRARY MILLBERRY MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) COMMUNITY CE LAUREL HTS FRESNO MERC GENENTECH HA BYERS HALL LONG HOSP ROCK HALL MTZ CANCER RESEARCH MTZ BLDG A HSIR WEST HSIR EAST PSSRB MOFFITT HOSP MTZ CANCER C DENTISTRY MISSION CTR MED SCIENCES CLINICAL SCI MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) MTZ 233 POS (S Building) UC HALL NURSING LPPI UC CLINICS (ACC) Basic Complex The metered annual gas and steam use is shown for the buildings where it is available in Figures 4.3 and 4.4, grouped according to whether the building is identified as Basic or Complex. Again, there is a broad range in use intensities. In some cases, the differing use intensities is not surprising and suggests additional building type classes beyond simply Basic and Complex. For example, Moffit and Long Hospitals use at least 5 percent more steam than other complex buildings. It is unlikely that this hospital class could move all the way down to the energy use intensity of the other complex buildings. Nonetheless, another level of variability exists among buildings using roughly.2 mmbtu (2 Therm) per GSF and below that suggests substantial gas or steam savings are possible at many buildings /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 4-5 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

32 Figure 4.3: Gas Use Index for UC San Francisco Buildings with Meter Data Gas Consumption (Therm/GSF-yr) MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) LAUREL HTS FRESNO MERC OYSTER POINT MTZ ROCK HALL CANCER RESEARCH (234 SUTTER) MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) MISSION CTR BYERS HALL MTZ BLDG C (22 Post) Basic Complex Figure 4.4: Steam Use Index for UC San Francisco Buildings with Meter Data.4.35 Steam Consumption (mmbtu/gsf-yr) LIBRARY MILLBERRY LONG HOSP MOFFITT HOSP PSSRB HSIR EAST HSIR WEST MED SCIENCES DENTISTRY CLINICAL SCI LPPI NURSING UC CLINICS (ACC) Basic Complex /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 4-6 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

33 5. UTILITIES 5.1 Providers & Tariffs In the baseline 26-7 Fiscal Year, electricity at UC San Francisco s campuses except for Mission Bay was provided by APS Energy Services for commodity and PG&E for transmission and distribution, under a time of use rate schedule. Natural gas is provided by the Department of General Services (DGS). In the baseline 26-7 Fiscal Year, electricity and natural gas at the UCSF Mission Bay Campus was provided by PG&E for both commodity and transmission and distribution. The campus is eligible for Investor Owned Utility incentives for both electric and natural gas from PG&E. 5.2 Procurement Options There are limited procurement options for the campus, but the campus is taking advantage of opportunities and should continue to explore other avenues if and when available. Electricity in excess of the campus self generating capacity is likely to remain with PG&E for the foreseeable future. The campus is, however, operating a cogeneration plant. For natural gas, the campus is already exercising its option to purchase gas commodity on the DGS rate schedule /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 5-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

34

35 6. CAMPUS ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE Although the term power quality can be used to describe a variety of electrical generation and distribution system attributes, for the purposes of this study, issues that could result in additional energy charges from the utility were the focus. Primarily, these are conditions that cause a differential between campus and/or facility kw and kva usage. When this differential is large enough, the utility will apply an additional charge, commonly referred to as a VAR charge. A review of the UC San Francisco campus utility charges and discussion with facilities personnel confirms that there are no power quality issues of this type on campus /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 6-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

36

37 7. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION 7.1 Technologies Sustainable energy sources are available in many types and forms, including photovoltaics, fuel cells, and wind power. The use of direct solar heating as an alternative energy source is discussed under Section 8 of this report. Fuel cell infrastructure and operational requirements typically give this type of generation project an unacceptably long payback, unless the cell was designed to be installed as part of curriculum or research requirements. As such, fuel cell use was discounted. Additionally, wind patterns in and around the buildings at the campus were not conducive to a reliable pattern that could sustain sufficient power generation to make a wind power project viable. Photovoltaic sources were identified as the most cost-effective and readily available means of sustainable energy. The remaining evaluation of sustainable energy on campus is focused on this technology. The most efficient, least intrusive form of this technology is a relatively flat, non-penetrating array mounted on a rooftop or parking structure canopy. This resource is available from several sources around the globe, and is not considered proprietary. Available square footage for power production assumes maximum exposure at a low angle of incidence, along with regular access and maintenance of the equipment. Due to the potential for substantial variance in the availability of incentives and funding for installation due to existing public utility agreements, third-party power contracts, and the potential for existing renewable resources already in use at the campus, no incentives are included to offset construction costs. 7.2 Existing Equipment There are currently no major renewable energy installations at the University of California, San Francisco. 7.3 Potential Projects There is MW of potential rooftop photovoltaic available to be developed at the existing campus buildings. The University s cost of Power Purchase Agreement photovoltaic power used in this report is assumed to be $.2/kWh above available retail power for investor owned utility customers for the first 1 MW of photovoltaic power, assuming the third party receives the utility incentives, tax credits and so on. The University s cost of PPA PV power for all capacity beyond the first 1 MW is assumed to be $.4/kWh above available retail power for IOU customers. It is assumed that the campus will have access to the Renewable Energy Credits associated with this power, at least in time for the 214 and 22 target dates. The study identified a total photovoltaic potential of MW of system capacity at an estimated construction cost of $2.4M. System locations and details are listed in the table below. Based on the California Energy Commission s Clean Power Estimator tool, the annual output of the system is estimated at 3,49,48 kwh /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 7-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

38 Campus - Building Name Building Number Gross Roof Area (sf) Table 7.1: Photovoltaic Project Potential Available Roof Area (sf) PV Power Density (W/sf)* PV System Capacity (kw) Estimated Annual Power Output (kwh)** Estimated PV System Construction Cost*** LIBRARY 2C212 4, 2, ,65 $1,53, MILLBERRY 2C , 4, ,73 $36, MED SCIENCES 2C , 2, ,581 $191,25 LPPI 2C229 14,7 8, ,46 $612, NURSING 2C241 11,7 7, ,28 $535,5 DENTISTRY 2C2412 4, 3, ,975 $2,295, LAUREL HTS 2C245 82, 57, ,653 $4,36,5 ROCK HALL 2C31 31,2 1, ,325 $765, GENENTECH HA 2C32 6, 21, ,229 $1,667,7 COMMUNITY CE 2C33 32, 8, ,66 $673,2 HSIR WEST 2C39 12, 2, ,581 $191,25 BYERS HALL 2C334 28,6 6, ,595 $459, MB HOUSING W 2C335 9,3 8, ,46 $612, MB HOUSING S 2C336 21,3 15, ,488 $1,147,5 MB HOUSING N 2C337 21,3 15, ,488 $1,147,5 Medical Center - Building Name Building Number Gross Roof Area (sf) Available Roof Area (sf) PV Power Density (W/sf)* PV System Capacity (kw) Estimated Annual Power Output (kwh)** Estimated PV System Construction Cost*** MTZ BLDG A 2C218 12,8 9, ,69 $726,75 MTZ BLDG B 2C219 13,6 1, ,579 $137,7 MTZ 233 POS - S 2C22 9,6 3, ,298 $229,5 MTZ 171 DIV - T 2C236 11, 5, ,449 $397,8 MOFFITT HOSP 2C , 8, ,33 $642,6 LONG HOSP 2C ,3 2, ,581 $191,25 UC CLINICS (ACC) 2C248 25,6 2, ,653 $1,583,55 MTZ BLDG A 2C218 12,8 9, ,69 $726,75 MTZ BLDG B 2C219 13,6 1, ,579 $137,7 MTZ 233 POS S 2C22 9,6 3, ,298 $229,5 MTZ 171 DIV T 2C236 11, 5, ,449 $397,8 MOFFITT HOSP 2C , 8, ,33 $642,6 LONG HOSP 2C ,3 2, ,581 $191,25 UC CLINICS (ACC) 2C248 25,6 2, ,653 $1,583,55 UCSF Campus Total 266,7 2,267 3,49,48 $ 2,42,55 * Based upon CEC typical PV module rating. ** Based upon 1345 equivalent full load sun-hours per year, calculated using Clean Power Estimator ( for a Simple Commercial PV System, 5 degree tilt, south facing system in zip code *** Based upon $9. per watt, or $9.5 per watt for parking structure installation, exclusive of tax credits, rebates, or incentives /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 7-2 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

39 8. RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS The projects identified in this SEP are described below, and the project titles are referenced for each applicable project on the individual Project Summary pages later in this report. While there are often alternative technologies or approaches to projects that can be considered for a given retrofit, this report s recommendations focus on projects that can be implemented cost effectively with available technologies and methods. Where appropriate, alternate approaches and considerations are discussed for projects considered but not included as a recommendation of this SEP. For ease of reference, all SEP projects have been assigned an SEP ID Number. The SEP ID number consists of one letter followed by four digits, and is a unique number that will help easily locate projects. The SEP ID number has been included on the Building Overview pages later in this report, and the Project Summary section of this report is organized by SEP ID number to allow easy location of a project. 8.1 Lighting Projects The Strategic Energy Plan includes a projection of the magnitude of lighting energy efficiency projects in each SEP building, and, where the information was available, in smaller buildings as well. The plan addresses fluorescent building lighting in some detail. It also identifies potential energy savings in interior HID lighting, as well as parking garage lighting and some outdoor lighting Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting The standard project for fluorescent light fixtures is to use a state of the art lamp and ballast combination to limit each pair of fluorescent lamps and ballast to approximately 42 watts. This can be achieved through different combinations of lamps and ballasts according to each individual campus s preference. Unless a campus expressed a specific preference, the default retrofit used for the analysis was to replace existing 32W T8 lamps and any remaining T12 lamps and their associated ballasts with 28W T8 lamps and premium efficiency ballasts with low ballast factors. The resulting fixtures typically operate at slightly lower light levels relative to the existing levels, but their improved color rendition has been shown to increase or maintain the perceived light level. Campuses can factor in color temperature, lamp life, lamp standardization, ballast standardization and a number of issues into their design Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls Another standard lighting project is to install occupancy control in rooms that do not currently have occupancy control. The analysis accounts for the fact that most campuses already have occupancy sensors in some buildings, primarily in offices and classrooms. Some campuses have early generation occupancy sensors in classrooms, many of which have been disabled at the request of faculty and staff. Newer dual technology occupancy sensors, which detect both motion and heat, are much more reliable than the older technology, which was prone to turning off lights when occupants were not moving. Occupancy sensors are recommended in this report for all classrooms, offices, meeting rooms, restrooms, lecture halls, auditoriums, storage areas, some library spaces, and a /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

40 portion of residential areas. They are not recommended in this report for laboratories, animal quarters, greenhouses, food service areas, museums, or medical service areas. On average, occupancy sensors are assumed to reduce lighting energy use by 25%, per utility incentive standards. The lighting recommendations also include daylight harvesting. Daylight harvesting should be applied to fixtures near skylights or windows, in areas that are overlit when sunlight is entering the building. Daylighting controls are assumed to apply to 1% of the fluorescent fixtures in classrooms, lecture halls, libraries, athletic areas, and common spaces, and 5% of fixtures in offices. For those fixtures, the daylighting controls are assumed to reduce energy use by 75% after occupancy sensor control Lighting Project 3. Stairwell Lighting There is a significant energy savings potential from the lighting in stairwells. The standard project for these fixtures is to replace them with bi-level fluorescent fixtures. Bi-level fixtures are controlled by occupancy sensors that reduce lighting levels to a low standby mode when the space is unoccupied. The fixtures are specifically designed to meet fire code requirements for stairwells. It is recommended that UC replace every stairwell fixture in the system with this technology Lighting Project 4. Interior High Bay Lighting Interior high intensity discharge (HID) fixtures are identified for conversion to fluorescent sources, generally T8 or T5 lamps, with occupancy sensor control. These are typically located in gymnasiums, sports facilities, swimming pools, and other high ceiling areas. Fluorescent has become the standard design for efficient lighting in high bay applications because of the relatively efficient output of the fluorescent sources, the higher output capacity of the T5 lamps, better color rendition, and the instant-on capability that permits occupancy control Lighting Project 5. Parking Garage and Outdoor Pole Lighting Fluorescent lighting is a common conversion for parking garage lighting as well. A number of garages are lit with high pressure sodium (HPS) fluorescent fixtures, so the conversion to two or three lamp T8 fluorescent fixtures provides a significant energy savings and much improved color rendition. The lumen level is not necessarily maintained in these conversions, but occupant satisfaction is maintained. Some campuses are experimenting with bi-level garage lighting, controlled by occupancy sensors. This can be applied to HID as well as fluorescent light sources. Others have chosen to replace HID lighting with induction lighting, which is a more expensive technology that has much longer lamp life than any other technology. Campuses also have a significant amount of outdoor pole lighting, along sidewalks, in parking lots, and on the roofs of parking garages. Pole lighting is commonly LPS, HPS, or HID technology. LPS and HPS fixtures can be retrofitted with fluorescent technology, and metal halide fixtures with pulse start metal halide or fluorescent technology /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-2 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

41 One campus, UC Santa Barbara, has chosen to replace existing HPS pole street lights with new LED technology. LED technology is currently quite expensive, but has great potential for energy savings Campus Specific Lighting Survey Details ARUP did a study in 27 of a number of campus buildings. The campus is pursuing some of their recommended projects, but some were canceled due to insufficient Projects that have not yet been implemented were taken directly from the ARUP list for the purposes of the SEP. In general, the campus s fluorescent fixtures have 32W T8 lamps with normal light out ballasts, with a few T12 lamps and magnetic ballasts. A number of offices on campus have occupancy sensors. The campus provided Title 24 documentation for newer campus buildings. The energy density for these buildings was based on the Title 24 documentation; although these buildings have the same lighting technology, they are assumed to have a lower W/sf than older buildings due to more efficient lighting layout design. UCSF Medical Center buildings on the Parnassus campus primarily have 32W T8 lamps and normal light output ballasts, with some occupancy sensors in offices and restrooms, but not most. The Mt. Zion campus has a significant number of T12 lamps and magnetic ballasts, as well as 32W T8 lamps and normal light output ballasts. Offices in some buildings at Mt. Zion have occupancy sensors. The energy density of campus was estimated based on the results of the SEP lighting auditor samples of spaces on the UC San Francisco Medical Center buildings, with 1.4 W/sf in areas with 32W T8 lamps and normal light output ballasts, and 1.8 W/sf in areas with T12 lighting Other Projects & Technologies to Consider Potential Lighting Alternate 1. Integrated Classroom Lighting System The Integrated Classroom Lighting System (ICLS) has been developed and promoted by the California Energy Commission s PIER Program. ICLS combines direct-indirect fluorescent fixtures with occupancy and daylight sensors, and plug-and-play interconnection cables, to provide a highly energy-efficient system that offers teachers more control and flexibility than conventional systems. ICLS has been demonstrated to demand an average of.6 to.85 watts per square foot, compared to more conventional systems, which typically draw between.8 and 1.4 watts per square foot. PIER has found that the cost of installing ICLS in new construction projects is often equal to or lower than for conventional systems, because the system is available as an integrated package. New construction or renovation costs have been in the range of $3, to $4, per classroom. Installing ICLS as a retrofit is less cost-effective at current prices. UC Berkeley installed a few ICLS systems with an added dimming feature, at a cost of approximately $9, per classroom. Although the cost of ICLS can be high relative to conventional systems, it is expected to drop to competitive levels within the next six years /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-3 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

42 Potential Lighting Alternate 2. LED Exterior and Interior Lights LED lighting is a technology with significant energy-saving potential. Although the current cost of LEDs is significantly higher than more conventional systems, costs are expected to drop significantly within the next few years. With their anticipated drop in cost and extremely high efficiency, LEDs should be seriously considered for applications at the UC campuses within the next six years. Historically, LEDs have been used for specialized lighting applications that required bright point sources of light, but products are quickly emerging to address more standard commercial and residential lighting needs. Every UC campus is now using LED exit signs in their buildings, and LED stop lights have also become standard. UC Santa Barbara is currently planning to replace nearly 4 high pressure sodium (HPS) pole fixtures with LED pole fixtures, a project that will save an estimated 4% of the lights energy use. UC Davis has installed bathroom vanity lights in two residence halls that use LED technology. The vanity light combines a one watt LED nightlight with an occupancy sensor controlling the overhead light. Other emerging LED technologies applicable to the UC system include exterior pathway lights, exterior wall packs, office and classroom task lighting, and cabinet undermount fixtures. Potential Lighting Alternate 3. Wireless Lighting Controls A promising technology for lighting control is the wireless mesh network fixture controller being developed by Adura Technologies of San Francisco. This is a technology which was developed at the UC Berkeley Center for the Built Environment. Several test sites have been installed in UC Berkeley buildings. The controller under development is a device to be installed in every light fixture in a ceiling grid. It can turn one or two ballasts in a fixture on or off. The controller measures power use by the fixture so it can report back on actual operations. Wireless sensors are installed in the building in appropriate locations to measure occupancy, ambient light, and so on. The wireless mesh network allows the controllers and sensors to communicate with each other. An internet portal in the building gives access to web based software which is used to configure the system. A variety of logic applications can be used to control fixtures individually or in groups. One set of ambient light sensors might be used to turn off or reduce output from all fixtures on a west face. Occupancy sensors can be programmed to control any set of fixtures. The controllers themselves are programmed to respond to certain sensors as well as time control settings. Once programmed the mesh network can operate itself optimally with no external input. Or it can be used to control fixtures according to a web based signal, such as a demand response incident. Wireless mesh network lighting controllers promise extensive lighting control (time scheduling, occupancy sensor, daylight harvesting, and demand response) with power measurement and a relatively low first price. No wiring outside of the fixture is required, saving time and complexity /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-4 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

43 One feature not likely to be offered is dimming control, but with relatively low power fixtures, as well as individual ballast switching, this offers diminishing returns. This product is expected to be commercially available in one to two years. 8.2 HVAC Projects Air Handler Project 1. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers and Terminal Boxes to Variable Air Volume This project converts constant volume air handlers with terminal boxes to variable air volume. This project concentrates on larger air handlers which may be dual duct, multizone, reheat, or other constant volume configuration. These air handlers serve the zones through terminal boxes which may be mixing boxes or reheat boxes, often including pressure independent devices and sound attenuators. The project involves installing VFDs on the supply and return fans to allow the air flow to vary according to the load. In addition, a retrofit kit (damper, actuator, flow measuring station) is installed on each of the terminal boxes to convert it into a pressure independent variable volume device. This kit includes direct digital controls, which increases the cost but greatly increases the functionality. A large multizone air handler could fit in this category as well, with a retrofit kit installed in each zone duct and a two position actuator applied to the existing mixing dampers. The retrofit allows the zone temperatures to be properly controlled with less simultaneous heating and cooling energy use. In addition, reduced air flow requirements and lower operating static pressures will result in fan energy savings. In some cases, the air handlers have existing variable volume devices such as variable inlet vanes (VIV) or varicone flow devices, which are generally less efficient than modern VFDs, and may not be working optimally. In these cases, the project would replace the existing flow control device with a variable frequency drive, and the existing flow control is reflected in the project costs and savings. The savings are calculated for this project through a bin simulation adjusted for local weather, operating hours, building load characteristics, air handler flows and configuration, and temperature control strategies. The cost for implementing this project includes variable frequency drives for the supply and return fans, retrofit kits with DDC for each zone terminal box, and a control strategy to optimize the air flow and static pressure from the supply fan. This project does not apply to air handlers that serve patient areas in the medical centers, as they are required by OSHPD to operate at constant volume all of the time. It does not apply to laboratory air handlers, where more elaborate air flow control devices are needed Air Handler Project 2. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers to Variable Air Volume This project converts constant volume air handlers that do not use terminal boxes to variable air volume. This project concentrates on medium size air handlers which may be single zone, dual duct, multizone, reheat or other constant volume configuration. These air handlers do not serve zones through terminal boxes but through simpler reheat coils or /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-5 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

44 mixing devices that do not have pressure independent controls. Large single zone air handlers without specific zone temperature control will fall into this category as well. The project involves installing VFDs on the supply and return fans to allow the air flow to vary according to the load. A retrofit kit is not installed at each zone temperature controller because there are not standardized boxes, the zones tend to be smaller and more numerous. Older construction tends to include plaster ceilings and other access constraints. In the case of a single zone air handler the VFD controls will be integrated into the current temperature controls to reduce the air flow to a minimum flow rate when the thermostat is not calling for full heating or cooling. For the other air handlers with zone temperature controls the retrofit includes DART wireless supply air temperature sensors or equivalent. This wireless control system allows the fan speed to be slowed to a minimum flow rate whenever the zone temperatures are satisfied. The retrofit allows the zone temperatures to be properly controlled with less simultaneous heating and cooling energy use. In addition, reduced air flow requirements and lower operating static pressures will result in fan energy savings. In some cases, the air handlers have existing variable volume devices such as variable inlet vanes (VIV) or varicone flow devices, which are generally less efficient than modern VFDs, and may not be working optimally. In these cases, the project would replace the existing flow control device with a variable frequency drive, and the existing flow control is reflected in the project costs and savings. The savings are calculated for this project through a bin simulation adjusted for local weather, operating hours, building load characteristics, air handler flows and configuration, and temperature control strategies. The cost for implementing this project includes variable frequency drives for the supply and return fans, wireless remote supply air temperature sensors for representative zone supply registers and a control strategy to optimize the air flow and static pressure from the supply fan. This project does not apply to air handlers that serve patient areas in the medical centers, as they are required by OSHPD to operate at constant volume all of the time. It does not apply to laboratory air handlers, where more elaborate air flow control devices are needed Air Handler Project 3. Demand Control Ventilation This project adds a carbon dioxide sensor to air handlers that serve areas with highly variable occupancies, such as lecture halls, theaters, gymnasiums. Measurement of the carbon dioxide level is used to reset the minimum outside air flow function of the outside air economizer according to occupancy requirements. The project includes a carbon dioxide sensor which is usually located inside the lecture hall or building space. This will result in the heating and cooling of less outside air when it is not needed for ventilation. The minimum flow of outside air into the air handler has typically been designed according to full occupancy of the space. For example, if there are 2 seats in a lecture hall the minimum outside air flow may have been determined by multiplying 15 cfm per person (or /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-6 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

45 seat) times 2 seats, or 3, cfm. The outside air economizer would be adjusted never to drop below this level. In the modified case the minimum outside air flow will be allowed to drop to lower levels as long as adequate ventilation is maintained for the number of people in the room, as indicated by the carbon dioxide levels. This is a standard control sequence required by Title 24 for new construction in high density spaces. Title 24 requires a minimum outside air flow rate of at least.15 cfm/sf, regardless of occupancy. This level of ventilation removes contaminants not related to human occupants. This level of outside air supply is typically found in office areas, so carbon dioxide sensors do not offer significant energy savings potential for offices and other areas that are never densely occupied. The savings are calculated for this project through a bin simulation adjusted for local weather, operating hours, building load characteristics, air handler flows and configuration, and temperature control strategies. The cost for implementing this project includes a carbon dioxide sensor, which can be factory calibrated with no need for additional calibration during its service life, and integration into the economizer control sequence. The campus can choose to monitor and log the carbon dioxide levels. This project does not apply to air handlers serving office areas or other relatively low density areas. It does not apply to patient handling or laboratory air handlers where other outside air requirements exist Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers This project adds a static pressure reset capability to existing VAV air handlers that do not have direct digital zone controls. The current design static pressure setpoint may be the appropriate pressure to operate at during hours of high air conditioning load, but it is not necessarily needed during other hours of operation. This project automatically resets the static pressure to a level that maintains comfort conditions but is typically lower than the original setpoint. There are two technologies commonly used to apply this control strategy. If the VAV system has direct digital controls at the room thermostats it is possible to use information from these thermostats to automatically reset the supply static pressure. It can be continuously reset so that a small portion of the VAV boxes are calling for full cooling. This would be an indicator that the pressure is operating at as low a point possible. For air handlers with DDC at the zones, this is a control sequence change which could be addressed in the commissioning project. The cost for reprogramming is relatively minor and so is not included in this section as a project. Other VAV air handlers do not have DDC at the zone level, and so do not provide this type of feedback. An alternative control strategy will be used to address this situation, SAV with InCITe offered by Federspiel Controls. This system uses air flow measurement at the air handler to quantify the building load and resets the supply air pressure accordingly. This control sequence has been installed in several UC buildings over the last several years. The cost and savings for applying SAV with InCITe to air handlers without DDC zone controls are included in this project /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-7 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

46 This approach to resetting supply pressure setpoints reduces fan energy use during part load conditions, while continuously meeting comfort requirements. The savings are calculated through a bin simulation adjusted for local weather, operating hours, building load characteristics, air handler flows and configurations and temperature control strategies. The cost of implementing this control involves either reprogramming the DDC system or installing the SAV with InCITe system. Either process requires fine tuning for optimal performance. This measure should apply to all existing VAV air handlers except in laboratories or other areas where static pressure control of the spaces is critical. It also applies to air handlers Air Handler Project 5. Reduce Air Handler Operating Hours This project shuts down air handlers during nights and weekends, when the areas they serve are not in use. This applies to classroom buildings, offices, lounges, gyms and libraries. These air handlers may operate continuously now in order to cool a server or telecom closet. Or they may operate to condition the building in case someone comes in to work during non-business hours. The building needs can typically be met by means other than running the air handlers continuously. In the case of the cooling needs of servers, the first choice would be to locate these servers in data centers where they receive cooling as needed, conditioned power, UPS backup, and continuous staffing. If there are servers or telecom equipment which cannot be relocated outside the building, they should be conditioned during nights and weekends by either split heat pumps, or dedicated chilled water coils where chilled water is continuously available. In the case where the comfort of faculty, staff or students is critical during non-standard hours, these requirements can be met in several ways with existing control systems. For example, the space temperature of the buildings can be monitored during the nights and weekends so when it drifts outside a given comfort zone (perhaps 65 to 8 F) the air handler can operate as long as necessary to reestablish temperature control. The air handler would then shut off again until the building drifts outside of the setback temperature control points again. Some faculty or staff could also be given phone in access to the building control system to allow them to request air handler operation for several hours at a time when they find the temperature unacceptable. The intention of this project is to provide a similar level of service to the University occupants that they currently enjoy, but at a lower energy use. The cost of this modification will be based on the number of spot cooling devices which may be necessary to serve specific building hot spots. The programming portion for the DDC system is not particularly expensive, as this is a standard control sequence. Temperature monitoring may be needed in older air handlers without direct digital control. Specific application notes are listed below Air Handler Project 6. Convert Air Handlers to Direct Digital Control This measure involves replacing pneumatic controls on larger air handlers with direct digital controls. The intention is that no air handlers with supply fans of 1 hp or larger be left /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-8 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

47 operating with pneumatic controls. The continued use of pneumatic controls creates problems in terms of calibration and drift, inadequate control sequences, inability to monitor and verify proper operation, incompatibility with demand response and inability to commission with lasting effect Air Handler Project 7. Outside Air Ventilation Heat Recovery An energy recovery system is recommended in some facilities to capture heat or cooling from exhaust air and reuse some of it to precondition the make-up air before supplying it to the building. The type of heat exchangers or HVAC coils used to transfer this energy from the exhaust flow to the supply air can vary according to building design. Installation of a heat exchanger can result in significant energy savings in buildings that require a supply of 1% outside air. This was recommended for specific buildings in locations that experience significant variances in outdoor air temperature over the course of a year Air Handler Project 8. Kitchen Hood VFD Demand ventilation controls are recommended for the university s larger dining facilities commercial kitchen hood exhaust fans (typically 3 hp and up). Standard exhaust hoods consume a significant amount of energy because they constantly run at maximum flow and require make-up air that must be heated or cooled. By installing VAV hoods controlled by infrared smoke sensors and temperature sensors, supply and exhaust fan speeds can be adjusted to match actual cooking activity under the hood, reducing the excess energy consumed in between meal preparation times. These controls have already been installed in several UC campus dining facilities with positive results that have led to further installation requests Air Handler Project 9. Add Air Side Economizer This project adds air side economizer on air handlers. This project concentrates on larger air handlers which use minimum fresh air for ventilation and do not take advantages of outside air conditions for cooling (or for heating). During cooling mode, in the absence of an economizer return air that is generally warm is mixed with the minimum outside air and then cooled with the help of mechanical cooling to meet the supply air temperature requirements. The amount of fresh or outside air brought into space through air handlers is fixed and not varied. In the economizer mode, whenever outside conditions favor, outside air cooler than return air is brought into the space and, instead of being supplied back to the space, return air is exhausted. This is also known as free cooling, and significantly reduces cooling energy cost and system load. The same applies to heating mode where outside air warmer than return air is brought into the space to meet heating demand. The project involves installing DDC dampers on outside air intake, return air and exhaust air to control percentage of outside air and return air in supply air to vary according to the load and outside conditions. In addition, a retrofit kit (damper actuator, flow measuring station, outside air temperature and humidity monitoring station, mixed air temperature sensor) is installed on each of the air handler. This kit includes direct digital controls, which increases the cost but greatly increases the functionality. Enthalpy changeover control strategy will be adapted to use outside air in the most economical way without use of energy required to /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-9 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

48 dehumidify additional outside air. Enthalpy is a measure of the total heat in the air, which is calculated by measuring both the dry bulb temperature and the relative humidity. Outside air will be used for cooling when the enthalpy of outside air is lower than the enthalpy of return air. Outside air and return air dampers are modulated to admit enough outside air to minimize cooling energy use. When outside air enthalpy is greater than the return air enthalpy, minimum outside air required for ventilation is brought into the space Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume The intention of this project is to convert laboratories to variable air volume systems and reduce the large outside air heating, cooling and fan power loads. Many existing labs are constant volume reheat systems, with a fixed air flow coming from the air handlers being reheated at the laboratory and exhausted through the constant volume hoods or room general exhaust. Most new laboratories utilize VAV air handlers and fume hoods. The intention of this project is to update the configuration of the existing labs so that they can operate as efficiently as the new labs. The UC EH&S Laboratory Safety Design Guide Second Edition September 27 states All laboratories should contain a fully integrated laboratory variable air volume (VAV) airflow/pressure control system to control room temperature, ventilation rate and room pressurization. This project starts with a review of the air balance requirements of the facility. The air flow needs of each room are determined according to the function of the room, the number of hoods and the internal and external heat loads. This air balance may be significantly reduced from the existing design because of better understanding of actual loads or better design parameters. The minimum air changes typically needed in a laboratory are 6 air changes per hour for a room with a 1 foot ceiling, per the EH&S Design Guide. A given lab may need higher minimums, depending upon the density of hoods. The mechanical work includes converting the air handlers to VAV with the addition of VFDs to the supply fans. This may be appropriate for the exhaust fans as well, depending upon how they are ducted together. The hoods are converted to variable flow through the addition of an exhaust flow control valve and the sealing off of the sash bypass. If there are a small number of hoods in a larger room, these do not need to be converted to VAV, where the general exhaust requirements for the room are great enough that it makes no difference whether the air leaves through the hood or the general exhaust duct. The room supply air and general exhaust typically require new flow control valves or dampers as well to allow pressure control of each room. The exhaust fans may need stepping control and/or VFDs to maintain proper exhaust pressure in the duct and proper discharge velocity on the roof. The control systems should include supply temperature reset, utilizing either a DDC sequence or a controller such as DART, described above. The campus provided a list of desired lab fume hood projects with the comments to the draft report, with project costs and savings extrapolated from an analysis of Genentech Hall. Table 8.1 below lists these buildings, as provided by the campus, and the corresponding SEP Project ID# for easy cross referencing. In most cases, the fume hood projects were included in the project list, with individualized analysis. The list provided by the campus, which includes the campus initial estimates of savings is included in Appendix C /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

49 Table 8.1: Campus Requested Fume Hood Projects Building SEP ID# Note Genetech B126 Already included in SEP Helen Diller Cancer B311 Added to projects HSE B138 Already included in SEP HSW B137 Already included in SEP MSB B136 Already included in SEP Mt Zion Cancer B142 Already included in SEP SF General Not viable, per UCSF Rock Hall B14 Already included in SEP Byers Hall B139 Already included in SEP CSB B141 Already included in SEP Laboratory Air Handler Project 2. Rebalance Variable Air Volume Laboratory (or Vivarium) Air Handlers A number of newer laboratories at the campuses were designed and built with VAV fume hoods and air handlers. Some of these have presented opportunity for efficiency improvement through rebalance of their systems to provide desired minimum air change rates (6 ACH). The current air change rate may be higher if the labs were designed for standard heat loads that did not end up being installed in most places. In some buildings air changes were provided for future hoods that were not installed. This project will readjust the air balance in the existing labs to meet the air flow requirements as the buildings are currently operating. Should the operations of a given laboratory change in the future, the air change rate can be adjusted just for that room through a similar process. The work involved in implementing this project is the recalculation of air change minimum air flows for each lab, based on the current building loads and 6 ACH minimum. Where the building has a DDC system, the new minimum air flows are set for the boxes and the operation is observed for stability and temperature control. Where there is no DDC system a more involved air balance will be necessary, probably manually setting the minimum flows on the zone supply boxes. The existing static pressure controllers should provide the reduced air flow and fan savings when the minimum air flows occur. The control systems should include supply temperature reset, utilizing either a DDC sequence or a controller such as DART, described above Laboratory Air Handler Project 3. Reduce Minimum Air Change Requirements through Continuous Monitoring The first two Laboratory Air Handler Projects will reduce air change rates according to the needs of the individual rooms, with minimum flows set for 6 air changes per hour. This project will further reduce the minimum air flow setpoints in laboratory areas, with monitoring provided to raise the air change rate should a chemical spill be detected. The plan from the UC Irvine campus is to drop minimum air flow setpoints to 4 ACH during hours when the /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-11 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

50 laboratories are normally occupied and to 2 ACH during other hours. This will further reduce the use of electricity to circulate the air, as well as heating and cooling requirements for the 1% outside air flow. The approach at UC Irvine is comprised of a chemical monitoring system that monitors the concentration of a number of common gases. The currently proposed system is an Aircuity system which uses a central monitoring station physically connected by sampling tubing to perhaps 2 rooms. The air quality in each laboratory is sampled periodically, typically once every 15 minutes. Detection of high gas concentrations caused by a spill would automatically increase the air change rate in the affected lab. A push button in each lab could be manually activated to do the same. Implementation of this measure requires approval of the campus Environmental and Health Safety department, which exists at UC Irvine Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers In patient handling areas of medical centers, OSHPD typically requires constant volume air handlers to allow a precise air balance and maintenance of static pressure differences between rooms and hallways. This does not permit the use of VAV systems and their associated savings. Many of these systems are required to be 1% outside air as well. The most that can be done in a constant volume air handler is to ensure that the supply air temperature is set as high as possible while maintaining comfort, and ensuring that, if there is an outside air economizer, it is controlled according to the supply air temperature. This is a relatively easy programming effort in a DDC system. If a DDC system is not present some other optimizing approach is required. This could be a reset schedule based on outside air or other load indicator. It could also be done through a sampling of the supply air temperature in typical zones through a wireless mesh network of temperature sensors, as recommended in Air Handler Project 2, using the DART technology. It is not clear in which parts of a medical center this wireless technology could be employed. 8.3 Monitoring Based Commissioning Projects Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings Monitoring Based Commissioning (MBCx) is recommended for all campus buildings of 5, sf and greater over the course of the next two utility funding cycles (six years). This process includes installing networked whole building meters on the buildings to automatically track electricity, steam, hot water, chilled water and/or natural gas use. It also includes a commissioning effort to review building operations, the functionality of controls, the appropriateness of sequences of operations, time scheduling, and numerous other building operation parameters. The process of identifying the SEP projects was a building survey, as opposed to an investment grade energy audit. The operational changes which would normally be identified in a detailed audit should be identified and resolved through the commissioning process. Where capital projects have been identified for buildings, for example, convert to variable air volume or install variable flow fume hoods, it is recommended that the commissioning process be integrated with the retrofit process, even though it is included separately in the /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-12 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

51 project list. This is a hybrid MBCx process which will result in the most expedient change in building operations. In the case where no retrofit projects have been identified the commissioning process can be implemented at any time. It is possible that the commissioning process will result in the identification of additional retrofit measures which can be funded and installed in a later process. No commissioning project is recommended for buildings which received monitoring based commissioning in the or UC CSU IOU Partnership Program. The budgets for the MBCx projects were projected based on the Partnership Program applications. The average cost for MBCx in Basic buildings was $.61 per square foot. For Complex buildings the average cost is $1.22 per square foot. The projected MBCx energy savings for the SEP buildings are determined relative to the Partnership Program applications. There is a 7% multiplier applied to all savings projections because the buildings already in the MBCx program were selected specifically for their potential, while the proposed SEP buildings are only selected based on size. Basic building applications average electricity savings of 1% or 1.1 kwh/sf-yr, and gas savings of 15% or.15 th/sf-yr. Energy savings are projected to SEP buildings according to historical energy use of the building, if it is known. If historical energy use is not known, savings are projected on the basis of the building area. In both cases a 7% savings scaling factor is applied. Complex building applications average electricity savings of 9% or 2.7 kwh/sf-yr, and gas savings of 21% or.29 th/sf-yr. Energy savings are projected to SEP buildings according to historical energy use of the building, if it is known. If historical energy use is not known, savings are projected on the basis of the building area. In both cases a 7% savings scaling factor is applied. In addition, MBCx was recommended for all central plants which have not previously been commissioned through the Partnership program. 8.4 Capital Program Projects New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program There is a significant opportunity to integrate energy efficiency with new construction and renovation of campus facilities. This is currently implemented through the Savings By Design process administered by the statewide investor owned utilities, as well as SMUD. It is anticipated that this program will be continued in the utility portfolio. It is hoped that it can be integrated with the UC CSU IOU Partnership Program to become more effective. The anticipated program modifications include the following: encourage energy savings of greater than 25% relative to Title 24 to earn the maximum incentive levels of $.25 per kwh and $1. per therm; use the Partnership minimum required campus contribution of 2% rather than the Savings By Design requirement of 5%; remove the $15, or $45, cap per project; consider some up front engineering /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-13 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

52 On the UC side the current process is hampered by severe competition for construction funds to implement the efficiency measures. Even when funds are set aside in the design budgets to meet the current UC goal of 2% below Title 24, efficiency measures are sometimes lost in value engineering during the construction process. There are typically not enough funds available to allow construction of buildings with the energy efficiency measures justified by life cycle costing. The opportunity to use the energy efficiency bond money in new construction and renovation projects would create significantly more opportunities for the installation of energy efficiency in these projects. The potential cost and savings is projected for this analysis, assuming each project could reduce energy use by approximately 3% below Title 24 and assuming that the total investment to achieve this performance would result in a simple payback period of 7 years. It is possible that this performance level can be achieved with a shorter payback, or that higher percentage savings can be achieved with this payback period. The potential cost and savings for this measure is based on the planned construction for the campuses, as detailed in the 27-8 to Capital Program document from the UCOP website. This includes construction and renovation projects on all campuses, independent of building funding source. The total project cost and savings were projected for individual projects, based on average performance numbers from existing UC buildings. A projected 3% savings in Basic buildings is 3.3 kwh/sf-yr and.3 th/sf-yr. A projected 3% savings in Complex buildings is 8.9 kwh/sf-yr and.4 th/sf-yr. These savings were projected to the building areas identified in the Capital Program document. Where building area was not directly identified, it was estimated from the project budget based on a projected construction cost of $611 per gross square foot. This is based on the average construction cost of the projects where stated ($917 per assignable square foot) and the observed ratio of gross square feet to assignable square feet from the UCOP comprehensive building list (1.5). The 27-8 to Capital Program identifies hundreds of planned projects. Savings By Design projects for the Strategic Energy Plan were not calculated for projects which are currently on the UCOP list of Savings By Design projects underway through the current program. It was assumed that these projects are too advanced in the design process to switch to a deeper savings investment based on the proposed SEP process. In addition projects were not included on the SEP list if they are shown with an occupancy date of 27-8 or It is assumed that these projects are too far along in design to allow significant changes. Once the new SEP program is underway, there may be an opportunity to include some of these projects, or to replace recommended measures that could not be supported in the original budget. Also excluded from the SEP project list are buildings listed for occupancy in or later, parking structures, and general infrastructure projects. Several buildings were added to the list by request of a campus. The projects listed include new buildings and renovation of existing buildings. In some cases the projects are not defined, but fall under general budgets, such as Campus /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-14 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

53 Approved Projects Under $5 Million. The total list assumes that energy efficiency is an integral part of each of these projects. 8.5 Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects There is a significant budget spent on deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects each year. This is an investment in returning buildings and equipment to proper operating condition. This often includes roof replacement, window replacement and chiller or boiler replacement. This project comes from a different source than the capital project Each campus produces a list based on a combination of priorities, although energy savings are typically not a factor. Although projects typically may save a nominal amount of energy, the replacement of this type of equipment typically has a long simple payback if calculated on energy savings only. Certainly some capital investment could be used to increase the efficiency of a project by improving the U value of a roof, increasing the performance of glazing or improving the efficiency of a chiller or boiler. The budget that each campus has to spend on these projects is highly variable. It can be in the range of $1 million per year in a good year. It has been estimated that about 12% of these projects have an energy savings component. An increment of $.25 to $.5 million per year of deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects is used in the SEP project list. The campuses could elect to include one or more of these projects per year in their SEP commitment. 8.6 Campus Wide Projects Campus Wide Project 1. Refrigerators It is recommended that all pre-21 refrigerator units be replaced by Energy Star units. Old refrigerators can consume twice the electricity of a current Energy Star unit. Refrigerators are especially prevalent in universities where they are widely used in both academic and residential settings. Electricity and cost savings were calculated using the Energy Star calculator adapted for replacement of pre-21 residential-type refrigerators on campuses. Refrigerators in Housing The number of refrigerators in housing per campus were estimated based on the total number of apartment-type housing and suite-type housing available on each campus. Where available, we used the numbers of housing refrigerators to be replaced, as specified by the campus. Refrigerators on Campus The number of refrigerators on campus was estimated based data provided by the UCB BETS database and prorated by the number of enrolled students at each campus. The BETS database provides an inventory of refrigerators that were purchased before Campus Wide Project 2. Lab Freezers It is recommended that all pre-21 lab freezers be replaced by energy efficient units. According to New Brunswick Science (NBS), current energy efficient units consume half the amount of electricity of the industry average. Due to this significant waste of energy, /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-15 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

54 Energy Star is currently developing standards for the industry. These units are especially prevalent in universities where they are widely used in research settings. Electricity and cost savings are calculated using data for ultra-low temperature (-86 F) upright lab freezers provided by NBS. While the Energy Star standards are currently being developed, this calculation can serve as an estimate for -2 to -3 F lab freezers as well by using an average industry installed cost of $7,. The number of ultra-low temperature lab freezers on each campus was estimated based on data provided by the UCB BETS database and prorated by the number of enrolled students at each campus Campus Wide Project 3. Server Virtualization Server Virtualization maximizes the utilization of servers by installing virtualization software on existing servers and allows the elimination of idling or under-utilized physical servers. Energy savings potential was calculated based on deemed values provided by the SCE "Virtual Machine" calculator, version 6. The baseline server assumed the default values provided by the SCE calculator, whereas the proposed VM server used an average of two servers' specifications, "HP DL 585" and "Dell Blade 1955", servers that UC Berkeley are considering for future VM projects. The number of "virtualizable servers" per campus was estimated using data provided by the UC Berkeley IT Department and then prorated by the number of enrolled students per campus in Fall 26. This includes both the decentralized servers across campus and servers that are in the data center servers. A ratio of ten baseline servers consolidated onto one virtual machine was used based on a conservative estimate from past partnership projects. Note that this project is based on the reduction in the number of servers operating and their local air conditioning load. Where a large air handler was operating continuously to cool a server, this measure was included in the HVAC projects Campus Wide Project 4. Network Computer Power Management Software/CRT Network computer power management software is recommended to power down computers that are on the network when they are not being used. Network PC power management software energy savings potential was calculated based on deemed values provided by the Verdiem PG&E work paper. Installed cost was estimated by the retail price of the software with installation, and with additional maintenance and support costs. For each campus, the number of computers on campus was estimated based on data provided by UC Berkeley's BETS database and prorated by the number of enrolled students per campus in Fall 26. The BETS database showed the number of computers on campus older than 5 years. To be conservative, we estimated that half of these computers represented the number of managed, networked-computers on which power management software could be installed. However, we recommend that power management software be installed on all managed, networked-computers. CRT monitor to LCD monitor conversions were also recommended for each campus. Both the energy savings potential and cost were based on the Energy Star calculator for LCDs, adapted to represent conventional 17" CRT monitors to be replaced by Energy Star 17" LCDs. We recommend, however, that all CRTs be replaced with Energy Star LCDs to maximize energy savings /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-16 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

55 8.6.5 Campus Wide Project 5. Install Controllers on Vending Machines Vending machines and sliding-door coolers can easily be retrofit to use approximately 4 percent less energy using inexpensive controllers. To examine the potential for this efficiency measure, counts of sliding door coolers and two types of vending machines, refrigerated and non-refrigerated, were collected from the UC campuses. Information about existing measures to reduce the energy consumption of these machines (e.g. requiring service providers to use Energy Star machines) was also gathered to avoid duplication of those efforts. For campuses that were not able to provide vending machine data, typical values determined for the rest of the UC system were applied. Based on the reported or estimated number of vending machines on each campus and the estimated annual energy usage of a machine, the existing energy consumption of all vending machines was calculated for each campus. For campuses that had not implemented controls or had done so only to a limited extent, full use of controllers on all campus vending machines and sliding-door coolers is recommended. The energy and cost savings associated with implementing this measure are calculated based on typical energy savings listed in the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (25) and reported by equipment manufacturers. 8.7 Other Projects Swimming Pools The Strategic Energy Plan includes energy savings and cost estimates for a number of energy efficiency measures for swimming pools. Four potential measures have been identified for campus pools and information is provided for each individual pool when appropriate Pool Project 1. Variable Speed Drives and High Efficiency Motors for Filter Pumps Pool filter pumps are often continuously run at a constant flow rate regardless of usage and cleanliness standards. Codes typically require certain circulation rates when the pool is occupied. This measure includes installing a variable speed drive with control system and, when appropriate, replacing the motor with a premium efficiency motor. The energy savings calculations for this project assume that the pump will be slowed down to 5% of its normal speed during unoccupied hours (8 hours per day for most pools) Pool Project 2. Pool Covers Heated pools and spas lose approximately 7% of their energy to evaporation. Since evaporation is the major source of heat loss for pools, covering the pool when it is not in use is an effective manner of minimizing water and heat loss. This project includes standard insulating pool blankets, storage reels, and a power winder. Energy savings are modeled using the RETScreen4 software. The calculations assume that pool covers will be used eight hours per day /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-17 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

56 8.7.4 Pool Project 3. Solar Water Heating Solar water heating can significantly reduce pool operating cost by decreasing heating requirements. This measure is for a solar pool heating system of unglazed collectors with a total collecting area equal to 6% of the size of the area of the pool. Energy savings are modeled using RETScreen4 software. The calculations assume that pool covers are installed and used to minimize heat loss Pool Project 4. Boiler Replacement This project replaces standard boilers for pool heating with dedicated high efficiency condensing boilers. The energy savings calculations for this measure assume 8% thermal efficiency for the currently installed boiler. Although some condensing boilers for pool heating claim up to 98% thermal efficiency, a conservative estimate of 9% thermal efficiency was used for the replacement boiler. The baseline energy consumption for this measure assumes that both pool covers and solar water heating are used. Information is not provided for pools that are heated using the central loop or a non-dedicated boiler Domestic Solar Hot Water The use of solar hot water heating was explored as a possible measure to reduce energy use in campus residences. Total domestic hot water consumption was estimated for large residence halls and apartment buildings based on occupancy data collected from the campuses. Then, using data on the solar resource available on each campus and an assumed fraction of total water use to be provided, a solar hot water system was sized to meet demand. The cost of an appropriate system active, closed-loop, with glazed flat-plate collectors was then estimated to determine the cost effectiveness of this measure. Paybacks for domestic solar hot water were close to 8 years and therefore this measure was not recommended. However, in certain circumstances domestic solar hot water may prove more attractive. For example, where a solar hot water system has already been in use, adding or upgrading panels while preserving existing storage and pipes may offer a cost-effective measure. Also, access to state or federal tax credits and/or utility incentives currently in pilot phase could greatly increase the attractiveness of this measure. 8.8 Custom Projects UCSF Custom Project 1. Install VFD Driven Centrifugal Chiller (15 Ton) Install VSD driven, 15-ton centrifugal water-cooled chiller replacing the existing 4-ton single stage absorber unit in the Library to cater around 125 ton peak cooling demand of the building. Provide a 5 HP primary CHW pump and a VFD driven 5 HP secondary CHW pump in place of existing pumps besides converting chilled water loop to handle variable volume flow. The chilled water loop variable volume project includes replacing 3-way valves with 2- way valves, making piping changes and adding controls and programming. Provide a 7.5 HP condenser pump and add a VFD to the existing 3 HP motor on the cooling tower /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-18 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

57 8.8.2 UCSF Custom Project 2. Remove Multiple Air-cooled Chillers and Interconnect Clinical Sciences to CUP Remove one 3-ton, two 2-ton packaged air-cooled Trane chillers and one 3-ton packaged air-cooled Carrier chiller. Interconnect the building to the Parnassus campus central chilled water piping. The chilled water loop interconnection project includes replacing 3-way valves with 2-way valves, making piping changes and adding necessary controls. This ECM assumes the CHW piping can be run through the existing tunnel used for supplying central plant steam UCSF Custom Project 3. Remove Multiple Air-cooled Chillers and Interconnect Medical Sciences to CUP Remove one 4-ton approx (Technical Systems), one 4-ton (McQuay), one 2-ton (Carrier) and one 3-ton (Trane) packaged air cooled chillers. Interconnect the building to the Parnassus campus central chilled water piping. The chilled water loop interconnection project includes replacing 3-way valves with 2-way valves, making piping changes and adding necessary controls. This ECM assumes the CHW piping can be run through the existing tunnel used for supplying central plant steam UCSF Custom Project 4. Convert Cooling Tower Fans from 2-speed to VFD Add a VFD to the existing 2-speed 5 HP motor of the cooling tower fan at Rock Hall. The project includes adding controls and necessary modifications in the programming UCSF Custom Project 5. Replace 2 Speed Control with VFD Control on Cooling Tower Fan Add a VFD to the existing 2-speed 5 HP motor of the cooling tower fan at the Community Center. The project includes adding controls and necessary modifications in the programming UCSF Custom Project 6. Install VFDs on Existing Centrifugal Chillers & Provide Tower Free Cooling Add VFDs on two 335-ton Trane centrifugal water cooled chillers in Byers Hall. Electric energy savings are realized by improved part-load performance of the chiller. Due to the low ambient wet bulb conditions in San Francisco climate, when the CW temperature is below the CHW supply temperature a heat exchanger can be used to transfer the CHW heat directly to the cooling towers without using a chiller. Thus tower free cooling eliminates the chiller operating energy by greatly reducing the total amount of energy required to produce a given amount of chilled water. Add a Plate and Frame Heat Exchanger (PFHX) of 8 GPM capacity to intercept the warm return CHW from the building and extract some or all of the heat and transfer it directly to the cooling towers. The project includes necessary piping modification, adding controls and modifications in the programming UCSF Custom Project 7. Install VSD on Existing Centrifugal Chiller Install VSD on the 12-ton electric centrifugal chiller on the Parnassus Campus. Electric energy savings are realized by improved part-load performance of the chiller /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-19 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

58 8.8.8 UCSF Custom Project 8. Hooper Pad Chiller Replacement and Interconnect. Replace three 2-ton packaged air cooled Carrier chillers at Hooper Pad with a new VFD driven 6-ton water cooled centrifugal chiller located at the Central Plant. The project includes necessary piping modification on primary & secondary chilled water and condenser water loops of existing central plant equipment. Add controls and make suitable modifications in the programming UCSF Custom Project 9. Chiller System Replacement 5 ton This project would replace an existing electric centrifugal chiller at the UCSF Mission Center Building with a new 525 ton electric centrifugal chiller with a VFD. The use of Turbocor compressors is one option being considered. The project also includes new chilled water pumps, condenser water pumps and a cooling tower. The project was originally identified by Arup UCSF Custom Project 1. Chiller Unit Condensing Coil Replacement This project would replace a degraded existing condensing coil on air conditioning equipment in the Mission Center Building UCSF Custom Project 11. Condensate Return System Bypass Renewal This project would modify the existing condensate return system at the Parnassus campus to collect a greater portion of the available condensate UCSF Custom Project 12. Hartman Loop Control Logic for the Parnassus CHW System The Hartman loop is a sophisticated control logic which control chiller plants to produce the lowest possible energy usage available. VFDs are provided on all major components, and controlled to provide stable operation of all chillers. It also selects the most efficient combination of chiller, and pumping distribution scenario. Being that this plant is served by electricity, and an co-generation system, this system control is analyzed in conjunction with the co-generation system, in order to produce the lowest possible (entire system) energy usage, cooling plant and co generation system. These analyses are on-going. The exact energy saving possible are a rough estimate at this time, and not included in this report. As analyses proceed, a more accurate estimate of energy savings will be developed UCSF MC Custom Project 1. Convert to Variable Volume Chilled Water Pumping Currently, a constant volume chilled water pumping system is intact. Two primary-only 5 HP chilled water pumps in MTZ Building J supply chilled water to the chillers in addition to the air handler cooling coils. In this ECM add VFD to the primary pumps and retrofit all threeway valves on the cooling coils to two-way modulating valves. Necessary electrical and control programming changes will be incorporated. This measure is also recommended for the central plant /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-2 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

59 UCSF MC Custom Project 2. Replace Chillers at Moffitt & Long Hospital & Interconnect Remove two 2 ton water-cooled single-stage Trane absorption chillers at Long Hospital and two 385-ton water cooled single-stage Trane absorption chillers at Moffitt Hospital. Install a 12-ton VSD driven centrifugal chiller at the Central Plant Room complete with a 1 HP Primary pump, 15 HP Condenser pump and 14 ton cooling tower with VFD driven fan. One of the existing VFD driven secondary pump of central plant will be used to supply chilled water to the buildings. Interconnect the system to the CUP piping and make the necessary chilled water piping modifications. The CHW piping will be run through the existing trench used for supplying central plant steam. Retrofit all three-way valves on the cooling coils to two-way modulating valves UCSF MC Custom Project 3. ACC Chiller and Chilled Water Project Remove the ACC-RAC-14 chiller supplying cooling to AC-5. Connect the cooling coil of AC-5 system to the roof-top ACC-CHR3 chiller piping. The chilled water interconnection project includes piping modifications. Two 15 HP primary-only constant volume pumps supply chilled water to the chillers in addition to the air handler cooling coils. Add VFD to the primary pumps and retrofit all three-way valves on the cooling coils to two-way modulating valves. Convert to a variable volume chilled water loop. The chilled water loop variable volume project includes installing VFDs, making piping changes and adding controls and programming /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 8-21 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

60

61 9. BUILDING OVERVIEW & PROJECTS The following pages provide an overview of the recommended projects and summary of information for the associated buildings. The section is organized sequentially according to the Building Key, and each contains the following information for each SEP Building. Basic information about the building is contained in the header. Annual historical energy use by utility for the FY 6/7 baseline, whether metered or extrapolated. Monthly historical energy use by utility, where data is available. Hourly load profiles by utility for one summer week and one winter week, where data is available. Currently planned energy projects being implemented as part of the 26-8 UC/CSU/IOU Partnership cycle, and their associated savings as approved for the incentive application. Projects identified by the Strategic Energy Plan, and the projected savings and economics. The SEP ID Number is a key reference to find the applicable Project Summary. Benchmarking information, calculating the baseline and projected energy uses after implementation of currently planned energy projects and after implementation of the projects identified in this SEP /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 9-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

62

63 LIBRARY Funding Source: Year Built: SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C212 STATE 1991 Basic Gross Area (sf): 18,5 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Library Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 4,659,831 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 27,14.5 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

64 LIBRARY Funding Source: Year Built: SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C212 STATE 1991 Basic Gross Area (sf): 18,5 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Library Secondary Asset Type: Office Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) Install and Commission New VFDs, Correct Start/Stop Controls 676,37 147,757 Cost ($) Recommission Economizer Operation on AH-2 131,38 11,667 Replace Energy Management Control System 224,524 18,295 Library - Replace lighting w/more efficient T8 lamps and ballasts 216,332 Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B129 B38 B385 Project Name Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Simple Payback (yr) Installing VFD driven Centrifugal Chiller (15 Ton) with suitable CHW primary pump, VFD driven secondary pump, condenser Committed Tier: Tier 2 pump; VFD on existing CT fan & retrofitting the same to handle lower water flow rate 286, ,151 $147,612 $2,99,39 $184,954 $1,914, Monitoring Based Commissioning 326, ,514 $55,243 Install occupancy and daylighting sensors in offices, conference rooms, and library areas, where appropriate 8, $1,444 Committed Tier: Backup $118,79 $91,799 $26,91.5 Committed Tier: Tier 2 $167,978 $19,281 $148, Totals 693, ,665 $213,299 $2,386,77 $296,34 $2,9, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 4,659, , ,411,36 161, ,718,154 31, Percent Savings (%) 37.4% 39.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

65 MTZ BLDG A SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C218 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1949 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,8 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 5,27,39 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 32,1. Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 612,27 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) 439,4 Extrapolated Metered Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

66 MTZ BLDG A SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C218 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1949 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,8 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B1513 B39 B3524 B3525 Project Name AHU- 1 SAT Reset Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr). 87 7,285 $1,584 SBD, New/Renov - SB1953 Mount Zion Buildings A, B and D Seismic Upgrades and Clinical Expansion Monitoring Based Commissioning 89, ,564 $141,844 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $9,753 $2,486 $7, Committed Tier: Backup $1,542,372 $232,795 $1,39, Committed Tier: 328, ,968 $128,117 $237,45 $168,72 $68,73.5 Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Backup Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 266, $34,675 $188,29 $64,14 $124, Totals 1,44, ,532 7,285 $36,22 $1,977,738 $467,997 $1,59, Backup Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 5,558,829 1,13, ,332. 5,558,829 1,13, ,332. 4,148,92 883, ,11.4 Percent Savings (%).% 17.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

67 MTZ BLDG B SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C219 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1949 Basic Gross Area (sf): 16,4 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Hospitals Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 267,861 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 213,3 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

68 MTZ BLDG B SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C219 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1949 Basic Gross Area (sf): 16,4 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Hospitals Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B3526 B3527 Project Name Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) 16, ,599 $22,713 $212,626 $25,649 $186, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Backup Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 156, $2,367 $164,33 $37,61 $126, Totals 173, ,599 $43,8 $376,659 $63,25 $313, Backup Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 267, , , , , , Percent Savings (%).% 16.4% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

69 MTZ 233 POS (S Building) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C22 Funding Source: MED CTR Year Built: 1996 Basic Gross Area (sf): 5,491 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 928,5 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 11,2 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

70 MTZ 233 POS (S Building) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C22 Funding Source: MED CTR Year Built: 1996 Basic Gross Area (sf): 5,491 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B3528 B3529 Project Name Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: 58, ,25 $17,342 $119,528 $24,289 $95, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Tier 1 Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 99, $12,937 $15,61 $23,883 $81, Totals 158,1 3. 1,25 $3,279 $225,13 $48,172 $176, Simple Payback (yr) Tier 1 Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 928,5 11, ,5 11, ,49 9, Percent Savings (%).% 13.5% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

71 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C231 Funding Source: MED CTR Year Built: 1948 Basic Gross Area (sf): 53,5 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Hospitals Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 1,151,243 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 14,5. Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 93,831 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

72 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C231 Funding Source: MED CTR Year Built: 1948 Basic Gross Area (sf): 53,5 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Hospitals Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B1514 B1516 B31 B3535 B3536 Project Name AHU 5 SAT Reset Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Convert Chilled water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping SBD, New/Renov - Mount Zion Medical Office Building Monitoring Based Commissioning Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 21, $3,817 9,348. $1, , ,477 $11,65 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $9,753 $6,533 $3,22.8 Committed Tier: Backup $3,19 $2,244 $27, Committed Tier: Backup $1,98,947 $165,868 $933, Committed Tier: 72, ,793 $22,532 $16,914 $31,2 $75, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Tier 2 Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 164, $21,438 $118,58 $39,577 $78, Totals 845, ,27 $15,67 $1,363,781 $245,422 $1,118, Tier 2 Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 1,151, , ,151, , , , Percent Savings (%).% 32.9% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

73 MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C236 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1997 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,14 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 1,59,12 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 58,129 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

74 MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z 2C236 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1997 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,14 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B354 B3541 Project Name Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: 111, ,14 $2,269 $66,177 $32,818 $33, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Tier 1 Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 95, $12,45 $72,798 $22,91 $49, Totals 26, ,14 $32,673 $138,975 $55,719 $83, Simple Payback (yr) Tier 1 Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 1,59,12 58, ,59,12 58, ,383,374 52, Percent Savings (%).% 12.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

75 MTZ CANCER RESEARCH (234 SUTTER) SAN FRANCISCO Basic Gross Area (sf): 19,671 SAN FRANCISCO - MT ZION Building Type: COMPLEX 2C237 Primary Asset Type: Office Support Funding Source: MED CTR Secondary Asset Type: Laboratory Year Built: 1996 Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 5,239,182 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 41,4 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

76 MTZ CANCER RESEARCH (234 SUTTER) SAN FRANCISCO Basic Gross Area (sf): 19,671 SAN FRANCISCO - MT ZION Building Type: COMPLEX 2C237 Primary Asset Type: Office Support Funding Source: MED CTR Secondary Asset Type: Laboratory Year Built: Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) MBCx 1,681,968 1,554 Cost ($) Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B142 B386 Project Name Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Lab - VAV Retrofit w/ OS - only for FH exhaust 196, ,29 $74,171 Project Cost ($) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 171, $22,284 Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Simple Payback (yr) Committed Tier: Backup $2,211,596 $111,122 $2,1, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $163,316 $41,14 $122, Totals 367, ,29 $96,455 $2,374,912 $152,262 $2,222, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 5,239,182 41, ,557,214 3, ,189, , Percent Savings (%) 29.1% 15.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

77 MILLBERRY SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2212 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1955 Basic Gross Area (sf): 422,974 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Athletics Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 4,769,26 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 11,345.1 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 14,79 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) 31,6 Metered Metered Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

78 MILLBERRY SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2212 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1955 Basic Gross Area (sf): 422,974 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Athletics Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) MU - Replace lighting w/more efficient T8 lamps and ballasts 12,29 Cost ($) Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B116 B119 B311 B387 Project Name SF 5, 6 - CAV to VAV and SP reset Electric (kwh/yr) SF 1 to 4, 7 to 19 - CAV to VAV and SP reset Monitoring Based Commissioning Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 137, ,42 36,33 $44,43 748, $97,27 333, ,734 $58,348 Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 128, $16,649 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Tier 1 $279,945 $69,872 $21, Committed Tier: Backup $991,87 $179,574 $812, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $999,999 $95,858 $94, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $228,236 $3,737 $197, Totals 1,347, ,42 15,734 36,33 $216,669 $2,499,988 $376,41 $2,123, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 5,1,54 156, ,89, , ,514,338 11, Percent Savings (%) 1.8% 28.4% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

79 CLINICAL SCI SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2251 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1933 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,647 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 1,965,711 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 18,66.7 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 73 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) 398,2 Metered Metered Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

80 CLINICAL SCI SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2251 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1933 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,647 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) CSB - Replace lighting w/more efficient T8 lamps and ballasts 273,917 Cost ($) Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B141 B312 B388 Project Name Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) LAB CAV to VAV - SF1, 2, HV1, AC1, AC2 332, ,524 $76,645 Monitoring Based Commissioning 123, ,573 $47,44 Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 233, $3,368 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Simple Payback (yr) Committed Tier: Backup $94,52 $123,743 $78, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $38,2 $62,295 $245, Committed Tier: Backup $523,554 $56,65 $467, Totals 689, ,524 32,573 $154,57 $1,735,69 $242,13 $1,493, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 2,284, , ,1, , ,32, , Percent Savings (%) 6.% 33.6% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

81 MED SCIENCES SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2252 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1954 Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Support Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 11,332,417 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 8,242.4 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 883 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

82 MED SCIENCES SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2252 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1954 Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Support Secondary Asset Type: Office Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) MSB - Replace lighting w/more efficient T8 lamps and ballasts 68,269 Cost ($) Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B124 B127 B136 B313 Project Name SF 1 to 4 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Remove multiple aircooled chillers and interconnect system to CUP piping LAB CAV to VAV Monitoring Based Commissioning B314 SBD, New/Renov - Medical Sciences Building Improvements, Phase 3 B315 SBD, New/Renov - Medical Sciences Building Improvements, Phase 4 B389 Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 852, ,75 $149,53 295,17. $38, , ,682 $156,14 713, ,554 $226, , ,76 $5,413 1, ,811 $17,696 Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 712, $92,63 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Simple Payback (yr) Committed Tier: Backup $43,935 $255,474 $148, Committed Tier: Backup $699,598 $7,84 $628, Committed Tier: Backup $5,213,772 $239,411 $4,974, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $91, $311,9 $598,1 2.6 Committed Tier: Backup $2,1,2 $82,739 $2,17, Committed Tier: Backup $1,119,999 $29,43 $1,9, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $884,959 $17,959 $714, 7.7 Totals 3,455, , ,71 $731,11 $11,332,265 $1,16,33 $1,171, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 11,332,417 1,3, ,724,148 1,3, ,268, , Percent Savings (%) 2.9% 32.6% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

83 MOFFITT HOSP SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PAR 2C2274 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1955 Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 14,695,1 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 124,983.6 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 16,111 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

84 MOFFITT HOSP SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PAR 2C2274 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1955 Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B15 B151 B152 B153 B154 B1517 B351 B3542 B3543 Project Name SF 4N - SAT Reset SF 6 - TOD Controls SF 4SA, 4SB - SAT Reset SF 14, 15, 38, 39 - SAT Reset SF 18 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) ,941 $5,511 53,278. 3,118 $36, ,259 $9,98. 1,764 38,859 $53,674 67,153. 1,274 $2,833 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $9,753 $6,266 $3,487.6 Committed Tier: Backup $1,951 $51,762 $39. Committed Tier: Backup $44,146 $11,722 $32, Committed Tier: Backup $37,426 $6,99 $7,485.1 Committed Tier: Backup $263,349 $32,42 $231, Remove the absorption chillers at Moffitt & Long Hospital. Install 1 Nos. 12 TR VFD driven Centrifugal Chiller (in Central Plan Committed Tier: Backup Room) & connect. 858,382 $815,463 $4,446,67 $858,382 $3,588, UCSF Parnassus Kitchen Hood Controls Monitoring Based Commissioning 19, $3,49 Committed Tier: Backup $14,742 $5,556 $9, Committed Tier: 925, ,9 $33,388 $756,815 $443,278 $313,537.9 Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Backup Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 1,364, $177,334 $717,43 $327,387 $39, Totals 2,429, ,859 1,128,59 $1,453,66 $6,292,218 $1,797,34 $4,576, Backup Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 14,695,1 1,578, ,695,1 1,578, ,265, , Percent Savings (%).% 47.5% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

85 LONG HOSP SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PAR 2C2275 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1982 Basic Gross Area (sf): 372,469 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 18,853,282 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 131,62.2 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

86 LONG HOSP SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PAR 2C2275 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1982 Basic Gross Area (sf): 372,469 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B158 B159 B151 B3544 B3545 Project Name SF 1, 2, 3, 14,15 - SAT Reset SF 5.3, 5.4, SAT Reset SF 23 - SP reset Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr). 1,973 41,549 $58, , $34,817 33, $9,544 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $48,763 $66,212 $9,753.2 Committed Tier: Backup $29,258 $59,325 $5,852.2 Committed Tier: Backup $3,91 $14,849 $78.1 Committed Tier: 1,187, ,611 $226,239 $744,327 $36,673 $383, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Backup Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 1,262, $164,121 $644,161 $32,993 $341, Totals 2,679, ,56 117,16 $492,936 $1,47,49 $84,52 $741, Backup Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 18,853,282 1,645, ,853,282 1,645, ,173,842 1,484, Percent Savings (%).% 12.2% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

87 LPPI Funding Source: Year Built: SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C229 STATE 1941 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,237 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Hospitals Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 1,126,577 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 17,359.9 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 185,1 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

88 LPPI Funding Source: Year Built: SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C229 STATE 1941 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,237 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Hospitals Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B316 B39 Project Name Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 7, ,769 $29,97 Implement planned lamp and ballast retrofit, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 239, $31,123 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $197,813 $38,83 $159,1 5.3 Committed Tier: Tier 2 $349,95 $57,457 $292, Totals 31, ,769 $61,3 $547,763 $96,26 $451, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 1,126,577 42, ,126,577 42, ,199 38, Percent Savings (%).% 1.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

89 UC CLINICS (ACC) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PAR 2C248 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1972 Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 3,339,419 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 42,284.8 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 26 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

90 UC CLINICS (ACC) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PAR 2C248 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1972 Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B1511 B1512 B1518 B317 B318 B3548 B3549 Project Name AHU 1, 2, 3, 4 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset SF 9 - SAT Reset Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 1,315, ,136 $35,334 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Tier 2 $1,129,218 $492,47 $636, Committed Tier: 38, $7,332 $22,61 $12,292 $1, Remove ACC-RAC-14 (chiller supplying cooling to AC-5) & connect to rooftop chiller ACC-CHR.3 piping. Convert Chilled Committed Tier: Tier 2 Water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping. 11,2 7. $13,133 $156,986 $24,245 $132, SBD, New/Renov - Ambulatory Care Center-5 SBD, New/Renov - Ambulatory Care Center-7 Ophthalmology Relocation Monitoring Based Commissioning 63, ,35 $11, , ,43 $23,551 Committed Tier: Backup Backup $121,391 $18,323 $13, Committed Tier: Backup $256,82 $38,651 $217, Committed Tier: 21, ,2 $97,652 $66,82 $124,494 $536, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Tier 1 Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 1,51, $136,666 $52,994 $252,37 $25, Totals 2,914, ,383 83,44 $594,831 $2,85,91 $962,782 $1,887, Tier 1 Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 3,339, , ,339, , , , Percent Savings (%).% 64.5% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

91 NURSING Funding Source: Year Built: SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C241 STATE 1972 Basic Gross Area (sf): 88,668 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: College Lecture Cla Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 1,256,426 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 13,36.4 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

92 NURSING Funding Source: Year Built: SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C241 STATE 1972 Basic Gross Area (sf): 88,668 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: College Lecture Cla Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) Reduce Supply Air and Exhaust Based on Demand 267,54 57,773 Cost ($) Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B319 B391 Project Name Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 79, , $27,39 Project Cost ($) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 158, $2,635 Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Simple Payback (yr) Committed Tier: Tier 1 $28, $36,997 $243,3 8.9 Committed Tier: Backup $489,897 $38,95 $451, Totals 237, , $48,25 $769,897 $75,92 $694, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 1,256, , ,886 19, ,3 91, Percent Savings (%) 28.8% 2.1% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

93 DENTISTRY SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2412 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1979 Basic Gross Area (sf): 128,43 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 3,343,185 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 24,755.8 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 414 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) 475, Metered Metered Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

94 DENTISTRY SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2412 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1979 Basic Gross Area (sf): 128,43 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Hospitals Secondary Asset Type: Office Partnership Projects Project Description Install and Commission New VFDs, Reduce Air and Temp Based on Demand Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) 91,485 68,784 Cost ($) Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B32 B392 Project Name Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 21, ,383 $68,595 Project Cost ($) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 325,7 87. $42,259 Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Simple Payback (yr) Committed Tier: Tier 1 $28, $93,932 $186, Committed Tier: Backup $699,83 $78,17 $621, Totals 535, ,383 $11,854 $979,83 $171,949 $87, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 3,723,185 39, ,812,7 241, ,277,9 197, Percent Savings (%) 23.4% 18.6% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

95 MISSION CTR SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C2415 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1928 Basic Gross Area (sf): 29,883 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 8,49,957 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 185,745 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

96 MISSION CTR SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C2415 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1928 Basic Gross Area (sf): 29,883 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) Replace inlet guide vanes with VFDs on SFN & RFN 4-1 & ,891 Cost ($) Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B123 B321 B322 B323 B393 Project Name SF CAV to VAV & SP Reset Chiller System Replacement 5 ton Chiller Unit Condensing Coil Replacement Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 188, ,156 $32, ,5 43. $48,425 12, 1. $1,56 534, ,35 $9,293 Project Cost ($) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 449, $58,463 Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Simple Payback (yr) Committed Tier: Backup $112,565 $56,343 $56, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $1,84,1 $89,4 $1,75, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $271,7 $2,88 $268, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $982, $155,688 $826, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $599,42 $17,932 $491, Totals 1,557, ,461 $231,696 $3,85,668 $412,243 $3,393, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 8,49, , ,21,66 185, ,643, , Percent Savings (%) 2.8% 19.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

97 OYSTER POINT SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C2418 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1973 Basic Gross Area (sf): 144,429 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Storage Secondary Asset Type: Central Service Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 291,48 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 11,884 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

98 OYSTER POINT SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C2418 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1973 Basic Gross Area (sf): 144,429 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Storage Secondary Asset Type: Central Service Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B324 B394 Project Name Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 2, ,248 $3,61 Project Cost ($) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 12, $15,73 Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $171, $6,145 $164, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $2,593 $28,99 $171, Totals 141, ,248 $19,34 $371,593 $35,135 $336, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 291,48 11, ,48 11, ,283 1, Percent Savings (%).% 37.6% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

99 LAUREL HTS SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - LAUREL HEIG 2C245 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1957 Basic Gross Area (sf): 456,177 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 5,288,284 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 25,481 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

100 LAUREL HTS SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - LAUREL HEIG 2C245 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1957 Basic Gross Area (sf): 456,177 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B12 B121 Project Name AIC-3 SP Reset SF-6, 8 SP Reset B122 SF-5, 7, 9 to 17 VIV to VFD & SP Reset B325 B395 B3561 Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 7,961. 1,486 $2,164 41,643. 7,43 $11,4 269, ,529 $55,256 37, ,576 $64,521 Project Cost ($) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 597, $77,656 Replace existing 8' SL & HO fixtures fixtures with new fluorescent fixtures with sensors 244, $31,739 Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $37,21 $3,397 $33, Committed Tier: Backup $17,47 $17,397 $153, Committed Tier: Backup $1,27,966 $91,317 $1,116, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $429,999 $11,419 $319,58 5. Committed Tier: Tier 2 $815,15 $143,365 $671, Committed Tier: Backup $315,166 $58,595 $256, Totals 1,531, ,994 $242,376 $2,975,817 $424,49 $2,551, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 5,288,284 25, ,288,284 25, ,757,49 148, Percent Savings (%).% 28.6% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

101 PSSRB Funding Source: Year Built: SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C3 STATE 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 9,5 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Animal Quarters Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 3,984,592 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 2,51.1 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

102 PSSRB Funding Source: Year Built: SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C3 STATE 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 9,5 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Animal Quarters Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B11 B135 B326 B396 Project Name AHU 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B - SP reset LAB CAV to VAV Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 172,545. 2,947 $5,427 1,64, $28, , ,372 $5,87 115, $14,975 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $14,44 $78,248 $2,881.1 Committed Tier: Backup $5,136,172 $385,159 $4,751, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $166,941 $78,619 $88, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $349,99 $27,645 $322, Totals 2,143, ,947 18,372 $324,117 $5,667,426 $569,671 $5,164, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 3,984,592 25, ,984,592 25, ,84, , Percent Savings (%).% 41.7% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

103 ROCK HALL SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C31 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 23 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,565 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Laboratory Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 8,39,4 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 346,342 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

104 ROCK HALL SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C31 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 23 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,565 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Laboratory Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B111 B112 B133 B14 B397 Project Name AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset AHU 3 to 6 - SP Reset Electric (kwh/yr) Conversion of cooling tower fans from 2-speed to VFD CAV to VAV with OS Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 234,88. 13,126 $4,47 133, ,16 $33,443 19, $2,564 1,353, ,567 $228,84 Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 197, $25,616 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Tier 1 $14,997 $69,37 $2,999.1 Committed Tier: Tier 1 $19,996 $53,233 $3,999.1 Committed Tier: Backup $34,328 $4,733 $29, Committed Tier: Backup $2,64,69 $393,44 $1,67, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $299,974 $47,291 $252, Totals 1,938, ,799 $33,113 $2,433,364 $568,4 $1,959, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 8,39,4 346, ,39,4 346, ,452,48 243, Percent Savings (%).% 25.% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

105 GENENTECH HA SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C32 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 22 Basic Gross Area (sf): 438,361 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Laboratory Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 29,568, Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 585,724 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

106 GENENTECH HA SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C32 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 22 Basic Gross Area (sf): 438,361 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Laboratory Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B19 B11 B118 B126 B327 B398 Project Name SF - N7 to N9 - SP Reset SF - N 1, 11 - SP Reset SF - S1 to S4 & N1 to N6 - SP Reset CV to VAV with ZPS Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 41, $8,284 57, $14,23 89, ,183 $193,114 1,1,. 58, $187,8 1,862, ,11 $37,599 Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 1,119, $145,594 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Tier 1 $15, $14,71 $3,.4 Committed Tier: Tier 1 $14,997 $24,873 $2,999.2 Committed Tier: Tier 1 $36,9 $34,93 $7,22. Committed Tier: Tier 1 $1,528, $322, $1,26, 6.4 Committed Tier: Tier 1 $88,618 $533,169 $275,449.9 Committed Tier: Tier 1 $587,576 $268,788 $318, Totals 5,72, , ,11 $855,873 $2,99,2 $1,54,47 $1,813, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 29,568, 585, ,568, 585, ,495, , Percent Savings (%).% 22.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

107 COMMUNITY CE SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C33 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 23 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Athletics Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 4,169,95 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 136,9 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

108 COMMUNITY CE SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C33 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 23 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Athletics Secondary Asset Type: Office Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B16 B17 B18 B131 B328 B329 B399 Project Name AHU 1, 3, 4 - SP Reset AHU 2, 6, 7 - SP Reset AHU 5 - SP Reset Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Replace 2 speed control by VFD control on Cooling Tower Fan Monitoring Based Commissioning UCSF Mission Bay Kitchen Hood Controls Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 55,687. 6,99 $12, , ,687 $23,83 86, ,252 $19,75 13,617. $13,47 291, ,654 $5,64 76, ,912 $12,892 Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 234, $3,469 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Tier 1 $19,997 $2,355 $3,999.3 Committed Tier: Tier 1 $15, $39,283 $3,.1 Committed Tier: Tier 1 $14,997 $31,927 $2,999.2 Committed Tier: Tier 2 $249,342 $24,868 $224, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $4,1 $86,79 $313, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $125, $22,224 $12, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $599,918 $56,25 $543, Totals 963, ,495 $163,567 $1,424,256 $281,616 $1,194, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 4,169,95 136, ,169,95 136, ,26,946 86, Percent Savings (%).% 26.4% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

109 MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) SAN FRANCISCO MC Basic Gross Area (sf): 89,862 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z Building Type: COMPLEX 2C34 Primary Asset Type: Office Funding Source: MED CTR Secondary Asset Type: Hospitals Year Built: 1999 Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 3,12,366 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 69,468 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

110 MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) SAN FRANCISCO MC Basic Gross Area (sf): 89,862 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT Z Building Type: COMPLEX 2C34 Primary Asset Type: Office Funding Source: MED CTR Secondary Asset Type: Hospitals Year Built: 1999 Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B155 B156 B157 B3552 B3553 Project Name AHU 1 SAT Reset AHU 2 SAT Reset AHU 3 SAT Reset Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 21,599. 1,186 $3,935 32,63. 1,691 $5,775 13, $2,67 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $9,753 $6,37 $3,383.9 Committed Tier: Backup $9,753 $9,386 $1,951.3 Committed Tier: Backup $9,753 $3,533 $6,22 3. Committed Tier: 189, ,212 $34,373 $212,81 $55,759 $157, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Committed Tier: Tier 1 Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 175, $22,833 $177,87 $42,153 $134, Totals 432, ,465 $68,982 $419,145 $117,21 $33, Backup Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 3,12,366 69, ,12,366 69, ,58,132 56, Percent Savings (%).% 15.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

111 HSIR EAST SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C38 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1966 Basic Gross Area (sf): 26,35 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Support Secondary Asset Type: Laboratory Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 8,741,564 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 44,645.8 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 139 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) 763,1 Metered Metered Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

112 HSIR EAST SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C38 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1966 Basic Gross Area (sf): 26,35 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Support Secondary Asset Type: Laboratory Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) HSE - Replace lighting with T8 lamps and ballasts 493,959 Cost ($) HS East - Reset FH Exhaust Fan Static Pressure and Improve FH Ducting 179,71 Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B138 B331 B31 Project Name Lab Model CAV to VAV Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 1,254, $163,65 55, ,151 $145,837 Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 511, $66,449 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $4,224,11 $31,43 $3,922, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $1,49,999 $21,324 $839, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $549,658 $122,676 $426, Totals 2,316, ,151 $375,351 $5,823,668 $634,43 $5,189, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 9,352,44 558, ,679,14 558, ,362,82 48, Percent Savings (%) 4.5% 21.8% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

113 HSIR WEST SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C39 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1966 Basic Gross Area (sf): 233,516 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Support Secondary Asset Type: Laboratory Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 9,894,55 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) 5,534.5 Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 158 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) 863,8 Metered Metered Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

114 HSIR WEST SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C39 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 1966 Basic Gross Area (sf): 233,516 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Support Secondary Asset Type: Laboratory Partnership Projects Project Description Planned Electric Savings (kwh/yr) Planned Gas Savings (th/yr) HSW - Replace lighting with T8 lamps and ballasts 427,16 Cost ($) HS West - Install 3rd Floor Fan VFD/Reduce Air Flow and Temp Based on Demand 44,824 21,73 Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B13 B137 B332 B311 Project Name SF 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B- SP Reset LAB CAV to VAV Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 537, ,213 23,63 $121,893 1,4, $135, , ,458 $165,72 Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 438, $57,6 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Simple Payback (yr) Committed Tier: Tier 1 $14,44 $198,767 $2,881. Committed Tier: Backup $3,252,376 $249,816 $3,2, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $839,999 $238,64 $61, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $533,669 $15,242 $428, Totals 2,64, ,213 88,458 23,63 $479,288 $4,64,449 $791,889 $4,35, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 1,585,59 631, ,113,75 61, ,454, , Percent Savings (%) 4.1% 25.9% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

115 FRESNO MERC SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C329 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 84,175 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 1,162,8 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 11,659 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

116 FRESNO MERC SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C329 Funding Source: STATE Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 84,175 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: Office Support Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B1519 B333 B312 Project Name AHU 1 thru 4 - SP reset Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 75,613. 5,235 $13,88 74, ,224 $1,63 Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 15, $13,752 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $14,44 $23,382 $2,881.2 Committed Tier: Tier 1 $119,599 $19,131 $1, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $17,71 $25,389 $145, Totals 256, ,459 $38,19 $34,74 $67,92 $248, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 1,162,8 11, ,162,8 11, ,788 5, Percent Savings (%).% 25.% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

117 BYERS HALL SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C334 Funding Source: MED CTR Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 154,935 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Support Secondary Asset Type: Laboratory Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 8,179,79 Metered Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 89,848 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Metered Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

118 BYERS HALL SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C334 Funding Source: MED CTR Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 154,935 Building Type: COMPLEX Primary Asset Type: Office Support Secondary Asset Type: Laboratory Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B15 B132 B139 B334 B313 Project Name AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 34,62. 2,281 $6,162 Install VFDs on 2 Nos existing 335 TR water cooled Centrifugal Chillers & provide tower free cooling VAV with OS Monitoring Based Commissioning 272, $35,447 51, ,852 $17, , ,28 $77,25 Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 159, $2,726 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Tier 1 $14,997 $1,456 $4,541.7 Committed Tier: Tier 2 $499,931 $65,441 $434, Committed Tier: Backup $192,682 $27,19 $165, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $349,999 $136,876 $213, Committed Tier: Tier 2 $249,981 $38,263 $211, Totals 1,32, ,341 $157,286 $1,37,589 $278,145 $1,29, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 8,179,79 89, ,179,79 89, ,146,564 59, Percent Savings (%).% 14.7% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

119 MB HOUSING W SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C335 Funding Source: HOUSING Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 65,866 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Residential Secondary Asset Type: Office Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 1,497,7 Extrapolated Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 56,9 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

120 MB HOUSING W SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C335 Funding Source: HOUSING Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 65,866 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Residential Secondary Asset Type: Office Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B314 Project Name Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate 48, $6,292 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $174,971 $11,616 $163, Totals 48, $6,292 $174,971 $11,616 $163, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 1,497,7 56, ,497,7 56, ,449,31 56, Percent Savings (%).% 2.4% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

121 MB HOUSING S SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C336 Funding Source: HOUSING Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 96,81 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Residential Secondary Asset Type: Retail Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 2,21,1 Extrapolated Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 83,6 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

122 MB HOUSING S SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C336 Funding Source: HOUSING Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 96,81 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Residential Secondary Asset Type: Retail Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B315 Project Name Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate 69, $9,9 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $199,974 $16,633 $183, Totals 69, $9,9 $199,974 $16,633 $183, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 2,21,1 83, ,21,1 83, ,131,797 83, Percent Savings (%).% 2.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

123 MB HOUSING N SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C337 Funding Source: HOUSING Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 142,197 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Residential Secondary Asset Type: Commons Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 3,233,3 Extrapolated Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 122,7 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

124 MB HOUSING N SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C337 Funding Source: HOUSING Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 142,197 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Residential Secondary Asset Type: Commons Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B316 Project Name Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate 12, $13,382 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $299,961 $24,74 $275, Totals 12, $13,382 $299,961 $24,74 $275, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 3,233,3 122, ,233,3 122, ,13, , Percent Savings (%).% 2.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

125 MB HOUSING E SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C338 Funding Source: HOUSING Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 15,42 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Residential Secondary Asset Type: Retail Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 2,397, Extrapolated Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 91, Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

126 MB HOUSING E SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C338 Funding Source: HOUSING Year Built: 25 Basic Gross Area (sf): 15,42 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Residential Secondary Asset Type: Retail Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B317 Project Name Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate 75, $9,852 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Backup $249,962 $18,187 $231, Totals 75, $9,852 $249,962 $18,187 $231, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 2,397, 91, ,397, 91, ,321,219 91, Percent Savings (%).% 2.3% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

127 23 HARRISO SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - OTH 2C352 Funding Source: MED CTR Year Built: 1913 Basic Gross Area (sf): 65,494 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: 1C114 - Inactive Historical Energy Use (6/7) Electricity (kwh/yr) 82,9 Extrapolated Steam (MMBTU/yr) Hot Water (MMBTU/yr) Natural Gas (th/yr) 65,7 Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Extrapolated Monthly Energy Use (Electric) Weekly Load Profile (Electric) Monthly Energy Use (Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Weekly Load Profile (Natural Gas/Heating Hot Water/Steam) Monthly Energy Use (Chilled Water) Weekly Load Profile (Chilled Water)

128 23 HARRISO SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - OTH 2C352 Funding Source: MED CTR Year Built: 1913 Basic Gross Area (sf): 65,494 Building Type: BASIC Primary Asset Type: Office Secondary Asset Type: 1C114 - Inactive Strategic Energy Plan Projects SEP ID Number B3556 B3557 Project Name Monitoring Based Commissioning Electric (kwh/yr) Peak Demand (kw) Building Savings HW/Steam (MMBTU/yr) Gas (th/yr) Chilled Water (ton-hr/yr) Purchased Utility Cost Savings ($/yr) 5, ,877 $11,782 Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts 75, $9,879 Project Cost ($) Cost Gross Potential Incentive ($) Net Cost ($) Committed Tier: Simple Payback (yr) Tier 1 $74,799 $18,98 $55, Committed Tier: Tier 1 $98,156 $18,238 $79, Totals 126, ,877 $21,662 $172,955 $37,218 $135, Building Benchmarking Baseline Implement Partnership Projects Implement SEP Projects Equivalent Electricity (kwh/yr) Equivalent Natural Gas (th/yr) Equivalent Electric Energy Use Index (kwh/sf-yr) Equivalent Natural Gas Energy Use Index (th/sf-yr) Source Energy Use Index (kbtu/sf-yr) 82,9 65, ,9 65, ,477 58, Percent Savings (%).% 13.2% Assumed Incentives: Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Cap 8% project cost kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Source Energy Use Conversion Factors: kbtu per kwh 1 kbtu per th

129 1. PROJECT SUMMARIES The following pages provide a concise project summary for each SEP project. The section, organized by SEP ID Number, includes the following summary information, and additional information for each project can be found in the Appendices. Basic information including the project SEP ID Number, name, and project location. Project prioritization, as committed to by the campus upon review of the preliminary project list. Tier 1 projects formed a committed energy savings level to the Investor Owned Utilities. Tier 2 projects reflect the campus planned projects to achieve approximately 15% of the committed energy savings. Backup projects serve as potential projects the campus may consider or substitute for other projects at any time. It should be noted that energy savings for select projects may have been refined since the preliminary project list, as discussed in Section 2 of this report. The Calculation File Name provides a reference for the file name, and path if applicable, of the energy calculation which is included as a soft copy in the appendix of this report. The Project Description Reference provides the titles of the projects (Air Handler Project 1, Lighting Project 3, etc) as defined in the Energy Efficiency Project Description section earlier in this report.. The project energy savings are summarized at the building level, which include chilled water and heating hot water or steam, if supplied from a central plant, as well as the direct gas or electric savings. The total cost savings are estimated based on the purchased utility savings (including central plant and cogeneration impacts) and campus recharge rates.. The projected utility incentive is provided using the equivalent electric and gas savings, which convert chilled water and heating hot water or steam savings to electric or gas savings using the central plant efficiencies. The incentive shown in this section is the gross potential incentive, without consideration of a project cost cap. Details are displayed for the cost buildup, including appropriate multipliers and soft costs. If the source of a cost is the construction cost, contingency, engineering, construction management and project management is added. If the bare costs are known, the applicable city multipliers, tax, and O&P included obtaining the estimated construction cost, to which the soft costs are added. Project Economics Summary. The project costs, savings and resulting simple payback are calculated. The utility incentive stated here takes into consideration the project cost cap, and is highlighted if it is capped by the project cost. The monetary savings is based on the purchased utility savings and campus recharge rate /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 1-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

130

131 SEP Project ID Number: B11 Project: AHU 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B - SP reset SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS PSSRB Backup 2C3 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 9,5 \1. PSSRB\1. San Francisco CVRH_VAV PSSRB 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B - SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. 172,545. 2,947 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 172,545 36,838 $78,248 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SP reset 64 $. $ $1. $8,56 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $ $8,56 $ $ $ $ $1,21 $9,526 $1,95 Totals: $ $11, % 5.% 6.% $1,715 $572 $686 Total Project Cost: $14,44 Total Project Cost: $14,44 172,545 $11,523 36,838 Net Project Cost: $2,881 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.1 $5,427 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

132 SEP Project ID Number: B13 Project: SF 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B- SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS HSIR WEST Tier 1 2C39 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 233,516 \16. HSIR West\1. UC SF CVRH_VAV HSIR WEST SF 1A,!B, 2A, 2B- SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. 537, ,63 5,213 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 556,687 65,163 $198,767 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SP Reset Programming 64 $. $ $1. $8,56 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $ $8,56 $ $ $ $ $1,21 $9,526 $1,95 Totals: $ $11, % 5.% 6.% $1,715 $572 $686 Total Project Cost: $14,44 Total Project Cost: $14,44 556,687 $11,523 65,163 Net Project Cost: $2,881 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):. $121,893 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

133 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B15 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C334 Basic Gross Area (sf): 154,935 Project Description Reference(s): AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO BYERS HALL \18. Byers Hall\1. San Francisco CVRH_VAV Byers Hall AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 3/1/21 Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 34,62. 2,281 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 34,62 2,281 $1,456 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SP Reset 32 $. $ $1. $4,253 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $1,85. $2,36 $1,85. $2,399 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $2,36 $6,652 $168 $264 $2,468 $494 $798 $7,45 $1,49 Totals: $2,962 $8,94 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,785 $595 $714 Total Project Cost: $14,997 Total Project Cost: $14,997 34,62 $1,456 2,281 Net Project Cost: $4,541 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.7 $6,162 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

134 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B16 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C33 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 Project Description Reference(s): AHU 1, 3, 4 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY CE \2. Community Center\1. UC SF CVRH_VAV Community Center AHU 1, 3, 4 - SP Reset.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 3/1/21 Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 55,687. 6,99 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 55,687 6,99 $2,355 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SP Reset Programming 48 $. $ $1. $6,379 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $2,129. $2,42 $2,129. $2,829 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $2,42 $9,29 $198 $312 $2,912 $582 $1,15 $1,314 $2,63 Totals: $3,494 $12, % 5.% 6.% $2,381 $794 $952 Total Project Cost: $19,997 Total Project Cost: $19,997 55,687 $15,997 6,99 Net Project Cost: $3,999 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.3 $12,552 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

135 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B17 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C33 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 Project Description Reference(s): AHU 2, 6, 7 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY CE \2. Community Center\2 UC SF CVRH_VAV Community Centre AHU 2, 6, 7- SP Reset.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 3/1/21 Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 114, ,687 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 114,983 11,687 $39,283 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SP Reset Programming 48 $. $ $1. $6,379 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $972. $1,96 $972. $1,292 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $1,96 $7,671 $9 $142 $1,329 $266 $921 $8,592 $1,718 Totals: $1,595 $1,31 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,786 $595 $714 Total Project Cost: $15, Total Project Cost: $15, 114,983 $12, 11,687 Net Project Cost: $3, Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.1 $23,83 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

136 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B18 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C33 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 Project Description Reference(s): AHU 5 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY CE \2. Community Center\3 UC SF CVRH_VAV Community Centre AHU 5 - SP Reset.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 3/1/21 Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 86, ,252 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 86,145 11,252 $31,927 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $2,639. $2,977 $2,639. $3,57 SP Reset Programming 16 $. $ $1. $2,126 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $2,977 $5,634 $246 $387 $3,69 $722 $676 $6,31 $1,262 Totals: $4,331 $7, % 5.% 6.% $1,785 $595 $714 Total Project Cost: $14,997 Total Project Cost: $14,997 86,145 $11,998 11,252 Net Project Cost: $2,999 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.2 $19,75 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

137 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B19 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C32 Basic Gross Area (sf): 438,361 Project Description Reference(s): SF - N7 to N9 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH HA Tier 1 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 3/1/21 \3. Genentech Hall\2. San Francisco CVRH_VAV Genentech Hall SF - N7 to N9 - SP Reset.xls Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 41, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 41,448 4,763 $14,71 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SP Reset 3 $. $ $1,6. $6,379 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $972. $1,96 $972. $1,292 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $1,96 $7,671 $9 $142 $1,329 $266 $921 $8,592 $1,718 Totals: $1,595 $1,31 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,786 $595 $714 Total Project Cost: $15, Total Project Cost: $15, 41,448 $12, 3,81 Net Project Cost: $3, Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.4 $8,284 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

138 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B11 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C32 Basic Gross Area (sf): 438,361 Project Description Reference(s): SF - N 1, 11 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH HA Tier 1 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 3/1/21 \3. Genentech Hall\3. San Francisco CVRH_VAV Genentech Hall SF - N 1, 11 - SP Reset.xls Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 57, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 57,752 11,13 $24,873 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SP Reset 2 $. $ $1,6. $4,253 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $1,85. $2,36 $1,85. $2,399 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $2,36 $6,652 $168 $264 $2,468 $494 $798 $7,45 $1,49 Totals: $2,962 $8,94 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,785 $595 $714 Total Project Cost: $14,997 Total Project Cost: $14,997 57,752 $11,997 8,81 Net Project Cost: $2,999 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.2 $14,23 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

139 SEP Project ID Number: B111 Project: AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY ROCK HALL Tier 1 2C31 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,565 3/1/21 \4. Rock Hall\1. UC SF CVRH_VAV Rock Hall AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. 234,88. 13,126 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 234,88 13,126 $69,37 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $1,85. $2,36 $1,85. $2,399 SP Reset Programming 32 $. $ $1. $4,253 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $2,36 $6,652 $168 $264 $2,468 $494 $798 $7,45 $1,49 Totals: $2,962 $8,94 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,785 $595 $714 Total Project Cost: $14,997 Total Project Cost: $14, ,88 $11,997 13,126 Net Project Cost: $2,999 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.1 $4,47 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

140 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B112 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C31 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,565 Project Description Reference(s): AHU 3 to 6 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO ROCK HALL \4. Rock Hall\2. UC SF CVRH_VAV Rock Hall AHU 3 to 6 - SP Reset.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 3/1/21 Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 133, ,16 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 133,862 21,16 $53,233 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $1,295. $1,461 $1,295. $1,721 SP Reset Programming 64 $. $ $1. $8,56 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $1,461 $1,227 $121 $19 $1,771 $354 $1,227 $11,454 $2,291 Totals: $2,125 $13, % 5.% 6.% $2,38 $793 $952 Total Project Cost: $19,996 Total Project Cost: $19, ,862 $15,997 21,16 Net Project Cost: $3,999 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.1 $33,443 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

141 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B116 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2212 Basic Gross Area (sf): 422,974 SF 5, 6 - CAV to VAV and SP reset SAN FRANCISCO MILLBERRY \7. Millberry\1. San Francisco CVRH_VAV Millberry SF 5, 6 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 12/1/21 Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 2. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers to Variable Air Volume & Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 137, ,33 2,42 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 166,28 3,25 $69,872 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 15 hp VFD 2 $2,275. $5,132 $82. $2,18 DART Controls 2 $8,71. $19,65 $2,9. $7,78 DART Controls at Zone 17 $44. $8,437 $128. $2,892 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $32,988. $37,21 $32,988. $43,841 SAV with InCITe 2 $4,5. $1,152 $7,15. $19,5 SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 33 $. $ $56. $2,456 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $8,582 $78,81 $6,648 $1,468 $97,698 $19,54 $9,37 $87,451 $17,49 Totals: $117,237 $14, % 5.% 6.% $33,327 $11,19 $13,331 Total Project Cost: $279,945 Total Project Cost: $279, ,28 $69,872 3,25 Net Project Cost: $21,73 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4.7 $44,43 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

142 SEP Project ID Number: B118 Project: SF - S1 to S4 & N1 to N6 - SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY GENENTECH HA Tier 1 2C32 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 438,361 3/1/21 \3. Genentech Hall\1. San Francisco CVRH_VAV Genentech Hall SF - S1 to S4 & N1 to N6 - SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. 89, ,183 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 89, ,288 $34,93 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SP Reset 1 $. $ $1,6. $21,264 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $ $21,264 $ $ $ $ $2,552 $23,816 $4,763 Totals: $ $28, % 5.% 6.% $4,287 $1,429 $1,715 Total Project Cost: $36,9 Total Project Cost: $36,9 89,175 $28,87 11,83 Net Project Cost: $7,22 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):. $193,114 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

143 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B119 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2212 Basic Gross Area (sf): 422,974 SF 1 to 4, 7 to 19 - CAV to VAV and SP reset SAN FRANCISCO MILLBERRY Start Preliminary \7. Millberry\2. San Francisco CVRH_VAV Millberry SF 1 to 4, 7 to 19 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 2. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers to Variable Air Volume & Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Backup 748, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 748,227 $179,574 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 2 hp VFD 2 $7. $1,579 $4. $1,63.5 hp VFD 2 $175. $395 $35. $93 3 hp VFD 1 $1,525. $1,72 $455. $65 5 hp VFD 3 $1,675. $5,668 $455. $1, hp VFD 5 $1,975. $11,139 $545. $3,622 1 hp VFD 3 $1,975. $6,683 $545. $2, hp VFD 2 $2,275. $5,132 $82. $2,18 3 hp VFD 1 $4,775. $5,386 $1,1. $1,462 DART Controls 16 $8,71. $157,198 $2,9. $61,666 DART Controls at Zone 63 $44. $31,268 $128. $1,717 SAV with InCITe 16 $4,5. $81,216 $7,15. $152,38 2 hp VFD 1 $3,375. $3,87 $82. $1,9 SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 127 $. $ $56. $9,452 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

144 $311,193 $248,81 City: San Francisco Sales Tax: 8.25% $25,673 Contractor O&P: 12.% $4,424 $377,29 $29,857 $278,667 2.% $75,458 $55,733 Totals: $452,748 $334,41 15.% 5.% 6.% $118,72 $39,357 $47,229 Total Project Cost: $991,87 Total Project Cost: $991,87 748,227 $179,574 Net Project Cost: $812,233 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.4 $97,27 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

145 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B12 SAN FRANCISCO - LAUREL HEIGHTS 2C245 Basic Gross Area (sf): 456,177 Project Description Reference(s): AIC-3 SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO LAUREL HTS \13. Laurel HTS\1. UC SF CVRH_VAV Laurel HTS AIC-3 - SP Reset.xls Start Preliminary Backup Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 7,961. 1,486 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 7,961 1,486 $3,397 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAV with InCITe 1 $4,5. $5,76 $7,15. $9,52 SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 22 $. $ $56. $1,637 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $2,9. $2,358 $2,9. $2,778 Sales Tax: 8.3% Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $7,434 $13,917 $617 $966 $9,17 $1,83 $1,67 $15,587 $3,117 Totals: $1,82 $18,75 15.% 5.% 6.% $4,429 $1,476 $1,771 Total Project Cost: $37,21 Total Project Cost: $37,21 7,961 $3,397 1,486 Net Project Cost: $33,84 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 15.6 $2,164 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

146 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B121 SAN FRANCISCO - LAUREL HEIGHTS 2C245 Basic Gross Area (sf): 456,177 Project Description Reference(s): SF-6, 8 SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO LAUREL HTS \13. Laurel HTS\2. UC SF CVRH_VAV Laurel HTS SF-6, 8 - SP Reset.xls Backup Start Preliminary 1/1/211 11/1/211 Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 41,643. 7,43 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 41,643 7,43 $17,397 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAV with InCITe 2 $4,5. $1,152 $7,15. $19,5 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $25,4. $28,651 $25,4. $33,757 SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 79 $. $ $56. $5,879 Sales Tax: 8.3% Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $38,83 $58,641 $3,221 $5,43 $47,67 $9,413 $7,37 $65,678 $13,136 Totals: $56,48 $78, % 5.% 6.% $2,294 $6,765 $8,118 Total Project Cost: $17,47 Total Project Cost: $17,47 41,643 $17,397 7,43 Net Project Cost: $153,73 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 13.9 $11,4 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

147 SEP Project ID Number: Project: SF-5, 7, 9 to 17 VIV to VFD & SP Reset B122 SAN FRANCISCO - LAUREL HEIGHTS 2C245 Basic Gross Area (sf): 456,177 SAN FRANCISCO LAUREL HTS Start Preliminary \13. Laurel HTS\3. UC SF CVRH_VAV Laurel HTS SF-5, 7, 9 to 17 VIV to VFD & SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 2. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers to Variable Air Volume & Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate Backup 269, ,529 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 269,951 26,529 $91,317 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 1 hp VFD 4 $1,975. $8,911 $545. $2,897 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $53,327. $6,153 $53,327. $7,872 5 hp VFD 3 $1,675. $5,668 $455. $1,814 SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 288 $. $ $56. $21,434 SAV with InCITe 11 $4,5. $55,836 $7,15. $14,526 DART Controls at Zone 144 $44. $71,47 $128. $24,496 DART Controls 11 $8,71. $18,74 $2,9. $42,395 VIV Removal 34 $. $ $1. $4,42 3 hp VFD 5 $4,775. $26,931 $1,1. $7,31 25 hp VFD 1 $3,925. $4,427 $1,1. $1,462 2 hp VFD 2 $3,375. $7,614 $82. $2,18 15 hp VFD 4 $2,275. $1,265 $82. $4,359 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

148 $359,349 $324,146 City: San Francisco Sales Tax: 8.3% $29,826 Contractor O&P: 12.% $46,71 $435,876 $38,897 $363,43 2.% $87,175 $72,69 Totals: $523,51 $435, % 5.% 6.% $143,86 $47,935 $57,522 Total Project Cost: $1,27,966 Total Project Cost: $1,27, ,951 $91,317 26,529 Net Project Cost: $1,116,649 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.2 $55,256 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

149 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B123 SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C2415 Basic Gross Area (sf): 29,883 SF CAV to VAV & SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO MISSION CTR Start Preliminary \14. Mission Center\1. UC SF MZ_DD Mission Center SF CAV to VAV & SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 2. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers to Variable Air Volume & Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Backup 188, ,156 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 188,279 11,156 $56,343 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 12 $. $ $56. $ hp VFD 1 $3,925. $4,427 $1,1. $1,462 DART Controls 1 $8,71. $9,825 $2,9. $3,854 SAV with InCITe 1 $4,5. $5,76 $7,15. $9,52 15 hp VFD 1 $2,275. $2,566 $82. $1,9 DART Controls at Zone 6 $44. $2,978 $128. $1,21 AHU DDC Upgrade: DD CAV to VAV (23 points) 1 $11,1.64 $12,42 $6,23.25 $8,28 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $37,292 $26,12 $3,77 $4,844 $45,213 $9,43 $3,132 $29,234 $5,847 Totals: $54,256 $35,81 15.% 5.% 6.% $13,41 $4,467 $5,36 Total Project Cost: $112,565 Total Project Cost: $112, ,279 $56,343 11,156 Net Project Cost: $56,222 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.7 $32,955 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

150 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B124 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2252 Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 SF 1 to 4 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO MED SCIENCES Start Preliminary \15. Med Sciences\1. UC SF MZ_DD Med Sciences SF 1 to 4 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 2. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers to Variable Air Volume & Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Project under consideration at time of this report, may be complete in 28 Backup 852, ,75 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 852,237 5,938 $255,474 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 172 $. $ $56. $12, hp VFD 4 $1,975. $8,911 $545. $2,897 1 hp VFD 2 $1,975. $4,456 $545. $1,449 3 hp VFD 3 $4,775. $16,159 $1,1. $4,386 DART Controls 4 $8,71. $39,3 $2,9. $15,416 DART Controls at Zone 86 $44. $42,684 $128. $14,63 25 hp VFD 1 $3,925. $4,427 $1,1. $1,462 SAV with InCITe 4 $4,5. $2,34 $7,15. $38,9 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $136,24 $91,5 $11,24 $17,698 $165,177 $33,35 $1,926 $11,976 $2,395 Totals: $198,213 $122, % 5.% 6.% $48,88 $16,29 $19,235 Total Project Cost: $43,935 Total Project Cost: $43, ,237 $255,474 5,938 Net Project Cost: $148,461 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1. $149,53 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

151 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B126 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C32 Basic Gross Area (sf): 438,361 Project Description Reference(s): CV to VAV with ZPS SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH HA Tier 1 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 2/1/213 \3. Genentech Hall\Genentech Hall VAV Conversion -TAC - ECM Aggregated Data - UCSF.xls Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. Inclusion of Auto Sash Closers is projected to increase savings to 1.4m kwh, 82, th, at a contractor cost of $1.1m, Cost updated to match campus estimate 1,1,. 58, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 1,1, 58, $322, Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $66,349 $121,27 $44,233 $8,847 Totals: $727,619 $485,8 15.% 5.% 6.% $181,95 $6,635 $72,762 Total Project Cost: $1,528, Total Project Cost: $1,528, 1,1, $322, 58, Net Project Cost: $1,26, Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.4 $187,8 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

152 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B127 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2252 Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 Project Description Reference(s): Remove multiple aircooled chillers and interconnect system to CUP piping SAN FRANCISCO MED SCIENCES From Arup April 11,27 report Start Preliminary Backup UCSF Custom Project 3. Remove Multiple Air-cooled Chillers and Interconnect Medical Sciencesto CUP. Cost updated to match campus estimate 295,17. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 295,17 $7,84 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $277,618 $55,524 $185,79 $37,16 Totals: $333,142 $222,95 15.% 5.% 6.% $83,285 $27,762 $33,314 Total Project Cost: $699,598 Total Project Cost: $699, ,17 $7,84 Net Project Cost: $628,794 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 16.4 $38,352 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

153 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B129 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C212 Basic Gross Area (sf): 18,5 Project Description Reference(s): Installing VFD driven Centrifugal Chiller (15 Ton) with suitable CHW primary pump, VFD driven secondary pump, condenser pump; VFD on existing CT fan & retrofitting the same to handle lower water flow rate SAN FRANCISCO LIBRARY \13. Library\13. Library _ Chlr Plant ECM.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/21 4/1/213 UCSF Custom Project 1. Install VFD Driven Centrifugal Chiller (15 Ton). Cost updated to match campus estimate 286, ,151 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 286,68 116,151 $184,954 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Two-way Valves 9 $65. $6,142 $35. $4,186 Demolition of existing chiller 1 $. $ $2,. $26,58 Lot - Electrical 1 $1,. $11,28 $1,. $13,29 Controls 3 $54. $18,274 $36. $14,353 3 HP VFD 1 $4,775. $5,386 $1,1. $1,462 5 HP VFD for Sec CHW pump 1 $1,675. $1,889 $455. $65 5 HP Pump - Primary & Sec CHW 2 $7,8. $17,597 $3,725. $9, HP Pump - Cond 1 $8,925. $1,67 $4,475. $5,947 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $373,763. $421,65 $373,763. $496, VFD Centrifugal Chiller 1 $79,875. $9,99 $27,3. $36,282 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

154 $582,339 $69,337 City: San Francisco Sales Tax: 8.25% $48,43 Contractor O&P: 12.% $75,646 $76,28 $73,12 $682,458 2.% $141,26 $136,492 Totals: $847,233 $818, % 5.% 6.% $249,927 $83,39 $99,971 Total Project Cost: $2,99,39 Total Project Cost: $2,99,39 286,68 $184, ,189 Net Project Cost: $1,914,436 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 13. $147,612 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

155 SEP Project ID Number: B13 Project: Install VSD on existing 12 TR Electric Centrifugal Chiller SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS CAMPUSWIDE Tier 1 2CWIDEP Start Preliminary 4/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 6/1/211 \Parnassus Campus\Parnassus Campus(CP) _ Chlr Plant ECM.xls Project Description Reference(s): UCSF Custom Project 7. Install VSD on Existing Centrifugal Chiller. 246, ,158 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 246,754 31,158 $369,379 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Lot - Electrical 1 $1,. $11,28 $15,. $19,935 Controls 1 $54. $6,91 $36. $4,784 VFD for 12 Ton Chiller 1 $195,. $219,96 $45,. $59,85 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $237,331 $84,524 $19,58 $3,829 $287,74 $57,548 $1,143 $94,667 $18,933 Totals: $345,288 $113,61 15.% 5.% 6.% $68,833 $22,944 $27,533 Total Project Cost: $578,2 Total Project Cost: $578,2 246,754 $369, ,698 Net Project Cost: $28,821 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.6 $326,728 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

156 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B131 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C33 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 Project Description Reference(s): Replace 2 speed control by VFD control on Cooling Tower Fan SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY CE From Arup April 11,27 report Tier 2 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 6/1/21 UCSF Custom Project 5. Replace 2 Speed Control with VFD Control on Cooling Tower Fan. Cost updated to match campus estimate 13,617. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 13,617 $24,868 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $98,945 $19,789 $65,964 $13,193 Totals: $118,734 $79, % 5.% 6.% $29,684 $9,895 $11,873 Total Project Cost: $249,342 Total Project Cost: $249,342 13,617 $24,868 Net Project Cost: $224,474 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 16.7 $13,47 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

157 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B132 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C334 Basic Gross Area (sf): 154,935 Project Description Reference(s): Install VFDs on 2 Nos existing 335 TR water cooled Centrifugal Chillers & provide tower free cooling SAN FRANCISCO BYERS HALL \5. Byers Hall\5. Byers Hall_ Chlr Plant ECM.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 4/1/29 6/1/21 UCSF Custom Project 6. Install VFDs on Existing Centrifugal Chillers & Provide Tower Free Cooling. Cost updated to match campus estimate 272, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 272,672 $65,441 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $42,465. $47,91 $42,465. $56,436 Heat Exchanger 1 $4,7. $45,91 $6,325. $8,46 Piping Modifications, Valves 1 $. $ $5,. $6,645 VFD 4HP 2 $36,5. $82,344 $3,425. $9,14 Lot-Electrical 1 $6,. $6,768 $12,5. $16,613 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $182,922 $97,23 $15,91 $23,762 $221,775 $44,355 $11,664 $18,867 $21,773 Totals: $266,13 $13, % 5.% 6.% $59,516 $19,839 $23,86 Total Project Cost: $499,931 Total Project Cost: $499, ,672 $65,441 Net Project Cost: $434,49 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 12.3 $35,447 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

158 SEP Project ID Number: B133 Project: Conversion of cooling tower fans from 2-speed to VFD SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY ROCK HALL Backup 2C31 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,565 \23. Rock Hall\23. Rock Hall_ Chlr Plant ECM.xls Project Description Reference(s): UCSF Custom Project 4. Convert Cooling Tower Fans from 2-speed to VFD. 19, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 19,721 $4,733 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 5 hp VFD 1 $7,65. $8,629 $1,375. $1,827 Controls 8 $54. $4,873 $36. $3,828 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $13,52 $5,655 $1,114 $1,754 $16,37 $3,274 $679 $6,333 $1,267 Totals: $19,644 $7,6 15.% 5.% 6.% $4,87 $1,362 $1,635 Total Project Cost: $34,328 Total Project Cost: $34,328 19,721 $4,733 Net Project Cost: $29,595 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 11.5 $2,564 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

159 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Basic Gross Area (sf): Project Description Reference(s): B134 Remove multiple air-cooled chiller 3 Nos at Hooper Pad. Install new VFD driven 6 ton Centrifugal watercooled chiller and interconnect Hooper pad to CUP piping SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS CAMPUSWIDE 2CWIDEP \Parnassus Campus(with Hooper Pad)\Parnassus Campus (Hooper Pad_6Chiller_without vision) _ Chlr Plant ECM.xls UCSF Custom Project 8. Hooper Pad Chiller Replacement and Interconnect. Start Preliminary Backup 696, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 696,181 $167,83 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 1" CHW piping with insulation 1 $ $14,963 $ $18,36 12" condenser water piping 1 $165. $18,612 $133. $17,676 Controls 15 $54. $9,137 $36. $7,177 Lot - Electrical 1 $1,. $11,28 $15,. $19,935 6 Ton Elec Chiller 1 $267,3. $31,514 $33,9. $45,53 VFD for 6 Ton Chiller 1 $7,5. $79,524 $9,3. $12,36 Dismantling of 3 Air Chillers 3 $. $ $4,95. $19,736 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

160 $435,3 $14,296 City: San Francisco Sales Tax: 8.25% $35,89 Contractor O&P: 12.% $56,51 $527,431 $16,836 $157,131 2.% $15,486 $31,426 Totals: $632,917 $188, % 5.% 6.% $123,221 $41,74 $49,288 Total Project Cost: $1,35,58 Total Project Cost: $1,35,58 696,181 $167,83 Net Project Cost: $867,975 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.6 $9,54 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

161 SEP Project ID Number: B135 Project: LAB CAV to VAV SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS PSSRB Backup 2C3 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 9,5 \1. PSSRB\2. UCSF Lab Md. PSSRB CAV to VAV.xls Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 1,64, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,64,83 $385,159 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Fume Hood Conversion - CAV to VAV 14 $11,25. $1,319,76 $11,25. $1,554,93 6 hp VFD 4 $8,375. $37,788 $1,6. $8,56 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $1,357,548 $1,563,436 $111,998 $176,345 $1,645,891 $329,178 $187,612 $1,751,48 $35,21 Totals: $1,975,69 $2,11, % 5.% 6.% $611,449 $23,816 $244,58 Total Project Cost: $5,136,172 Total Project Cost: $5,136,172 1,64,83 $385,159 Net Project Cost: $4,751,13 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 22.8 $28,628 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

162 SEP Project ID Number: B136 Project: LAB CAV to VAV SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS MED SCIENCES Backup 2C2252 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 \15. Med Sciences\2. UCSF Lab Md. Sciences CAV to VAV.xls Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 493, ,682 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 493, ,25 $239,411 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Fume Hood Conversion - CAV to VAV 14 $11,25. $1,319,76 $11,25. $1,554,93 3 hp VFD 3 $4,775. $16,159 $1,1. $4, hp VFD 1 $3,925. $4,427 $1,1. $1,462 2 hp VFD 1 $3,375. $3,87 $82. $1,9 1 hp VFD 2 $1,975. $4,456 $545. $1,449 1 hp VFD 58 $35. $22,898 $4. $3,833 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $1,371,57 $1,594,149 $113,149 $178,159 $1,662,815 $332,563 $191,298 $1,785,447 $357,89 Totals: $1,995,378 $2,142, % 5.% 6.% $62,687 $26,896 $248,275 Total Project Cost: $5,213,772 Total Project Cost: $5,213, ,273 $239, ,25 Net Project Cost: $4,974,361 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 31.9 $156,14 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

163 SEP Project ID Number: B137 Project: LAB CAV to VAV SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS HSIR WEST Backup 2C39 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 233,516 \16. HSIR West\2.UC SF Lab HSIR WEST CAV to VAV.xls Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 1,4, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,4,91 $249,816 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 5 hp VFD 5 $7,65. $43,146 $1,375. $9,137 Fume Hood Conversion - CAV to VAV 65 $11,25. $824,85 $11,25. $971,831 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $867,996 $98,968 $71,61 $112,753 $1,52,358 $21,472 $117,716 $1,98,684 $219,737 Totals: $1,262,83 $1,318, % 5.% 6.% $387,188 $129,63 $154,875 Total Project Cost: $3,252,376 Total Project Cost: $3,252,376 1,4,91 $249,816 Net Project Cost: $3,2,56 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 22.2 $135,317 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

164 SEP Project ID Number: B138 Project: Lab Model CAV to VAV SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS HSIR EAST Backup 2C38 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 26,35 \17. HSIR East\2.UC SF Lab HSIR EAST CAV to VAV.xls Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 1,254, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,254,345 $31,43 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Fume Hood Conversion - CAV to VAV 85 $11,25. $1,78,65 $11,25. $1,27,856 5 hp VFD 5 $7,65. $43,146 $1,375. $9,137 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $1,121,796 $1,279,993 $92,548 $145,721 $1,36,65 $272,13 $153,599 $1,433,592 $286,718 Totals: $1,632,79 $1,72, % 5.% 6.% $52,858 $167,619 $21,143 Total Project Cost: $4,224,11 Total Project Cost: $4,224,11 1,254,345 $31,43 Net Project Cost: $3,922,968 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 24.1 $163,65 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

165 SEP Project ID Number: B139 Project: VAV with OS SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY BYERS HALL Backup 2C334 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 154,935 \18. Byers Hall\2. UCSF Lab Byers Hall VAV with OS.xls Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 51, ,852 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 51,7 14,852 $27,19 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Autosash closure 2 $2,7. $6,912 $1,8. $47,844 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $6,912 $47,844 $5,25 $7,912 $73,85 $14,77 $5,741 $53,585 $1,717 Totals: $88,62 $64,32 15.% 5.% 6.% $22,938 $7,646 $9,175 Total Project Cost: $192,682 Total Project Cost: $192,682 51,7 $27,19 14,852 Net Project Cost: $165,573 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.2 $17,927 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

166 SEP Project ID Number: B14 Project: CAV to VAV with OS SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY ROCK HALL Backup 2C31 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,565 \4. Rock Hall\3. UC SF Lab Rock Hall CAV to VAV.xls Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 1,353, ,567 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,353,637 68,567 $393,44 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Autosash closure 34 $2,7. $13,55 $1,8. $81,335 1 hp VFD 3 $11,7. $39,593 $1,8. $7,177 Fume Hood Conversion - CAV to VAV 34 $11,25. $431,46 $11,25. $58,343 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $574,63 $596,854 $47,45 $74,641 $696,649 $139,33 $71,622 $668,476 $133,695 Totals: $835,979 $82, % 5.% 6.% $245,723 $81,98 $98,289 Total Project Cost: $2,64,69 Total Project Cost: $2,64,69 1,353,637 $393,44 68,567 Net Project Cost: $1,67,629 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 7.3 $228,84 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

167 SEP Project ID Number: B141 Project: LAB CAV to VAV - SF1, 2, HV1, AC1, AC2 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS CLINICAL SCI Backup 2C2251 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,647 \8. Clinical Sci\2. UCSF Lab Clinical Sci. CAV to VAV.xls Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 332, ,524 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 332,53 44,5 $123,743 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 15 hp VFD 2 $2,275. $5,132 $82. $2,18 1 hp VFD 1 $1,975. $2,228 $545. $724 2 hp VFD 1 $3,375. $3,87 $82. $1,9 Fume Hood Conversion - CAV to VAV 18 $11,25. $228,42 $11,25. $269,123 2 hp VFD 1 $7. $79 $4. $532 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $24,377 $273,648 $19,831 $31,225 $291,433 $58,287 $32,838 $36,485 $61,297 Totals: $349,719 $367, % 5.% 6.% $17,625 $35,875 $43,5 Total Project Cost: $94,52 Total Project Cost: $94,52 332,53 $123,743 44,5 Net Project Cost: $78,39 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.2 $76,645 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

168 SEP Project ID Number: B142 Project: Lab - VAV Retrofit w/ OS - only for FH exhaust SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MT ZION MTZ CANCER RESEARCH (234 SUTT Backup 2C237 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 19,671 \9. Mt Zion Research\2. UC SF HVAC Lab MTZ Cancer Research - CAV to VAV.xls Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 196, ,29 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 196,221 64,29 $111,122 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Autosash closure 37 $2,7. $112,687 $1,8. $88,511 Fume Hood Conversion - CAV to VAV 37 $11,25. $469,53 $11,25. $553, hp VFD 4 $2,275. $1,265 $82. $4,359 5 hp VFD 7 $1,675. $13,226 $455. $4,233 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $65,78 $65,3 $49,971 $78,681 $734,36 $146,872 $78,36 $728,336 $145,667 Totals: $881,232 $874,3 15.% 5.% 6.% $263,285 $87,762 $15,314 Total Project Cost: $2,211,596 Total Project Cost: $2,211, ,221 $111,122 64,29 Net Project Cost: $2,1,474 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 28.3 $74,171 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

169 SEP Project ID Number: B15 Project: SF 4N - SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS MOFFITT HOSP Backup 2C2274 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 \1. Moffit\1. SF MC CVRH_VAV Moffit AHU 4 North - SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers.. 3, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 6,266 $6,266 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Reset programming 4 $. $ $1. $5,316 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $5,316 $ $ $ $ $638 $5,954 $1,786 Totals: $ $7,74 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,161 $387 $464 Total Project Cost: $9,753 Total Project Cost: $9,753 $6,266 7,251 Net Project Cost: $3,487 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.6 $5,511 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

170 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B151 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C2274 Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 Project Description Reference(s): SF 6 - TOD Controls SAN FRANCISCO MC MOFFITT HOSP \1. Moffit\2. SF MC CVRH_VAV_NoClg Moffit SF 6 - TOD Controls.xls Start Preliminary Backup Air Handler Project 5. Reduce Air Handler Operating Hours. Supply Fan 6 (SF-6) operates continuously 24X7 to provide cooling to School of Medicine (SoM). However SoM operates from 6a.m in the morning till 5p.m., Monday through Friday. In this project, add time of day controls to switch off the units after working hours. 53,278. 3,118 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 53,278 38,975 $51,762 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) TOD Controls - Programming 8 $. $ $1. $1,63 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $1,63 $ $ $ $ $128 $1,191 $357 Totals: $ $1, % 5.% 6.% $232 $77 $93 Total Project Cost: $1,951 Total Project Cost: $1,951 53,278 $1,56 38,975 Net Project Cost: $39 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):. $36,547 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

171 SEP Project ID Number: B152 Project: SF 4SA, 4SB - SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS MOFFITT HOSP Backup 2C2274 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 \1. Moffit\3. SF MC MZ_DD_VAV Moffit AHU 4S A, B - SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers.. 5, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 11,722 $11,722 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 2 hp VFD 1 $7. $7,896 $4. $5,316 SAT Reset Program & Wireless Sensors 2 $2,. $4,512 $2,. $5,316 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $12,48 $1,632 $1,24 $1,612 $15,43 $4,513 $1,276 $11,98 $3,572 Totals: $19,556 $15,48 15.% 5.% 6.% $5,256 $1,752 $2,12 Total Project Cost: $44,146 Total Project Cost: $44,146 $11,722 13,36 Net Project Cost: $32,424 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.3 $9,98 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

172 SEP Project ID Number: B153 Project: SF 14, 15, 38, 39 - SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS MOFFITT HOSP Backup 2C2274 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 \1. Moffit\4. SF MC CVRH_VAV Moffit SF 14, 15, 38, 39 - SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers.. 38,859 1,764 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 6,99 $6,99 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Reset programming 4 $2,. $9,24 $2,. $1,632 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $9,24 $1,632 $744 $1,172 $1,941 $3,282 $1,276 $11,98 $3,572 Totals: $14,223 $15,48 15.% 5.% 6.% $4,455 $1,485 $1,782 Total Project Cost: $37,426 Total Project Cost: $37,426 $29,941 7,624 Net Project Cost: $7,485 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.1 $53,674 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

173 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B154 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C2274 Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 SF 18 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC MOFFITT HOSP \1. Moffit\5. SF MC CVRH_VAV_NoClg Moffit SF 18 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset.xls Start Preliminary Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 2. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers to Variable Air Volume & Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Backup 67,153. 1,274 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 67,153 15,925 $32,42 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAV with InCITe 1 $4,5. $5,76 $7,15. $9,52 DART Controls at Zone 8 $44. $3,971 $128. $1,361 SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 16 $. $ $56. $1,191 DART Controls 8 $8,71. $78,599 $2,9. $3,833 1 hp VFD 1 $1,975. $2,228 $545. $724 5 hp VFD 1 $1,675. $1,889 $455. $65 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $91,763 $44,216 $7,57 $11,92 $111,253 $33,376 $5,36 $49,522 $14,857 Totals: $144,629 $64, % 5.% 6.% $31,351 $1,45 $12,54 Total Project Cost: $263,349 Total Project Cost: $263,349 67,153 $32,42 15,925 Net Project Cost: $231,37 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 11.1 $2,833 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

174 SEP Project ID Number: B155 Project: AHU 1 SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) Backup 2C34 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 89,862 \11. MTZ Cancer C\1. UC SF Medical Center. CVRH_VAV MTZ Cancer C AHU 1 SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers. 21,599. 1,186 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 21,599 1,186 $6,37 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAT Reset programing 4 $. $ $1. $5,316 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $5,316 $ $ $ $ $638 $5,954 $1,786 Totals: $ $7,74 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,161 $387 $464 Total Project Cost: $9,753 Total Project Cost: $9,753 21,599 $6,37 1,483 Net Project Cost: $3,383 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.9 $3,935 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

175 SEP Project ID Number: B156 Project: AHU 2 SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) Backup 2C34 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 89,862 \11. MTZ Cancer C\2. UC SF Medical Center. CVRH_VAV MTZ Cancer C AHU 2 SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers. 32,63. 1,691 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 32,63 1,691 $9,386 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAT Reset programing 4 $. $ $1. $5,316 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $5,316 $ $ $ $ $638 $5,954 $1,786 Totals: $ $7,74 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,161 $387 $464 Total Project Cost: $9,753 Total Project Cost: $9,753 32,63 $7,82 2,114 Net Project Cost: $1,951 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.3 $5,775 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

176 SEP Project ID Number: B157 Project: AHU 3 SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) Backup 2C34 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 89,862 \11. MTZ Cancer C\3. UC SF Medical Center. CVRH_VAV MTZ Cancer C AHU 3 SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers. 13, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 13, $3,533 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAT Reset programing 4 $. $ $1. $5,316 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $5,316 $ $ $ $ $638 $5,954 $1,786 Totals: $ $7,74 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,161 $387 $464 Total Project Cost: $9,753 Total Project Cost: $9,753 13,154 $3, Net Project Cost: $6,22 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3. $2,67 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

177 SEP Project ID Number: B158 Project: SF 1, 2, 3, 14,15 - SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS LONG HOSP Backup 2C2275 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 372,469 \2. Long Hospital\1. SF MC CVRH_VAV Long SF 1, 2, 3, 14, 15 - SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers.. 41,549 1,973 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 66,212 $66,212 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Reset programming 2 $. $ $1. $26,58 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $26,58 $ $ $ $ $3,19 $29,77 $8,931 Totals: $ $38,7 15.% 5.% 6.% $5,85 $1,935 $2,322 Total Project Cost: $48,763 Total Project Cost: $48,763 $39,1 76,599 Net Project Cost: $9,753 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.2 $58,215 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

178 SEP Project ID Number: B159 Project: SF 5.3, 5.4, SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS LONG HOSP Backup 2C2275 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 372,469 \2. Long Hospital\2. SF MC CVRH_VAV Long SF 5.3, 5.4, SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers. 195, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 195,99 12,288 $59,325 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Reset programming 12 $. $ $1. $15,948 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $15,948 $ $ $ $ $1,914 $17,862 $5,359 Totals: $ $23,22 15.% 5.% 6.% $3,483 $1,161 $1,393 Total Project Cost: $29,258 Total Project Cost: $29, ,99 $23,46 12,288 Net Project Cost: $5,852 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.2 $34,817 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

179 SEP Project ID Number: B151 Project: SF 23 - SP reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS LONG HOSP Backup 2C2275 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 372,469 \2. Long Hospital\3. SF MC CVRH_VAV Long SF 23 - SP reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. 33, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 33,224 6,875 $14,849 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Reset programming 16 $. $ $1. $2,126 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $2,126 $ $ $ $ $255 $2,382 $714 Totals: $ $3,96 15.% 5.% 6.% $464 $155 $186 Total Project Cost: $3,91 Total Project Cost: $3,91 33,224 $3,121 6,875 Net Project Cost: $78 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.1 $9,544 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

180 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B1511 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C248 Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 AHU 1, 2, 3, 4 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC UC CLINICS (ACC) \3. ACC\1. SF MC CVRH_VAV_NoClg ACC SF 1, 2, 3, 4 - CAV to VAV & SP reset.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/211 3/1/212 Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 2. Convert Constant Volume Air Handlers to Variable Air Volume & Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 1,315, ,136 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,315,79 176,7 $492,47 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAV with InCITe-Licence (est per 1 cfm) 42 $. $ $56. $31,258 3 hp VFD 8 $4,775. $43,9 $1,1. $11,695 SAV with InCITe 4 $4,5. $2,34 $7,15. $38,9 AHU DDC Upgrade: CAV - RH to VAV - RH (68 points) 4 $8,138.3 $36,72 $4,64.97 $24,48 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $51,186. $57,738 $51,186. $68,26 DART Controls 4 $8,71. $39,3 $2,9. $15,416 DART Controls at Zone 21 $44. $14,227 $128. $35, hp VFD 4 $11,5. $51,888 $1,6. $8,56 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $353,266 $233,114 $29,144 $45,889 $428,3 $128,49 $27,974 $261,88 $78,326 Totals: $556,79 $339, % 5.% 6.% $134,431 $44,81 $53,772 Total Project Cost: $1,129,218 Total Project Cost: $1,129,218 1,315,79 $492,47 176,7 Net Project Cost: $636,748 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.1 $35,334 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

181 SEP Project ID Number: B1512 Project: SF 9 - SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS UC CLINICS (ACC) Backup 2C248 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 \3. ACC\2. SF MC CVRH_VAV ACC SF 9 - SAT reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers. 38, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 38,351 3,88 $12,292 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Reset programming 4 $. $ $1. $5, hp VFD 1 $2,275. $2,566 $82. $1,9 1 hp VFD 1 $1,975. $2,228 $545. $724 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $4,794 $7,13 $396 $623 $5,812 $1,744 $856 $7,986 $2,396 Totals: $7,556 $1, % 5.% 6.% $2,691 $897 $1,76 Total Project Cost: $22,61 Total Project Cost: $22,61 38,351 $12,292 3,88 Net Project Cost: $1,39 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.4 $7,332 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

182 SEP Project ID Number: B1513 Project: AHU- 1 SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ BLDG A Backup 2C218 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,8 \5. MTZ Bldg A\1. UC SF Medical Center CVRH_VAV MTZ Bldg A AHU 1 SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers.. 7, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 5,828 1,88 $2,486 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAT Reset Programing 4 $. $ $1. $5,316 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $5,316 $ $ $ $ $638 $5,954 $1,786 Totals: $ $7,74 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,161 $387 $464 Total Project Cost: $9,753 Total Project Cost: $9,753 5,828 $2,486 1,88 Net Project Cost: $7,267 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4.6 $1,584 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

183 SEP Project ID Number: B1514 Project: AHU 5 SAT Reset SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) Backup 2C231 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 53,5 \9. MTZ Bldg J\1. UC SF Medical Center CVRH_VAV MTZ Bldg J AHU 5 SAT Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Medical Center Air Handler Project 1. Optimization of Constant Volume Air Handlers. 21, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 21,91 1,275 $6,533 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) SAT Reset programing 4 $. $ $1. $5,316 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $ $5,316 $ $ $ $ $638 $5,954 $1,786 Totals: $ $7,74 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,161 $387 $464 Total Project Cost: $9,753 Total Project Cost: $9,753 21,91 $6,533 1,275 Net Project Cost: $3,22 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.8 $3,817 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

184 SEP Project ID Number: B1515 Project: Convert Chilled water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Backup 2CWIDEM Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): \Mt Zion\Mt Zion _ Chlr Plant ECM.xls Project Description Reference(s): UCSF MC Custom Project 1. Convert to Variable Volume Chilled Water Pumping. 254, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 254,992 $61,198 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Pumping Conversion 2 $1,33. $3, $752. $1,999 2-way Valve for air handlers 4 $65. $27,298 $35. $18,66 Electrical Lot 1 $1,5. $1,692 $3,. $3,987 5 HP VFD 2 $7,65. $17,258 $1,375. $3,655 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $49,248 $28,247 $4,63 $6,397 $59,79 $17,913 $3,39 $31,636 $9,491 Totals: $77,622 $41, % 5.% 6.% $17,812 $5,937 $7,125 Total Project Cost: $149,623 Total Project Cost: $149, ,992 $61,198 Net Project Cost: $88,425 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.7 $33,149 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

185 SEP Project ID Number: B1516 Project: Convert Chilled water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) Backup 2C231 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 53,5 \Mt Zion Bldg J\Mt Zion Bldg J _ Chlr Plant ECM.xls Project Description Reference(s): UCSF MC Custom Project 1. Convert to Variable Volume Chilled Water Pumping. 9,348. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 9,348 $2,244 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Pumping Conversion 2 $1,33. $3, $752. $1,999 5 HP VFD 2 $1,675. $3,779 $455. $1,29 Lot - Electrical 1 $75. $997 Two way valves 4 $65. $2,73 $36. $1,914 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $9,59 $6,119 $784 $1,235 $11,529 $3,459 $734 $6,853 $2,56 Totals: $14,987 $8,99 15.% 5.% 6.% $3,584 $1,195 $1,434 Total Project Cost: $3,19 Total Project Cost: $3,19 9,348 $2,244 Net Project Cost: $27,865 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 22.9 $1,215 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

186 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Remove the absorption chillers at Moffitt & Long Hospital. Install 1 Nos. 12 TR VFD driven Centrifugal Chiller (in Central Plant Room) & connect B1517 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C2274 Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 Project Description Reference(s): SAN FRANCISCO MC MOFFITT HOSP \5. Moffit & Long Hospital\5.Moffitt & Long Hospital_ Chlr Plant ECM.xls Start Preliminary UCSF MC Custom Project 2. Replace Chillers at Moffitt & Long Hospital & Interconnect. Backup. 858,382 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 858,382 $858,382 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 14 ton Cooling Tower 1 $112,. $126,336 $44,66. $59,353 Lot - Condenser water piping 14" 5 $85. $4,794 $119.5 $7,941 12" chilled water piping with insulation 5 $186.5 $15,186 $127.4 $84,657 Dismantling of chillers 4 $. $ $9,95. $52,894 Lot - Electrical 1 $58,9. $66,439 $12,225. $16,247 Valves 75 $2,. $169,2 $3,. $299,25 1 HP Primary Pump 1 $45,1. $5,873 $17,9. $23,789 1" chilled water piping with insultaion 5 $ $74,815 $ $75,281 VSD for 6HP CT Fan 1 $8,375. $9,447 $1,6. $2,126 Dismantling of existing condenser piping 5 $127.4 $84,657 Dismantling of Cooling Towers 4 $1,. $53,16 15 HP Condenser Pump 1 $67,. $75,576 $2,4. $27,112 Lot- Chilled water piping (12") 5 $186.5 $1,519 $127.4 $8,466 Controls 45 $54. $27,41 $36. $21,53 12 VFD Chiller 1 $589,. $664,392 $81,5. $18,314 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

187 $1,384,987 $924,552 City: San Francisco Sales Tax: 8.25% $114,261 Contractor O&P: 12.% $179,91 $1,679,158 $11,946 $1,35,498 3.% $53,747 $31,649 Totals: $2,182,95 $1,346, % 5.% 6.% $529,358 $176,453 $211,743 Total Project Cost: $4,446,67 Total Project Cost: $4,446,67 $858,382 1,72,978 Net Project Cost: $3,588,225 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4.4 $815,463 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

188 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B1518 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C248 Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 Project Description Reference(s): Remove ACC-RAC-14 (chiller supplying cooling to AC-5) & connect to rooftop chiller ACC-CHR.3 piping. Convert Chilled Water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping. SAN FRANCISCO MC UC CLINICS (ACC) \6. ACC\6. ACC_ Chlr Plant ECM.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/211 3/1/212 UCSF MC Custom Project 3. ACC Chiller and Chilled Water Project. Cost updated to match campus estimate 11,2 7. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 11,2 $24,245 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $8,444. $9,525 $8,444. $11,222 Two way Valves 2 $65. $13,649 $3. $7,974 Pumping Conversion 2 $1,33. $3, $752. $1,999 Lot-Electrical 1 $3,. $3,987 4" Chilled Water Piping with insulation 1 $3.9 $3,486 $125. $16,613 15HP VFD 2 $3,5. $7,896 $1,175. $3,123 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $37,556 $44,918 $3,98 $4,878 $45,532 $13,66 $5,39 $5,38 $15,92 Totals: $59,192 $65,4 15.% 5.% 6.% $18,689 $6,23 $7,476 Total Project Cost: $156,986 Total Project Cost: $156,986 11,2 $24,245 Net Project Cost: $132,741 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.1 $13,133 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

189 SEP Project ID Number: B1519 Project: AHU 1 thru 4 - SP reset SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER FRESNO MERC Backup 2C329 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 84,175 \35. Fresno MERC\1. UCSF CVRH_VAV Fresno MERC AHU 1 thru 4 - SP Reset.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 4. Static Pressure Reset on Variable Air Volume Air Handlers. 75,613. 5,235 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 75,613 5,235 $23,382 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Program SP reset 64 $. $ $1. $8,56 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $ $8,56 $ $ $ $ $1,21 $9,526 $1,95 Totals: $ $11, % 5.% 6.% $1,715 $572 $686 Total Project Cost: $14,44 Total Project Cost: $14,44 75,613 $11,523 5,235 Net Project Cost: $2,881 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.2 $13,88 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

190 SEP Project ID Number: B32 Project: Variable Speed Circulation Pump - Mission Bay Indoor Pool SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Tier 1 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UCSF Pools TLH.xls Project Description Reference(s): Pool Project 1. Variable Speed Drives and High Efficiency Motors for Filter Pumps. 11,791. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 11,791 $2,83 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Premium Efficiency Motor 1 $51. $575 $8. $16 VSD and Controls 1 $2,88. $3,249 $ $555 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $3,824 $661 $315 $497 $4,636 $927 $79 $74 $148 Totals: $5,563 $ % 5.% 6.% $968 $323 $387 Total Project Cost: $8,129 Total Project Cost: $8,129 11,791 $2,83 Net Project Cost: $5,299 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.5 $1,533 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

191 SEP Project ID Number: B33 Project: Variable Speed Circulation Pump - Mission Bay Outdoor Pool SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Tier 1 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UCSF Pools TLH.xls Project Description Reference(s): Pool Project 1. Variable Speed Drives and High Efficiency Motors for Filter Pumps. 11,791. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 11,791 $2,83 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Premium Efficiency Motor 1 $51. $575 $8. $16 VSD and Controls 1 $2,88. $3,249 $ $555 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $3,824 $661 $315 $497 $4,636 $927 $79 $74 $148 Totals: $5,563 $ % 5.% 6.% $968 $323 $387 Total Project Cost: $8,129 Total Project Cost: $8,129 11,791 $2,83 Net Project Cost: $5,299 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.5 $1,533 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

192 SEP Project ID Number: B34 Project: Solar Pool Water Heater - Mission Bay Indoor Pool SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UCSF Pools TLH.xls Project Description Reference(s): Pool Project 3. Solar Water Heating.. 4,747 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 4,747 $4,747 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Solar Water Heating System 1 $16,75.94 $18,844 $21, $28,896 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $18,844 $28,896 $1,555 $2,448 $22,847 $4,569 $3,468 $32,364 $6,473 Totals: $27,416 $38, % 5.% 6.% $9,938 $3,313 $3,975 Total Project Cost: $83,479 Total Project Cost: $83,479 $4,747 4,747 Net Project Cost: $78,732 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.8 $3,68 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

193 SEP Project ID Number: B35 Project: Solar Pool Water Heater - Mission Bay Outdoor Pool SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UCSF Pools TLH.xls Project Description Reference(s): Pool Project 3. Solar Water Heating.. 5,695 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 5,695 $5,695 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Solar Water Heating System 1 $16,75.94 $18,844 $21, $28,896 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $18,844 $28,896 $1,555 $2,448 $22,847 $4,569 $3,468 $32,364 $6,473 Totals: $27,416 $38, % 5.% 6.% $9,938 $3,313 $3,975 Total Project Cost: $83,479 Total Project Cost: $83,479 $5,695 5,695 Net Project Cost: $77,784 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 18. $4,328 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

194 SEP Project ID Number: B36 Project: Variable Speed Circulation Pump - Parnassus Indoor Pool SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS CAMPUSWIDE Tier 1 2CWIDEP Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UCSF Pools TLH.xls Project Description Reference(s): Pool Project 1. Variable Speed Drives and High Efficiency Motors for Filter Pumps. 6,715. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 6,715 $1,612 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) VSD and Controls 1 $1,92. $2,166 $ $37 Premium Efficiency Motor 1 $615. $694 $84. $112 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $2,859 $481 $236 $371 $3,467 $693 $58 $539 $18 Totals: $4,16 $ % 5.% 6.% $721 $24 $288 Total Project Cost: $6,57 Total Project Cost: $6,57 6,715 $1,612 Net Project Cost: $4,445 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.1 $873 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

195 SEP Project ID Number: B37 Project: Solar Pool Water Heater - Parnassus Indoor Pool SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDEP Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UCSF Pools TLH.xls Project Description Reference(s): Pool Project 3. Solar Water Heating.. 2,971 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 2,971 $2,971 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Solar Water Heating System 1 $8, $9,832 $11, $15,76 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $9,832 $15,76 $811 $1,277 $11,92 $2,384 $1,89 $16,886 $3,377 Totals: $14,34 $2, % 5.% 6.% $5,185 $1,728 $2,74 Total Project Cost: $43,554 Total Project Cost: $43,554 $2,971 3,714 Net Project Cost: $4,583 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.4 $2,822 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

196 SEP Project ID Number: B38 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS LIBRARY 2C212 Basic Gross Area (sf): 18,5 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Backup Start Preliminary 326, ,514 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 326,188 13,514 $91,799 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $19,628 $3,926 $58,883 $11,777 Totals: $23,554 $7,66 15.% 5.% 6.% $14,132 $4,711 $5,653 Total Project Cost: $118,79 Total Project Cost: $118,79 326,188 $91,799 16,893 Net Project Cost: $26,91 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.5 $55,243 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

197 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B39 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C218 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,8 Project Description Reference(s): SBD, New/Renov - SB1953 Mount Zion Buildings A, B and D Seismic Upgrades and Clinical Expansion SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG A UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Start Preliminary Backup 89, ,564 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 89,294 38,564 $232,795 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $47,81 $141,243 $47,89 $141,243 Totals: $612,53 $612,52 15.% 5.% 6.% $183,616 $61,25 $73,446 Total Project Cost: $1,542,372 Total Project Cost: $1,542,372 89,294 $232,795 48,25 Net Project Cost: $1,39,577 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.2 $141,844 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

198 SEP Project ID Number: B31 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Mount Zion Medical Office Building SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) Backup 2C231 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 53,5 UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 576, ,477 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 576,63 27,477 $165,868 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $335,454 $1,636 $335,454 $1,636 Totals: $436,9 $436,9 15.% 5.% 6.% $13,827 $43,69 $52,331 Total Project Cost: $1,98,947 Total Project Cost: $1,98, ,63 $165,868 34,346 Net Project Cost: $933,79 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.2 $11,65 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

199 SEP Project ID Number: B311 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS MILLBERRY Tier 1 2C2212 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 422,974 4/1/21 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 333, ,734 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 333,848 15,734 $95,858 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost (Including fixing controls) 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $165,344 $33,69 $496,31 $99,26 Totals: $198,413 $595, % 5.% 6.% $119,48 $39,683 $47,619 Total Project Cost: $999,999 Total Project Cost: $999, ,848 $95,858 19,668 Net Project Cost: $94,141 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 15.5 $58,348 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

200 SEP Project ID Number: B312 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS CLINICAL SCI Tier 1 2C2251 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,647 4/1/21 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 123, ,573 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 123,84 32,573 $62,295 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $5,926 $1,185 $152,779 $3,556 Totals: $61,111 $183, % 5.% 6.% $36,667 $12,222 $14,667 Total Project Cost: $38,2 Total Project Cost: $38,2 123,84 $62,295 4,716 Net Project Cost: $245,77 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.2 $47,44 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

201 SEP Project ID Number: B313 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS MED SCIENCES Tier 2 2C2252 Start Preliminary 2/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 4/1/21 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 713, ,554 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 713,942 14,554 $311,9 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $15,463 $3,93 $451,389 $9,278 Totals: $18,556 $541, % 5.% 6.% $18,333 $36,111 $43,333 Total Project Cost: $91, Total Project Cost: $91, 713,942 $311,9 175,693 Net Project Cost: $598,1 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.6 $226,339 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

202 SEP Project ID Number: B314 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Medical Sciences Building Improvements, Phase 3 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS MED SCIENCES Backup 2C2252 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Cost updated to match campus estimate 287, ,76 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 287,636 13,76 $82,739 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $694,447 $138,889 $694,443 $138,889 Totals: $833,336 $833, % 5.% 6.% $25, $83,333 $1, Total Project Cost: $2,1,2 Total Project Cost: $2,1,2 287,636 $82,739 17,133 Net Project Cost: $2,17,263 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4. $5,413 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

203 SEP Project ID Number: B315 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Medical Sciences Building Improvements, Phase 4 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS MED SCIENCES Backup 2C2252 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Cost updated to match campus estimate 1, ,811 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,968 4,811 $29,43 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $37,37 $74,74 $37,37 $74,74 Totals: $444,444 $444, % 5.% 6.% $133,333 $44,444 $53,333 Total Project Cost: $1,119,999 Total Project Cost: $1,119,999 1,968 $29,43 6,14 Net Project Cost: $1,9,956 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 61.6 $17,696 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

204 SEP Project ID Number: B316 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS LPPI 2C229 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,237 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Backup Start Preliminary 7, ,769 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 7,974 21,769 $38,83 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,77 $6,541 $98,122 $19,624 Totals: $39,248 $117, % 5.% 6.% $23,549 $7,85 $9,42 Total Project Cost: $197,813 Total Project Cost: $197,813 7,974 $38,83 27,211 Net Project Cost: $159,1 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.3 $29,97 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

205 SEP Project ID Number: B317 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Ambulatory Care Center-5 SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS UC CLINICS (ACC) Backup 2C248 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 63, ,35 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 63,698 3,35 $18,323 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $37,55 $11,117 $37,54 $11,116 Totals: $48,172 $48,17 15.% 5.% 6.% $14,451 $4,817 $5,781 Total Project Cost: $121,391 Total Project Cost: $121,391 63,698 $18,323 3,794 Net Project Cost: $13,68 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.2 $11,164 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

206 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B318 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C248 Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 Project Description Reference(s): SBD, New/Renov - Ambulatory Care Center-7 Ophthalmology Relocation SAN FRANCISCO MC UC CLINICS (ACC) UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Start Preliminary Backup 134, ,43 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 134,368 6,43 $38,651 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $78,169 $23,451 $78,169 $23,451 Totals: $11,62 $11,62 15.% 5.% 6.% $3,486 $1,162 $12,194 Total Project Cost: $256,82 Total Project Cost: $256,82 134,368 $38,651 8,4 Net Project Cost: $217,431 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.2 $23,551 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

207 SEP Project ID Number: B319 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS NURSING Tier 1 2C241 Start Preliminary 2/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 88,668 8/3/211 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 79, , Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 79,155 18, $36,997 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $46,297 $9,259 $138,888 $27,778 Totals: $55,556 $166, % 5.% 6.% $33,333 $11,111 $13,333 Total Project Cost: $28, Total Project Cost: $28, 79,155 $36,997 22,5 Net Project Cost: $243,3 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.9 $27,39 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

208 SEP Project ID Number: B32 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS DENTISTRY Tier 1 2C2412 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 128,43 3/1/211 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 21, ,383 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 21,621 43,383 $93,932 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $46,296 $9,259 $138,889 $27,778 Totals: $55,555 $166, % 5.% 6.% $33,333 $11,111 $13,333 Total Project Cost: $28, Total Project Cost: $28, 21,621 $93,932 54,229 Net Project Cost: $186,68 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.7 $68,595 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

209 SEP Project ID Number: B321 Project: Chiller System Replacement 5 ton SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER MISSION CTR Tier 2 2C2415 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 29,883 Deferred Maintenance UCSF.xls Project Description Reference(s): UCSF Custom Project 9. Chiller System Replacement 5 ton. Cost updated to match campus estimate 372,5 43. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 372,5 $89,4 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $68,466 $121,693 $68,466 $121,693 Totals: $73,159 $73, % 5.% 6.% $219,48 $73,16 $87,619 Total Project Cost: $1,84,1 Total Project Cost: $1,84,1 372,5 $89,4 Net Project Cost: $1,75,61 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 36.2 $48,425 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

210 SEP Project ID Number: B322 Project: Chiller Unit Condensing Coil Replacement SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER MISSION CTR Tier 2 2C2415 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 29,883 Deferred Maintenance UCSF.xls Project Description Reference(s): UCSF Custom Project 1. Chiller Unit Condensing Coil Replacement. 12, 1. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 12, $2,88 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $89,848 $17,97 $89,848 $17,97 Totals: $17,818 $17, % 5.% 6.% $32,345 $1,782 $12,938 Total Project Cost: $271,7 Total Project Cost: $271,7 12, $2,88 Net Project Cost: $268,82 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): $1,56 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

211 SEP Project ID Number: B323 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER MISSION CTR Tier 1 2C2415 Start Preliminary 3/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 29,883 11/1/211 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 534, ,35 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 534,93 27,35 $155,688 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $162,367 $32,473 $487,14 $97,421 Totals: $194,84 $584, % 5.% 6.% $116,95 $38,968 $46,762 Total Project Cost: $982, Total Project Cost: $982, 534,93 $155,688 27,35 Net Project Cost: $826,312 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.2 $9,293 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

212 SEP Project ID Number: B324 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER OYSTER POINT Backup 2C2418 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 144,429 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 2, ,248 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 2,44 1,248 $6,145 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $28,273 $5,655 $84,822 $16,964 Totals: $33,928 $11, % 5.% 6.% $2,357 $6,786 $8,143 Total Project Cost: $171, Total Project Cost: $171, 2,44 $6,145 1,248 Net Project Cost: $164,855 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 45.8 $3,61 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

213 SEP Project ID Number: B325 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - LAUREL HEIGHTS LAUREL HTS Tier 1 2C245 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 456,177 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 37, ,576 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 37,18 21,576 $11,419 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Sales Tax: 8.3% Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $71,98 $14,22 $213,293 $42,659 Totals: $85,318 $255, % 5.% 6.% $51,19 $17,63 $2,476 Total Project Cost: $429,999 Total Project Cost: $429,999 37,18 $11,419 21,576 Net Project Cost: $319,58 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5. $64,521 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

214 SEP Project ID Number: B326 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS PSSRB 2C3 Basic Gross Area (sf): 9,5 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Tier 1 Start Preliminary 251, ,372 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 251,29 18,372 $78,619 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $27,63 $5,521 $82,88 $16,562 Totals: $33,124 $99,37 15.% 5.% 6.% $19,874 $6,625 $7,95 Total Project Cost: $166,941 Total Project Cost: $166, ,29 $78,619 22,965 Net Project Cost: $88,322 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.8 $5,87 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

215 SEP Project ID Number: B327 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY GENENTECH HA 2C32 Basic Gross Area (sf): 438,361 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Tier 1 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 1,862, ,11 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,862,784 86,11 $533,169 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $133,7 $26,74 $41,1 $8,22 Totals: $16,44 $481,32 15.% 5.% 6.% $96,264 $32,88 $38,56 Total Project Cost: $88,618 Total Project Cost: $88,618 1,862,784 $533,169 86,11 Net Project Cost: $275,449 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.9 $37,599 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

216 SEP Project ID Number: B328 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY COMMUNITY CE Tier 1 2C33 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 9/1/211 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 291, ,654 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 291,897 16,654 $86,79 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $66,137 $13,227 $198,414 $39,683 Totals: $79,364 $238,97 15.% 5.% 6.% $47,619 $15,873 $19,48 Total Project Cost: $4,1 Total Project Cost: $4,1 291,897 $86,79 16,654 Net Project Cost: $313,292 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.2 $5,64 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

217 SEP Project ID Number: B329 Project: UCSF Mission Bay Kitchen Hood Controls SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY COMMUNITY CE Tier 2 2C33 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 3/1/211 UC San Francisco MC Mission Bay Kitchen Hoods EWB - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 8. Kitchen Hood VFD. Cost updated to match campus estimate 76, ,912 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 76,299 3,912 $22,224 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project UCSF Mission Bay Kitchen Hood Controls 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $49,63 $9,921 $33,69 $6,614 Totals: $59,524 $39, % 5.% 6.% $14,881 $4,96 $5,952 Total Project Cost: $125, Total Project Cost: $125, 76,299 $22,224 3,912 Net Project Cost: $12,776 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8. $12,892 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

218 SEP Project ID Number: B33 Project: Condensate Return System Bypass Renewal SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS CENTRAL PLAN Backup 2C36 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 38,73 Deferred Maintenance UCSF.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects.. 32,876 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 32,876 $32,876 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $315, $94,5 $315, $94,5 Totals: $49,5 $49,5 15.% 5.% 6.% $122,85 $4,95 $49,14 Total Project Cost: $1,31,94 Total Project Cost: $1,31,94 $32,876 41,95 Net Project Cost: $999,64 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 32. $31,232 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

219 SEP Project ID Number: B331 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS HSIR EAST Tier 1 2C38 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 26,35 3/1/211 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 55, ,151 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 55,719 78,151 $21,324 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $173,611 $34,722 $52,833 $14,167 Totals: $28,333 $625, 15.% 5.% 6.% $125, $41,667 $5, Total Project Cost: $1,49,999 Total Project Cost: $1,49,999 55,719 $21,324 97,689 Net Project Cost: $839,675 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.8 $145,837 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

220 SEP Project ID Number: B332 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS HSIR WEST Tier 1 2C39 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 233,516 3/1/211 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 623, ,458 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 623,357 88,458 $238,64 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $138,888 $27,778 $416,667 $83,333 Totals: $166,666 $5, 15.% 5.% 6.% $1, $33,333 $4, Total Project Cost: $839,999 Total Project Cost: $839, ,357 $238,64 11,573 Net Project Cost: $61,935 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.6 $165,72 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

221 SEP Project ID Number: B333 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER FRESNO MERC Tier 1 2C329 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 84,175 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 74, ,224 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 74,613 1,224 $19,131 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $19,775 $3,955 $59,325 $11,865 Totals: $23,73 $71,19 15.% 5.% 6.% $14,238 $4,746 $5,695 Total Project Cost: $119,599 Total Project Cost: $119,599 74,613 $19,131 1,224 Net Project Cost: $1,468 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.5 $1,63 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

222 SEP Project ID Number: B334 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY BYERS HALL Tier 1 2C334 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 154,935 3/1/211 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 515, ,28 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 515,282 13,28 $136,876 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $57,87 $11,574 $173,611 $34,722 Totals: $69,444 $28, % 5.% 6.% $41,667 $13,889 $16,667 Total Project Cost: $349,999 Total Project Cost: $349, ,282 $136,876 13,28 Net Project Cost: $213,123 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.8 $77,25 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

223 SEP Project ID Number: B339 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Institute for Regeneration Medicine Building SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATION MED Backup 2CTBD1 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 63, ,755 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 63,45 28,755 $173,583 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $351,57 $7,211 $351,57 $7,211 Totals: $421,268 $421, % 5.% 6.% $126,381 $42,127 $5,552 Total Project Cost: $1,61,596 Total Project Cost: $1,61,596 63,45 $173,583 35,944 Net Project Cost: $888,13 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.4 $15,766 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

224 SEP Project ID Number: B34 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Parnassus Housing: 374 Parnassus Avenue SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 374 PARNASSUS HOUSING Backup 2CTBD2 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 27, ,587 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 27,69 2,587 $9,213 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $19,443 $3,889 $19,442 $3,888 Totals: $23,332 $23,33 15.% 5.% 6.% $6,999 $2,333 $2,8 Total Project Cost: $58,794 Total Project Cost: $58,794 27,69 $9,213 3,234 Net Project Cost: $49,581 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.2 $6,47 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

225 SEP Project ID Number: B341 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Telemedicine and PRIME-US Education Facilities SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY TELEMEDICINE AND PRIME FACILITY Backup 2CTBD3 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Cost updated to match campus estimate 335, ,975 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 335,25 15,975 $96,435 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $25, $5, $25, $5, Totals: $3, $3, 15.% 5.% 6.% $9, $3, $36, Total Project Cost: $756, Total Project Cost: $756, 335,25 $96,435 15,975 Net Project Cost: $659,565 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 11.8 $55,724 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

226 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Basic Gross Area (sf): Project Description Reference(s): B342 Phase 1: Replace 2 stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in campus buildings SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE 2CWIDE Campuswide Bi-level Stairwell Lighting Custom Calc AML.xls Lighting Project 3. Stairwell Lighting. Cost updated to match campus estimate Backup Start Preliminary 1/1/29 11/1/29 7,. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 7, $16,8 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bi-level Fixture 2 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $27,4 $5,48 $41,2 $8,24 Totals: $32,88 $49,44 15.% 5.% 6.% $12,348 $4,116 $4,939 Total Project Cost: $13,723 Total Project Cost: $13,723 7, $16,8 Net Project Cost: $86,923 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.6 $9,1 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

227 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Basic Gross Area (sf): Project Description Reference(s): B343 Phase 2: Replace 2 additional stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in campus buildings SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE 2CWIDE Campuswide Bi-level Stairwell Lighting Custom Calc AML.xls Lighting Project 3. Stairwell Lighting. Cost updated to match campus estimate Backup Start Preliminary 1/1/21 11/1/21 7,. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 7, $16,8 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bi-level Fixture 2 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $27,4 $5,48 $41,2 $8,24 Totals: $32,88 $49,44 15.% 5.% 6.% $12,348 $4,116 $4,939 Total Project Cost: $13,723 Total Project Cost: $13,723 7, $16,8 Net Project Cost: $86,923 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.6 $9,1 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

228 SEP Project ID Number: B344 Project: First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 29 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

229 SEP Project ID Number: B345 Project: Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 29 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

230 SEP Project ID Number: B346 Project: Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects 29 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates. 28,49 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 28,49 $28,49 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $16,416 $32,83 $16,417 $32,83 Totals: $192,499 $192,5 15.% 5.% 6.% $57,75 $19,25 $23,1 Total Project Cost: $485,99 Total Project Cost: $485,99 $28,49 28,49 Net Project Cost: $456,69 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.2 $21,591 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

231 SEP Project ID Number: B347 Project: First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 21 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

232 SEP Project ID Number: B348 Project: Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 21 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

233 SEP Project ID Number: B349 Project: Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects 21 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates. 28,49 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 28,49 $28,49 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $16,416 $32,83 $16,417 $32,83 Totals: $192,499 $192,5 15.% 5.% 6.% $57,75 $19,25 $23,1 Total Project Cost: $485,99 Total Project Cost: $485,99 $28,49 28,49 Net Project Cost: $456,69 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.2 $21,591 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

234 SEP Project ID Number: B35 Project: First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 211 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

235 SEP Project ID Number: B351 Project: Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 211 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

236 SEP Project ID Number: B352 Project: Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects 211 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates. 28,49 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 28,49 $28,49 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $16,416 $32,83 $16,417 $32,83 Totals: $192,499 $192,5 15.% 5.% 6.% $57,75 $19,25 $23,1 Total Project Cost: $485,99 Total Project Cost: $485,99 $28,49 28,49 Net Project Cost: $456,69 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.2 $21,591 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

237 SEP Project ID Number: B353 Project: First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 212 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

238 SEP Project ID Number: B354 Project: Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 212 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

239 SEP Project ID Number: B355 Project: Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects 212 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates. 28,49 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 28,49 $28,49 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $16,416 $32,83 $16,417 $32,83 Totals: $192,499 $192,5 15.% 5.% 6.% $57,75 $19,25 $23,1 Total Project Cost: $485,99 Total Project Cost: $485,99 $28,49 28,49 Net Project Cost: $456,69 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.2 $21,591 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

240 SEP Project ID Number: B356 Project: First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 213 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

241 SEP Project ID Number: B357 Project: Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 213 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

242 SEP Project ID Number: B358 Project: Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects 213 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates. 28,49 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 28,49 $28,49 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $16,416 $32,83 $16,417 $32,83 Totals: $192,499 $192,5 15.% 5.% 6.% $57,75 $19,25 $23,1 Total Project Cost: $485,99 Total Project Cost: $485,99 $28,49 28,49 Net Project Cost: $456,69 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.2 $21,591 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

243 SEP Project ID Number: B359 Project: First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 214 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

244 SEP Project ID Number: B36 Project: Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects 214 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates 454, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 454,55 $19,92 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $32,832 $64,166 $32,833 $64,167 Totals: $384,998 $385, 15.% 5.% 6.% $115,5 $38,5 $46,2 Total Project Cost: $97,197 Total Project Cost: $97, ,55 $19,92 Net Project Cost: $861,15 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.6 $59,92 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

245 SEP Project ID Number: B361 Project: Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects 214 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Deferred Maintenance and Capital Renewal Projects. Costs adjusted to match campus estimates. 28,49 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 28,49 $28,49 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $16,416 $32,83 $16,417 $32,83 Totals: $192,499 $192,5 15.% 5.% 6.% $57,75 $19,25 $23,1 Total Project Cost: $485,99 Total Project Cost: $485,99 $28,49 28,49 Net Project Cost: $456,69 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.2 $21,591 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

246 SEP Project ID Number: B362 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Cost updated to match campus estimate 169, ,837 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 169,34 15,837 $56,45 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $152,767 $3,553 $152,766 $3,553 Totals: $183,32 $183, % 5.% 6.% $54,996 $18,332 $21,998 Total Project Cost: $461,966 Total Project Cost: $461, ,34 $56,45 15,837 Net Project Cost: $45,561 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 11.9 $34,11 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

247 SEP Project ID Number: B363 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Cost updated to match campus estimate 169, ,837 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 169,34 15,837 $56,45 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $152,767 $3,553 $152,766 $3,553 Totals: $183,32 $183, % 5.% 6.% $54,996 $18,332 $21,998 Total Project Cost: $461,966 Total Project Cost: $461, ,34 $56,45 15,837 Net Project Cost: $45,561 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 11.9 $34,11 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

248 SEP Project ID Number: B364 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Cost updated to match campus estimate 169, ,837 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 169,34 15,837 $56,45 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $152,767 $3,553 $152,766 $3,553 Totals: $183,32 $183, % 5.% 6.% $54,996 $18,332 $21,998 Total Project Cost: $461,966 Total Project Cost: $461, ,34 $56,45 15,837 Net Project Cost: $45,561 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 11.9 $34,11 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

249 SEP Project ID Number: B365 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. Cost updated to match campus estimate 169, ,837 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 169,34 15,837 $56,45 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $152,767 $3,553 $152,766 $3,553 Totals: $183,32 $183, % 5.% 6.% $54,996 $18,332 $21,998 Total Project Cost: $461,966 Total Project Cost: $461, ,34 $56,45 15,837 Net Project Cost: $45,561 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 11.9 $34,11 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

250 SEP Project ID Number: B366 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Mission Bay Central Utilities System Phase 2 SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 451, ,55 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 451,39 21,55 $129,819 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $262,549 $52,51 $262,549 $52,51 Totals: $315,59 $315,59 15.% 5.% 6.% $94,518 $31,56 $37,87 Total Project Cost: $793,948 Total Project Cost: $793, ,39 $129,819 21,55 Net Project Cost: $664,129 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.9 $75,14 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

251 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Basic Gross Area (sf): Project Description Reference(s): B368 Phase 1: Replace 1 stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in residential buildings SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUSWIDE - HOUSING 2CWIDEH Campuswide Bi-level Stairwell Lighting Custom Calc AML.xls Lighting Project 3. Stairwell Lighting. Start Preliminary Backup 35,. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 35, $8,4 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bi-level Fixture 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $1,68 $2,136 $16,2 $3,24 Totals: $12,816 $19, % 5.% 6.% $4,86 $1,62 $1,922 Total Project Cost: $4,37 Total Project Cost: $4,37 35, $8,4 Net Project Cost: $31,97 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 7. $4,55 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

252 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Basic Gross Area (sf): Project Description Reference(s): B369 Phase 2: Replace 1 additional stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in residential buildings SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUSWIDE - HOUSING 2CWIDEH Campuswide Bi-level Stairwell Lighting Custom Calc AML.xls Lighting Project 3. Stairwell Lighting. Start Preliminary Backup 35,. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 35, $8,4 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bi-level Fixture 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $1,68 $2,136 $16,2 $3,24 Totals: $12,816 $19, % 5.% 6.% $4,86 $1,62 $1,922 Total Project Cost: $4,37 Total Project Cost: $4,37 35, $8,4 Net Project Cost: $31,97 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 7. $4,55 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

253 SEP Project ID Number: B37 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Backup 2CWIDEM Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 225, ,117 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 225,381 21,117 $75,28 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $158,718 $47,615 $158,718 $47,615 Totals: $26,333 $26, % 5.% 6.% $61,9 $2,633 $24,76 Total Project Cost: $519,96 Total Project Cost: $519,96 225,381 $75,28 21,117 Net Project Cost: $444,752 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.8 $45,348 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

254 SEP Project ID Number: B371 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Backup 2CWIDEM Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 225, ,117 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 225,381 21,117 $75,28 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $158,718 $47,615 $158,718 $47,615 Totals: $26,333 $26, % 5.% 6.% $61,9 $2,633 $24,76 Total Project Cost: $519,96 Total Project Cost: $519,96 225,381 $75,28 21,117 Net Project Cost: $444,752 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.8 $45,348 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

255 SEP Project ID Number: B372 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Backup 2CWIDEM Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 225, ,117 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 225,381 21,117 $75,28 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $158,718 $47,615 $158,718 $47,615 Totals: $26,333 $26, % 5.% 6.% $61,9 $2,633 $24,76 Total Project Cost: $519,96 Total Project Cost: $519,96 225,381 $75,28 21,117 Net Project Cost: $444,752 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.8 $45,348 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

256 SEP Project ID Number: B373 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Backup 2CWIDEM Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 225, ,117 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 225,381 21,117 $75,28 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $158,718 $47,615 $158,718 $47,615 Totals: $26,333 $26, % 5.% 6.% $61,9 $2,633 $24,76 Total Project Cost: $519,96 Total Project Cost: $519,96 225,381 $75,28 21,117 Net Project Cost: $444,752 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.8 $45,348 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

257 SEP Project ID Number: B374 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUSWIDE - OTHER Backup 2CWIDEO Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 8, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 8, $2,82 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $5,954 $1,191 $5,953 $1,191 Totals: $7,145 $7, % 5.% 6.% $2,143 $714 $857 Total Project Cost: $18,3 Total Project Cost: $18,3 8,452 $2, Net Project Cost: $15,183 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.9 $1,71 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

258 SEP Project ID Number: B375 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUSWIDE - OTHER Backup 2CWIDEO Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 8, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 8, $2,82 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $5,954 $1,191 $5,953 $1,191 Totals: $7,145 $7, % 5.% 6.% $2,143 $714 $857 Total Project Cost: $18,3 Total Project Cost: $18,3 8,452 $2, Net Project Cost: $15,183 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.9 $1,71 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

259 SEP Project ID Number: B376 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUSWIDE - OTHER Backup 2CWIDEO Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 8, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 8, $2,82 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $5,954 $1,191 $5,953 $1,191 Totals: $7,145 $7, % 5.% 6.% $2,143 $714 $857 Total Project Cost: $18,3 Total Project Cost: $18,3 8,452 $2, Net Project Cost: $15,183 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.9 $1,71 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

260 SEP Project ID Number: B377 Project: SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUSWIDE - OTHER Backup 2CWIDEO Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): UC SEP Capital Project Savings Potential (27 Mar) - Checked MZ 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program. 8, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 8, $2,82 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $5,954 $1,191 $5,953 $1,191 Totals: $7,145 $7, % 5.% 6.% $2,143 $714 $857 Total Project Cost: $18,3 Total Project Cost: $18,3 8,452 $2, Net Project Cost: $15,183 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.9 $1,71 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

261 SEP Project ID Number: B378 Project: 8 Lab Freezer Replacements SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Backup 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Lab Freezer Projects SEP MZ 3278-Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Campus Wide Project 2. Lab Freezers. Cost updated to match campus estimate 3, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 3,912 $7,419 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Energy Star Lab Freezer 8 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $141,4 $28,28 $ $ Totals: $169,248 $ 15.% 5.% 6.% $25,387 $8,462 $1,155 Total Project Cost: $213,252 Total Project Cost: $213,252 3,912 $7,419 Net Project Cost: $25,833 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 51.2 $4,19 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

262 SEP Project ID Number: B379 Project: 54 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Tier 1 2CWIDE Start Preliminary 1/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 11/1/29 Refrigerator (Campus-wide) Projects SEP MZ 3268.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Campus Wide Project 1. Refrigerators. Cost updated to match campus estimate 121, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 121,122 $29,69 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Energy Star Refrigerator 54 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $84,78 $16,956 $ $ Totals: $11,736 $ 15.% 5.% 6.% $15,26 $5,87 $6,14 Total Project Cost: $128,187 Total Project Cost: $128, ,122 $29,69 Net Project Cost: $99,118 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.3 $15,746 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

263 SEP Project ID Number: B38 Project: Refrigerators Phase 1 of 3: 1 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Tier 1 2CWIDE Start Preliminary 1/1/21 Basic Gross Area (sf): 11/1/21 Refrigerator (Housing) Projects SEP MZ 3268.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Campus Wide Project 1. Refrigerators. Cost updated to match campus estimate 224,3 26. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 224,3 $53,832 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Energy Star Refrigerator 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $157, $31,4 $ $ Totals: $188,4 $ 15.% 5.% 6.% $28,26 $9,42 $11,34 Total Project Cost: $237,384 Total Project Cost: $237, ,3 $53,832 Net Project Cost: $183,552 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.3 $29,159 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

264 SEP Project ID Number: B381 Project: Refrigerators Phase 2 of 3: 1 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Tier 1 2CWIDE Start Preliminary 1/1/211 Basic Gross Area (sf): 11/1/211 Refrigerator (Housing) Projects SEP MZ 3268.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Campus Wide Project 1. Refrigerators. Cost updated to match campus estimate 224,3 26. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 224,3 $53,832 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Energy Star Refrigerator 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $157, $31,4 $ $ Totals: $188,4 $ 15.% 5.% 6.% $28,26 $9,42 $11,34 Total Project Cost: $237,384 Total Project Cost: $237, ,3 $53,832 Net Project Cost: $183,552 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.3 $29,159 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

265 SEP Project ID Number: B382 Project: Refrigerators Phase 3 of 3: 25 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Tier 1 2CWIDE Start Preliminary 1/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 11/1/29 Refrigerator (Housing) Projects SEP MZ 3268.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Campus Wide Project 1. Refrigerators. Cost updated to match campus estimate 56,75 6. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 56,75 $13,458 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Energy Star Refrigerator 25 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $39,25 $7,85 $ $ Totals: $47,1 $ 15.% 5.% 6.% $7,65 $2,355 $2,826 Total Project Cost: $59,346 Total Project Cost: $59,346 56,75 $13,458 Net Project Cost: $45,888 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.3 $7,29 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

266 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Basic Gross Area (sf): Project Description Reference(s): B383 1 Verdiem (PC Power Management) Installations and 4 CRT Replacements SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE 2CWIDE Verdiem & CRT Projects SEP MZ TLH.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 1/1/29 11/1/29 Campus Wide Project 4. Network Computer Power Management Software/CRT. Cost updated to match campus estimate 213, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 213,796 $51,311 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Verdiem (or similar) Software, Licence & Installation 1, LCD Monitor & Installation 4 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $132,36 $26,472 $2,76 $552 Totals: $158,832 $3, % 5.% 6.% $24,322 $8,17 $9,729 Total Project Cost: $24,31 Total Project Cost: $24,31 213,796 $51,311 Net Project Cost: $152,99 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.5 $27,793 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

267 SEP Project ID Number: B384 Project: 5 VM Installations SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY CAMPUSWIDE Tier 2 2CWIDE Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Virtualization Projects SEP MZ Checked ADM 3288.xls Project Description Reference(s): Campus Wide Project 3. Server Virtualization. Cost updated to match campus estimate 14, 18. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 14, $33,6 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Hardware, Software, License & Installation; VM or similar, per Virt 5 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $134,92 $26,984 $ $ Totals: $161,94 $ 15.% 5.% 6.% $24,286 $8,95 $9,714 Total Project Cost: $23,999 Total Project Cost: $23,999 14, $33,6 Net Project Cost: $17,399 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.4 $18,2 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

268 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B385 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C212 Basic Gross Area (sf): 18,5 Project Description Reference(s): Install occupancy and daylighting sensors in offices, conference rooms, and library areas, where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO LIBRARY UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 5/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 8, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 8,338 $19,281 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Occupancy Sensors 1 $2,41.81 $23,23 $15, $2,48 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $13,527. $15,258 $13,527. $17,977 Daylighting 1 $4, $4,66 $1, $14,324 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $42,942 $52,79 $3,543 $5,578 $52,63 $1,413 $6,325 $59,34 $11,87 Totals: $62,476 $7,84 15.% 5.% 6.% $19,997 $6,666 $7,999 Total Project Cost: $167,978 Total Project Cost: $167,978 8,338 $19,281 Net Project Cost: $148,697 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.2 $1,444 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

269 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B386 SAN FRANCISCO - MT ZION 2C237 Basic Gross Area (sf): 19,671 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO MTZ CANCER RESEARCH (234 SUTT UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Start Preliminary Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Tier 1 171, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 171,416 $41,14 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $24,41.8 $27,525 $34, $45,548 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $1, $1,72 $2,142.1 $2,847 Daylighting 1 $ $368 $851.6 $1,131 Occupancy Sensors 1 $6,69.17 $7,547 $5,33.18 $6,689 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $37,16 $56,215 $3,66 $4,827 $45,53 $9,11 $6,746 $62,96 $12,592 Totals: $54,63 $75, % 5.% 6.% $19,442 $6,481 $7,777 Total Project Cost: $163,316 Total Project Cost: $163, ,416 $41,14 Net Project Cost: $122,176 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.5 $22,284 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

270 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B387 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2212 Basic Gross Area (sf): 422,974 Project Description Reference(s): Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors SAN FRANCISCO MILLBERRY UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 128, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 128,69 $3,737 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $3,49.72 $3,846 $8, $11,821 Other --> Implement changes in 27 ARUP study 1 $22,87.22 $25,727 $32,32.61 $42,571 Occupancy Sensors 1 $21,78.17 $24,568 $16, $21,777 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $54,141 $76,169 $4,467 $7,33 $65,64 $13,128 $9,14 $85,31 $17,62 Totals: $78,768 $12, % 5.% 6.% $27,171 $9,57 $1,868 Total Project Cost: $228,236 Total Project Cost: $228, ,69 $3,737 Net Project Cost: $197,499 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 11.9 $16,649 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

271 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B388 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2251 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,647 Project Description Reference(s): Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors SAN FRANCISCO CLINICAL SCI UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Backup Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 233, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 233,63 $56,65 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $28,545. $32,199 $28,545. $37,936 Occupancy Sensors 1 $19, $22,151 $14, $19,634 Daylighting 1 $1,73.57 $1,211 $2,8.61 $3,722 Other --> Implement changes in 27 ARUP study 1 $6,8.34 $68,583 $85, $113,488 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $124,143 $174,781 $1,242 $16,126 $15,512 $3,12 $2,974 $195,755 $39,151 Totals: $18,614 $234,95 15.% 5.% 6.% $62,328 $2,776 $24,931 Total Project Cost: $523,554 Total Project Cost: $523, ,63 $56,65 Net Project Cost: $467,489 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 15.4 $3,368 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

272 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B389 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2252 Basic Gross Area (sf): 392,649 Project Description Reference(s): Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors SAN FRANCISCO MED SCIENCES UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 712, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 712,329 $17,959 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $3,1.53 $3,497 $8,88.34 $1,749 Occupancy Sensors 1 $51, $58,345 $38, $51,716 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $25,195. $28,42 $25,195. $33,484 Other --> Implement changes in 27 ARUP study 1 $16,528.8 $12,164 $149,619.1 $198,844 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $21,427 $294,794 $17,36 $27,334 $255,122 $51,24 $35,375 $33,169 $66,34 Totals: $36,146 $396,23 15.% 5.% 6.% $15,352 $35,117 $42,141 Total Project Cost: $884,959 Total Project Cost: $884, ,329 $17,959 Net Project Cost: $714, Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 7.7 $92,63 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

273 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B39 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C229 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,237 Project Description Reference(s): Implement planned lamp and ballast retrofit, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO LPPI UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 239, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 239,44 $57,457 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Occupancy Sensors 1 $15, $17,457 $11, $15,474 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $28,334.3 $31,961 $39, $52,888 Daylighting 1 $1,138.4 $1,284 $2, $3,947 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $31,159. $35,147 $31,159. $41,41 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $85,849 $113,718 $7,83 $11,152 $14,84 $2,817 $13,646 $127,365 $25,473 Totals: $124,91 $152, % 5.% 6.% $41,661 $13,887 $16,664 Total Project Cost: $349,95 Total Project Cost: $349,95 239,44 $57,457 Net Project Cost: $292,493 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.4 $31,123 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

274 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B391 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C241 Basic Gross Area (sf): 88,668 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO NURSING UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Backup Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 158, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 158,728 $38,95 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $62,386. $7,371 $62,386. $82,911 Daylighting 1 $1,672.5 $1,886 $4, $5,797 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $2, $23,645 $29,44.55 $39,126 Occupancy Sensors 1 $25, $29,277 $19, $25,95 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $125,179 $153,785 $1,327 $16,261 $151,767 $3,353 $18,454 $172,239 $34,448 Totals: $182,12 $26, % 5.% 6.% $58,321 $19,44 $23,328 Total Project Cost: $489,897 Total Project Cost: $489, ,728 $38,95 Net Project Cost: $451,82 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.9 $2,635 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

275 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B392 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C2412 Basic Gross Area (sf): 128,43 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO DENTISTRY UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Backup Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 325,7 87. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 325,7 $78,17 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $669.7 $755 $1,745.4 $2,32 Occupancy Sensors 1 $15,34.93 $16,959 $11, $15,33 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $17,856.4 $2,142 $25,78.71 $33,33 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $14,494. $117,869 $14,494. $138,873 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $17,856.4 $2,142 $25,78.71 $33,33 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $175,867 $222,884 $14,59 $22,845 $213,221 $42,644 $26,746 $249,63 $49,926 Totals: $255,865 $299, % 5.% 6.% $83,313 $27,771 $33,325 Total Project Cost: $699,83 Total Project Cost: $699,83 325,7 $78,17 Net Project Cost: $621,813 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 14.7 $42,259 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

276 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B393 SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C2415 Basic Gross Area (sf): 29,883 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO MISSION CTR UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 449, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 449,716 $17,932 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Occupancy Sensors 1 $63, $71,934 $47, $63,761 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $68, $77,569 $96, $128,358 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $149,53 $192,119 $12,334 $19,42 $181,257 $36,251 $23,54 $215,173 $43,35 Totals: $217,58 $258,28 15.% 5.% 6.% $71,357 $23,786 $28,543 Total Project Cost: $599,42 Total Project Cost: $599,42 449,716 $17,932 Net Project Cost: $491,47 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.4 $58,463 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

277 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B394 SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C2418 Basic Gross Area (sf): 144,429 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO OYSTER POINT UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Start Preliminary Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate Tier 2 12, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 12,793 $28,99 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $4,674. $5,272 $4,674. $6,212 Daylighting 1 $ $267 $ $821 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $34, $38,514 $47, $63,732 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $44,54 $7,765 $3,634 $5,723 $53,411 $1,682 $8,492 $79,257 $15,851 Totals: $64,93 $95,18 15.% 5.% 6.% $23,88 $7,96 $9,552 Total Project Cost: $2,593 Total Project Cost: $2,593 12,793 $28,99 Net Project Cost: $171,63 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.9 $15,73 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

278 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B395 SAN FRANCISCO - LAUREL HEIGHTS 2C245 Basic Gross Area (sf): 456,177 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO LAUREL HTS UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 1/1/211 11/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 597, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 597,354 $143,365 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Occupancy Sensors 1 $86, $97,991 $65, $86,857 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $1,77.58 $1,997 $2, $3,35 Daylighting 1 $5,84.6 $5,735 $13, $17,626 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $83, $94,6 $117,787.7 $156,54 Sales Tax: 8.3% Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $2,322 $264,328 $16,627 $26,34 $242,983 $48,597 $31,719 $296,48 $59,21 Totals: $291,58 $355, % 5.% 6.% $97,26 $32,342 $38,81 Total Project Cost: $815,15 Total Project Cost: $815,15 597,354 $143,365 Net Project Cost: $671,65 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.6 $77,656 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

279 SEP Project ID Number: B396 Project: Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS PSSRB Tier 2 2C3 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 9,5 6/1/21 UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Project Description Reference(s): Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting. Cost updated to match campus estimate 115, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 115,189 $27,645 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $21, $24,133 $3,48.83 $39,935 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $55,123. $62,179 $55,123. $73,258 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $86,312 $113,193 $7,121 $11,212 $14,645 $2,929 $13,583 $126,777 $25,355 Totals: $125,574 $152, % 5.% 6.% $41,656 $13,885 $16,662 Total Project Cost: $349,99 Total Project Cost: $349,99 115,189 $27,645 Net Project Cost: $322,264 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 21.5 $14,975 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

280 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B397 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C31 Basic Gross Area (sf): 17,565 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO ROCK HALL UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 197, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 197,44 $47,291 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $4, $45,484 $56, $75,265 Daylighting 1 $ $723 $1, $2,223 Occupancy Sensors 1 $2,88.46 $3,249 $2,167.4 $2,88 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $16,954. $19,124 $16,954. $22,532 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $68,581 $12,9 $5,658 $8,99 $83,147 $16,629 $12,348 $115,248 $23,5 Totals: $99,777 $138, % 5.% 6.% $35,711 $11,94 $14,284 Total Project Cost: $299,974 Total Project Cost: $299, ,44 $47,291 Net Project Cost: $252,683 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 9.9 $25,616 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

281 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B398 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C32 Basic Gross Area (sf): 438,361 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH HA UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 1,119, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,119,952 $268,788 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $2, $2,613 $6,43.79 $8,32 Occupancy Sensors 1 $7, $8,195 $5, $7,264 New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $13, $116,896 $145, $193,435 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $127,75 $28,732 $1,536 $16,589 $154,829 $3,966 $25,48 $233,779 $46,756 Totals: $185,795 $28, % 5.% 6.% $69,95 $23,317 $27,98 Total Project Cost: $587,576 Total Project Cost: $587,576 1,119,952 $268,788 Net Project Cost: $318,788 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.2 $145,594 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

282 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B399 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C33 Basic Gross Area (sf): 158,65 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY CE UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 234, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 234,376 $56,25 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $51,349. $57,922 $51,349. $68,243 Daylighting 1 $3,989.7 $4,5 $1,47.9 $13,832 Occupancy Sensors 1 $4,2.6 $45,123 $3,94.95 $39,996 New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $37, $42,295 $52, $69,988 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $149,84 $192,59 $12,362 $19,464 $181,666 $36,333 $23,47 $215,16 $43,21 Totals: $217,999 $258, % 5.% 6.% $71,419 $23,86 $28,568 Total Project Cost: $599,918 Total Project Cost: $599, ,376 $56,25 Net Project Cost: $543,668 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 17.8 $3,469 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

283 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B31 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C38 Basic Gross Area (sf): 26,35 Project Description Reference(s): Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors SAN FRANCISCO HSIR EAST UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 511, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 511,148 $122,676 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Occupancy Sensors 1 $12,36.89 $13,578 $9,55.65 $12,35 Other --> Implement changes in 27 ARUP study 1 $95, $17,427 $133, $177,766 Daylighting 1 $89.4 $913 $2,11.55 $2,85 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $121,917 $192,66 $1,58 $15,837 $147,812 $29,562 $23,113 $215,718 $43,144 Totals: $177,375 $258, % 5.% 6.% $65,436 $21,812 $26,174 Total Project Cost: $549,658 Total Project Cost: $549, ,148 $122,676 Net Project Cost: $426,982 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.4 $66,449 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

284 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B311 SAN FRANCISCO - PARNASSUS 2C39 Basic Gross Area (sf): 233,516 Project Description Reference(s): Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors SAN FRANCISCO HSIR WEST UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 6/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 438, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 438,59 $15,242 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Occupancy Sensors 1 $17, $19,532 $13,27.9 $17,313 Daylighting 1 $1, $1,523 $3, $4,68 Other --> Implement changes in 27 ARUP study 1 $87,56.3 $98,768 $122, $163,438 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $119,823 $185,431 $9,885 $15,565 $145,273 $29,55 $22,252 $27,683 $41,537 Totals: $174,328 $249, % 5.% 6.% $63,532 $21,177 $25,413 Total Project Cost: $533,669 Total Project Cost: $533, ,59 $15,242 Net Project Cost: $428,427 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 7.5 $57,6 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

285 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B312 SAN FRANCISCO - OTHER 2C329 Basic Gross Area (sf): 84,175 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO FRESNO MERC UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Start Preliminary Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate Tier 2 15, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 15,786 $25,389 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $19,899.5 $22,447 $27, $37,144 Daylighting 1 $1,286.5 $1,451 $3, $4,459 Occupancy Sensors 1 $3, $4,154 $2,77.57 $3,682 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $9,863. $11,125 $9,863. $13,18 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $39,177 $58,393 $3,232 $5,89 $47,498 $9,5 $7,7 $65,4 $13,8 Totals: $56,998 $78,48 15.% 5.% 6.% $2,322 $6,774 $8,129 Total Project Cost: $17,71 Total Project Cost: $17,71 15,786 $25,389 Net Project Cost: $145,312 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.6 $13,752 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

286 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B313 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C334 Basic Gross Area (sf): 154,935 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO BYERS HALL UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 159, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 159,429 $38,263 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $ $424 $ $1,34 New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $36,627.6 $41,316 $51, $68,368 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $12,24. $13,87 $12,24. $16,267 Occupancy Sensors 1 $ $786 $ $697 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $56,333 $86,636 $4,647 $7,318 $68,298 $13,66 $1,396 $97,33 $19,47 Totals: $81,958 $116, % 5.% 6.% $29,76 $9,92 $11,94 Total Project Cost: $249,981 Total Project Cost: $249, ,429 $38,263 Net Project Cost: $211,718 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.2 $2,726 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

287 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B314 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C335 Basic Gross Area (sf): 65,866 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO MB HOUSING W UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Backup Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 48, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 48,399 $11,616 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $13, $15,498 $19, $25,645 Occupancy Sensors 1 $6,37.47 $6,81 $4, $6,37 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $18,624. $21,8 $18,624. $24,751 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $43,316 $56,433 $3,574 $5,627 $52,516 $1,53 $6,772 $63,25 $12,641 Totals: $63,2 $75, % 5.% 6.% $2,83 $6,943 $8,332 Total Project Cost: $174,971 Total Project Cost: $174,971 48,399 $11,616 Net Project Cost: $163,355 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 26. $6,292 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

288 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B315 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C336 Basic Gross Area (sf): 96,81 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO MB HOUSING S UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Backup Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 69, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 69,33 $16,633 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $2,192.8 $22,777 $28, $37,69 Occupancy Sensors 1 $7,51.12 $7,954 $5,34.73 $7,5 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $15,718. $17,73 $15,718. $2,889 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $48,46 $65,629 $3,998 $6,295 $58,753 $11,751 $7,876 $73,55 $14,71 Totals: $7,54 $88,26 15.% 5.% 6.% $23,86 $7,935 $9,523 Total Project Cost: $199,974 Total Project Cost: $199,974 69,33 $16,633 Net Project Cost: $183,341 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.3 $9,9 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

289 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B316 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C337 Basic Gross Area (sf): 142,197 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO MB HOUSING N UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Backup Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 12, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 12,935 $24,74 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $23,544. $26,558 $23,544. $31,29 Occupancy Sensors 1 $11, $12,956 $8,641.4 $11,484 New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $29, $33,458 $41, $55,365 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $72,972 $98,139 $6,2 $9,479 $88,471 $17,694 $11,777 $19,916 $21,983 Totals: $16,165 $131, % 5.% 6.% $35,71 $11,93 $14,284 Total Project Cost: $299,961 Total Project Cost: $299,961 12,935 $24,74 Net Project Cost: $275,257 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.6 $13,382 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

290 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B317 SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY 2C338 Basic Gross Area (sf): 15,42 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate SAN FRANCISCO MB HOUSING E UCSF All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked JCR 3278.xls Backup Start Preliminary 1/1/21 3/1/211 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 75, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 75,781 $18,187 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $24,33. $27,414 $24,33. $32,299 New building: T24 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts6-1 $21, $24,85 $3, $41,46 Occupancy Sensors 1 $7, $9,8 $6,7.66 $7,984 Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $61,226 $81,329 $5,51 $7,953 $74,23 $14,846 $9,759 $91,88 $18,218 Totals: $89,77 $19,36 15.% 5.% 6.% $29,757 $9,919 $11,93 Total Project Cost: $249,962 Total Project Cost: $249,962 75,781 $18,187 Net Project Cost: $231,775 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 23.5 $9,852 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

291 SEP Project ID Number: B311 Project: Lab Model CAV to VAV SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO - MISSION BAY Helen Diller Cancer Backup 2CTBD4 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Potential Fume Hood Projects-UCSF.xls (in Appendix C) Project Description Reference(s): Laboratory Air Handler Project 1. Convert Laboratory Air Handlers and Fume Hoods to Variable Air Volume. 173, ,19 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 173,977 1,19 $51,944 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $113,872 $22,774 $75,914 $15,183 Totals: $136,646 $91,97 15.% 5.% 6.% $34,161 $11,387 $13,665 Total Project Cost: $286,956 Total Project Cost: $286, ,977 $51,944 1,19 Net Project Cost: $235,12 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 7.7 $3,361 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

292 SEP Project ID Number: B351 Project: UCSF Parnassus Kitchen Hood Controls SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS MOFFITT HOSP Backup 2C2274 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 UC San Francisco MC Parnassus Kitchen Hoods EWB - Checked MZ 3268.xls Project Description Reference(s): Air Handler Project 8. Kitchen Hood VFD. 19, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 19, $5,556 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project UCSF Parnassus Kitchen Hood Controls 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $5,4 $1,62 $3,6 $1,8 Totals: $7,2 $4,68 15.% 5.% 6.% $1,755 $585 $72 Total Project Cost: $14,742 Total Project Cost: $14,742 19,75 $5,556 1,223 Net Project Cost: $9,186 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.7 $3,49 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

293 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3524 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C218 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,8 Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG A SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Start Preliminary Backup Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Project under consideration at time of this report, may be complete in , ,968 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 328,6 89,968 $168,72 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $36,234 $1,87 $18,72 $32,611 Totals: $47,14 $141, % 5.% 6.% $28,263 $9,421 $11,35 Total Project Cost: $237,45 Total Project Cost: $237,45 328,6 $168,72 112,46 Net Project Cost: $68,73 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.5 $128,117 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

294 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3525 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C218 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,8 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG A UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Start Preliminary Backup Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Project under consideration at time of this report, may be complete in , Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 266,727 $64,14 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $13, $15,95 $18, $24,978 Daylighting 1 $919.9 $1,37 $2, $3,186 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $16, $18,449 $22,971.9 $3,529 Occupancy Sensors 1 $2, $3,158 $2,292.1 $3,46 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $37,738 $61,739 $3,113 $4,92 $45,754 $13,726 $7,49 $69,148 $2,744 Totals: $59,48 $89, % 5.% 6.% $22,46 $7,469 $8,962 Total Project Cost: $188,29 Total Project Cost: $188,29 266,727 $64,14 Net Project Cost: $124,195 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.6 $34,675 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

295 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3526 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C219 Basic Gross Area (sf): 16,4 Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG B SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Start Preliminary Backup Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Project under consideration at time of this report, may be complete in 28 16, ,599 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 16,875 21,599 $25,649 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $32,452 $9,736 $97,356 $29,27 Totals: $42,188 $126, % 5.% 6.% $25,313 $8,438 $1,125 Total Project Cost: $212,626 Total Project Cost: $212,626 16,875 $25,649 26,999 Net Project Cost: $186,977 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.2 $22,713 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

296 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3527 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C219 Basic Gross Area (sf): 16,4 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG B UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Start Preliminary Backup Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Project under consideration at time of this report, may be complete in , Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 156,67 $37,61 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $21,36.6 $24,34 $29,925. $39,77 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $5, $6,8 $7, $9,943 Occupancy Sensors 1 $1, $1,42 $1,17.27 $1,352 Daylighting 1 $ $1,37 $2, $3,187 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $32,481 $54,252 $2,68 $4,219 $39,38 $11,814 $6,51 $6,763 $18,229 Totals: $51,194 $78, % 5.% 6.% $19,528 $6,59 $7,811 Total Project Cost: $164,33 Total Project Cost: $164,33 156,67 $37,61 Net Project Cost: $126,432 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.2 $2,367 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

297 SEP Project ID Number: B3528 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ 233 POS (S Building) Tier 1 2C22 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 5,491 12/1/21 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 58, ,25 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 58,496 1,25 $24,289 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $18,243 $5,473 $54,729 $16,419 Totals: $23,716 $71, % 5.% 6.% $14,23 $4,743 $5,692 Total Project Cost: $119,528 Total Project Cost: $119,528 58,496 $24,289 12,813 Net Project Cost: $95,239 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.5 $17,342 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

298 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3529 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C22 Basic Gross Area (sf): 5,491 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ 233 POS (S Building) UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 99, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 99,514 $23,883 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $371.4 $419 $ $1,286 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $11, $12,831 $15, $21,232 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $1, $1,426 $1,775.7 $2,359 Occupancy Sensors 1 $6, $7,554 $5, $7,287 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $524. $591 $524. $696 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $22,82 $32,86 $1,883 $2,964 $27,666 $8,3 $3,943 $36,83 $11,41 Totals: $35,966 $47, % 5.% 6.% $12,572 $4,191 $5,29 Total Project Cost: $15,61 Total Project Cost: $15,61 99,514 $23,883 Net Project Cost: $81,718 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 6.3 $12,937 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

299 SEP Project ID Number: Project: SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C223 Basic Gross Area (sf): 9,6 Project Description Reference(s): B3532 Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG D UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Start Preliminary Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Backup 3,58 8. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 3,58 $7,339 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $58.98 $67 $ $24 Occupancy Sensors 1 $2,733.5 $3,83 $2,238.2 $2,974 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $48.6 $542 $675. $897 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $1,922.4 $2,168 $2,7. $3,588 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $5,861 $7,664 $483 $761 $7,15 $2,132 $92 $8,584 $2,575 Totals: $9,237 $11, % 5.% 6.% $3,59 $1,2 $1,224 Total Project Cost: $25,699 Total Project Cost: $25,699 3,58 $7,339 Net Project Cost: $18,36 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4.6 $3,975 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

300 SEP Project ID Number: Project: SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C226 Basic Gross Area (sf): 5,3 Project Description Reference(s): B3534 Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG G UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 17, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 17,677 $4,242 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $1, $1,496 $1, $2,476 Daylighting 1 $23.1 $26 $6.27 $8 Occupancy Sensors 1 $ $467 $ $451 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $1,99 $3,7 $164 $258 $2,413 $724 $361 $3,368 $1,1 Totals: $3,136 $4, % 5.% 6.% $1,127 $376 $451 Total Project Cost: $9,469 Total Project Cost: $9,469 17,677 $4,242 Net Project Cost: $5,227 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.3 $2,298 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

301 SEP Project ID Number: B3535 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) 2C231 Basic Gross Area (sf): 53,5 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Tier 2 Start Preliminary 72, ,793 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 72,528 13,793 $31,2 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $16,318 $4,895 $48,953 $14,686 Totals: $21,213 $63, % 5.% 6.% $12,728 $4,243 $5,91 Total Project Cost: $16,914 Total Project Cost: $16,914 72,528 $31,2 17,241 Net Project Cost: $75,714 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.4 $22,532 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

302 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3536 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C231 Basic Gross Area (sf): 53,5 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/211 3/1/212 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 164, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 164,95 $39,577 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $1, $1,511 $1,88.86 $2,5 Daylighting 1 $ $6 $1,387.6 $1,843 Occupancy Sensors 1 $8, $1,19 $7,272.4 $9,665 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $12,52.55 $13,595 $16, $22,497 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $25,725 $36,55 $2,122 $3,342 $31,189 $9,357 $4,381 $4,886 $12,266 Totals: $4,546 $53, % 5.% 6.% $14,55 $4,685 $5,622 Total Project Cost: $118,58 Total Project Cost: $118,58 164,95 $39,577 Net Project Cost: $78,481 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.7 $21,438 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

303 SEP Project ID Number: Project: SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C233 Basic Gross Area (sf): 7,45 Project Description Reference(s): B3537 Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG N UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 24,11 6. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 24,11 $5,784 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $ $21 $ $348 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $1, $1,893 $2, $3,133 Occupancy Sensors 1 $1, $1,99 $1, $1,841 Daylighting 1 $94.34 $16 $ $327 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $4,119 $5,649 $34 $535 $4,994 $1,498 $678 $6,327 $1,898 Totals: $6,492 $8, % 5.% 6.% $2,28 $736 $883 Total Project Cost: $18,543 Total Project Cost: $18,543 24,11 $5,784 Net Project Cost: $12,759 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4.1 $3,133 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

304 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3539 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C235 Basic Gross Area (sf): 16,6 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ BLDG R UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Start Preliminary Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Tier 2 45, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 45,766 $1,984 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $2, $2,812 $3,51.56 $4,654 Daylighting 1 $13.53 $117 $27.9 $359 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $1,662.8 $1,875 $2, $3,12 Occupancy Sensors 1 $1,857.1 $2,95 $1,52.48 $2,21 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $6,899 $1,136 $569 $896 $8,364 $2,59 $1,216 $11,352 $3,46 Totals: $1,873 $14, % 5.% 6.% $3,845 $1,282 $1,538 Total Project Cost: $32,295 Total Project Cost: $32,295 45,766 $1,984 Net Project Cost: $21,311 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.6 $5,95 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

305 SEP Project ID Number: B354 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) Tier 1 2C236 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,14 12/1/21 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 111, ,14 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 111,37 6,14 $32,818 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $1,1 $3,3 $3,31 $9,9 Totals: $13,13 $39, % 5.% 6.% $7,878 $2,626 $3,151 Total Project Cost: $66,177 Total Project Cost: $66, ,37 $32,818 7,63 Net Project Cost: $33,359 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.6 $2,269 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

306 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3541 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C236 Basic Gross Area (sf): 118,14 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. 95, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 95,421 $22,91 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $11,61.5 $13,97 $16,36.88 $21,672 Daylighting 1 $ $634 $1, $1,949 Occupancy Sensors 1 $ $585 $ $564 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $14,315 $24,185 $1,181 $1,86 $17,356 $5,27 $2,92 $27,87 $8,126 Totals: $22,563 $35, % 5.% 6.% $8,666 $2,889 $3,467 Total Project Cost: $72,798 Total Project Cost: $72,798 95,421 $22,91 Net Project Cost: $49,897 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4. $12,45 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

307 SEP Project ID Number: B3542 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS MOFFITT HOSP 2C2274 Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Backup Start Preliminary 925, ,9 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 925, ,9 $443,278 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $115,59 $34,653 $346,527 $13,958 Totals: $15,162 $45, % 5.% 6.% $9,97 $3,32 $36,39 Total Project Cost: $756,815 Total Project Cost: $756, ,785 $443, ,363 Net Project Cost: $313,537 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.9 $33,388 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

308 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3543 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C2274 Basic Gross Area (sf): 378,718 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MOFFITT HOSP UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Start Preliminary Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Backup 1,364, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,364,111 $327,387 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $2, $2,921 $6, $8,978 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $89,531.3 $1,991 $125, $167,117 Occupancy Sensors 1 $44,381.2 $5,62 $36,336.5 $48,291 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $153,975 $224,386 $12,73 $2,1 $186,679 $56,4 $26,926 $251,313 $75,394 Totals: $242,682 $326,77 15.% 5.% 6.% $85,48 $28,469 $34,163 Total Project Cost: $717,43 Total Project Cost: $717,43 1,364,111 $327,387 Net Project Cost: $39,43 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.2 $177,334 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

309 SEP Project ID Number: B3544 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS LONG HOSP 2C2275 Basic Gross Area (sf): 372,469 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Backup Start Preliminary 1,187, ,611 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,187,757 75,611 $36,673 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $113,63 $34,81 $34,89 $12,243 Totals: $147,684 $443,52 15.% 5.% 6.% $88,61 $29,537 $35,444 Total Project Cost: $744,327 Total Project Cost: $744,327 1,187,757 $36,673 94,514 Net Project Cost: $383,654 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.7 $226,239 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

310 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3545 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C2275 Basic Gross Area (sf): 372,469 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC LONG HOSP UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Start Preliminary Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Backup 1,262, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 1,262,469 $32,993 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Occupancy Sensors 1 $31,72.81 $35,5 $25,44.44 $33,81 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $88,54. $99,325 $123, $164,359 Daylighting 1 $1, $1,83 $4,17.82 $5,543 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $136,179 $23,713 $11,235 $17,69 $165,13 $49,531 $24,446 $228,158 $68,447 Totals: $214,634 $296,66 15.% 5.% 6.% $76,686 $25,562 $3,674 Total Project Cost: $644,161 Total Project Cost: $644,161 1,262,469 $32,993 Net Project Cost: $341,168 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 2.1 $164,121 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

311 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3546 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C2325 Basic Gross Area (sf): 4, Project Description Reference(s): Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study (Replace all T8 & T12 with 28W T8 lamps and RLO premium efficiency ballasts) SAN FRANCISCO MC VISION RSCH (Koret Vision Center) UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting. Start Preliminary Tier 2 95, 19. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 95, $22,8 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) T8 and T12 --> 28W T8 lamps and RLO premium efficiency ballas 1 $23, $26,944 $33,548.1 $44,585 Occupancy Sensors 1 $4, $4,752 $3, $4,583 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $31,695 $49,169 $2,615 $4,117 $38,427 $11,528 $5,9 $55,69 $16,521 Totals: $49,955 $71,59 15.% 5.% 6.% $18,232 $6,77 $7,293 Total Project Cost: $153,147 Total Project Cost: $153,147 95, $22,8 Net Project Cost: $13,347 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.6 $12,35 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

312 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3547 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C243 Basic Gross Area (sf): 18,219 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC LAB OF RADIO UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Start Preliminary Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Tier 1 59, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 59,196 $14,27 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $ $178 $412.4 $548 Occupancy Sensors 1 $3, $3,6 $2,613.1 $3,473 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $4,56.44 $5,144 $6,45.12 $8,512 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $8,922 $12,533 $736 $1,159 $1,818 $3,245 $1,54 $14,37 $4,211 Totals: $14,63 $18, % 5.% 6.% $4,847 $1,616 $1,939 Total Project Cost: $4,711 Total Project Cost: $4,711 59,196 $14,27 Net Project Cost: $26,54 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.4 $7,695 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

313 SEP Project ID Number: B3548 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS UC CLINICS (ACC) 2C248 Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Tier 1 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 21, ,2 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 21,383 74,2 $124,494 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $1,858 $3,257 $32,573 $9,772 Totals: $131,115 $393, % 5.% 6.% $78,669 $26,223 $31,468 Total Project Cost: $66,82 Total Project Cost: $66,82 21,383 $124,494 92,53 Net Project Cost: $536,326 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.5 $97,652 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

314 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3549 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C248 Basic Gross Area (sf): 596,899 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC UC CLINICS (ACC) UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 1,51, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 1,51,278 $252,37 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $2, $2,783 $6,435.6 $8,552 Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $2,76. $3,113 $2,76. $3,668 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $8, $9,337 $11,625.5 $15,45 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $74, $84,32 $14, $139,53 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $99,264 $166,723 $8,189 $12,894 $12,348 $36,14 $2,7 $186,73 $56,19 Totals: $156,453 $242, % 5.% 6.% $59,88 $19,96 $23,952 Total Project Cost: $52,994 Total Project Cost: $52,994 1,51,278 $252,37 Net Project Cost: $25,687 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 1.8 $136,666 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

315 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3551 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C2971 Basic Gross Area (sf): 1,321 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC 238 SUTTER UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Tier 2 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 31,15 8. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 31,15 $7,444 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $121. $136 $121. $161 Occupancy Sensors 1 $2, $2,614 $1, $2,521 T12 Lamps, Magnetic Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lamps, Prem Eff R 1 $2, $2,59 $3, $4,286 Daylighting 1 $ $146 $337.1 $448 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $5,486 $7,417 $453 $713 $6,652 $1,996 $89 $8,37 $2,492 Totals: $8,647 $1, % 5.% 6.% $2,917 $972 $1,167 Total Project Cost: $24,52 Total Project Cost: $24,52 31,15 $7,444 Net Project Cost: $17,58 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4.2 $4,32 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

316 SEP Project ID Number: B3552 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) Backup 2C34 Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): 89,862 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 189, ,212 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 189,779 1,212 $55,759 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $32,479 $9,744 $97,436 $29,231 Totals: $42,223 $126, % 5.% 6.% $25,333 $8,444 $1,133 Total Project Cost: $212,81 Total Project Cost: $212,81 189,779 $55,759 12,765 Net Project Cost: $157,42 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4.6 $34,373 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

317 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3553 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - MT ZION 2C34 Basic Gross Area (sf): 89,862 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas SAN FRANCISCO MC MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Tier 1 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting & Lighting Project 2. Interior Lighting Controls. Cost updated to match campus estimate 175, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): 175,639 $42,153 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Cost Adjustment for Campus Estimate 1 $82. $925 $82. $1,9 Occupancy Sensors 1 $15,123.7 $17,6 $12, $16,456 Daylighting 1 $ $951 $2,199.5 $2,923 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $17, $2,298 $25, $33,589 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $39,234 $54,58 $3,237 $5,96 $47,567 $14,27 $6,487 $6,545 $18,163 Totals: $61,837 $78,78 15.% 5.% 6.% $21,82 $7,27 $8,433 Total Project Cost: $177,87 Total Project Cost: $177,87 175,639 $42,153 Net Project Cost: $134,934 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.9 $22,833 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

318 SEP Project ID Number: B3554 Project: MBCx Central Plant SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS CENTRAL PLAN 2C36 Basic Gross Area (sf): 38,73 UC SEP Central Plant MBCx - Checked MZ 3288.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Backup Start Preliminary 75, 9. 6, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 75, 6, $24, Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $1, $3, $4, $12, Totals: $13, $52, 15.% 5.% 6.% $9,75 $3,25 $3,9 Total Project Cost: $81,9 Total Project Cost: $81,9 75, $24, 7,5 Net Project Cost: $57,9 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 3.7 $15,45 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

319 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3555 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - PARNAS 2C36 Basic Gross Area (sf): 38,73 Project Description Reference(s): Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study (Replace all T8 & T12 with 28W T8 lamps and RLO premium efficiency ballasts) SAN FRANCISCO MC CENTRAL PLAN UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting. Start Preliminary Tier 1 6,21 1. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 6,21 $1,488 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) T8 and T12 --> 28W T8 lamps and RLO premium efficiency ballas 1 $1,7.1 $1,136 $1, $1,88 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $1,136 $1,88 $94 $148 $1,377 $413 $226 $2,15 $632 Totals: $1,79 $2, % 5.% 6.% $679 $226 $272 Total Project Cost: $5,74 Total Project Cost: $5,74 6,21 $1,488 Net Project Cost: $4,216 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 5.2 $86 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

320 SEP Project ID Number: B3556 Project: Monitoring Based Commissioning SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - OTHER 23 HARRISO Tier 1 2C352 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 Basic Gross Area (sf): 65,494 12/1/21 SEP MBCx Analysis MZ 8326 Final.Checked by LCK.xls Project Description Reference(s): Monitoring Based Commission for All SEP Buildings. Cost updated to match campus estimate 5, ,877 Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 5,43 6,877 $18,98 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Estimated Construction Cost 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $11,416 $3,425 $34,249 $1,275 Totals: $14,841 $44, % 5.% 6.% $8,95 $2,968 $3,562 Total Project Cost: $74,799 Total Project Cost: $74,799 5,43 $18,98 6,877 Net Project Cost: $55,819 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 4.7 $11,782 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

321 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3557 SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR - OTHER 2C352 Basic Gross Area (sf): 65,494 Project Description Reference(s): Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts SAN FRANCISCO MC 23 HARRISO UCSF MC All Building List - Lighting Analysis AML - Checked MZ 3268.xls Lighting Project 1. Interior Linear Fluorescent Lighting. Tier 1 Start Preliminary 2/1/29 12/1/21 75, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 75,993 $18,238 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Daylighting 1 $1,215.3 $1,371 $3,17.35 $4,213 4-foot F32T8 Lamps, Standard NLO Ballasts --> 28W F32T8 Lam 1 $15, $17,465 $21,746.5 $28,91 Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $18,836 $33,114 $1,554 $2,447 $22,837 $6,851 $3,974 $37,88 $11,126 Totals: $29,688 $48, % 5.% 6.% $11,685 $3,895 $4,674 Total Project Cost: $98,156 Total Project Cost: $98,156 75,993 $18,238 Net Project Cost: $79,918 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.1 $9,879 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

322 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Basic Gross Area (sf): Project Description Reference(s): B3558 Phase 1: Replace 1 stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in medical center buildings SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR 2CWIDEM Campuswide Bi-level Stairwell Lighting Custom Calc AML.xls Lighting Project 3. Stairwell Lighting. Start Preliminary Backup 35,. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 35, $8,4 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bi-level Fixture 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $1,68 $3,24 $16,2 $4,86 Totals: $13,884 $2, % 5.% 6.% $5,27 $1,736 $2,83 Total Project Cost: $43,735 Total Project Cost: $43,735 35, $8,4 Net Project Cost: $35,335 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 7.8 $4,55 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

323 SEP Project ID Number: Project: Basic Gross Area (sf): Project Description Reference(s): B3559 Phase 2: Replace 1 additional stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in medical center buildings SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR 2CWIDEM Campuswide Bi-level Stairwell Lighting Custom Calc AML.xls Lighting Project 3. Stairwell Lighting. Start Preliminary Backup 35,. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 35, $8,4 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bi-level Fixture 1 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $1,68 $3,24 $16,2 $4,86 Totals: $13,884 $2, % 5.% 6.% $5,27 $1,736 $2,83 Total Project Cost: $43,735 Total Project Cost: $43,735 35, $8,4 Net Project Cost: $35,335 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 7.8 $4,55 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

324 SEP Project ID Number: B356 Project: Install controller on vending machine (e.g. Vending Miser) SAN FRANCISCO MC SAN FRANCISCO MED CTR CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Backup 2CWIDEM Start Preliminary Basic Gross Area (sf): Vending Machine Energy Savings by Campus JCR.xls Project Description Reference(s): Campus Wide Project 5. Install Controllers on Vending Machines. 18,138. Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 18,138 $4,353 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Cooling Miser - Uncooled Self Serve Sliding Door 8 Vending Miser - Refrigerated Unit 6 Vending Miser-Uncooled Snack Machine 3 Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) Contractor O&P: 12.% 3.% $2,675 $82 $582 $175 Totals: $3,477 $ % 5.% 6.% $635 $212 $254 Total Project Cost: $5,335 Total Project Cost: $5,335 18,138 $4,268 Net Project Cost: $1,67 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs):.5 $2,358 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

325 SEP Project ID Number: Project: B3561 SAN FRANCISCO - LAUREL HEIGHTS 2C245 Basic Gross Area (sf): 456,177 Project Description Reference(s): Replace existing 8' SL & HO fixtures fixtures with new fluorescent fixtures with sensors SAN FRANCISCO LAUREL HTS UCSF MC Laurel Hts parking Structure v1 UC SEP Custom Calculation AML.xls Lighting Project 5. Parking Garage and Outdoor Pole Lighting. Start Preliminary Backup 244, Electricity $.24 per annual kwh Equivalent Electric Savings (kwh/yr): kwh/ton-hr:.8 th/ton-hr:. 244,146 $58,595 Note: Where the anticipated gross incentive exceeds 8% of the total project Bare Material Cost Material Cost ($) 2L 2F32T8 NLO seal tight 36 $14. $56,851 $1. $47,844 occupancy sensor 36 $12. $48,73 $5. $23,922 Sales Tax: 8.3% Contractor O&P: 12.% 2.% $15,581 $71,766 $8,763 $13,721 $128,65 $25,613 $8,612 $8,378 $16,76 Totals: $153,678 $96, % 5.% 6.% $37,52 $12,57 $15,8 Total Project Cost: $315,166 Total Project Cost: $315, ,146 $58,595 Net Project Cost: $256,571 Net Simple Payback Period (yrs): 8.1 $31,739 *Highlighted incentives have been capped at 8% of the total project cost. It is recommended that these projects be bundled together with other projects to maximize incenti

326

327 11. PROJECT LISTS & SUMMARY OF PROJECTS Table 11.1 is a complete list of all projects identified through the SEP effort, organized by funding source and project types. Subtotals are provided for savings and costs by project type and fund source. It is anticipated that the campus may wish to sort and view the list in a number of different manners. A complete project list is also provided electronically with this report for this purpose. See Appendix C. Table 11.2 is a project list based on the commitments and prioritization made by the campus upon review of the preliminary project list, and is organized by IOU program cycle and the campus designated Tier. The energy savings for the projects accepted by the campus as Tier 1 projects became the basis for the level of energy savings commitments to the Investor Owned Utilities, although the campuses are free to substitute projects as desired to achieve the level of committed energy savings. Tier 2 projects are the planned projects projected by the campus to achieve savings approximately 5% above the committed levels. The savings shown in Table 11.2 are based on the preliminary project list, which may have been refined in the course of the Strategic Energy Plan development /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 11-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

328

329 Table 11.1: SEP Projects by Funding Source and Project Type SEP Project ID Building Key Building Name Project Name Total Purchased Electricity Savings (kwh/yr) Demand Savings (kw) Total Purchased Gas Savings (th/yr) Total Cost Savings ($/yr) Estimated Project Cost ($) State Funded Buildings MBCx Projects B38 2C212 LIBRARY Monitoring Based Commissioning 326, ,893 $ 55,243 $ 118,79 $ 91,799 $ 26,91.5 B3524 2C218 MTZ BLDG A Monitoring Based Commissioning 328, ,46 $ 128,117 $ 237,45 $ 168,72 $ 68,73.5 B3526 2C219 MTZ BLDG B Monitoring Based Commissioning 16, ,999 $ 22,713 $ 212,626 $ 25,649 $ 186, B354 2C236 MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) Monitoring Based Commissioning 111, ,63 $ 2,269 $ 66,177 $ 32,818 $ 33, B311 2C2212 MILLBERRY Monitoring Based Commissioning 333, ,668 $ 58,348 $ 999,999 $ 95,858 $ 94, B312 2C2251 CLINICAL SCI Monitoring Based Commissioning 123, ,716 $ 47,44 $ 38,2 $ 62,295 $ 245, B313 2C2252 MED SCIENCES Monitoring Based Commissioning 713, ,693 $ 226,339 $ 91, $ 311,9 $ 598,1 2.6 B3542 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP Monitoring Based Commissioning 925, ,363 $ 33,388 $ 756,815 $ 443,278 $ 313,537.9 B3544 2C2275 LONG HOSP Monitoring Based Commissioning 1,187, ,514 $ 226,239 $ 744,327 $ 36,673 $ 383, B316 2C229 LPPI Monitoring Based Commissioning 7, ,211 $ 29,97 $ 197,813 $ 38,83 $ 159,1 5.3 B3548 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) Monitoring Based Commissioning 21, ,53 $ 97,652 $ 66,82 $ 124,494 $ 536, B319 2C241 NURSING Monitoring Based Commissioning 79, ,5 $ 27,39 $ 28, $ 36,997 $ 243,3 8.9 B32 2C2412 DENTISTRY Monitoring Based Commissioning 21, ,229 $ 68,595 $ 28, $ 93,932 $ 186, B323 2C2415 MISSION CTR Monitoring Based Commissioning 534, ,35 $ 9,293 $ 982, $ 155,688 $ 826, B324 2C2418 OYSTER POINT Monitoring Based Commissioning 2, ,248 $ 3,61 $ 171, $ 6,145 $ 164, B325 2C245 LAUREL HTS Monitoring Based Commissioning 37, ,576 $ 64,521 $ 429,999 $ 11,419 $ 319,58 5. B326 2C3 PSSRB Monitoring Based Commissioning 251, ,965 $ 5,87 $ 166,941 $ 78,619 $ 88, B327 2C32 GENENTECH HA Monitoring Based Commissioning 1,862, ,11 $ 37,599 $ 88,618 $ 533,169 $ 275,449.9 B328 2C33 COMMUNITY CE Monitoring Based Commissioning 291, ,654 $ 5,64 $ 4,1 $ 86,79 $ 313, B3554 2C36 CENTRAL PLAN MBCx Central Plant 75, 9. 7,5 $ 15,45 $ 81,9 $ 24, $ 57,9 3.7 B331 2C38 HSIR EAST Monitoring Based Commissioning 55, ,689 $ 145,837 $ 1,49,999 $ 21,324 $ 839, B332 2C39 HSIR WEST Monitoring Based Commissioning 623, ,573 $ 165,72 $ 839,999 $ 238,64 $ 61, B333 2C329 FRESNO MERC Monitoring Based Commissioning 74, ,224 $ 1,63 $ 119,599 $ 19,131 $ 1, Subtotal, State Funded, MBCx Projects 9,293,648 1,61. 1,36,211 $ 2,241,934 $ 1,822,749 $ 3,349,466 $ 7,473, Gross Estimated Utility Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Net Simple Payback (yrs) New Construction Projects B39 2C218 MTZ BLDG A B315 2C2252 MED SCIENCES B314 2C2252 MED SCIENCES B318 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) SBD, New/Renov - SB1953 Mount Zion Buildings A, B and D Seismic Upgrades and Clinical Expansion 89, ,25 $ 141,844 $ 1,542,372 $ 232,795 $ 1,39, SBD, New/Renov - Medical Sciences Building Improvements, Phase 4 1, ,14 $ 17,696 $ 1,119,999 $ 29,43 $ 1,9, SBD, New/Renov - Medical Sciences Building Improvements, Phase 3 287, ,133 $ 5,413 $ 2,1,2 $ 82,739 $ 2,17, SBD, New/Renov - Ambulatory Care Center-7 Ophthalmology Relocation 134, ,4 $ 23,551 $ 256,82 $ 38,651 $ 217, B317 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) SBD, New/Renov - Ambulatory Care Center-5 63, ,794 $ 11,164 $ 121,391 $ 18,323 $ 13, B339 2CTBD1 B341 2CTBD3 INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATION MEDICINE BLDG SBD, New/Renov - Institute for Regeneration Medicine Building 63, ,944 $ 15,766 $ 1,61,596 $ 173,583 $ 888, TELEMEDICINE AND PRIME FACILITY SBD, New/Renov - Telemedicine and PRIME-US Education Facilities 335, ,975 $ 55,724 $ 756, $ 96,435 $ 659, B366 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE SBD, New/Renov - Mission Bay Central Utilities System Phase 2 451, ,55 $ 75,14 $ 793,948 $ 129,819 $ 664, B365 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 169, ,837 $ 34,11 $ 461,966 $ 56,45 $ 45, B364 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 169, ,837 $ 34,11 $ 461,966 $ 56,45 $ 45, B363 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 169, ,837 $ 34,11 $ 461,966 $ 56,45 $ 45, B362 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 169, ,837 $ 34,11 $ 461,966 $ 56,45 $ 45, Subtotal, State Funded, New Construction Projects 3,462, ,921 $ 617,214 $ 9,599,253 $ 1,27,8 $ 8,572,

330 Table 11.1: SEP Projects by Funding Source and Project Type (Continued) SEP Project ID HVAC Projects Building Key Building Name Project Name B129 2C212 LIBRARY Total Purchased Electricity Savings (kwh/yr) Demand Savings (kw) Total Purchased Gas Savings (th/yr) Total Cost Savings ($/yr) Estimated Project Cost ($) Gross Estimated Utility Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Installing VFD driven Centrifugal Chiller (15 Ton) with suitable CHW primary pump, VFD driven secondary pump, condenser pump; VFD on existing CT fan & retrofitting the same to handle lower water flow rate 286, ,189 $ 147,612 $ 2,99,39 $ 184,954 $ 1,914, B1513 2C218 MTZ BLDG A AHU- 1 SAT Reset 5,828-1,88 $ 1,584 $ 9,753 $ 2,486 $ 7, B119 2C2212 MILLBERRY SF 1 to 4, 7 to 19 - CAV to VAV and SP reset 748,227 (1.) - $ 97,27 $ 991,87 $ 179,574 $ 812, B116 2C2212 MILLBERRY SF 5, 6 - CAV to VAV and SP reset 166, ,25 $ 44,43 $ 279,945 $ 69,872 $ 21, B141 2C2251 CLINICAL SCI LAB CAV to VAV - SF1, 2, HV1, AC1, AC2 332, ,5 $ 76,645 $ 94,52 $ 123,743 $ 78, B136 2C2252 MED SCIENCES LAB CAV to VAV 493,273 (236.) 121,25 $ 156,14 $ 5,213,772 $ 239,411 $ 4,974, B127 2C2252 MED SCIENCES Remove multiple aircooled chillers and interconnect system to CUP piping 295, $ 38,352 $ 699,598 $ 7,84 $ 628, B124 2C2252 MED SCIENCES SF 1 to 4 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset 852,237 (2.) 5,938 $ 149,53 $ 43,935 $ 255,474 $ 148, B351 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP UCSF Parnassus Kitchen Hood Controls 19, ,223 $ 3,49 $ 14,742 $ 5,556 $ 9, B1517 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP Remove the absorption chillers at Moffitt & Long Hospital. Install 1 Nos. 12 TR VFD driven Centrifugal Chiller (in Central Plant Room) & connect - - 1,72,978 $ 815,463 $ 4,446,67 $ 858,382 $ 3,588, B154 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP SF 18 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset 67,153-15,925 $ 2,833 $ 263,349 $ 32,42 $ 231, B153 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP SF 14, 15, 38, 39 - SAT Reset - - 7,624 $ 53,674 37,426 B152 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP SF 4SA, 4SB - SAT Reset ,36 $ 9,98 44,146 $ 6,99 $ 11,722 Net Simple Payback (yrs) $ $ 7,485.1 $ $ 32, B151 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP SF 6 - TOD Controls 53,278-38,975 $ 36,547 $ 1,951 $ 51,762 $ 39. B15 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP SF 4N - SAT Reset - - 7,251 $ 5,511 $ 9,753 $ 6,266 $ 3,487.6 B151 2C2275 LONG HOSP SF 23 - SP reset 33,224-6,875 $ 9,544 $ 3,91 $ 14,849 $ 78.1 B159 2C2275 LONG HOSP SF 5.3, 5.4, SAT Reset 195, , $ 34,817 $ 29, $ 59,325 $ 5, B158 2C2275 LONG HOSP SF 1, 2, 3, 14,15 - SAT Reset ,599 $ 58,215 $ 48,763 $ 66,212 $ 9,753.2 B1518 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) Remove ACC-RAC-14 (chiller supplying cooling to AC-5) & connect to rooftop chiller ACC-CHR.3 piping. Convert Chilled Water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping. 11, $ 13,133 $ 156,986 $ 24,245 $ 132, B1512 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) SF 9 - SAT Reset 38,351-3,88 $ 7,332 $ 22,61 $ 12,292 $ 1, B1511 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) AHU 1, 2, 3, 4 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset 1,315,79 (14.) 176,7 $ 35,334 $ 1,129,218 $ 492,47 $ 636, B322 2C2415 MISSION CTR Chiller Unit Condensing Coil Replacement 12, 1. - $ 1,56 $ 271,7 $ 2,88 $ 268, B321 2C2415 MISSION CTR Chiller System Replacement 5 ton 372, $ 48,425 $ 1,84,1 $ 89,4 $ 1,75, B123 2C2415 MISSION CTR SF CAV to VAV & SP Reset 188, ,156 $ 32,955 $ 112,565 $ 56,343 $ 56, B122 2C245 LAUREL HTS SF-5, 7, 9 to 17 VIV to VFD & SP Reset 269,951 (3.) 26,529 $ 55,256 $ 1,27,966 $ 91,317 $ 1,116, B121 2C245 LAUREL HTS SF-6, 8 SP Reset 41,643-7,43 $ 11,4 $ 17,47 $ 17,397 $ 153, B12 2C245 LAUREL HTS AIC-3 SP Reset 7,961-1,486 $ 2,164 $ 37,21 $ 3,397 $ 33, B135 2C3 PSSRB LAB CAV to VAV 1,64, $ 28,628 $ 5,136,172 $ 385,159 $ 4,751, B11 2C3 PSSRB AHU 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B - SP reset 172,545-36,838 $ 5,427 $ 14,44 $ 78,248 $ 2,881.1 B14 2C31 ROCK HALL CAV to VAV with OS 1,353, ,567 $ 228,84 $ 2,64,69 $ 393,44 $ 1,67, B133 2C31 ROCK HALL Conversion of cooling tower fans from 2-speed to VFD 19, $ 2,564 $ 34,328 $ 4,733 $ 29, B112 2C31 ROCK HALL AHU 3 to 6 - SP Reset 133,862-21,16 $ 33,443 $ 19,996 $ 53,233 $ 3,999.1 B111 2C31 ROCK HALL AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset 234,88-13,126 $ 4,47 $ 14,997 $ 69,37 $ 2,999.1 B126 2C32 GENENTECH HA CV to VAV with ZPS 1,1, - 58, $ 187,8 $ 1,528, $ 322, $ 1,26, 6.4 B118 2C32 GENENTECH HA SF - S1 to S4 & N1 to N6 - SP Reset 89,175 (1.) 11,83 $ 193,114 $ 36,9 $ 34,93 $ 7,22. B11 2C32 GENENTECH HA SF - N 1, 11 - SP Reset 57,752-8,81 $ 14,23 $ 14,997 $ 24,873 $ 2,999.2 B19 2C32 GENENTECH HA SF - N7 to N9 - SP Reset 41,448-3,81 $ 8,284 $ 15, $ 14,71 $ 3,.4 B329 2C33 COMMUNITY CE UCSF Mission Bay Kitchen Hood Controls 76, ,912 $ 12,892 $ 125, $ 22,224 $ 12, B131 2C33 COMMUNITY CE Replace 2 speed control by VFD control on Cooling Tower Fan 13, $ 13,47 $ 249,342 $ 24,868 $ 224, B18 2C33 COMMUNITY CE AHU 5 - SP Reset 86, ,252 $ 19,75 $ 14,997 $ 31,927 $ 2,999.2 B17 2C33 COMMUNITY CE AHU 2, 6, 7 - SP Reset 114,983-11,687 $ 23,83 $ 15, $ 39,283 $ 3,.1 B16 2C33 COMMUNITY CE AHU 1, 3, 4 - SP Reset 55,687-6,99 $ 12,552 $ 19,997 $ 2,355 $ 3,999.3 B138 2C38 HSIR EAST Lab Model CAV to VAV 1,254, $ 163,65 $ 4,224,11 $ 31,43 $ 3,922, B14 2C38 HSIR EAST SF 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B- SP Reset 556, ,163 $ 121,893 $ 14,44 $ 198,767 $ 2,881. B137 2C39 HSIR WEST LAB CAV to VAV 1,4, $ 135,317 $ 3,252,376 $ 249,816 $ 3,2, B13 2C39 HSIR WEST SF 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B- SP Reset 556, ,163 $ 121,893 $ 14,44 $ 198,767 $ 2,881. B1519 2C329 FRESNO MERC AHU 1 thru 4 - SP reset 75,613-5,235 $ 13,88 $ 14,44 $ 23,382 $ 2,881.2 B311 2CTBD4 Helen Diller Cancer Lab Model CAV to VAV 173, ,19 $ 3,361 $ 286,956 $ 51,944 $ 235,12 7.7

331 Table 11.1: SEP Projects by Funding Source and Project Type (Continued) SEP Project ID Building Key Building Name Project Name Total Purchased Electricity Savings (kwh/yr) Demand Savings (kw) Total Purchased Gas Savings (th/yr) Total Cost Savings ($/yr) Estimated Project Cost ($) Gross Estimated Utility Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Net Simple Payback (yrs) B33 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Variable Speed Circulation Pump - Mission Bay Outdoor Pool 11, $ 1,533 $ 8,129 $ 2,83 $ 5, B32 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Variable Speed Circulation Pump - Mission Bay Indoor Pool 11, $ 1,533 $ 8,129 $ 2,83 $ 5, B319 2CWIDEP CAMPUSWIDE Hartman Control Loop $ - $ - $ - $ - B36 2CWIDEP CAMPUSWIDE Variable Speed Circulation Pump - Parnassus Indoor Pool 6, $ 873 $ 6,57 $ 1,612 $ 4, B134 2CWIDEP CAMPUSWIDE Remove multiple air-cooled chiller 3 Nos at Hooper Pad. Install new VFD driven 6 ton Centrifugal watercooled chiller and interconnect Hooper pad to CUP piping 696, $ 9,54 $ 1,35,58 $ 167,83 $ 867, B13 2CWIDEP CAMPUSWIDE Install VSD on existing 12 TR Electric Centrifugal Chiller 246,754 (37.) 387,698 $ 326,728 $ 578,2 $ 369,379 $ 28,821.6 Subtotal, State Funded, HVAC Projects 16,571, ,813,823 $ 4,292,827 $ 39,195,29 $ 6,475,827 $ 32,719, Lighting Projects B385 2C212 LIBRARY B3525 2C218 MTZ BLDG A B3527 2C219 MTZ BLDG B B3541 2C236 MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) B387 2C2212 MILLBERRY B388 2C2251 CLINICAL SCI B389 2C2252 MED SCIENCES B3543 2C2274 MOFFITT HOSP B3545 2C2275 LONG HOSP B39 2C229 LPPI B3546 2C2325 VISION RSCH (Koret Vision Center) B3547 2C243 LAB OF RADIO B3549 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) Install occupancy and daylighting sensors in offices, conference rooms, and library areas, where appropriate 8, $ 1,444 $ 167,978 $ 19,281 $ 148, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 266, $ 34,675 $ 188,29 $ 64,14 $ 124, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 156, $ 2,367 $ 164,33 $ 37,61 $ 126, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 95, $ 12,45 $ 72,798 $ 22,91 $ 49, Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 128, $ 16,649 $ 228,236 $ 3,737 $ 197, Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 233, $ 3,368 $ 523,554 $ 56,65 $ 467, Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 712, $ 92,63 $ 884,959 $ 17,959 $ 714, 7.7 Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 1,364, $ 177,334 $ 717,43 $ 327,387 $ 39, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 1,262, $ 164,121 $ 644,161 $ 32,993 $ 341, Implement planned lamp and ballast retrofit, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 239, $ 31,123 $ 349,95 $ 57,457 $ 292, Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study (Replace all T8 & T12 with 28W T8 lamps and RLO premium efficiency ballasts) 95, $ 12,35 $ 153,147 $ 22,8 $ 13, Retrofit T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 59, $ 7,695 $ 4,711 $ 14,27 $ 26, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 1,51, $ 136,666 $ 52,994 $ 252,37 $ 25, B391 2C241 NURSING Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 158, $ 2,635 $ 489,897 $ 38,95 $ 451, B392 2C2412 DENTISTRY Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 325, $ 42,259 $ 699,83 $ 78,17 $ 621, B393 2C2415 MISSION CTR Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 449, $ 58,463 $ 599,42 $ 17,932 $ 491, B394 2C2418 OYSTER POINT Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 12, $ 15,73 $ 2,593 $ 28,99 $ 171,63 1.9

332 Table 11.1: SEP Projects by Funding Source and Project Type (Continued) SEP Project ID Building Key Building Name Project Name B3561 2C245 LAUREL HTS Total Purchased Electricity Savings (kwh/yr) Demand Savings (kw) Total Purchased Gas Savings (th/yr) Total Cost Savings ($/yr) Estimated Project Cost ($) Gross Estimated Utility Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Replace existing 8' SL & HO fixtures fixtures with new fluorescent fixtures with sensors 244, $ 31,739 $ 315,166 $ 58,595 $ 256, Net Simple Payback (yrs) B395 2C245 LAUREL HTS B3551 2C SUTTER Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 597, $ 77,656 $ 815,15 $ 143,365 $ 671, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 31, $ 4,32 $ 24,52 $ 7,444 $ 17, B396 2C3 PSSRB Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts 115, $ 14,975 $ 349,99 $ 27,645 $ 322, Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and B397 2C31 ROCK HALL Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 197, $ 25,616 $ 299,974 $ 47,291 $ 252, Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and B398 2C32 GENENTECH HA Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 1,119, $ 145,594 $ 587,576 $ 268,788 $ 318, Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and B399 2C33 COMMUNITY CE Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 234, $ 3,469 $ 599,918 $ 56,25 $ 543, Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study (Replace all T8 & T12 with 28W T8 lamps and RLO premium efficiency B3555 2C36 CENTRAL PLAN ballasts) 6, $ 86 $ 5,74 $ 1,488 $ 4, Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install B31 2C38 HSIR EAST additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 511, $ 66,449 $ 549,658 $ 122,676 $ 426, Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install B311 2C39 HSIR WEST additional occupancy and daylighting sensors 438, $ 57,6 $ 533,669 $ 15,242 $ 428, Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and B312 2C329 FRESNO MERC Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 15, $ 13,752 $ 17,71 71 $ 25,389 $ 145, B343 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Phase 2: Replace 2 additional stairwell light fixtures with bilevel stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in campus buildings 7, - - $ 9,1 $ 13,723 $ 16,8 $ 86, B342 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Phase 1: Replace 2 stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in campus buildings 7, - - $ 9,1 $ 13,723 $ 16,8 $ 86, Subtotal, State Funded, Lighting Projects 1,539,642 1, $ 1,37,153 $ 11,87,123 $ 2,529,516 $ 8,557, Other Projects B33 2C36 CENTRAL PLAN Condensate Return System Bypass Renewal ,95 $ 31,232 $ 1,31,94 $ 32,876 $ 999, B384 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE 5 VM Installations 14, $ 18,2 $ 23,999 $ 33,6 $ 17, B383 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE B382 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE B381 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE B38 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE 1 Verdiem (PC Power Management) Installations and 4 CRT Replacements 213, $ 27,793 $ 24,31 $ 51,311 $ 152, Refrigerators Phase 3 of 3: 25 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements 56, $ 7,29 $ 59,346 $ 13,458 $ 45, Refrigerators Phase 2 of 3: 1 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements 224, $ 29,159 $ 237,384 $ 53,832 $ 183, Refrigerators Phase 1 of 3: 1 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements 224, $ 29,159 $ 237,384 $ 53,832 $ 183, B379 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE 54 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements 121, $ 15,746 $ 128,187 $ 29,69 $ 99, B378 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE 8 Lab Freezer Replacements 3, $ 4,19 $ 213,252 $ 7,419 $ 25, B35 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Solar Pool Water Heater - Mission Bay Outdoor Pool - - 5,695 $ 4,328 $ 83,479 $ 5,695 $ 77, B34 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Solar Pool Water Heater - Mission Bay Indoor Pool - - 4,747 $ 3,68 $ 83,479 $ 4,747 $ 78, B37 2CWIDEP CAMPUSWIDE Solar Pool Water Heater - Parnassus Indoor Pool - - 3,714 $ 2,822 $ 43,554 $ 2,971 $ 4, Subtotal, State Funded, Other Projects 1,1, ,251 $ 173,356 $ 2,526,36 $ 288,81 $ 2,237, Savings by Design (SBD) - Deferred Maintenance & Capital Renewal Projects B361 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects ,49 $ 21,591 $ 485,99 $ 28,49 $ 456, B36 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B359 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B358 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects ,49 $ 21,591 $ 485,99 $ 28,49 $ 456, B357 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861,

333 Table 11.1: SEP Projects by Funding Source and Project Type (Continued) SEP Project ID Building Key Building Name Project Name Total Purchased Electricity Savings (kwh/yr) Demand Savings (kw) Total Purchased Gas Savings (th/yr) Total Cost Savings ($/yr) Estimated Project Cost ($) Gross Estimated Utility Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Net Simple Payback (yrs) B356 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B355 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects ,49 $ 21,591 $ 485,99 $ 28,49 $ 456, B354 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B353 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B352 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects ,49 $ 21,591 $ 485,99 $ 28,49 $ 456, B351 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B35 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B349 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects ,49 $ 21,591 $ 485,99 $ 28,49 $ 456, B348 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B347 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B346 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Natural Gas Component of DM and CR Projects ,49 $ 21,591 $ 485,99 $ 28,49 $ 456, B345 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Second Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, B344 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE First Electric Savings Component of DM and CR Projects , $ 59,92 $ 97,197 $ 19,92 $ 861, Subtotal, State Funded, (SBD) - Deferred Maintenance & Capital Renewal Projects 5,454, ,454 $ 838,643 $ 14,552,967 $ 1,479,558 $ 13,73, Subtotal, State Funded Projects 46,332,213 4,554. 4,619,659 $ 9,534,128 $ 87,783,687 $ 15,15,185 $ 72,633, Med Center Funded Buildings MBCx Projects B3528 2C22 MTZ 233 POS (S Building) Monitoring Based Commissioning 58, ,813 $ 17,342 $ 119,528 $ 24,289 $ 95, B3535 2C231 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) Monitoring Based Commissioning 72, ,241 $ 22,532 $ 16,914 $ 31,2 $ 75, B3552 2C34 MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) Monitoring Based Commissioning 189, ,765 $ 34,373 $ 212,81 $ 55,759 $ 157, B334 2C334 BYERS HALL Monitoring Based Commissioning 515, ,28 $ 77,25 $ 349,999 $ 136,876 $ 213, B3556 2C HARRISO Monitoring Based Commissioning 5, ,877 $ 11,782 $ 74,799 $ 18,98 $ 55, Subtotal, Med Center Funded, MBCx Projects 886, ,94 $ 163,54 $ 864,41 $ 267,14 $ 596, HVAC Projects B1516 2C231 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) Convert Chilled water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping 9, $ 1,215 $ 3,19 $ 2,244 $ 27, B1514 2C231 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) AHU 5 SAT Reset 21,91-1,275 $ 3,817 $ 9,753 $ 6,533 $ 3,22.8 B142 2C237 MTZ CANCER RESEARCH (234 SUTTER) Lab - VAV Retrofit w/ OS - only for FH exhaust 196, ,29 $ 74,171 $ 2,211,596 $ 111,122 $ 2,1, B157 2C34 MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) AHU 3 SAT Reset 13, $ 2,67 $ 9,753 $ 3,533 $ 6,22 3. B156 2C34 MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) AHU 2 SAT Reset 32,63-2,114 $ 5,775 $ 9,753 $ 9,386 $ 1,951.3 B155 2C34 MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) AHU 1 SAT Reset 21,599-1,483 $ 3,935 $ 9,753 $ 6,37 $ 3,383.9 B139 2C334 BYERS HALL VAV with OS 51, ,852 $ 17,927 $ 192,682 $ 27,19 $ 165, B132 2C334 BYERS HALL Install VFDs on 2 Nos existing 335 TR water cooled Centrifugal Chillers & provide tower free cooling 272, $ 35,447 $ 499,931 $ 65,441 $ 434, B15 2C334 BYERS HALL AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset 34,62-2,281 $ 6,162 $ 14,997 $ 1,456 $ 4,541.7 Subtotal, Med Center Funded, HVAC Projects 652, ,53 $ 15,515 $ 2,988,325 $ 242,194 $ 2,746, Lighting Projects B3529 2C22 MTZ 233 POS (S Building) B3532 2C223 MTZ BLDG D B3534 2C226 MTZ BLDG G Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 99, $ 12,937 $ 15,61 $ 23,883 $ 81, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 3, $ 3,975 $ 25,699 $ 7,339 $ 18, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 17, $ 2,298 $ 9,469 $ 4,242 $ 5,

334 Table 11.1: SEP Projects by Funding Source and Project Type (Continued) SEP Project ID Building Key Building Name Project Name B3536 2C231 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) B3537 2C233 MTZ BLDG N B3539 2C235 MTZ BLDG R Total Purchased Electricity Savings (kwh/yr) Demand Savings (kw) Total Purchased Gas Savings (th/yr) Total Cost Savings ($/yr) Estimated Project Cost ($) Gross Estimated Utility Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 164, $ 21,438 $ 118,58 $ 39,577 $ 78, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 24, $ 3,133 $ 18,543 $ 5,784 $ 12, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 45, $ 5,95 $ 32,295 $ 1,984 $ 21, Net Simple Payback (yrs) B386 2C237 MTZ CANCER RESEARCH (234 SUTTER) B3553 2C34 MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) B313 2C334 BYERS HALL B3557 2C HARRISO B3559 2CWIDEM CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate 171, $ 22,284 $ 163,316 $ 41,14 $ 122, Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas 175, $ 22,833 $ 177,87 $ 42,153 $ 134, Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate 159, $ 2,726 $ 249,981 $ 38,263 $ 211, Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts 75, $ 9,879 $ 98,156 $ 18,238 $ 79, Phase 2: Replace 1 additional stairwell light fixtures with bilevel stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in medical center buildings 35, - - $ 4,55 $ 43,735 $ 8,4 $ 35, Phase 1: Replace 1 stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in medical center B3558 2CWIDEM CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR buildings 35, - - $ 4,55 $ 43,735 $ 8,4 $ 35, Subtotal, Med Center Funded, Lighting Projects 1,35, $ - #DIV/! New Construction B31 2C231 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) SBD, New/Renov - Mount Zion Medical Office Building 576, ,346 $ 11,65 $ 1,98,947 $ 165,868 $ 933, B373 2CWIDEM CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 225, ,117 $ 45,348 $ 519,96 $ 75,28 $ 444, B372 2CWIDEM CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 225, ,117 $ 45,348 $ 519,96 $ 75,28 $ 444, B371 2CWIDEM CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 225, ,117 $ 45,348 $ 519,96 $ 75,28 $ 444, B37 2CWIDEM CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 225, ,117 $ 45,348 $ 519,96 $ 75,28 $ 444, Subtotal, Med Center Funded, New Construction 1,478, ,814 $ 282,459 $ 3,178,788 $ 466,7 $ 2,712, Other Projects B356 2CWIDEM CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Install controller on vending machine (e.g. Vending Miser) 18, $ 2,358 $ 5,335 $ 4,353 $ 1,67.5 B1515 2CWIDEM CAMPUSWIDE - MED CTR Convert Chilled water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping 254, $ 33,149 $ 149,623 $ 61,198 $ 88, Subtotal, Med Center Funded, Other Projects 273, $ 35,57 $ 154,958 $ 65,551 $ 89, Subtotal, Med Center Funded Projects 4,324,918 1,4. 268,221 $ 766,87 $ 8,271,786 $ 1,289,952 $ 6,981, Housing Funded Buildings New Construction B34 2CTBD2 374 PARNASSUS HOUSING SBD, New/Renov - Parnassus Housing: 374 Parnassus Avenue 27, ,234 $ 6,47 $ 58,794 $ 9,213 $ 49, Subtotal, Housing, New Construction 27, ,234 $ 6,47 $ 58,794 $ 9,213 $ 49, Lighting Projects B314 2C335 MB HOUSING W B315 2C336 MB HOUSING S Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate 48, $ 6,292 $ 174,971 $ 11,616 $ 163, Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate 69, $ 9,9 $ 199,974 $ 16,633 $ 183,

335 Table 11.1: SEP Projects by Funding Source and Project Type (Continued) SEP Project ID Building Key Building Name Project Name B316 2C337 MB HOUSING N B317 2C338 MB HOUSING E B369 2CWIDEH CAMPUSWIDE - HOUSING Total Purchased Electricity Savings (kwh/yr) Demand Savings (kw) Total Purchased Gas Savings (th/yr) Total Cost Savings ($/yr) Estimated Project Cost ($) Gross Estimated Utility Incentive ($) Net Project Cost ($) Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate 12, $ 13,382 $ 299,961 $ 24,74 $ 275, Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate 75, $ 9,852 $ 249,962 $ 18,187 $ 231, Phase 2: Replace 1 additional stairwell light fixtures with bilevel stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in residential buildings 35, - - $ 4,55 $ 4,37 $ 8,4 $ 31,97 7. Net Simple Payback (yrs) B368 2CWIDEH CAMPUSWIDE - HOUSING Phase 1: Replace 1 stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in residential buildings 35, - - $ 4,55 $ 4,37 $ 8,4 $ 31,97 7. Subtotal, Housing, Lighting Projects 366, $ 47,634 $ 1,5,68 $ 87,94 $ 917, Subtotal, Housing Funded Projects 394, ,234 $ 53,681 $ 1,64,42 $ 97,153 $ 967, Other Fund Source New Construction B377 2CWIDEO CAMPUSWIDE - OTHER SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 8, $ 1,71 $ 18,3 $ 2,82 $ 15, B376 2CWIDEO CAMPUSWIDE - OTHER SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 8, $ 1,71 $ 18,3 $ 2,82 $ 15, B375 2CWIDEO CAMPUSWIDE - OTHER SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 8, $ 1,71 $ 18,3 $ 2,82 $ 15, B374 2CWIDEO CAMPUSWIDE - OTHER SBD, New/Renov - Campus Approved Projects Under $5 Million 8, $ 1,71 $ 18,3 $ 2,82 $ 15, Subtotal, Other Fund Source New Construction 33, ,168 $ 6,83 $ 72,14 $ 11,28 $ 6, Subtotal, Other Fund Source Projects 33, ,168 $ 6,83 $ 72,14 $ 11,28 $ 6, UC San Francisco & MC Total 51,84,966 5,678. 4,894,282 $ 1,36,7 $ 97,191,889 $ 16,548,57 $ 8,643,

336 Table 11.2: Project Committments by Campus SEP ID# Building Key Building Name Project Name Project Tier Project Delivery Method Start Preliminary Engineering Project Complete Committed Electric Savings (kwh/yr)* Committed Gas Savings (Therms/yr)* Program Cycle Tier 1 Projects B12 2C241 NURSING CAV to VAV & SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 6/1/211 37,548 17,875 B15 2C334 BYERS HALL AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 34,62 2,281 B16 2C33 COMMUNITY CE AHU 1, 3, 4 - SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 55,687 6,99 B17 2C33 COMMUNITY CE SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 114,983 11,687 B18 2C33 COMMUNITY CE SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 86,145 11,252 B19 2C32 GENENTECH HA SF - N7 to N9 - SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 41,448 4,762 B11 2C32 GENENTECH HA SF - N 1, 11 - SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 57,752 11,12 B111 2C31 ROCK HALL AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 234,88 13,126 B112 2C31 ROCK HALL AHU 1, 2 - SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 495,551 32,657 B116 2C2212 MILLBERRY SF 5, 6 - CAV to VAV and SP reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 12/1/21 166,28 3,25 B118 2C32 GENENTECH HA SF - S1 to S4 & N1 to N6 - SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 3/1/21 89, ,288 B121 2C245 LAUREL HTS SF-6, 8 SP Reset Tier 1 Design Build 1/1/211 11/1/211 41,643 7,43 B13 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Install VSD on existing 12 TR Electric Centrifugal Chiller Tier 1 Design Build 4/1/29 6/1/ ,754 31,158 B131 2C33 COMMUNITY CE Replace 2 speed control by VFD control on Cooling Tower Fan Tier 1 Undecided 4/1/29 6/1/21 13,617 - Install VFDs on 2 Nos existing 335 TR water cooled Centrifugal B132 2C334 BYERS HALL Chillers & provide tower free cooling Tier 1 Undecided 4/1/29 6/1/21 272,672 - B311 2C2212 MILLBERRY Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Design Build 2/1/29 4/1/21 333,848 15,734 B312 2C2251 CLINICAL SCI Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Design Build 2/1/29 4/1/21 123,84 32,573 B323 2C2415 MISSION CTR Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Design Build 3/1/21 11/1/ ,93 27,35 B327 2C32 GENENTECH HA Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/211 1,862,784 86,11 B328 2C33 COMMUNITY CE Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 9/1/ ,897 16,654 B329 2C33 COMMUNITY CE UCSF Mission Bay Kitchen Hood Controls Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/211 76,299 3,912 B334 2C334 BYERS HALL Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/ ,282 13,28 B342 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Phase 1: Replace 2 stairwell light fixtures with bi-level stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in campus buildings Tier 1 Conventional 1/1/29 11/1/29 7, - Phase 2: Replace 2 additional stairwell light fixtures with bi-level B343 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE stairwell fixtures with occupancy sensors in campus buildings Tier 1 Conventional 1/1/21 11/1/21 7, - B379 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE 54 Energy Star Refrigerator Replacements Tier 1 PO 1/1/29 11/1/29 121,122 - Refrigerators Phase 1 of 3: 1 Energy Star Refrigerator B38 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Replacements Tier 1 PO 1/1/21 11/1/21 224,3 - Refrigerators Phase 2 of 3: 1 Energy Star Refrigerator B381 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Replacements Tier 1 PO 1/1/211 11/1/ ,3 - Refrigerators Phase 3 of 3: 25 Energy Star Refrigerator B382 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Replacements Tier 1 PO 1/1/29 11/1/29 56,75-1 Verdiem (PC Power Management) Installations and 4 CRT B383 2CWIDE CAMPUSWIDE Replacements Tier 1 Design Build 1/1/29 11/1/29 213,796 - Install occupancy and daylighting sensors in offices, conference B385 2C212 LIBRARY rooms, and library areas, where appropriate Tier 1 Design - Bid 2/1/29 5/1/21 8,338 - Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install B387 2C2212 MILLBERRY additional occupancy and daylighting sensors Tier 1 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 128,69 - Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install B388 2C2251 CLINICAL SCI additional occupancy and daylighting sensors Tier 1 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 233,63 - Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install B389 2C2252 MED SCIENCES additional occupancy and daylighting sensors Tier 1 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 712,329 -

337 Table 11.2: Project Committments by Campus (Continued) SEP ID# Building Key Building Name Project Name B39 2C229 LPPI B391 2C241 NURSING B392 2C2412 DENTISTRY B393 2C2415 MISSION CTR B397 2C31 ROCK HALL B398 2C32 GENENTECH HA B399 2C33 COMMUNITY CE B313 2C334 BYERS HALL Project Tier Project Delivery Method Start Preliminary Engineering Project Complete Committed Electric Savings (kwh/yr)* Committed Gas Savings (Therms/yr)* Implement planned lamp and ballast retrofit, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 1 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 239,44 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 1 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 158,728 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 1 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 325,7 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 1 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 449,716 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/ ,44 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/211 1,119,952 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/ ,376 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/ ,429 - B3528 2C22 MTZ 233 POS (S Building) Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 58,496 1,25 Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting B3529 2C22 MTZ 233 POS (S Building) Sensors in Appropriate Areas Tier 1 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 99,514 - B354 2C236 MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 111,37 6,14 B3541 2C236 MTZ 171 DIV (T Building) B3549 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) MTZ CANCER C (OCC, H Building) Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas Tier 1 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 95,421 - Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas Tier 1 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 1,51,278 - Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting B3553 2C34 Sensors in Appropriate Areas Tier 1 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 175,639 - B3556 2C HARRISO Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 1 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 5,43 6,877 Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts Tier 1 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 75,993 - B3557 2C HARRISO Subtotal, Tier 1 Projects 13,685, , Tier 2 Projects B125 2C2415 MISSION CTR SF 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, VIV to VAV & SP Reset Tier 2 Design Build 1/1/21 11/1/21 734,667 72,542 B313 2C2252 MED SCIENCES Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/21 4/1/21 713,942 14,554 B319 2C241 NURSING Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/21 8/3/211 79,155 18, B32 2C2412 DENTISTRY Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 2 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/211 21,621 43,383 B331 2C38 HSIR EAST Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 2 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/211 55,719 78,151 B332 2C39 HSIR WEST Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 2 Undecided 1/1/21 3/1/ ,357 88,458 Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and B395 2C245 LAUREL HTS install occupancy and daylighting sensors where appropriate Tier 2 Conventional 1/1/211 11/1/ ,354 - B396 2C3 PSSRB Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts Tier 2 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 115,189 - B31 2C38 HSIR EAST Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors Tier 2 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 511,148 -

338 Table 11.2: Project Committments by Campus (Continued) SEP ID# Building Key Building Name Project Name B311 2C39 HSIR WEST B314 2C335 MB HOUSING W B315 2C336 MB HOUSING S B316 2C337 MB HOUSING N B317 2C338 MB HOUSING E B318 2C245 LAUREL HTS B3534 2C226 MTZ BLDG G Project Tier Project Delivery Method Start Preliminary Engineering Project Complete Committed Electric Savings (kwh/yr)* Committed Gas Savings (Therms/yr)* Implement recommendations in 27 ARUP Study and install additional occupancy and daylighting sensors Tier 2 Design - Bid 2/1/29 6/1/21 438,59 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate Tier 2 Design - Bid 1/1/21 3/1/211 48,399 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate Tier 2 Design - Bid 1/1/21 3/1/211 69,33 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate Tier 2 Design - Bid 1/1/21 3/1/211 12,935 - Retrofit T8 Fixtures with 28W T8 lamps and RLO ballasts, and Install occupancy sensors where appropriate Tier 2 Design - Bid 1/1/21 3/1/211 75,781 - Replace existing 8' SL & HO fixtures fixtures with new fluorescent fixtures with sensors Tier 2 1/1/211 11/1/ ,66 - Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 17,677 - Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting B3537 2C233 MTZ BLDG N Sensors in Appropriate Areas Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 24,11 - B3548 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) Monitoring Based Commissioning Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 21,383 74,2 Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting Sensors in Appropriate Areas Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 31,15 - B3551 2C SUTTER pp p Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/29 12/1/21 31,15 Subtotal, Tier 2 Projects 5,328, , Program Cycle Tier 1 Projects B126 2C32 GENENTECH HA CV to VAV with Automatic Sash Closures Tier 1 Undecided 1/1/21 2/1/213 1,439,313 82,66 Subtotal, Tier 1 Projects 1,439,313 82, Tier 2 Projects B115 2C2412 DENTISTRY SF 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 to 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 4-1, 4-2, B1 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset Tier 2 Undecided 1/1/211 8/3/ ,167 14,688 Installing VFD driven Centrifugal Chiller (15 Ton) with suitable CHW primary pump, VFD driven secondary pump, condenser pump; VFD on existing CT fan & retrofitting the same to handle B129 2C212 LIBRARY lower water flow rate Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/21 4/1/ , ,384 B1511 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) AHU 1, 2, 3, 4 - CAV to VAV & SP Reset Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/211 3/1/212 1,315,79 176,7 B1518 2C248 UC CLINICS (ACC) Remove ACC-RAC-14 (chiller supplying cooling to AC-5) & connect to rooftop chiller ACC-CHR.3 piping. Convert Chilled Water CV pumping to Variable volume pumping. Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/211 3/1/212 11,2 - Retrofit T8 and T12 Fixtures with 28W F32T8 Lamps and Premium Efficiency RLO Ballasts, and Install Occupancy and Daylighting B3536 2C231 MTZ BLDG J (2356 Sutter) Sensors in Appropriate Areas Tier 2 Undecided 2/1/211 3/1/ ,95 - Subtotal, Tier 1 Projects 2,444, ,772 Total Campus Tier 1 & 2 Projects 22,897,73 1,842,162 * Committed energy savings based on preliminary project list published March 28, 28 and may vary slightly from final energy savings in this report

339 12. ENERGY & GHG FORECAST The University of California 27 Policy of Sustainable Practices sets the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 2 levels by 214 and to 199 levels by 22. Each campus will need to develop complete greenhouse gas emissions calculations for the baseline years of 199 and 2. In order to determine the potential impact of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects identified in the Strategic Energy Plan, current, past, and future greenhouse gas emissions from purchased electricity and natural gas have been estimated based on information provided on energy purchases for fiscal years and Greenhouse gas emissions savings for the projects identified have also been calculated in order to compare their impact with the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. While these emissions calculations do not include all sources of campus greenhouse gas emissions, they do provide a way of measuring the impact of the projects identified in the SEP in relation to electricity and natural gas usage Electricity Emissions Factors Although some California utilities publish greenhouse gas emissions factors for their delivered power, a complete record of historical and current factors is not available. Therefore, in accordance with the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol, EPA s egrid emissions factor for the CALI WECC California subregion for 2 of.366 metric tons of CO 2 e/kwh was used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from purchased electricity. This number includes greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide and uses global warming potential factors published in the IPCC s Third Assessment Report to convert methane and nitrous oxide emissions to carbon dioxide equivalents. The emissions factor is reported in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per kwh (CO 2 e/kwh) of electricity purchased. While the emissions factor does normally vary by year based on the actual fuel mix used, a constant value was used to isolate the impacts of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Each campus may choose to develop utility and year specific emissions factors when filing their greenhouse gas emissions with the California Climate Action Registry Gas Emissions Factors The emission factors provided in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Tables C.5 and C.6 were used to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas purchases. This number is.5295 metric tons of CO 2 e per therm Current Energy Usage and Emissions Current emissions from purchased utilities are shown in Table Goals The University of California has set the goal of meeting 2 greenhouse gas emission by 214. In 2 many campuses were purchasing their energy from Enron which relied on a different power mix than the state-wide average. This information is not accurately reflected in the average state-wide emissions factor and therefore actual greenhouse gas emissions for campuses purchasing Enron power will be much higher than calculated. In addition to /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 12-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

340 the campus wide greenhouse gas emissions goal, the campus also needs to meet the goal of reducing growth adjusted electricity consumption to 1% below 2 levels by 214. The energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 214 goals are shown in Table 1.1. The emissions are based on the statewide average emissions factor Goals While the goal of achieving a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 199 levels by 22 has been set, the lack of data on energy consumption and emission factors in 199 has made it infeasible to determine an accurate baseline SEP Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects The Strategic Energy Plan has identified energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to help meet the greenhouse gas emissions targets of each campus. The impact of these proposed projects on greenhouse gas emissions is shown in Table 1.1. If the campus chooses to install the photovoltaic systems proposed in the SEP, they will need to retain ownership of the renewable energy credits (RECs) associated with the production of electricity from the PV panels in order to claim credit for the greenhouse gas emissions reductions from the system /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 12-2 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

341 13. CONCLUSIONS 13.1 Next Steps and Recommendations Action Plan The UC Strategic Energy Plan was driven by the UC s Policy on Sustainable Practices, Section II d., which stipulates that the system (1) reduce systemwide growth-adjusted energy consumption by 1 percent or more by 214 from the year 2 base consumption level, and (2) reduce GHG emissions to 2 levels by 214. To accomplish these goals, the campus must create a strategic action plan for implementing energy-saving projects through the year 214. The plan should address both State and Non-state funded facilities. The SEP project list should be used as a starting point to guide these action plans, but the University should continuously evaluate the feasibility of additional energy-saving measures. Every campus has begun to develop an action plan through 211. For each year in the six year program, the University should re-evaluate and modify the action plan to reflect actual progress towards goals and necessary future steps College Performance: Measurement and Reporting To ensure meeting the goals and requirements of the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices, the campus must measure, evaluate, and report energy use and greenhouse gas emissions regularly. A Climate Change Working Group at each campus is currently developing a protocol to allow for growth adjustment and normalization of data and accurate reporting procedures. These Working Groups will monitor progress toward reaching the stated goals for GHG reduction, and will evaluate suggestions for programs to reach these goals Funding Sources Significant financial investment will be required to accomplish the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices goals. A variety of financing programs and funding sources are available to the Universities. Two major funding sources designed specifically to support energy efficiency projects are the Utility Incentive Programs and the UCOP s Energy Efficiency Financing program Utility Incentive Programs Most Utilities in California offer incentives to customers to support the implementation of energy-saving projects. The University of California/California State University/Investor-Owned Utility (UC/CSU/IOU) Energy Efficiency Partnership Program provides funding to all campuses served by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), Southern California Gas (SCG), Southern California Edison (SCE), Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Through the Partnership, these IOUs distribute incentives from Public Purpose Programs (formerly Publics Good Charges) that customers pay on their utility bills. Since 24, the IOUs have paid UC almost $2 million in incentives through this Partnership, and the IOUs have offered to increase UC funding in /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 13-1 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

342 future years. As a preliminary step within the Strategic Energy Plan, commitments were made to the IOUs to coincide with CPUC filing deadlines and it is anticipated that funding levels will be granted for the commitment. Current UC/CSU/IOU Partnership incentive rates are $.24 per kilowatt-hour saved in the first year and $1. per therm saved in the first year, and the Partnership will pay up to 8% of the project cost. This incentive structure is anticipated to remain unchanged in the future program years. Publicly-Owned Utilities, such as Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADWP), Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) also manage energy efficiency incentive programs that have historically paid substantial incentives to Universities in their territories. There have been discussions with each of these utilities to negotiate similar incentive rates, which may be firmed up in the coming months. In either case, Universities served by these Utilities are strongly encouraged to participate in the Utility incentive programs available UCOP Energy Efficiency Financing UCOP has designed a program to work in concert with the Utility incentive programs to provide low-interest loan to cover the cost to the campuses after the incentives. Campuses will pay back the loans to UCOP using the energy cost savings. To do so will require Department of Finance approval to allow for capital debt service to be paid with energy cost savings. In order to be eligible for the UCOP borrowed funds, a portfolio of projects must meet minimum, although liberal, project cost return requirement. The anticipated criteria include a 85% ratio of loan payment to energy savings, which equates to approximately 15 year simple payback on the portfolio of projects. UCOP is prepared to lend up to $5 million to campuses through 214 to support energysaving projects. To learn more about UCOP Energy Efficiency Project Financing, contact Dirk van Ulden Associate Director Energy & Utilities Services University of California Office of the President Dirk.vanulden@ucop.edu /Reports/UC SEP Final Report UC UCSF and UCSF MC.doc 13-2 September 2, 28 Newcomb Anderson McCormick

343 APPENDICES

344

345 Appendix A Field Data Forms (Electronic copies only see folder Appendix A - Field Data Forms on disk)

346

347 Appendix B Savings Calculations (Electronic copies only see folder Appendix B- Savings Calculations on disk)

348

349 Appendix C Other Calculations and Data (Electronic copies only see folder Appendix C Other Calculations and Data on disk)