A1: Aaron Klemm, 401 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA Q3: Please describe your position at CSU and your job responsibilities?

Transcription

1 Application No.: Exhibit No.: Witnesses: A.1-0- SCE-0 A. Klemm (U -E) CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY S TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITS CLEAN ENERGY OPTIMIZATION PILOT: VOLUME Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Rosemead, California May 1, 01

2 Q1: Please state your name and business address. A1: Aaron Klemm, 01 Golden Shore, Long Beach, CA 00. Q: On whose behalf are you presenting this testimony? A: California State University (CSU) Q: Please describe your position at CSU and your job responsibilities? A: My position is Chief of Energy and Sustainability for the Capital Planning, Design and Construction (CPDC) department of the Office of the Chancellor (Chancellor s Office). In this position, I provide oversight and guidance to campus energy supply, energy demand management, distributed energy resources, GHG emissions reductions and sustainability efforts, in alignment with the CSU Board of Trustees (CSU Trustees) 01 Sustainability Policy 1 and related guidelines Q: What is the purpose of your testimony? A: This testimony is presented to support the application of Southern California Edison (SCE) for approval for its proposed Clean Energy Optimization Pilot (CEOP or the Pilot). To that end, my testimony focuses on three areas: (1) background information about CSU and its various campuses and facilities; () CSU s current energy related investments; and () why CSU has agreed to participate in SCE s CEOP (if approved by the Commission) Q: Please provide an overview of the CSU system. A: CSU is the nation s largest four-year public university system, with campuses and off-campus centers. CSU has the most ethnically, economically and academically diverse 1 The CSU Trustees Sustainability Policy can be found at: 1

3 student body in the nation. CSU educates approximately,000 students each year, graduates over 100,000 students annually, and is renowned for the quality of its teaching and preparing job-ready candidates. Q: Please describe the relationship between the Chancellor s Office and CSU s campuses and facilities. A: The Chancellor s Office in general and CPDC in particular is responsible for carrying out the authority of the CSU Trustees in connection with the construction and physical development of CSU campuses, including all buildings, facilities and improvements In the CSU system, academic operating budgets are primarily composed of legislative appropriations and revenue from student tuition fees with the campuses having significant discretion in the use of these funds to maintain the University. However, CPDC administers the CSU capital program and provides a recommended priority list of projects to the Board of Trustees to be funded to address capital outlay and facilities renewal Q: Does the Chancellor s Office make energy-related investment decisions for campuses and CSU-related facilities? A: Yes, the Chancellor s Office, through Five-Year Facilities Renewal and Capital Improvement Plans, recommends the prioritization of projects and develops Systemwide programs including energy-related investments such as Infrastructure Improvement, Energy and Water Conservation, and Solar Phase IV. These five-year plans, which the The 01 Capital Outlay Plan is available at The systemwide Capital Outlay summary is attaches as Appendix A

4 Chancellor s Office prepares in consultation with CSU s campuses and other state agencies, which facilitate legislative oversight regarding CSU capital program priorities and critical needs, are presented to the CSU Trustees for approval Capital priorities are determined based upon the strategic needs of the entire CSU system and in consideration of existing deficiencies in the type, amount, and/or condition of campus space, to best serve the academic master plan. Priority is given to projects that address critical seismic and infrastructure deficiencies, including life/fire safety, utilities infrastructure critical to campuswide operations, and capital renewal in existing facilities. Due to limited funding, projects to modernize existing facilities are prioritized over construction of new buildings in response to enrollment demand. Campuses are encouraged to identify funding sources for projects that reduce total project financing costs, and doing so helps them to receive priority consideration The Systemwide Infrastructure Improvement Program is included in the list of capital priorities. Within this category, funds are allocated among CSU s campuses to best address CSU s highest priority deficiencies in primary infrastructure, facilities, and distribution systems. Projects that are prioritized the highest include projects that address critical campuswide utility deficiencies, projects that renew major building systems, and energy and utility efficiency projects Campuses are able to develop minor capital projects (i.e., projects with an estimated total budget below $0,000) under delegated approval from the CSU Trustees. In many cases, these projects are eligible for incentive funding through utility energy efficiency incentive programs. Sometimes these projects can also secure funding through alternative means, such as special allocations of campus capital reserves, tax-exempt

5 equipment lease financing, on-bill financing and/or California Energy Commission (CEC) low-interest energy efficiency loans. Because the overall amount of capital funds that are allocated to CSU by the State for such projects is limited, the Trustees in the Categories and Criteria for priority setting encourage co-funding and may give a higher priority to projects for which a campus can provide matching funds. CSU s Facilities Renewal and Capital Improvement Plan Development and to 0-0 Five-Year Plan provides that campuses are expected to provide matching funding for projects that are supported by systemwide capital funds. For example, in the Existing Facilities and Infrastructure category, CSU expects to provide $00 million in funding, and the campuses are expected to contribute $. million. Projects for which a campus contributes percent or more matching funds are the most competitive under CSU s current capital allocation procedure Q: Does CSU have any regulatory or other mandated requirements to meet California s GHG policy goals? A: No, there are no regulatory or other mandated requirements at the CSU system level. However, three campuses CSU Channel Islands, San Diego State University and San Jose State University have GHG emission reductions requirements under California s Cap and Trade Regulation associated with the cogeneration plants located on those campuses. Of these, CSU Channel Islands is the only campus located in SCE s service territory, but it is not participating in the Pilot. 1 However, while not under direct Executive Authority of the Governor, CSU makes an effort to comply with the Governor s Executive Orders. These orders have included the goal of deploying five million electric vehicles in California, ambitious zero-net energy Attached in Appendix B

6 targets for state buildings, and an aggressive mid-term GHG reduction goal. Securing funding for projects that further these goals has been challenging for CSU, but by providing pay-for-performance framework by which to earn incentives to reduce GHG emissions, SCE s Pilot would make these projects more likely to be funded Q: Does CSU have any internal policy goals associated with GHG emissions reductions? A: Yes, the 01 CSU Sustainability Policy establishes a goal to reduce systemwide Scope 1 and Scope emissions to 10 levels by 00 and to 0% below 10 levels by 00. These goals are more aggressive than the state goals. Consistent with this policy, as of 01, CSU has reduced its Scope 1 and GHG emissions below 10 levels; however, much of this can be attributed to state-level and systemwide efforts to increase renewable content of purchased electricity. We expect that achieving the 00 goal will prove more challenging Additionally, 1 of the CSU campus presidents have signed a commitment with a nongovernmental organization (NGO), Second Nature, to publish a plan to achieve carbon neutrality. Signatories are required to quantify their Scope 1,, and emissions, set a target date for achieving carbon neutrality, and track progress toward that goal. As a goal of operational carbon neutrality is ambitious, this commits campuses to go further and eliminate emissions from student, faculty and staff commuting, which will be a very Scope 1 GHG emissions are direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the organization, including on-site fossil fuel combustion. Scope emissions are indirect emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the organization, primarily emissions from electricity generated by the utility. Scope emissions are from sources not owned or directly controlled by organization but related to its activities in CSU s case, this is primarily from student, faculty and staff commuting. SB codifies a requirement to reduce GHG emissions to 0% below 10 by Of these 1 CSU campuses, one (Pomona) is planning to participate in SCE s Pilot.

7 significant undertaking. These goals, however, are voluntary, with no penalties or sanctions for not achieving them. Q10: What types of programs do you currently participate in that are offered by SCE? A10: CSU has participated in the following SCE programs: energy efficiency incentives programs, which provide incentives for qualified and installed energy efficiency projects that impact the electrical or gas grids; funding to install Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure; third-party funding, including Local Capacity Resources (LCR) - Request for Offers (RFO), for solar and batteries installations; and demand response incentive programs Q11: What current goals or objectives does participation in these programs help CSU achieve? A11: Participating in the above listed programs assists CSU in increasing energy efficiency of campus operations and energy cost management. These programs have incidental benefits of reducing CSU s GHG emissions. However, because the incentives are not structured to achieve the greatest GHG emission reductions, other goals are often prioritized Q1: Is there a current SCE program specifically designed to help CSU achieve its GHG emission requirements? A1: No, there is no current program from SCE specifically designed to help CSU achieve its GHG emission targets. The energy efficiency incentives that make up CSU s largest source of energy efficiency and therefore GHG reduction specifically preclude cofunding for low-carbon heating and cooling projects, as well as the portions of projects

8 that bring CSU facilities up to current code or to industry standard practice. This has the effect of stranding energy projects in CSU s legacy building stock. 10 Q1: How does the Energy Standards Code impact CSU s GHG emissions reduction efforts? A1: Title, California s Energy Standards Code, which first became effective in 1, is periodically updated to reflect improvements in cost effectiveness of energy saving technologies, which results in the Energy Standards Code becoming more stringent with each update cycle. Facilities built or renovated under more recent energy codes are more energy efficient and therefore emit less greenhouse gases. To the extent capital funding allows, CSU strives to keep up with improving energy technologies in its legacy building stock, but without adequate funds to implement GHG emission improvements, CSU inevitably operates legacy facilities in their current grandfathered, legal non-compliant state. Q1: Are there challenges or barriers with SCE s current portfolio of programs such that CSU is not able to achieve this GHG reduction plan? A1: Yes. As described above, CSUs major challenges and barriers are the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) - expected useful life (EUL) values, fuelswitching, to-code and industry standard practice rules. As a result of CSU operating a large fleet of legacy buildings, approximately 0% of CSU s submitted incentive applications are impacted by these rules, reducing calculated energy efficiency measures by approximately 0-0% when processed by utility reviewers. These reductions are only from projects that submitted for energy incentives; CSU does not know the number The Energy Efficiency Policy Manual prohibits incentives for projects that represent industry standard practice, bring old grandfathered facilities up to-code, and equipment near or past the DEER expected useful life values which are much shorter than CSU s actual in-service life. 10 Approximately 0% of CSU s buildings measured by square feet was built before 1 and the advent of energy codes (i.e., percent of total square footage (1,0,000 square feet), excluding parking structures).

9 of projects that, due to these regulatory barriers and disincentives, were never submitted, were scaled back prior to application, or were abandoned CSU strives to maintain a high-performance work environment for our staff, including the campus energy managers. One of the keys to a high performance organization is providing agency to employees. However, when half of submitted projects have their incentives summarily reduced by third parties, it is demoralizing and reduces the motivation for campus staff to participate in these programs. Mechanical systems are also significantly affected by the to-code/eul rules. The current programs do not provide incentives for equipment near or past its DEER-EUL value. The Commission s policies in this regard do not accurately capture the fact that CSU is forced to operate equipment significantly beyond the DEER-EUL and cannot afford to upgrade this equipment without incentives CSU has undertaken a structured process to complete Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs) on its facilities. These FCAs consist of an inspection by a qualified engineer to document the age and condition of the components of any particular facility. As of March 01, % of CSU s facilities have completed an FCA. Analysis of this data set found that 0% of CSU s energy consuming equipment is beyond the age limits set in DEER for EUL. Overall, the average DEER EUL for mechanical and electrical systems is approximately 1. years, while CSU s data shows the actual age of these still-in-service systems is approximately 0. years. The GHG impact of running old equipment 1 years past when it is considered obsolete is significant. But without a way to fund upgrades, CSU has no other option but to continue operations with that equipment. Q1: Are there programs from any other utilities that are specifically designed to help CSU achieve its GHG emission goals?

10 A1: No, we are not aware of any programs that are specifically designed to help CSU achieve its GHG emission goals. No other utility has presented a scalable plan to decarbonize heating energy, cogeneration operations, CSU s legacy building stock, and commute emissions. Q1: What is your understanding of SCE s Clean Energy Optimization Pilot? A1: CSU understands the Clean Energy Optimization Pilot to be a behind-the-meter, energy related carbon emission reduction program. The Pilot provides several benefits such as administrative simplicity, strict pay for performance, and the ability to reduce any measurable energy related GHG emissions regardless of the source Q1: For the campuses that plan to participate in the Pilot, what types of energy-related investments and projects would CSU develop assuming there was no pilot? A1: That is a difficult question to answer, given that campus-specific projects are assessed within the context of CSU s systemwide capital program. What is certain, however, is that in the absence of the Pilot, the participating campuses proposed energy and climate emissions reducing projects will be less competitive in the capital outlay process. The simple reality is that CSU has multiple competing priorities and needs but has limited means to achieve these priorities. The Pilot will provide important, additional support for campus projects that move the CSU system closer to its GHG goals For example, CSU currently has or is developing a number of energy and emission reducing master enabling agreements (MEAs) 11 to facilitate the procurement of third- party financed on-site solar, third-party financed on-site battery energy storage, self- 11 A master enabling agreement is a set of contracts that establishes a qualified vendor pool that has agreed to standardized terms and conditions. This helps reduce administrative burden, project delivery time, and project cost.

11 funded building-retrocommissioning, and self-funded energy information systems services. Even in the absence of SCE s Pilot, CSU would continue with its Solar Master Enabling Agreement to install behind the meter solar using third-party power purchase agreements (PPAs). However, the viability of this initiative is proving to be constrained by shifting time-of-use periods, new net-energy metering rules, and increased tariffs on imported solar panels CSU also is the beneficiary of a CEC Cal-Op 1 grant that enables it to complete a needs assessment and develop a distributed energy resources procurement MEA focused on energy efficiency projects, electric vehicle charging station installation, and sub-meter installations. Alternative funding mechanisms will be a key component of these projects; however, they will still need to compete against other critical campus needs. Providing incentives to explicitly reduce GHG emissions can provide the participating campuses a significant portion of their required co-funding necessary to secure systemwide funds CSU s legacy building stock (0% built before 1, pre-energy codes) means that there are a large number of academic buildings with collective programmatic needs that far outstrip the available capital funding. The core mission of CSU is education, and the Graduation Initiative 0 (which is working to reduce time to graduation) is the highest priority for CSU. GHG emissions reducing projects must compete by increasing enrollment capacity, addressing staffing pressures, reducing deferred maintenance and improving the programmatic effectiveness of classrooms and facilities. In the absence of the Pilot, GHG emissions reducing projects would be less competitive with these other needs like maintaining critical infrastructure and the programmatic needs of academic programs. 1 CEC/EPIC grant - GFO

12 Q1: What are the proposed budgets for these investments? A1: CSU s total capital and facilities renewal program is expected (subject to the CSU Trustees annual approval, state funding and bond market conditions) to be approximately $00 million over the Pilot program period. This is a conservative amount and reflects uncertain state budget conditions and pressure to limit increases in student tuition fees. By comparison, the combination of deferred maintenance, critical infrastructure and academic program needs during this period are expected to be in excess of $. billion. CSUs anticipated capital budget is insufficient to address its critical needs, much less allow for funds to be explicitly dedicated to reducing GHG emissions. This may result in CSU prioritizing its core mission of educating students over accelerating emission reductions. But if the Pilot is approved, CSU plans to commit up to $10 million of systemwide capital funds annually if, as CSU expects, the Pilot provides matching funding in incentives that campuses are currently required to do for their campus-specific priority projects Q1: If the Pilot is approved, please describe in detail how your GHG reduction plans would change for each of the campuses. A1: Currently, GHG reduction is one of many competing priorities for capital funding. Adding an explicit GHG reducing funding source that provides incremental capital will cause CSU to commit $. million toward GHG reduction projects per year for each participating campus, for a total of up to $10 million per year. An example of where those funds could be used is the CSU Solar MEA. As noted above, on-site solar installations are facing some headwinds with changing time-of-use periods, new net energy metering tariffs, and increased import tariffs, all of which may act together to decrease the number of cost-effective installations. The Pilot will enable campuses to integrate GHG reduction incentives and thereby be able to right-size these systems by increasing the installed capacity. 11

13 CSU is planning to have a systemwide climate action framework in place by the time this pilot could be implemented. This framework will guide campuses in building a long- term plan for achieving least-cost best-fit emission reductions. Listed below are additional examples of projects for which the Pilot may influence capital funding decisions: Electrification of Heating and Cooling Current energy incentives specifically preclude fuel switching; however, by moving from natural gas to cleaner electricity for heating and cooling, CSU can take advantage of California s rapidly greening electrical grid. Solar + Storage CSU campuses have lead the way in installing solar generation on-site. The recent Solar MEA is a continuation of this. The Board of Trustees has authorized campuses to install up to $00 million of solar on campus, which is estimated to be MW of capacity. An upcoming MEA will streamline the procurement of battery electric storage, which along with thermal energy storage will further increase the capacity of campuses to install renewable energy systems on-site and create flexible blocks of electrical load to adapt to a high renewable content electric grid. Electric Vehicle Charging Reducing transportation emissions will be one of the most challenging parts of climate mitigation, and electrification will play a central role. CSU campuses have already installed 1 charging stations systemwide, and the number would continue to grow under this Pilot. Interior LED lighting Incentives for these projects have been significantly reduced due to the to-code requirement and efficiency increases associated with Title, thereby stranding many of these projects. Behavioral and Operational Measures Under current incentive programs, behavioral and operational measures are difficult for CSU to utilize. These measures typically lack equipment and have less predictable savings than other projects, yet they can have 1

14 significant energy savings. They also require wide engagement across the entire campus community. The strict pay-for-performance attribute of the Pilot places responsibility on each campus for the outcomes of these behavioral programs. The Pilot would provide a funding stream that can allow campuses to make that kind of engagement and re-visit previously abandoned low cost measures such as aggressive scheduling and temperature setback of unoccupied areas. Q0: Why did CSU make the decision to participate in the Pilot? A0: CSU has established itself a leader in energy efficiency and sustainability. In 00/0, CSU and the University of California (UC) were the initial customers with the IOUs to create the Energy Efficiency Partnership model. That model, however, is intended to focus solely on grid impacting energy efficiency and is not designed to address the climate crisis. CSU is participating in the Pilot because it is a forward-looking program that moves beyond the Energy Efficiency Partnership model to create utility-sponsored customer programs relevant to the climate challenges Californians face today CSU s participation in the Pilot will help to (1) meet its sustainability policy goals, () potentially reduce administrative burdens, and () support Scope 1,, and emissions reductions First, as discussed previously, significant natural gas emissions reductions will be required for CSU to meet its 00 GHG reduction goal. Current energy efficiency programs do not permit fuel switching, and existing program natural gas efficiency is insufficient to meet CSU s climate goals. One of CSU s looming climate challenges is related to the long lived nature of assets using natural gas. The system has made significant investments in cogeneration plants, boilers and other natural gas using equipment, which due to its high capital cost must be amortized over the lifetime of the asset to avoid stranding those investments. As discussed above, CSU s useful life of 1

15 assets is well beyond the industry and DEER-EUL standards. Given the need for immediate, rapid and permanent emission reductions, much of this equipment will need to be retired early. Assistance in overcoming aversion to early retirement and investment in cleaner low-carbon infrastructure will be required. In the absence of funding dedicated specifically to replacing the natural gas consuming and GHG emitting equipment, CSU will continue on a slower path to de-carbonizing fossil fuel infrastructure, depriving Californians of the learning associated with these early actions, and may not meet its energy policy goals The second reason why CSU is choosing to participate is the strict pay-for-measuredperformance nature of this pilot and its reduced administrative burden that has the potential to engage campus stakeholders in GHG emissions reductions and re-consider funding efficiency and operational measures to reduce GHG emissions The third reason is that 1 of the CSU campuses have committed to mitigate Scope emissions from employee and student commutes, and the Pilot is the only program available to measurably reduce GHG emissions from employee and student commutes. Through the incentives for the installation of new metered electric vehicle chargers, this pilot will provide a measurable and verifiable tool for reductions in Scope emissions. Given that measurable and primary data on Scope emissions reductions has heretofore been difficult and expensive to acquire, the Pilot has the potential to transform Scope emissions interventions with a data driven approach for all Californians. 1 In conclusion, CSU has been a leader in energy efficiency and energy management since 1. CSU continues to lead with 1 campuses committing to plan to achieve GHG neutrality. CSU jointly pioneered the institutional energy efficiency partnership model 1

16 and believes that this Pilot has the potential to transform customer programs to cost- effectively meet the climate challenge for CSU and eventually all Californians Q1: What learnings does CSU expect to receive from the pilot? A1: CSU expects the following learnings from the Pilot: (1) Documentation on how CSU staff engagement and agency is affected by the Pilot s methodology shift from standardized statewide engineering assumptions and judgments toward a simpler pay-for-performance, metered approach. This change can be a powerful way to engage and empower the campus community and energy management staff to mobilize to uncover any and all measurable energy related GHG reducing activities, as opposed to trying to structure energy efficiency projects to criteria set, controlled and preevaluated by others. The administrative efficiency of a pay-for-performance program is expected to be higher as well since it relies on easily measured and monitored meterbased savings. Hence, the required review time and evaluation cost will be lower () CSU expects to understand the potential applicability of the Pilot to other CSU campuses that face similar challenges surrounding GHG emissions reduction. Crucially, the learnings from the University of California campuses will give CSU understanding of how to apply emission reduction incentives to campuses relying heavily on cogeneration for electricity, heating and/or cooling. 1 0 () CSU also expects to understand how effective this type of program is in reducing emissions on campus. 1

17 CSU has an active Campus as a Living Lab (CALL) 1 program that provides small grants to faculty to modify their curriculum to use the campus Physical Plant Facilities as a laboratory. The CALL program has built learning communities around making university operations more efficient, effective and sustainable. Unlike many private utility customers, CSU s utility bills are a public record, so the results of this pilot can be transparently studied and published. This will give CSU a way to regularly and objectively review the results of the program, while advancing the academic mission Q: Does the Pilot impact the timing of CSU s energy-related investments? A: Yes, the Pilot will accelerate CSU s clean energy investments. The incentive funds, earned through the pay-for-performance framework, are necessary to secure up to $10 million per year from CSU s Capital Program for emissions reducing investments. Without incentive matching funds, the emissions reducing investments will not be as competitive with projects related to resolving building code deficiencies or critical infrastructure projects Q: Will SCE s Pilot help CSU meet its internal sustainability policy? A: Yes. As background, CSU s 10 Scope 1 and Scope GHG emissions were % from natural gas, and emissions from electricity accounted for 0% of the total. In 01, those values have reversed: natural gas accounts for % and electricity % of CSU s Scope 1 and Scope emissions. Much of this is the result of the addition of natural gas fueled cogeneration assets, along with the aggressive expansion of renewable energy on the California electrical grid. This fact requires CSU to reduce emissions from natural gas and include substitutions for cogeneration and heating systems, which are generally not supported by the parameters of current programs

18 For CSU, electrification is a critical strategy to achieve emission reductions in Over the last 1 years, California and CSU has seen electricity supplies continually reduce GHG emissions as additional renewables are integrated into the energy supply. This has been the major driver of our emission reduction over the past ten years. The same cannot be said about natural gas fired equipment, which lacks a pathway to incrementally decarbonize stationary combustion equipment. Furthermore, for the foreseeable future, in-state renewable biogas supplies will be limited and significantly more expensive than fossil natural gas. Without a scalable and affordable supply of renewable natural gas, the only method of reducing GHG emissions from natural gas is to reduce consumption. As a result, CSU considers electrification a critical strategy for achieving emission reductions in the timeframe; however, current utility energy efficiency programs do not directly support these type of GHG emissions reducing measures As a result, without the Pilot, CSU may not be able to meet it internal sustainability goals. In particular, CSU may not be able to afford to transition cogeneration systems to dispatchable resources to firm intermittent renewable energy, and also may not be able to install high efficiency electric heating equipment, thereby jeopardizing CSU s ability to meet the policy goals set by the Trustees Q: How will SCE s Pilot program help advance climate protection in California? A: A rapidly changing and unpredictable climate will adversely affect all Californians, particularly those that are already disadvantaged. Business-as-usual programs are insufficient to adequately address climate challenges. To achieve California s aggressive climate goals, new models for cross-cutting emission reduction programs are urgently needed. 1

19 CSU is well placed to be a founding participant in the Pilot, which CSU believes represents the most promising new model to address the climate challenge. CSU anticipates that, as with the energy efficiency partnership model piloted in 00-00, when proven successful this pilot will be expanded to serve future commercial and local government incentive programs CSU campuses are analogous to small to medium sized cities: each campus houses residents, has a police department and Emergency Operations Center (EOC), performs planning and building code enforcement, generates and distributes energy, and generates and mitigates traffic impacts. Unlike cities, however, CSU campuses are vertically integrated, with a greater amount of, and more durable control over their emission generating activities. The campuses own the residence halls, electrical grids and roads, making them excellent living labs to conduct experiments in emissions reducing interventions. CSU commits to openly sharing the data from this pilot program with all interested parties, agencies and researchers Q: How will SCE s pilot program help CSU s student body, faculty and employees? A: The Pilot program will help CSU s stakeholders in several ways. First, the Pilot allows for behavioral efforts that measurably reduce GHG emissions, thereby providing agency for engaged students to contribute to and learn from CSU s efforts to reduce GHG and provide other co-benefits. Second, the Pilot makes the campus accountable with its strict pay-for-performance features and provides agency to campus energy managers empowering them in their work instead of being acted upon by third parties after the fact to determine the relative success or failure of an energy efficiency project. Finally, by providing incentives for measurable GHG emissions reductions, the Pilot will assist in managing utility costs and selecting the most cost-effective climate emissions reducing 1

20 activities, thereby preserving funding for CSU s core mission of high quality, inclusive and affordable higher education. 10 Q: How will SCE s Pilot help California s disadvantaged communities? A: SCE s Pilot would help California s disadvantaged communities by supporting CSU s mission to provide education and opportunities for all Californians. The Pilot will support CSU s efforts to reduce GHG emissions and, as a co-benefit, criteria pollution. Those burdens fall disproportionately on disadvantaged communities. If the participating campuses are successful in reducing GHG emissions, the incentives will contribute to making CSU s capital program more effective in serving disadvantaged communities and students CSU anticipates some of the specific benefits to disadvantaged communities to be: (1) air quality improvements from the reduction of NOx and SOx related to the reduction of natural gas combustion. These pollutants are a significant health burden that falls disproportionately on disadvantaged communities, and their reduction will help improve the health of residents in those communities. () An increase in overall capital funding for campuses participating in the Pilot. Participation will allow campuses to pursue projects that may have otherwise been abandoned, steering additional funding to campuses within disadvantaged communities. Since the campuses will rely on local labor and businesses, this may have a further positive effect on the local economy. () The installation of electric vehicle charging stations would facilitate students and campus employees to purchase new electric vehicles. Since all commuters drive through the surrounding neighborhood to reach the campus regardless of where they live, this would improve the air quality of the community surrounding the campus. 1

21 CSU s faculty and researchers make up the most diverse university system in the country and representative of California s population. 1 Additionally, CSU serves a large number of students from disadvantaged communities. The chart below uses institution of origin (high school or transfer school) as a proxy for home residence, and quantifies the number and percentage of students at each campus from census tracts designated by CalEPA as disadvantaged communities. These are census tracts with a CalEnviroScreen.0 1 score greater than %. Systemwide CSU educates approximately,000 students originating from institutions in Disadvantaged Communities, as defined, which is 1% of CSU s student population CalEnviroScreen

22 Finally, economically disadvantaged students benefit from attending CSU. Only two of the top ten universities ranked for income mobility nationally are in California, and both are within the California State Universities in Southern California: Cal State Los Angeles ranked 1st and Cal Poly Pomona ranked th. These campuses move the most students from the bottom 0% of income to the top 0% of income

23 Appendix A Facilities Renewal and Capital Improvement Plan Development and to 0-0 Five-Year Plan

24 ACADEMIC PROJECTS PRIORITY LIST (Dollars in 000s) Priority Order Capital Outlay Program Cost Estimates are at Engineering News Record California Construction Cost Index 0 and Equipment Price Index Category Campus Project Title FTE Phase Campus Reserves/ Other SRB-AP* Complete Total 1 IA Statewide Water Conservation - GO Bonds N/A PWC,000 0,000 0,000 IA Statewide Infrastructure Improvements *** N/A PWC,,0 1,0 0,0 IB Pomona Administration Replacement Building N/A E 0 1,0 1,0 0,0 IB Sacramento Science II Replacement Building, Ph. N/A E,00 0,00 0 0,0 IB East Bay Library Replacement Building (Seismic) N/A WCE,0,1,1 0 1,0 II San Luis Obispo Science/Ag. Teaching and Research Complex PWCE,000 10,000,000 0,0 IB Sonoma Stevenson Hall Renovation/Addition -1 SPWC,00,,,0,0 IB Maritime Academy Mayo Hall Renovation and Addition N/A SPWCE 1, 1,0 01, IB San Luis Obispo Kennedy Library Renovation PWCE,0 0,000,0 1, 0,1 10 II Channel Islands Gateway Hall Renovation N/A SPWCE,,,0 0, 11 II San Bernardino College of Arts & Letters/Theatre Building Reno/Addition 1 PWC,1, 10,10,000, 1 II Northridge Sierra Annex,1 SPWC, 1,0,,11,11 1 IB Dominguez Hills College of Business and Public Policy 0 P, 0, 0,0, 1 IB San Diego Dramatic Arts Renovation N/A PWCE,00 1,000,00 0 0,0 1 IB Fullerton Visual Arts Complex Modernization 0 PWcCE 1,,,0 0,10 1 IB Chico Butte Hall Replacement 0 SPWC, 1,,1,00 1,0,0 1 IB Los Angeles Administration Building Renovation (Seismic) N/A P,0,0 0, 1,0, 1 IB Fresno Central Plant Distribution N/A PWC,00,1,1 0 1,0,10 1 II Sacramento Folsom rd Floor Improvements 0 SPWC 1,1 1, 1,0 1,0 1,10,1 0 IB Monterey Bay Classroom Renovation, Ph. 1 (Secondary Effects) 0 PWC 0,11,11 1,1, 1 IB Pomona Classroom Lab Building Renovation (Seismic) 0 PWC,,,10 0 1,1,1 IB Long Beach Peterson Hall 1 Replacement Building (Seismic) 0 PWC,1 10, 1,1,1 1,01, II Stanislaus Classroom Building II 1, PWC,0 0,,1 1, 1,, II Bakersfield Energy and Engineering Innovation Center 0 PWCE,,,1 0 1,, IB San Francisco Science Replacement Building 0 P, 0,,01 1,0,0 II Maritime Academy Academic Building A/Learning Commons Part 1 TBD S 0 0 0,10 1,10,0 IB San Francisco Thornton Hall Renovation TBD S , 1,10, Total Funds to Cumulative Total Academic Projects,1 $ 1, $ 1,1,1 $ 1,10, $ 1,10, SELF-SUPPORT / OTHER PROJECTS LIST (Dollars in 000s) Campus Alpha Order Category Campus Project Title Spaces Phase Reserves/ Other SRB-SS** Total Funds to Complete Cumulative Total 1 IA Statewide Infrastructure Improvements *** N/A SPWC 10, 0 10, 0 10, II Bakersfield University Police Relocation N/A PWC, 0, 0 1,10 Total Self-Support / Other Projects Grand Total Academic and Self-Support Projects $ 1,10 $ - $ 1,10 $ 1,10,1 $ 0, $ 1,1,1 $ 1,, $ 1,, P = Preliminary Plans W = Working Drawings c = Partial Construction C = Construction E = Equipment S = Study Categories: I Existing Facilities/Infrastructure A. Critical Infrastructure Deficiencies B. Modernization/Renovation II New Facilities/Infrastructure Notes: * SRB-AP: Systemwide Revenue Bonds - Academic Program ** SRB-SS: Systemwide Revenue Bonds - Self-Support Program *** The Infrastructure Improvements Program addresses smaller scale utility, building systems renewal and minor upgrades. Projects are listed separately on following page.

25 01-01 Infrastructure Improvements Program Project List Cost Estimates are at Engineering News Record California Construction Cost Index 0 and Equipment Price Index ACADEMIC PROJECTS Campus Reserves SRB-AP Total Project Cumulative Total Project 01-1 $0M Divvy by GSF Campus Project Title Ph. Bakersfield Replace Electrical Distribution, Ph. PWC 0 1,1,000 1,1,000 1,1,000 1,10,000 Bakersfield Natural Gas Line Replacement, Ph. PWC 0 10,000 10,000 1,1,000 Bakersfield Chilled Water Line Upgrades PWC 11,000 1,,000 1,,000,,000 Bakersfield PE Building Renovation/Addition (Seismic) P,000 0,000,0,000 Channel Islands North Campus Hydronic Loop Extension, Ph. 1 PWC 100,000 1,00,000,000,000,0,000,000 Channel Islands North Campus Hydronic Loop Extension, Ph. PWC,000,11,000,,000 11,,000 Channel Islands South Campus Hydronic Loop Extension PWC,000,1,000,,000 1,,000 Channel Islands Electrical and Fire Alarm Upgrades, Ph. 1 PWC 0 1,000 1,000 1,,000 Channel Islands Window and Door Lock Replacement, Ph. 1 PWC 0 10,000 10,000 1,,000 Channel Islands ADA Access Improvements, Ph. 1 PWC 0 10,000 10,000 1,1,000 Chico Main Switchgear & Electrical System Renewal PWC 00,000,000,000,00,000 1,,000 1,,000 Chico Meriam Library Building Renewal PWC 00,000,000,000,00,000,1,000 Chico Langdon Building Renewal PWC 00,000,000,000,00,000,,000 Chico Business Services Building PWCE 11,0, ,0,000,11,000 Dominguez Hills Central Plant Electric Chiller Upgrade C 0 11,00,000 11,00,000,1,000 1,0,000 Dominguez Hills La Corte Hall Fire/Life Safety and ADA Upgrades PWC,000,,000,1,000 0,,000 Dominguez Hills ADA Path of Travel Upgrade PWC 100,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,,000 East Bay Library East Annex ADA Upgrades PWC 0,000,000,,000 1,,000 East Bay Electrical Infrastructure Upgrade, Ph. D WC,000 1,,000 1,1,000,0,000 East Bay PE Building Substation Replacement C 0 1,000 1,000,101,000 Fresno Campuswide Life/Fire Safety/ADA Upgrades PWC 11,000 1,1,000 1,1,000,1,000,0,000 Fresno North and South Gym Fire Sprinkler System PWC 00,000,00,000,00,000,01,000 Fresno Utility Infrastructure Improvements PWC 100,000 00,000 1,000,000 0,01,000 Fullerton Physical Services Complex Renovation/Repl. PWcC,000,000,000,000 1,000,000,01,000,,000 Fullerton Visual Arts Complex Life/Safety Upgrades PWC,000,,000,000,000 1,01,000 Fullerton Life Safety and ADA Code Upgrades PWC 100,000 1,000,000 1,100,000,11,000 Fullerton Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure PWC 00,000 1,,000,1,000,,000 Fullerton Restroom ADA Code Upgrades PWC 100,000 1,100,000 1,00,000,,000 Fullerton Titan Stadium Pressbox Elevator Modernization PWC 0, ,000,0,000 Humboldt Fire Alarm System Replacement, Ph. PWC,000,000 0,000,0,000 1,,000 Long Beach Microbiology HVAC Replacement C 0 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,0,000,0,000 Long Beach Horn Center Fire Alarm Replacement PWC,000 1,000 0,000 10,,000 Long Beach Fire Water Pressure/Reclaim Water Renewal PWC,000,1,000,00,000 11,,000 Long Beach Hot Water Piping Replacement (North Loop) PWC,000,,000,1,000 10,0,000 Long Beach Hot Water Piping Replacement (South Loop) C 0,000,000,000,000 1,0,000 Los Angeles Physical Sciences (Seismic) C 0,00,000,00,000 1,,000,,000 Los Angeles Central Plant, Chiller # Replacement PWC 00,000,0,000,0,000 10,0,000 Los Angeles Campuswide Emergency Lighting Upgrade PWC,000,000 0,000 10,,000 Los Angeles Physical Education, HVAC Replacement PWC,000,000 0,000 11,0,000 Los Angeles Salazar Hall, nd Floor HVAC Renewal PWC,000 1,000,000 11,,000 Los Angeles Salazar Hall, rd Floor HVAC Renewal PWC,000,000 0,000 1,,000 Los Angeles Simpson Tower, HVAC Replacement PWC,000 0,000 0,000 1,0,000 Los Angeles ADA Path of Travel Upgrades PWC 0,000 0,000 00,000 1,,000

26 ACADEMIC PROJECTS cont'd Infrastructure Improvements Program Project List Cost Estimates are at Engineering News Record California Construction Cost Index 0 and Equipment Price Index Campus Reserves Total Project Cumulative Total Project 01-1 $0M Divvy by GSF SRB-AP Campus Project Title Ph. Maritime Academy Upper Residence Hall Drive Repairs PWC 0,000 1,0,000 1,00,000 1,0,000 1,000 Maritime Academy Campuswide Stairway Renewal PWC 1,000,000 0,000 1,,000 Maritime Academy Student Center Building Renewal PWC 1,000,000 0,000 1,,000 Maritime Academy Campuswide Power Metering/Demand Response Capability Project PWC 1,000 0,000,000 1,,000 Maritime Academy Lower Campus ADA Improvements PWC 1,000,000 0,000 1,,000 Maritime Academy Upper Campus ADA Improvements PWC 1,000,000 0,000 1,,000 Maritime Academy Wharf Area Electrical Renewal Project PWC 0,000 1,1,000 1,1,000 1,,000 Maritime Academy EMS System Upgrade, Campuswide PWC 100,000,,000,,000 10,1,000 Maritime Academy Core Relocation and Redundant Cable Installation PWC 0,000,000,000 10,,000 Maritime Academy Hut 1 Emergency Generator PWC,000 11,000 10,000 10,,000 Maritime Academy Electrical Switchgear Repair Project PWC,000 11,000 10,000 11,00,000 Maritime Academy SIM Building Redundant UPS PWC 10,000,000,000 11,0,000 Maritime Academy Telecom Underground Infrastructure Renewal PWC,000,000 00,000 11,,000 Monterey Bay Seismic Projects PWC 00,000,00,000,000,000 1,,000 1,1,000 Monterey Bay Infrastructure Improvements PWC 00,000,00,000,000,000 10,,000 Monterey Bay ADA Projects PWC 00,000,00,000,000,000 1,,000 Northridge Heating System Replacement, Ph. PWC 1,000,0,000,1,000 10,,000,,000 Northridge Building Elect System Replace, Ph. & PWC,000,1,000,1,000 1,,000 Northridge Fifth Substation Upgrade, Ph. 1 & PWC 1,000 1,0,000 1,,000 1,0,000 Northridge Domestic Water Line Upgrade, Ph. 1 & PWC,000,1,000,0,000 1,,000 Northridge Sewer Replacement PW 1, ,000 1,0,000 Pomona HVAC System and Controls Modernization, Ph. 1 PWC 0,000,0,000,00,000 10,10,000,,000 Sacramento Art Sculpture Lab Upgrades PWcC 1,000,000,0,000,0,000 1,00,000,110,000 Sacramento ADA Upgrades PWC 0,000 0,000,000 1,,000 Sacramento Hornet Stadium Upgrades PWcC 1,000,000,,000,,000 1,0,000 Sacramento Building Switches, Ph. PWC 0,000 1,0,000 1,,000 1,1,000 San Bernardino Performing Arts Elevator Renovation PWC,000,000 0,000 10,111,000 1,,000 San Bernardino Pfau Library Elevators Renovation PWC 11,000 1,,000 1,10,000 11,1,000 San Bernardino Fire Alarm Replacement PWC 11,000,000 1,0,000 1,0,000 San Diego Electrical Utilities Upgrade, Ph. 1 PWC 1,00,000 1,1,000,1,000 1,0,000,,000 San Diego Building Electrical Infrastructure Replacement 1 PWC 0,000 1,,000,,000,,000 San Diego Building Electrical Infrastructure Replacement PWC 0,000,0,000,000,000,,000 San Francisco Thornton Hall Sprinkler System and Fire Alarm PWC 0,000,,000,0,000,0,000,,000 San Francisco Hensill Hall Sprinkler System and Fire Alarm PWC 11,000,,000,10,000,1,000 San Francisco Fire Hydrants Renewal, Campuswide Ph. PWC 100,000 00,000 1,000,000,1,000 San Francisco Tiburon - Seismic, Infrastructure, ADA Upgrades PWC 0,000,1,000,00,000 0,1,000 San Francisco Fire Alarm Replacement, Fine Arts PWC 10,000 0,000 1,0,000 1,10,000 San Francisco Central Plant/Campus Critical Utility Projects PWC 1,000 1,,000 1,0,000,0,000 San Francisco Data Center Emergency Power Upgrade PWC,000 1,000,000,,000 San Francisco ADA Fire Alarm Upgrades, Campus PWC 110,000,000 1,0,000,,000 San Francisco Portable Generator Quick Connects PWC 1,000 1,,000 1,,000,1,000 San Francisco Sanitary Sewer/Storm/Domestic Water Critical Projects PWC,000,1,000,1,000,,000 San Francisco Business Building Heating System Replacement PWC 0,000,00,000,00,000 1,,000 San Francisco Thornton Hall ADA Restroom Upgrade PWC 11,000 1,1,000 1,1,000,111,000 San Francisco Cox Stadium, Creative Arts, Bus. ADA Restroom Upgrade PWC 10,000 1,,000 1,,000,0,000 San José Electrical Infrastructure Upgrade PWC 00,000,010,000,10,000 0,1,000,,000 San José Restroom ADA Upgrades, Multiple Buildings PWC 0,000 00,000 0,000 0,,000 San José Sweeney Hall Renewal PWC 0,000 0,000 00,000 1,,000 San José Hugh Gillis Hall Renewal PWC 0,000 0,000 00,000 1,,000 San José Music Building Renewal PWC 0,000 0,000 00,000,0,000 San José Engineering Building Renewal PWC 0,000 0,000 00,000,,000 San José Campus Building Entry Door ADA Upgrades PWC 10,000 0, ,000,,000 San José Clark Hall th Floor Renovation PWC 1,00, ,00,000,1,000

27 01-01 Infrastructure Improvements Program Project List Cost Estimates are at Engineering News Record California Construction Cost Index 0 and Equipment Price Index ACADEMIC PROJECTS cont'd Campus Reserves Total Project Cumulative Total Project 01-1 $0M Divvy by GSF SRB-AP Campus Project Title Ph. San Luis Obispo Fremont Hall Emergency Landslide Remediation PWC 0,000,000,000,000,1,000,,000 San Luis Obispo Classroom Upgrades PWC 0,000 00,000 0,000,0,000 San Luis Obispo Kinesiology Building Leak Repair PWC 00,000,00,000,000,000 1,0,000 San Luis Obispo Building 0 Renovation PWC,00,000 0,00,000,,000 San Luis Obispo Substation Redundancy PW 00, ,000,,000 San Luis Obispo Administration HVAC Replacement P 0, ,000,,000 San Marcos Craven Hall HVAC Renewal PWC 1,000 11,,000 1,,000,,000 1,10,000 San Marcos Elevator Renewal, Multiple Buildings PWC 11,000 1,1,000 1,,000,0,000 San Marcos Service Road - Life/Safety Upgrades PWC 1,000 1,,000 1,0,000 0,01,000 San Marcos Campus Way Accessibility Improvements PWC,000,000 0,000 0,,000 Sonoma Transformers and Switchgear, Ph. PWC 0,000,000 1,1,000 1,,000 Sonoma Electrical Infrastructure Replacement, Ph. 1 PWC 100,000 00,000 1,000,000,1,000 Stanislaus Library Reno./Infr. Repairs (Seismic)-Surge Space PWC 0 1,1,000 1,1,000,,000,000 Stanislaus Drama Air Handler Replacement PWC 1,000 1,,000 1,,000,0,000 Stanislaus ADA Barrier Removal PWC,000,000 0,000,,000 Stanislaus Acacia Court HVAC Replacement (Stockton Ctr.) PWC,000,,000,,000 01,0,000 Systemwide HVAC and Electrical Upgrades PWC 0 0,000,000 0,000,000 1,0,000 Total ACADEMIC Infrastructure Improvements Program $,,000 $,0,000 $ 1,0,000 $ 1,0,000 $ 0,000,000 SELF-SUPPORT PROJECTS Campus Reserves Total Project Cumulative Total Project SRB-SS Campus Project Title Ph. Chico Campus Parking Improvements PWC,000,000 0,000,000,000,000 Chico Residence Hall Replacement S 00, ,000,00,000 Chico University Village Upgrades PWC 1,, ,,000,,000 Chico Esken, Mechoopda, Konkow Restrooms ADA Renovation PWC 1,00, ,00,000,,000 Chico Housing: Bike Barns PWC 0, ,000,,000 Chico College Park - Demolish Residences PWC 00, ,000,,000 Chico Sutter Hall Breezeway PWC 0, ,000,,000 Chico Housing Security Upgrade, Ph. 1 PWC 00, ,000,1,000 Fullerton Student Health & Counseling Center-Generator Replace PWC 0, ,000,,000 Fullerton Student Health & Counseling Center-East Electrical Upgrades PWC 1, ,000,1,000 Fullerton Titan Bookstore Elevator Modernization PWC 0, ,000,,000 Fullerton Ruby Gerontology Electrical Upgrades PWC 1, ,000,,000 Fullerton Ruby Gerontology Air Handling Unit PWC 10, ,000,0,000 Fullerton Baseball/Softball Improvement PW,00,000 0,00,000 10,1,000 Maritime Residence Hall Electrical System Renewal PWC 10, ,000 10,,000 Maritime Dining Hall Emergency Power Project PWC 00, ,000 10,,000 Total SELF-SUPPORT Infrastructure Improvements Program $ 10,,000 $ - $ 10,,000 $ 10,,000