2007/09/25 City Council Resolution 2007-164RESOLUTION NO. 2007-164
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
APPROVING THE "CITY OF ROHNERT PARK GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
REDUCTION ACTION PLAN ANALYSIS" PREPARED BY THE CLIMATE
PROTECTION CAMPAIGN AND ADOPTING "PLAN C" OF THE PLAN TO REDUCE
GREENHOUSE GASES GENERATED BY CITY OPERATIONS.
WHEREAS, emissions resulting from the use of fossil fuels contribute to the
phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect; and
WHEREAS, the current accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is
contributing to global climate change; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park is responsible for its portion of the total
greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere; and
WHEREAS, a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to avoid
potentially catastrophic consequences from hastened changes in the global climate condition
resulting from the greenhouse effect; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2004 -111 that
set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in the year 2010 over year 2000 levels; and
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 2004 -111 directs staff to develop a Climate
Action Plan to reach the greenhouse gas reduction target; and
WHEREAS, City staff has worked with the Climate Protection Campaign to develop the
"City of Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan Analysis" that
identifies four possible paths to reach the target goal;, and
WHEREAS, the City has shown exemplary leadership and environmental stewardship
through the implementation of the Green Building Ordinance, Energy Efficiency Ordinance, and
establishment of Title 14 — Sustainability to address global climate change and environmental
issues, which will collectively contribute to a reduced rate of greenhouse gas emissions and
further promote sustainability within the City,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park that it does hereby approve and adopt the "City of Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction Action Plan Analysis" as the source document for identifying measures and actions to
be taken to reach the target goal.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that
"Plan C" of the "City of Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Analysis" is hereby adopted as the preferred plan of action to reach the target goal.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
'hereby directs staff to commence implementation of "Plan C" to reduce the City's greenhouse
gas emissions and reach the target goal of 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year
2010.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 25`x' day of September, 2007.
ATTEST:
rty Clerk
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
Mayor
L OIL
� Y
BREEZE: AYE MACKENZIE: AYE SMITH: AYE STAFFORD: AYE VIDAK- MARTINEZ: AYE
AYES: (5) NOES: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0)
City of Rohnert Park
Greenhouse Gas 'Emissions
0
-250
-500
-750
,-1,000
e
.9-1,250
; -1,500
U 1,750
-2,000
-2,250
-2,500
-2,750
00 01 Oti 03 Ob Oh O� 04 Om O� ,y0 .y1 .y'L ,�'S SQ '15
Year
0%
-10%
M, PV
-20%
c
-30% 2 ■ Water /Sewer
u
-40% v
Coe
-50% y
-60% m Fleet
c
-70% u B Street Lights
-80% o.
-90 Buildings
°/a
-100%
0%
-10%
-20% P PV
C
0
'u s Water /Sewer
-40% 9
-50%
Commute
y
rn
-60% m Flee[
c
70 w 0 Street Lights
-80% a-
-90% n Buildings
- 100%
0
-250
-500
-750
a -1,000
}o -1,250
n -1,500
U -1,750
-2,000
-2,250
-2,500
-2,750
00 Oy Ov O� OP 05 00 01 Om 00 ,y0 .y1 '>�' 13 La 1y
Year
CO2 Reduction by Sector
0%
-10%
-20% 0 PV
-30% MWater /Sewer
-40%
Commute
-50%
-60% Fleet
-70% aStreet Lights
-80%
a Buildings
-90%
-100%
0%
-10%
-20% ,MPV
0
-30 %' ® Water /Sewer
-40% d
-50% d "Commute
rn
-60% m Fleet
-70% u
� -d1 Street Lights
-80% a
-90% 0 Buildings
-100%
Acknowledtements
This work was made possible, in large part to the financial support provided by the Sonoma
County Energy Watch program.' Without their important commitment, this work would not be
possible. In addition, there were many individual contributors to the success of this project. The
City of Rohnert Park Staff were particularly accessible, providing the key information required
to develop the measures in these Action Plans. Peter Bruck was tremendously helpful in the
critical role of city contact and coordinator and Steve Donley provided the clear guidance
necessary for appropriate plan development. The author would also like to express appreciation
to Richard Behrends for his considerable contributions to our understanding of the city
mechanical systems, and associated opportunities. The author would also like to acknowledge
the important technical support of Jim Housman, PE, Ralph Frick, PE and Tim Conger for their
support in the development and quality assurance of the analysis underpinning the results
presented in this report. Great appreciation is offered to Erika Walther of ABAG Energy Watch
for the energy efficiency contributions of her team, and Ann Hancock, Executive Director of the
Climate Protection Campaign whose inspiration is the driving force propelling this work
forward. Finally, ultimate appreciation goes to the Rohnert Park City Council for their vision for
a stronger, more secure future for our community, expressed in many ways, including their
support for this important work.
Disclaimer: The Climate Protection Campaign and its subcontractors do riot imply any guarantees. The information
contained in this report is intended to support the City in its efforts to understand the greenhouse gas emissions trend
and opportunities for city operations and employee commutes. All results are approximations using standard
engineering methodologies, based on historical energy usage.
This program is funded by the California utility ratepayers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC). Legal Notice: This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the California Public
Utilities Commission (Commission). It does not necessarily represent the views of the commission, its employees,
or the state of California. The commission, the state of California, its employees, implementers, and
subimplementers make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in the
report: nor does any party represent that the use of this information not infringe upon privately owned rights. This
report has not been approved or disapproved by the commission nor has the commission passed up on the accuracy
or adequacy of the information in this report.
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................... ...................:........... 4
1.1 Background ....................................................................................... ..............................5
1.2 Methodology .................................................................................... ............................... 7
1.3 Results ............................................................................................... ..............................8
1:4 Summary .......................................................................................... .............................18
2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................ .............................19
3.0 Methodology ..................................................................................... ............................... 20
3.1 Context ............................................................................................. .............................20
3.2 Measure Identification ................................................................... ............................... 21
3.3 Measure Assumptions: General Variables ..................................... ............................... 21
3.4 Measure Specific Variables ........................................................... ............................... 23
3.5 Financial Analysis Results ............................................................. ............................... 23
3.6 Community Benefit ........................................................................ ............................... 24
3.7 Measure Evaluation ........................................:.............................. ............................... 24
4.0 Results ............................................................................................... ............................... 26
4.1 GHG Impacts and Plan Financial Results ........................................ .............................26
4.2 Action Plan Evaluations ................................................................. ............................... 27
4.3 Energy Rate Escalation and Associated Budget Vulnerability ...... ............................... 28
4.4 Non Efficiency Related Capital Cost Satisfied by Plans ............... ............................... 31
4.5 Plan Details .................................................................................... ............................... 34
5.0 Measure Details ................................................................................ ............................... 44
5.1 Measure Selection .......................................................................... ............................... 45
5.2 Measures Results ................................................... :...................................................... 46
6.0 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................. ............................... 78
7.0 Appendices .......................................................................................... .............................78
7.1 Action Plan Evaluations ................................................................. ............................... 79
7.2 Plan Comparisons Including Completed Projects .......................... ............................... 82
7.3 Pump Lists .............................................................................. ...............................
....... 83
7.4 Vehicle Lists .................................................................................. ............................... 84
7.5 Carbon Credits ....:.......................................................................... ............................... 89
7.6 Electric Vehicles ............................................................................ ............................... 93
7.7 Commute Programs ....................................................................... ............................... 97
7.8 Measure Input Summaries ........................................................... ............................... 102
List of Tables
Table 1: GHG Action Plan Financial Results .................................................. ............................... 9
Table2: Measure List .................................................................................... ............................... 12
Table3: General Inputs .................................................................................. ............................... 22
Table 4: Action Plan Financial Results .......................................................... ............................... 26
Table 5: Capital Expenses Satisfied by Plans ................................................ ............................... 32
Table6: List of Measures .............................................................................. ............................... 44
Table7: Plan Compositions .................... ....................................................... ............................... 45
Table 8: Example Measure Evaluation Table ................................................ ............................... 46
Table 9: Measure List and Evaluations .......................................................... ............................... 80
Table 10: Evaluation Matrix .......................................................... ............................................... 81
Table 11: Net Cash Flow Including Completed Projects ............................... ............................... 82
List of Figures
Figure 1: City of Rohnert Park GHG inventory as a percentage of the 2000 total ......................... 5
Figure 2: Energy Rate Escalation Scenarios .................................................... ............................... 6
Figure 3: Annual Cost of Energy* ............ ............... 11
Figure 4: Baseline GHG emissions by sector as a percentage of the total .... :.............................. 19
Figure 5: Energy Rate Escalation Scenarios .................................................. ............................... 29
Figure 6: Annual Cost of Energy* ........................ ...... 30
Figure 7: Plan A GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector ................................ ............................... 34
Figure 8: Plan B GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector ................................ ............................... 36
Figure 9: Plan C GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector ................................ ............................... 38
Figure 10: Plan D GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector .............................. ............................... 40
Figure 11: Plan E GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector ............................... ............................... 42
Figure 12: Relative Strengths of Each Plan ........................................:.......... ............................... 81
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
1.0 Executive Summary
The City of Rohnert Park is implementing the ICLEI program to reduce the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from city controlled sources. This program has five steps, referred to as
"Milestones." Milestone 1, creating the GHG inventory, and Milestone 2, setting a reduction
target have been completed. The City Council has adopted a reduction target for internal
operations of 20% below 2000 levels by 2010. Milestone 3 requires the creation of a plan to
meet this target. This report and associated analysis provides the roadmap to satisfy Milestone 3
providing four measure - specific plans to reduce emissions by more than 20 %. Furthermore, the
framework associated with this material will support the City in meeting the requirements of
Milestone 4 (implementation) and Milestone 5 (monitoring and adjustment). The framework
facilitates the integration of new and revised information, taking advantage of new opportunities
and allowing adjustments to under performing initiatives.
The analysis, and resulting GHG emissions reduction plans, incorporates many opportunities in
the various contributing sectors (Building Efficiency, Fleet, Commute, Water /Sewer,
Streetlights, and Photovoltaic), as identified by the City Staff as the best available information at
the time of research. The results provide an emissions impact estimate for five plans with the
corresponding financial analysis.
The results for each plan include the GHG emissions reduction expressed in tons CO2e
(equivalent CO2 emissions) 2 and as a percentage of the total City GHG emissions. These results
are presented along with a number of other important metrics, including the internal rate of
return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) of each plan. These are critical in the financial
evaluation of the "investment ". Other information includes the budget resources not sent to the
utility company and the fuel companies, and the value of the resources redirected to local
investments. Plan C, for example, results in over $5 million in local investment over the 25 year
life of the plan.
Five Action Plans are presented. Each plan has advantages and challenges, which are described
in the following sections of this report. Action Plan A contains those measures already
implemented by City Staff since 2000. Because Plan A represents "no further action ", it does
not meet the target reduction of 20% by 2010. However, the other four plans do exceed this
target, resulting in reductions from 23% to over 50 %.
The intent of this work is to allow the independent plans to be considered on their merits in
numerous areas, providing the capability to compare the comprehensive costs and benefits of
competing paths, and thereby allow Policy Makers the ability to select the most appropriate path
to reducing global warming pollution emissions in the City of Rohnert Park.
2 CO2e: Equivalent CO2 in lbs or tons. The additional greenhouse gases such as methane are converted into the
equivalent amount of CO2 for analysis and clearer presentation.
Climate Protection Campaign 4 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
1.1 Background
_ Sonoma County public jurisdictions (cities and counties) have adopted
T global warming pollution reduction targets and have committed to
developing action plans. The first step, creating the inventory of
emissions produced by the internal operations has been completed for all
cities and the county. The City of Rohnert Park emissions by sector are
- - - presented as a percentage of the total emissions in Figure 1 below.
The total emissions for 2000 are 2,749 tons of CO2e. Solid waste provides a GHG credit as the
waste facility utilized by the waste contractor is equipped to gather and utilize the methane
produced 3. There were no significant new sources of GHG emissions identified since the
baseline year of 20004. The analysis assumes that the addition of the new, energy efficient City
Hall will be balanced out by the decommissioning of the existing City Hall. This assumption can
be modified when energy usage data becomes available for the newly renovated building.
Baseline GHG Emissions by Sector
Solid Waste
0%
Wastewater
13%
Figure 1: City of Rohnert Park GHG inventory as a percentage of the 2000 total
3 This approach is consistent with the ICLEI methodology for solid waste.
4 The recently completed library is controlled by the County and therefore is not analyzed in this report.
Climate Protection Campaign 5 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Many of the measures available to reduce GHG emissions also will reduce the City electricity
and natural gas costs. These costs are a significant element of the municipal budget, and the
potential volatility of their costs represents a threat beyond the control of City Staff. Figure 2
below provides the trends for the annual cost of utility supplied electricity and natural gas based
on four rate escalation scenarios. The electricity and natural gas related measures contained in
this analysis will reduce the, vulnerability to utility price increases.
Energy Rate Escalation Impact;
City of Rohnert Park annual cost trendlines for four energy cost escalation rates (Plan A: no additional GHG actions)
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
N
O
U
N
M
2 $2,000,000
L
3
R
Z
C $1,500,000
O
v
d $1,000,000
W
R
O
G
G
Q $500,000
$0
00 O^ Ol O;) Otx O`' O`° OA 04' O°' NZ' NN ^l N'� ^D Nb Nb �,A N%
�o do �yo do .�yo do ,yo do do ,yo �o �yo do ,yo do �yo ,yo �o
Figure 2: Energy Rate Escalation Scenarios
Annual
Energy
Energy
Escalation'
Cost
Rate
$2,4197116
10%
$1,494,610 6%
$1,103,230 3.5%
$872,417 1.7%
Climate Protection Campaign 6 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
1.2 Methodology
Plan C 978 Tons CO2 Avoided 35.6% GHG Reduction
Community Benefit lover 25 year life of plan)
Financial Metrics
SPB: 12.4
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments $6,776,259
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases $1,473,872
IRR: 15.3%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects $5,010,979
NPV: $1,286,650
The Rohnert Park GHG emissions inventory for
2000 was established in 20035 and provides the
baseline for this work. The specific actions and
events affecting this baseline that were identified
by City Staff were factored into the inventory and
resulted in a trend from 2000 to 2007. These are
individually identified and quantified in Action Plan A representing completed projects.
The options for future action by the city, comprised of measures applicable to building and
equipment energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, alternative fuel options; and distributed energy
generation projects, have been identified and quantified. These have been evaluated and
presented as individual measures, and as groups of measures (plans). Each is assigned a status
(completed, pending or future) and an implementation date to enable the trending and future
results graphs.
The measures are grouped to create comprehensive GHG emissions reduction plans. Each of the
plans is analyzed to provide profiles enabling the evaluation of the plans individually and in
comparison to the other plan options. Measure specific data such as capital cost, year of
implementation, financing, energy and cost savings were processed to provide the following
information for the five action plans:
• Emissions reduction in tons CO2e avoided and as percentage of target
• CO2e reduction by sector
• Annual Cash Flow including debt service, replacement cost and incremental O &M costs
• Outstanding principal and debt service by year
• Simple Payback (SPB) for each plan
• Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for each plan
• Net Present Value (NPV) for each plan
• Avoided utility company payments (NPV over life of plan)
• Avoided fuel purchases (NPV over life of plan)
• Value invested locally in emission reduction projects
A measure evaluation matrix was employed to quantify subjective considerations to allow their
inclusion in the planning process. The evaluation scoring contributes to the understanding of the
opportunities but is not intended to provide a final ranking of the measures. The decision to
include measures in each plan is dependent on its role in achieving the objective of that plan, and
is therefore independent of any fixed criteria or ranking. The results of the evaluation are
provided in the Appendices.
5 GHG Inventory Report Rohnert Park, Hyun Moon, City of Rohnert Park, September 2003.
Climate Protection Campaign 7 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
1.3 Results
Five plans have been created for consideration by the
-1- City of Rohnert Park. These plans consist of numerous
2,350Y 9G
2.000 -20 30% = measures to reduce GHG emissions, reduce energy
..1,]50
0 = o ��
T-1
-500 z� 5 a , costs, address equipment problems, and reduce the
a,250
Aso t ;o% uncertainty of the city's future annual energy costs.
500: Summary financial information is provided in Table 1
350 ✓ e
09 below. The results contained in this table should be
" °_. "'J considered with the Action Plan Evaluations provided in
the Appendices to understand the relative strengths of each combination of measures populating
the Action Plans. Detailed information for each measure is provided within the Measure Details
section of this report.
Plan Results and Comparison Tables
Table 1 provides important financial information for each plan including the net annual cash
flow. The "% Reduction" is the amount of CO2e reduced as a percentage of the total city
emissions. Plan A, completed projects, indicates a reduction of 10.9% below the year 2000
(baseline) emissions. Plan E provides a strategy to reduce the city's emissions to 50.3% below
2000 emissions.
The financial analysis is provided with each plan. The critical metrics of Internal Rate of Return
(IRR), and Net Present Value (NPV) provide important information to evaluate the worthiness of
the investment from a cash flow perspective. It is important to note the large negative net cash
flows for Plans D and E in year 2022. These are incurred by a substantial reinvestment in a large
photovoltaic (PV) system (replacement of the associated inverters after 12 years) and the
replacement of the energy efficient fleet after 10 years of service.6 Both costs may be considered
overstated, and therefore conservative.
The cash flow results below do not include the effects of completed projects. When these are
added into the financial analysis, the IRR and NPV are substantially improved .due to the
substantial financial returns of these earlier energy efficiency investments. These results are
presented in the Appendices.
G The assumption is that the cost of inverters will increase at the generally assumed inflation rate of 3 %. However
likely advances in technology, and improved economies of scale for the industry suggest this is overly conservative.
The aggressive fleet measure assumes all vehicles are repurchased in 2022 (after a 10 year life). In practice, the
purchases are phased which would improve the net cash flow for 2022 and decrease the cash flows for surrounding
years.
Climate Protection Campaign 8 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
GHG Action Plan Summary
Analysis
Plan A
Plan B
Plan C
Plan D
Plan E
% Reduction
10.9%
23.2 %
35.6%
42.9%
50.3%
SPB
2.1
0.9
12.4
16.5
20.1
IRR
76.6%
138.2%
15.3%
9.1%
3.4%
NPV
$1,758,018
$1,567,607
$1,286,650
$1,029,859
($357,822)
Annual Cash Flow
Plan A
Plan B
Plan C
Plan D
Plan E
2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
$34,014
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
$35,768
$0
$0
$0
$0
2004
$37,583
$0
$0
$0
$0
2005
$39,463
$0
$0
$0
$0
2006
$24,662
$0
$0
$0
$0
2007
$15,744
($5,000)
($5,000)
($5,000)
($5,000)
2008
$21,330
$18,569
$4,436
$14,284
$4,436
2009
$43,216
$20,573
$15,394
($40,623)
($141,716)
2010
$49,196
$31,237
$34,717
($59,748)
($155,695)
2011
$55,383
$55,621
($23,668)
($86,206)
($224,810)
2012
$61,783
$61,166
($142,321)
($59,559)
($240,249)
2013
$68,406
$66,911
($49,700)
($211,145)
($391,277)
2014
$108,060
$83,896
($30,521)
($182,259)
($362,801)
2015
$115,149
$111,332
$9,031
($159,583)
($330,695)
2016
$122,483
$117,721
$17,766
($74,901)
($213,636)
2017
$130,071
$124,341
$26,809
($55,182)
($194,351)
2018
$87,728
$142,132
$105,826
$183,602
$43,535
2019
$146,045
.$69,443
$137,864
($63,271)
($203,787)
2020
$154,449
$126,031
$94,993
$249,015
$108,040
2021.
$163,145
$186,560
$218,255
$324,433
$242,958
2022
$269,648
$194,454
$58,215
($1,710,536)
($1,831,577)
2023
$278,956
$202,630
$198,365
$371,752
$247,540
2024
$288,587
$217,606
$311,636
$403,119
$380,161
2025
$298,552 1
$226,375 j
$323,567 j
$428,815 j
$405,358
Table 1: GHG Action Plan Financial Results
Climate Protection Campaign 9 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Energy Rate Escalation and Associated Budget Vulnerability
There is considerable discussion about the availability of fossil fuels in the near and middle term
future (5 to 20 years). The "Peak Oil" movement suggests that we are at or near the point where
our increased global demand for oil cannot be supplied from new petroleum discoveries, while
production from existing oil fields is waning. Similar arguments are made for natural gas supply
vs. demand. If demand outstrips supply, simple economics indicates that the cost to consumers
will escalate rapidly, until the global demand is sufficiently dampened and realigns with
available supply. The concern is significant enough to have prompted a US government
sponsored study to determine the impacts of demand exceeding supply in the near future.7 This
issue has important implications for local Sonoma County jurisdictions. Forty percent of PG &E
power is generated by natural gas. A spike in the. cost of this energy source will result in
significant increases in the cost of electrical power, as well as increased volatility in the cost of
natural gas used directly by the City.
Energy efficiency projects and photovoltaic energy systems can play a significant role in
moderating this vulnerability. Figure 3 below provides potential impact of energy efficiency
strategies on the associated vulnerability. For example, under the 3.5% escalation rate scenario,
the city would reduce its utility payments by nearly $400,000 per year ($1,103,230 - $703,300)
in 2020 by implementing the aggressive Action Plan E. If there were a significant disruption in
the supply of energy in California (energy escalation rate = 10% per year) the City would reduce
payments by a significantly greater amount.
7 Hirsch, Robert. et al. (February 2005) "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk
Management." SAIC.
Climate Protection Campaign 10 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Energy Cost Vulnerability
Annual Cost Trendlines for Plan A and Plan E for various energy cost escalation rates
8.20.07
Escal. Rate = 10.0%
19 No
Artinn
Figure 3: Annual Cost of Energy*
*Note: Data labels for Plan B and Plan D are omitted for clarity.
Rate = 3.5%
47 No
Action
30 Plan A
39 Plan C
)0 Plan E
Late = 1.7%
'2 Plan E
Action Plan Detafls
The measures used in this analysis are provided in Table 2 below. The first five columns
indicate which measure is included in each Action Plan. More information on the measures is
available in the Measure Details section of the report. The material that follows provides the
results for each Action Plan. It is important to note that some measures are mutually exclusive.
Measures 27 and 28, for example, apply to the same set of equipment, the city pumps. Measure
27 is more aggressive, setting a lower threshold of annual savings as the criteria for inclusion.
Therefore, a plan would select either Measure 27 or Measure 28 but not both. The fleet
measures incorporate similar considerations.
Climate Protection Campaign 11 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
Measure
Summary
Description
Status
A
B
C
D
E
y :
y.
y
'y
y
Measure 1
APS Measures
Completed
y
Y,
y
:;y
y.
Measure
lighting Retrofit (multi -bldg)
Completed .
n
y
y
y
y!:
Measure 3
Building HVAC
- Future
n
n
y
y
y
Measure4
Computer Network Controls ,
....future
n
;, "y
y
-y
y
Measure5
Addtl Lighting
Future
y
y,
y
y
y
Measure 6
Pool Covers
Completed
n
'.. y
y
'y
y. -:
Measure
.Decommission Fountain -.. -.
Future
n
;" y
n
'y
y,
Measure 8
Boiler.Replcmnt Sports Center
Future
n
n
y
-.y
y:
Measure 9
Lift Station #1
Future
n
n
y
y
y.`
Measure 10
- H -Pool Solar Wtr -
Future .
n
y
y
y
q
Measure 11
Pool Pump Measures
Future
n
n
n
;y
y
Measure 12
City Fleet New 2 -
Future
n
y
y;
y
y ,
Measure 13
PV -New. City Hall
Future
n
n
n
y
y `.
Measure 14
PVSuppying100% Wtr &taste
Energy Cost
Future .
y
y
'�y
y
' y':
Measure 15
PV. APS
- Completed
n
n
y
n
y.`,
Measure 16
PV4
Future
n
n
y
n
y-
Measure 17
PV5
SFuture
n
' Y'
y
!y
y
Measure 18
PV6 -CREBS
- Future
n
n
n
y
y,.'
Measure 19
Commute - -
Future
y
!;y.
" y
y,
y-
Measure 20
Fleet 2000 -2006
Completed
n
;. y
n
n
n
Measure 21
- Biodiesel 620
. Future
n
n
n
: y
y:
Measure 22
Fleet Natural Gas. Conversions -
Future
n
y
y ''
n
n
Measure 23
City Fleet New 1
Future
n
n
. ,y
y
y
. Measure 24
-. Biodiesel. B100
Future
n
n
y. -;;
n
n
Measure 25
Ethanol E85
- Future
Y
; y
, y
y
y
Measure 26
Pump Measures (4 implemented)
completed
n
n
n,
y
y
Measure 27
Pump Measures (Savings criteria
$800Y S
Future
n
y
'.y'..
n
n
Measure 28
Pump Measures (Savings criteria
$1500)'.
Future
n
y
z, y
y
y;
Measure 29
Staff Coordinator
future
n
y y
• y
y
y _':
Measure 30
APS Public Safety. Central DDC
' Future
Table 2: Measure List
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign 12 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Plan A 299 Tons CO2 Avoided
10.9%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
Financial Metrics
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$3,008,849
SPB:
2.1
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$75,610
IRR:
76.6%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$1,377,574
NPV:
$1,758,018
Action Plan A: This plan includes only the completed projects. These measures (See Plan
Details) include building and water pump efficiency improvements, and a photovoltaic project.
The cash flow reflects the City's investment in two significant efficiency projects implemented
in 2001 (lighting retrofit) and 2006 (building HVAC, LED traffic signals, and PV). The
resulting annual cash flow is the net income to the city (energy cost savings minus project debt
service, replacement costs and associated O &M).
Annual Cash Flow
Plan A
2000
$0
2001
$0
2002
$34,014
2003
$35,768
2004
$37,583
2005
$39,463
2006
$24,662
2007
$15,744
2008
$21,330
2009
$43,216
2010
$49,196
2011
$55,383
2012
$61,783
2013
$68,406
2014
$108,060
2015
$115,149
2016
$122,483
2017
$130,071
2018
$87,728
2019
$146,045
2020
$154,449
2021
$163,145
2022
$269,648
2023
$278,956
2024
$288,587
2025
$298,552
,CO2 Reduction by Sector
0
-250
-500
-750
1,000
N
-1,250
0 -1,500
v -1,750
-2,000
-2,250
-2,500
2 750
� F ✓.H r x�7s� r xr�a
i ;ud mss:^
' y ,
now
r;r
f{ fj X ££ i 2 `�•
ry0 ry0 ry0 ry0 ry0 ry0 ry0 ry0 ,LO rt0 ,LO ,y0 ry0 ry0 ry0 ry0
Year
0%
-10% 0 W
-20% c
-30% ■ Water /Sewer
40% .; Commute
50%
o Fleet
50% r
c
70% a Street Lights
.80% a Buildings
90%
100
Climate Protection Campaign 13 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Plan B 639 Tons CO2 Avoided
23.2%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
Financial Metrics
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$5,175,611
SPB:
0.9
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$767,924
IRR:
138.2%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$3,009,917
NPV:
$1,567,607
Action Plan B: This plan includes all completed projects, and an additional 12 measures (see
Plan Details). The new measures include a wide range of projects, from building air conditioning
to a photovoltaic project. This plan allows the City to exceed the target of 20% GHG emissions
reduction by 2010. The projected reduction of 23.8% provides a margin of flexibility for
changing conditions and unforeseen difficulties in implementing the plan. The resulting annual
cash flow is the net income to the city (energy cost savings minus project debt service,
replacement costs and associated O &M), and represents a net gain for the city in each year after
2007.
Annual Cash Flow
Plan B
2000
$0
2001
$0
2002
$0
2003
$0
2004
$0
2005
$0
2006
$0
2007
($5,000)
2008
$8,720
2009
$10,725
2010
$26,389
2011
$45,773
2012
$51,317
2013
$57,063
2014
$74,047
2015
$111,332
2016
$117,721
2017
$124,341
2018
$142,132
2019
$69,443
2020
$126,031
2021
$186,560
2022
$194,454
2023
$202,630
2024
$217,606
2025
$226,375
CO2 Reductions by Sector
0%
-10%
M PV
-20%
r
-30%
0 s Water /Sewer
-40%
v
3
y Commute
-50%
y
-60%
A Fleet
c
70%
u RStreet Lights
-80%
a
Buildings
-90%
- 100%
Climate Protection Campaign 14 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Plan C 978 Tons CO2 Avoided
35.6%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
Financial Metrics
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$6,776,259
SPB:
12.4
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$1,473,872
IRR:
15.3%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$5,010,979
NPV:
$1,286,650
Action Plan C: This plan includes all completed projects, and another 17 measures. In addition
to many of the measures of Plan B, Plan C includes a wide range of projects from building air
conditioning to fleet measures. This plan includes additional photovoltaic projects, biodiesel fuel
(100 %), and ethanol fuel (85 %). Plan C significantly exceeds the City target of 20% GHG
emissions reduction by 2010, yet maintains very attractive financial metrics. The Internal Rate
of Return is over 15% and the Net Present Value exceeds $1,000,000 over the term of the
analysis (25 years). The annual net cash flow (energy cost savings minus project debt service,
replacement costs and associated O &M) is negative for several years. However, the magnitude
appears quite reasonable given the ERR and NPV results.
Annual Cash Flow
Plan C
2000
$0
2001
$0
2002
$0
2003
$0
2004
$0
2005
$0
2006
$0
2007
$0
2008
($14,673)
2009
($4,383)
2010
$14,247
2011
($44,854)
2012
($164,249)
2013
($72,396)
2014
($54,011)
2015
($15,280) a
2016
($7,397)
2017
$766
2018
$78,871
2019
$109,966
2020
$66,118
2021
$188,370
2022
$27,283
2023
$166,351
2024
$278,502
2025
$289,273
0
-250
-500
CO2 Reduction by Sector
0%
-10%
-20%
0
-30% .0
0
-40% y
-50%
-60% c
d
70%
m
-80% d-
-90%
-100%
19 PV
® Water /Sewer
Commute
* Fleet
® Street Lights
El Buildings
Climate Protection Campaign 15 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Plan D 1,179 Tons CO2 Avoided
42.9%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
% Reduction
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$8,018,672
SPB:
16.5
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$2,614,190
IRR:
9.1%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$7,544,220
NPV:
$1,029,859
Action Plan D: This plan includes all completed projects, and another 18 measures (several are
different than Plan C). In addition to many of the measures Plan B and C, Plan D includes a wide
range of projects, from building air conditioning to fleet fuel measures. This plan is less
aggressive with PV projects and more aggressive with the fleet purchases and pump efficiency
measures, resulting in a doubling of GHG emissions reduction as compared to the City target of
20 %. However, these impressive results are not without additional costs, resulting in an IRR
under 10 %. The NPV remains near $1,000,000. The annual net cash flow is significantly more
challenging than the previous plans. The large negative cash flow in 2012 is due to the
replacement of the PV inverters, and the group replacement of vehicles. These expenses would
be spread out over several years in practice.
Annual Cash Flow
Plan D
2000
$0
2001
$0
2002
$0
2003
$0
2004
$0
2005
$0
2006
$0
2007
($5,000)
2008
$4,436
2009
($50,471)
2010
($64,597)
2011
($96,055)
2012
($69,407)
2013
($220,994)
2014
($192,108)
2015
($159,583)
2016
($74,901)
2017
($55,182)
2018
$183,602
2019
($63,271)
2020
$249,015
2021
$324,433
2022
($1,710,536)
2023
$371,752
2024
$403,119
limatmWotect
on Vgm
CO2 Reduction by Secto,rl
0%
-10%
-20% M PV
-3061. ! Water /Sewer,
-40%
-50% Commute
-60% Fleet
-70% z Street Lights
-80%
Buildings
-9o�% o
-100%
gn 16 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Plan E 1,384 Tons CO2 Avoided
50.3%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
Financial Metrics
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$8,983,255
SPB:
20.1
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$2,927,243
IRR:
3.4%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$8,980,626
NPV:
($357,822)
Action Plan E: This plan includes all completed projects, and another 22 measures. All
measures are implemented to their maximum potential. Two PV projects (measures 16 and 17)
are doubled in size, to 60 kWac. The resulting reduction in GHG emissions exceeds 50 %. Yet,
this strategy yields in a challenging cash flow and a low IRR of 3.4 %. The NPV is negative, in
large part to the poor economics of the two PV projects mentioned above. The implementation
date of 2011 of these projects is. after the CPUC8 incentives are projected 'to expire. However,
this plan provides the greatest security against energy cost escalations as detailed in Figure 6.
Annual Cash Flow
Plan E
2000
$0
2001
$0
2002
$0
2003
$0
2004
$0
2005
$0
2006
$0
2007
$0
2008
($14,673)
2009
($161,493)
2010
($176,165)
2011
($245,996)
2012
($262,177)
2013
($414,946)
2014
($387,278)
2015
($356,007)
2016
($239,813)
2017
($221,423)
2018
$15,993
2019
($232,287)
2020
$78,549
2021
$212,440
2022
($1,865,845)
2023
$214,862
2024
$346,346
CalifoMUPublic
AM093
CO2 Reduction by Sector;
fission
0%
=10%
ow
-20
-30%
o` ® Water /Sew er
-40%
U
d 0 Comrute
-50%
u
A 0 Reet
-60%
-70%
v
w ® Street Lights
a
-80
0 Buildings
-90
-100%
Climate Protection Campaign 17 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
1.4 Summary
The GHG emissions reduction of 20% by 2010 can be achieved by a number of paths
documented in this report. Each path, or Action Plan, is comprised of up to 26 individual
measures, each is evaluated for the financial costs and benefits they contribute to the overall
strategy. The analysis model underpinning these results will be available for incorporating new
information and technologies as they come available, as well as truing the analysis with
monitored data. The comprehensive approach to addressing this goal allows the City to meet a
number of related goals, including improving the long tern financial health of Rohnert Park,
addressing the existing maintenance demands of aging equipment, and providing the public
demonstration of commitment and progress in the highly visible challenge of greenhouse gas
emissions reduction.
Climate Protection Campaign 18 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
2.0 Introduction
Public jurisdictions (cities and counties) have adopted global warming pollution reduction targets
and have committed to developing action plans. These detailed plans are required to provide a
roadmap to meet the goals and a framework to track and verify the progress toward the goal over
the life of the plan.
The Climate Protection Campaign provides these capabilities by using an analysis method
developed for the City of Sebastopol. This method incorporates all measures across the various
sectors (Building Efficiency, Fleet, Commute, Water /Sewer, Streetlights, and Photovoltaic), and
provides an accurate emissions impact estimate and a comprehensive financial analysis.
Furthermore,. this analysis allows independent plans to be analyzed, providing the capability to
compare the cost / benefits of competing paths to global warming pollution emissions reduction.
Figure 4: Baseline GHG emissions by sector as a percentage of the total
Climate Protection Campaign 19 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Context
The Rohnert Park GHG emissions inventory for 2000, established in September 2003, provides
the baseline for this work.9 The specific actions and events affecting this baseline were
identified by City Staff and factored into the inventory to establish the trend from 2000 to 2007.
These measures are individually identified and quantified in Action Plan A, which is comprised
of completed projects.
The options for future action by the city, comprised of measures applicable to building and
equipment energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, alternative fuel options, and distributed energy
generation projects, have been identified and quantified. These have been evaluated and
presented as individual measures, and as groups of measures (plans). Each is assigned a status
(completed, pending or future) to enable the trending and future results graphs.
The measures are grouped to create comprehensive GHG emissions reduction plans. Each of the
plans is analyzed to provide profiles enabling the evaluation of the plans individually and in
comparison to the other plan options.
Measure specific data such as capital cost, year of implementation, financing, energy and cost
savings were processed to provide the following information for five action plans:
• Emissions reduction in tons CO2 avoided and as percentage of target
• CO2 reduction by sector
• Annual cash flow including debt service and incremental O &M costs
• Outstanding principal and debt service by year
• Simple Payback for each plan
• Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for each plan
• Net Present Value (NPV) for each plan
• Avoided utility company payments (NPV over life of plan)
• Avoided fuel purchases (NPV over life of plan)
• Value invested locally in emission reduction projects
• Value of non - efficiency related capital expenses satisfied by each plan
Each measure included in this analysis has a set of inputs and assumptions. These are
documented in the Appendices, and have been reviewed by staff. The details of each measure
are provided, such as the vehicle and pump lists in the Appendices. The generally applied
assumptions, such as the discount rate, interest rate, escalation rate for the cost of utility supplied
power and fuel, and the CO2e conversion factors for energy and fuel have also been reviewed
and adjusted by City Staff. The values are provided in Table 3. These general values can be
overridden at the measure level if necessary. For example, the term of financing is set to 7 years
as a default value. However, CEC loans are based on generating a net cash flow close to zero
over the life of the loan with a maximum value of 10 times the annual cost savings. Therefore,
the term of the loan is adjusted at the measure level based on the annual savings for that measure.
9 GHG Inventory Report Rohnert Park, Hyun Moon, City of Rohnert Park, September 2003,
Climate Protection Campaign 20 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
3.2 Measure Identification
The list of measures has been generated from document reviews, past experience of other
jurisdictions and a review of the Rohnert Park facilities funded by the ABAG EW efficiency
program. All measures included in this analysis have been reviewed and approved for inclusion
by City Staff. The following sources contributed to the information in this report.
• City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report, APS Energy Services, May 13,
2005
• City of Rohnert Park Lighting Retrofit Project, Chevron Energy Services, (no date)
• Five Year Capital Improvement Program Budget 2006 -07, 2007 -08, 2008 -09, 2009-
2010, 2010 -11, Adopted by Rohnert Park City Council, June 27, 2006
• Draft Plan: City of Rohnert Park Building Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction, Climate Protection Campaign, August 2006
• Non Residential New Construction Program Final Report for City Hall New
Construction and Gut Rehab Project, Green Building Studio, February 7, 2007
• Pump Test Reports, City of Rohnert Park 12- 26 -05, Pumping Efficiency Testing
Services, 12.26.05
o Building data supplied by the City of Rohnert Park
• Facility on -site reviews conducted on 2.12.07
• Follow up meeting with Richard Behrends, Maintenance Director
3.3 Measure Assumptions: General Variables
This report is based on a set of general inputs for the financial analysis. Each measure utilizes
these general inputs unless they are overridden at the measure level. The general inputs are
provided in Table 3 below. The values used for each measure are provide in the Appendices.
These inputs include the following:
• Term of Analysis
• Term of Finance
• Discount Rate
• Energy Inflation Rate
• Energy Cost
• Interest Rate
• Inflation Rate
The conversions in the table below are based on the best available information. The CO2 /kWh
value is from PG &E based on their "fuel mix". 10 The values for natural gas, gasoline, diesel and
biodiesel are consistent with the ICLEI values." The value for ethanol is calculated using data
io PG &E Power Content: Eligible Renewables: 13 %, Coal: 2 %, Large Hydro: 17 %, Natural Gas 44 %, Nuclear:
23 %, Other; I%, California Energy Commission, www.energy.ca.gov /consumer, May 2007.
' � STAPPA/ALAPCO and ICLEI Clean Air and Climate Protection Software, State and Territorial Air Pollution
Administrators and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives, released May 2003.
Climate Protection Campaign 21 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
from research published by Argonne Labs. 12 The value used for CO2 /kWh is different than the
value used in the inventory completed in 2003, which used a more general number from ICLEI.13
This analysis has modified the baseline results by using the current value to ensure an
appropriate comparison.
Standard Default
Revised
Metric Default Values Values Used Notes
Values in Analysis
Term of Analysis (yrs)
Term of Financing (yrs)
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation Rate
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Exclude "Completed" from $$$
Wh (lbs.)
berm ( #/Therm)
Gasoline
Diesel
$ /gal Gasoline
$ /gal Diesel
$ /gal Biodiesel
$ /gal Ethanol
CNG equivalent $ /gal
CNG conversion cost
CNG Equipment
Electric Vehicle Mileage
Electric Vehicle Mileage
Target (% of 2000)
TOU Factor
0.489
0.489
12.34
12.34
22A
22.0
22:0
22.0
0
0
17.73
17.73
$3.30
$3.30
$3.30
$3.30
$3.05
$3.05
$4.00
$4.00
$2.48
$2.48
$5,000
$5,000
$150,000
1
$150,000
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
20.0%
20.0%
1
1
bs /gal
bs /gal
bs /gal
b /gal for 100% ethanol
nid size
>ubcompact
Jsed of PV financial analysis
increased eff 30% 30% Likely to be revised at measure level
Table 3: General Inputs
12 Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel -Cycle Energy and Greeenhouse Gas Emissions; M. Wang, C. Saricks, and D.
D. Santini; Argonne Labs; January 1999.
13 GHG Inventory Report Rohnert Park, Hyun Moon, City of Rohnert Park, September 2003.
Climate Protection Campaign 22 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Action Plan 8.20.07
3.4 Measure Specific Variables
The general inputs can be adjusted for each individual measure as appropriate. The other key
individual inputs are listed below. The values for each measure are provided in the Appendices.
Category (Building, Fleet, Commute, PV, Water /Sewer)
• Status (Completed, Pending, and Future). Pending measures are defined as those
provided by City Staff with identified funding.
• Financing: The cash flow is heavily dependent on whether or not the measures are
financed. This funding decision is defined for each measure independently.
• Project Implementation Date
• Net Capital Cost
• Incremental Capital Cost associated. with the cost premium associated with the improved
efficiency. For Example: a hybrid compact vehicle is assigned a cost premium of $4000
over an equivalent standard vehicle.
• Rebates and incentives
• Annual O &M cost associated with the efficiency measure
• Incremental Replacement Cost
• Component Life
• Time of Use factor (Photovoltaic systems) .
3.5 Financial Analysis Results
The analysis provides the financial information required for investment decisions. This includes
the following:
• Non efficiency related capital costs satisfied by plans 14
• Net Cash Flow for each year of the plans
• Debt load for each year of each plan
• Simple Payback for each plan
• Internal Rate of Return
• Net Present Value
• CO2e reduction for each plan
Financial Definitions 15
Net Present Value (NPV):
NPV is the difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present
value of cash outflows. NPV is used in capital budgeting to analyze the
profitability of an investment or project. NPV analysis is sensitive to
the reliability of future cash inflows that an investment or project will yield.
14 Example: a 30 year old Air Conditioner needs to be replaced. The entire cost can be funded though energy
efficiency resources (rebates and loans), but only a portion of the cost (30 %) is a result of the efficiency
enhancement.
15 http : / /www.investopedia.com/tenns, http: / /www.visitask.com
Climate Protection Campaign 23 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Where
t - the time of the cash flow
n - the total time of the project
r - the discount rate
Ct - the net cash flow (the amount of cash) at time t.
Co - the capital outlay at the beginning of the investment time ( t = 0 )
Internal Rate of Return (IRR):
The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is the discount rate that generates a zero net present value
for a series of future cash flows. This essentially means that IRR is the rate of return that
makes the sum of present value of future cash flows and the final market value of a project
(or an investment) equal its current market value.
Generally speaking, the higher a project's internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to .
undertake the project. As such, IRR can be used to rank several prospective projects under
consideration. Assuming all other factors are equal among the various projects, the project
with the highest IRR would probably be considered the best and undertaken first.
The IRR is based on the total investment and energy cost savings over the life of the
investment, independent of the financing strategy for the investment.
3.6 Community Benefit
The investments in the specific measures have positive local consequences. The community
benefits are quantified and presented in the following outcomes:
1) $$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments: This is the net present value (NPV) of all the
avoided electricity and natural gas payments over the 25 year period of the analysis.
2) $$$ Avoided Fuel Payments: The NPV of the avoided gasoline and diesel fuel payments
over the 25 year life of the analysis.
3) $$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects: This is the total capital cost of the measures
specified for the plan. This analysis does not attempt to separate labor, material,
overhead or profit to more accurately identify the percentage of these investments likely
to remain local. The inherent overstatement of this result is balanced to a significant
degree by discounting the well- documented economic multiplier effect of local
investment (no multiplier is used). Bio- diesel purchase is considered 100% local. In
practice, this will depend on the supplier. Ethanol is not considered to be a local
purchase.
3.7 Measure Evaluation
The decision to include a measure in the action plan is based on a comprehensive appraisal of
that measure and its impact on the overall cost/benefits of the Action Plan., To aid in the
selection process, each measure has been evaluated and scored for seven metrics listed below.
While informative, the scoring of the measures is not binding on the selection process. The
results of the Measure Evaluation are presented in the Appendices.
Climate Protection Campaign 24 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
1) Cost: The measure is scored by the magnitude of the net capital cost, independent of
other considerations.
2) Financial Metrics: The measure is scored by the internal rate of return (IRR) and Net
Present Value (NPV). IRR and NPV are determined from the investment required for the
measure (Net Capital Cost), the annual cost savings and the resulting annual cash flow.
3) Resolution of Existing Problems: This metric evaluates how the measure solves existing
problems, such as a failing air conditioning system. The replacement of old mechanical
units will save maintenance staff time and associated costs (maintenance savings are not
calculated in the cash flows).
4) Public Visibility: Some measures provide an additional benefit by demonstrating to the
general public the actions of the jurisdiction to address global warming. Measures such
as Photovoltaic systems are scored high for Public Visibility.
5) Employee Impact: The additional burden or inconvenience imposed on city staff is a
consideration for any measure under consideration. This metric evaluates this impact. A
photovoltaic system has no impact and receives a neutral score of 3. New fleet vehicles
will require a change from "business as usual" and results in a lower score. The
Commute measure creates transportation options for the City Staff and receives a higher
score.
6) Energy Cost Stabilization: Energy cost variability is a concern for all jurisdictions. The
price volatility of natural gas, and the spike in cost for electricity in 2000 -2001 give
reason to address this vulnerability. This metric evaluates the impact by measure on the
city's long term energy cost volatility. The highest value is assigned to energy efficiency
measures. Energy saved by efficiency has an effective cost of $0 into the future, as long
as the efficiency measure is in place.
Climate Protection Campaign 25 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
4.0 Results
Five plans have been created for consideration by the City of Rohnert Park. These plans consist
of numerous measures to reduce GHG emissions, reduce energy costs, address equipment
problems, and reduce the volatility of the city's annual energy costs. Summary information is
provided below. The Action Plan Evaluation provided in the Appendices provides an analysis of
the relative strengths of each combination of measures. Similar information for each measure is
also provided.
4.1 GHG Impacts and Plan Financial Results
Table 4 below provides a comparison of each plan. The "% Reduction" is the amount of CO2e
reduced as a percentage of the total city emissions. Plan A, completed projects, indicates a
reduction of 10.9% below the year 2000 (baseline) emissions. Plan E provides the measures
necessary to reduce the city's emissions by more than 50% below year 2000 emissions. The
financial analysis is provided with each plan. The IRR and NPV results are based on the 25
year term of the analysis, from 2007 to 2032.
GHG Action Plan Summary
Analysis
Plan A
Plan B
Plan C
Plan D
Plan E
Reduction
10.9%
23.2%
35.6%
42.9%
50.3%
SPB
2.1
0.9
12.4 -
16.5
20.1
IRR
76.6%
138.2%
15.3%
9.1%
3.4%
NPV
$1,758,018
$1,567,607
$1,286,650
$1,029,859
($357,822)
Annual Cash Flow
Plan A
Plan B
Plan C
Plan D
Plan E
2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
$34,014
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
$35,768
$0
$0
$0
$0
2004
$37,583
$0
$0
$0
$0
2005
$39,463
$0
$0
$0
$0
2006
$24,662
$0
$0
$0
$0
2007
$15,744
($5,000)
($5,000)
($5,000)
($5,000)
2008
$21,330
$18,569
$4,436
$14,284
$4,436
2009
$43,216
$20,573
$15,394
($40,623)
($141,716)
2010
$49,196
$31,237
$34,717
($59,748)
($155,695)
2011
$55,383
$55,621
($23,668)
($86,206)
($224,810)
2012
$61,783
$61,166
($142,321)
($59,559)
($240,249)
2013
$68,406
$66,911
($49,700)
($211,145)
($391,277)
2014
$108,060
$83,896
1 ($30,521)
($182,259)
($362,801)
2015
$115,149
$111,332
$9,031
($159,583)
($330,695)
2016
$122,483
$117,721
$17,766
($74,901)
($213,636)
2017
$130,071
$124,341
$26,809
($55,182)
($194,351)
2018
$87,728
$142,132
$105,826
$183,602
$43,535
2019
$146,045
$69,443
$137,864
($63,271)
($203,787)
2020
$154,449 1
$126,031
$94,993
$249,015
$108,040
2021
$163,145
$186,560
$218,255
$324,433
$242,958
2022
$269,648
$194,454
$58,215
($1,710,536)
($1,831,577)
2023
$278,956
$202,630
$198,365
$371,752
$247,540
2024
$288,587
$217,606
$311,636
$403,119
$380,161
2025
$298,552
$226,375
$323,567
$428,815
$405,358
Table 4: Action Plan Financial Results
Climate Protection Campaign 26 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
The financial analysis is provided with each plan. The critical metrics of Internal Rate of Return
(IRR), and Net Present Value (NPV) provide important information to evaluate the worthiness of
the investment from a cash flow perspective. It is important to note the large negative net cash
flows for Plans D and E in year 2022. These are incurred by a substantial reinvestment in a large
photovoltaic (PV) system (replacement of the associated inverters after 12 years), and the
replacement of the energy efficient fleet after 10 years of service. The assumption is that the cost
of inverters will increase at the generally assumed' inflation rate of 3 %. However likely advances
in technology, and improved economies of scale for the industry suggest this is overly
conservative. The aggressive fleet measure assumes all vehicles are repurchased in 2022 (after a
10 year life). In practice, the purchases are phased which would improve the net cash flow for
2022 and decrease the cash flows for surrounding years.
Finally, the actual net cash flow is also provided for each plan in Table 4. Plan A is unique, as it
is comprised of only completed projects. Therefore the cashflow includes the cost (debt service)
and income (energy cost savings) for the completed measures. However, the cash flow in Table
4 for Plans B through E excludes the financial costs and benefits of completed projects. This
allows a clear understanding of the impacts of a "financial decision" in 2007, independent of
prior financial decisions.
When the net cash flow associated with the completed projects are added into the financial
analysis, the IRR and NPV are improved due to the substantial financial retums.of these earlier
energy efficiency investments. These results are presented in the Appendices.
4.2 Action Plan Evaluations
The GHG Emission Reduction Action Plans involve more than CO2e reduction and cash flow.
There are critical concerns that should be factored into the decision making process. These
include the financial metrics of internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) to
evaluate the worthiness of the investment,- the cost of implementing the measure, some measures
come with a large price tag which will challenge liquidity; the degree to which the plan resolves.
existing problems, such as old, high maintenance air conditioning units; the visibility of the
measures to the public, for example the photovoltaic systems are a physical example of actions
taken the city and communicate action and commitment to the community. Other key
considerations include the employee impacts of new equipment or procedures, which may
generate internal opposition; and the impact on the variability of future energy costs and the
associated budgetary vulnerability.
Each measure, and the plans as a whole are evaluated by the following considerations:
• Net Capital Cost
• Financial Metrics (IRR and NPV)
• Resolution of Existing Problems
• GHG Impact
• Public Visibility
• Employee Impact
• Energy Cost Stabilization
Climate Protection Campaign 27 Sonoma County Energy'Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
The results of the evaluation are provided in the Appendices. The individual scores for each
category (cost, financial metrics, etc) are aggregated to provide an overall score for that measure.
While the results provide important information to be considered when selecting measures, the
scores are advisory only. A relatively low score does not preclude a measure, nor should a high
score guarantee inclusion of the measure in the Action Plans. There will always be additional
considerations that are not reflected in the evaluation process.
4.3 Enerev Rate Escalation and Associated Budget Vulnerabilit
There is considerable discussion about the availability of fossil fuels in the near and middle term
future (5 to 20 years). The "Peak Oil" movement suggests that we are at or near the point where
our increased global demand for oil cannot be supplied from new petroleum discoveries while
production from existing oil fields is waning. Similar arguments are, made for natural gas supply
vs. demand. If demand outstrips supply, simple economics indicate that the cost to consumers
will escalate rapidly, until the global demand is sufficiently dampened and realigns with
available supply. The concern is significant enough to have prompted a US government
sponsored study to determine the impacts of demand exceeding supply in the near future.16 This
issue has important implications for local Sonoma County jurisdictions. Forty percent of PG &E
power is generated by natural gas. 17 A spike in the cost of this energy source will result in
significant increases in the cost of electrical power, as well as increased volatility in the cost of
natural gas used directly by the City.
Many of the measures available to reduce GHG emissions also will reduce the City electricity
and natural gas costs. These costs are a significant element of the municipal budget, and the
potential volatility of their costs represents a threat beyond the control of City Staff. Figure 5
below provides the trends for the annual cost of utility supplied electricity and natural gas based
on four rate escalation scenarios. The electricity and natural gas related measures contained in
this analysis will reduce the vulnerability to utility price increases. These trend lines assume that
the City takes no further action to reduce or increase its reliance on utility supplied electricity
and natural gas, represented as Plan A in the analysis.
16 Hirsch, Robert. et al. (February 2005) "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk
Management." SAIC.
17 PG &E Power Content: Eligible Renewables: 13 %, Coal: 2 %, Large Hydro: 17 %, Natural Gas 44 %, Nuclear:
23 %, Other; I%, California Energy Commission, www.energy.ca.gov /consumer, May 2007.
Climate Protection Campaign 28 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Energy Rate Escalation Impact!
City of Rohnert Park annual cost trendlines for four energy cost escalation rates (Plan A; no additional GHG actions)
$3,000,000
�+ $2,500,000
N
O
U
fA
l6
$2,000,000
L
W
Z
c $1,500,000
R
•v
•L
d $1,000,000
W
to
c
Q $500,000
$0
8.20.07
Figure 5: Energy Rate Escalation Scenarios
Energy efficiency projects and photovoltaic energy systems can play a significant role in
moderating this vulnerability. Figure 6 below provides potential impact of energy efficiency
strategies on the associated vulnerability. For example, under the 3.5% escalation rate scenario,
the city would reduce its utility payments by nearly $400,000 per year ($1,103,230 - $703,300)
in 2020 by implementing the aggressive Action Plan E. If there were a significant disruption in
the supply of energy in California (represented as an energy escalation rate = 10% per year) the
City would reduce payments by a significantly greater amount.
Climate Protection Campaign 29 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action. Plan 8.20.07
i
Energy Cost Vulnerability
^^^ ^^^ Annual Cost Trendlines for Plan A and Plan E for various energy cost escalation rates Escal. Rate = 10.0%
Figure 6: Annual Cost of Energy*
*Note: Labels for PIan B and Plan D are omitted for clarity.
$2,801,919 No
Action
Escal. Rate = 3.5%
$1,318,247 No
Action
$1,103,230 Plan A
$845,739 Plan C
$703,300 Plan E
Escal. Rate = 1.7%
$559,872 Plan E
The trend lines compare the outcomes for different approaches to energy savings with a 3.5%
annual escalation of energy rates:
• No Action, at an energy escalation rate of 10% ($2,801,919 annual energy cost in 2020)
is represented by the dotted line indicating the annual cost to the city if the city had not
pursued any energy saving projects from 2000 to present, and takes no action in the
future.
• No Action, at an energy escalation rate of 3.5% ($1,318,247 annual energy cost in 2020)
indicating the escalating energy costs if the city had not pursued any energy savings
projects from 2000 to present, and takes no action in the future.
• Plan A, at an energy escalation rate of 3.5% ($1,103,230) is the annual energy cost
including the energy savings achieved by the city staff actions from 2000 to present.
• Plan E ($703,300) is the same escalation scenario as above, but includes the energy
efficiency and photovoltaic measures included in Plan E: This is a reduction of over
$400,000 in energy budgeting uncertainty between Plan A and Plan E at an annual
escalation rate of 3.5 %.
Climate Protection Campaign 30 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
In summary, an aggressive energy strategy could significantly reduce the city's exposure to the
rapidly escalating costs. The investments in energy efficiency and PV energy generation will
reduce the uncertainty in future energy cost, which is important when developing long term
budget projections.
4.4 Non Efficiency Related Capital Cost Satisfied by Plans
Many of the opportunities to reduce energy consumption, and thereby reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, involve the replacement of old, poorly performing equipment. In many cases this
equipment is at the end of its useful life and is scheduled to be replaced independently of this
analysis. In these situations replacement costs are typically budgeted in the city's Capital
Improvement Plan as an expenditure in future years.
However, the energy efficiency packages identified in these plans can be financed using
California Energy Commission energy efficiency loans. These loan packages are typically
structured to have a net zero cash flow (energy savings = loan payment). The tables below
provide the estimated capital investment satisfied by each plan. For example, Plan B specifies
the replacement of HVAC equipment which is 25+ years old. The estimated cost to replace this
equipment with standard efficiency units is $112,718. By including this cost in the low interest
energy efficiency loan the budgeted capital resources are released for other uses.
Climate Protection Campaign 31 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Plan A Plan B Plan C
Pending Capital
Expense
Total Pending
Capital Expenses
Pending Capital
Expense
Total Pending
Capital Expenses
Pending Capital
Expense
Total Pending
Capital Expenses
2000
$0
Buildings
$0
2000
$0
Buildings
$112,718
2000
$0
Buildings
$59,220
2001
$0
2002
$0
2001
$0
2002
$0
2001
$0
2003
$0
2002
$0
Fleet
$0
2002
$0
Fleet
$0
2002
$0
Fleet
$0
2003
$0
2005
$0
2003
$0
2005
$0
2003
$0
2006
$0
2004
$0
Water and
$0
2004
$0
Water and
$0
2004
$0
Water and
$0
2005
$0
2008
$53,498
2005
$0
2008
$53,498
2005
$0
2009
$0
2006
$0
Commute
$0
2006
$0
Commute
$0
2006
$0
Commute
$0
2007
$0
2011
$0
2007
$59,220
2011
$0
2007
$59,220
2012
$0
2008
$0
PV
$0
2008
$53,498
PV
$0
2008
$0
PV
$0
2009
$0
2014
. $0
2009
$0
2014
$0
2009
$0
2015
$0 1
2010
$0
Streetlights
$0
2010
$0
Streetlights
$0
2010
$0
Streetlights
$0
2011
$0
2011
$0
2011
$0
2012
$0
2012.
$0
2012
$0
2013
$0
2013
$0.
2013
$0
2014
$0
2014
$0
2014
$0
2015
$0
11
2015
$0 1
11
2015
$0
Plan D Plan E
Pending Capital
Total Pending
Pending Capital
Total Pending
2000
$0
Buildings
$112,718
2000
$0
Buildings
$112,718
2001
$0
2001
$0
2002
$0
Fleet
$0
2002
$0
Fleet
$0
2003
$0
2003
$0
2004
$0
Water and
$0
2004
$0
Water and
$0
2005
$0
2005
$0
2006
$0
Commute
$0
2006
$0
Commute
$0
2007
$59,220
2007
$59,220
2008
$53,498
PV
$0
2008
$53,498
PV
$0
2009
$0
2009
$0.
2010
$0
Streetlights
$0
2010
$0
Streetlights
$0
2011
$0
2011
$0
2012
$0
2012
$0
2013
$0
2013
$0
2014
. $0
2014
$0
2015
$0 1
2015
$0
Table 5: Capital Expenses Satisfied by Plans
Climate Protection Campaign 32 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
This page is intentionally blank.
Climate Protection Campaign 33 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
4.5 Plan Details
8.20.07
Plan A 299 Tons CO2 Avoided
10.9%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
Financial Metrics
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$3,008,849
SPB:
2.1
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$75,610
IRR:
76.6%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$1,377,574
NPV:
$1,758,018
Plan A: This plan includes all completed projects. There are six measures in the plan, which
include building and water pump efficiency improvements, and a photovoltaic project. The cash
flow reflects the City's investment in two significant efficiency projects implemented in 2001
(lighting retrofit) and 2006 (building HVAC, LED traffic signals, and PV). The resulting annual
cash flow is the net income to the city (energy cost savings minus project debt service,
replacement costs and associated O &M).
The graphics below provides a comprehensive picture of Plan A, including the GHG impacts, the
financial metrics, the net cash flow, the GHG emission trend associated with the measures, and
the sectors contributing to the reduction.
LCO2 Reduction by Sector
0%
-10%
PV
-20%
_
n Water /Sew er
-30%
';.,
v
-40%
Commute
-50%
Cr
<; Fleet
-60%
C
-70%
m Street Lights
L
-80%
CL
m Buildings
-90%
-100%
Figure 7: Plan A GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector
Climate Protection Campaign 34 Sonoma County. Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
The tables below lists the measures included in Plan A, along with the measure status and the net
cash flow.
Plan A Cash Flow Analysis
Year
Cash Flow
(gross)
Annual Debt
payments
Net Cash
Flow
Outstanding
Principal
2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$0
$0
$0
$96,850
2002
$50,120
($16,106)
$34,014
$84,569
2003
$51,874
($16,106)
$35,768
$71,803
2004
$53,690
($16,106)
$37,583
$58,533
2005
$55,569
($16,106)
$39,463
$44,739
2006
$40,768
($16,106)
$24,662
$1,284,354
2007
$162,159
($146,415)
$15,744
$1,193,088
2008
$167,746
($146,415)
$21,330
$1,098,003
2009
$173,525
($130,309)
$43,216
$1,015,046
2010
$179,505
($130,309)
$49,196
$928,578
2011
$185,691
($130,309)
$55,383
$838,453
2012
$192,092
($130,309)
$61,783
$744,513
2013
$198,714
($130,309)
$68,406
$646,597
2014
$205,566
($97,506)
$108,060
$577,338
2015
$212,655
($97,506)
$115,149
$505,055
2016
$219,989
($97,506)
$122,483
$429,615
2017
$227,577
($97,506)
$130,071
$350,879
2018
$185,234
($97,506)
$87,728
$268,703
2019
$243,551
($97;506)
$146,045
$182,937
2020
$251,956
($97,506)
$154,449
$93,424
2021
$260,651
($97,506)
$163,145
$0
2022
$269,648
$0
$269,648
$0
2023
$278,956
$0
$278,956
$0
2024
$288,587
$0
$288,587
$0
2025
$298,552
$0
$298,552
$0
Measure
Description
Status
Measure 01
.:.:APS Measures
Completed
Measure 02
Lighting Retrofit (mufti- bldg) ',
Completed
Measure 06
Pool Covers
Completed
Measure 15
PV APS .
Completed --
Measure 20
Fleet 2000 -2006
Completed
Measure 26
Pump Measures (4 implemented)
Completed
Climate Protection Campaign 35 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Plan B 639 Tons CO2 Avoided
23.2%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
Financial Metrics
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$5,175,611
SPB:
0.9
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$767,924
IRR:
138.2%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$3,009,917
NPV:
$1,567,607
Plan B: This plan includes all completed projects, and another 12 measures. The measures
include a wide range of projects from building air conditioning to a photovoltaic project. This
plan allows the City to meet the target of 20% GHG emissions reduction by 2010. The projected
reduction of 23.8% provides flexibility for changing conditions and unforeseen difficulties. The
resulting annual cash flow is the net income to the city and represents a net gain for the city in
each year after 2007. It is important to note that the addition of any new city facilities would
generally be considered GHG producers. The addition of facilities, even those with high
efficiency, could jeopardize the ability of Plan B to meet the 20% target reduction.
0
-250a
-500
80% .
-750'
[a PV
- 1,000
c
.2
0
0 -1,250
v
60%
0 -1,500
U -1,750
d
-2,000
�y
- 2,250°
-2,500
- 2,750c
-,,n
CO2 Reduction by Sector
100%
90%
80% .
[a PV
70%
c
.2
m Water /Sew e
60%
d
❑ Commute
50%
y
Fleet
40%
® Street Lights
30%
20%
a
® Buildings
10%
0%
O� Oh OHO O1 X16 OCb ,�O ,`� ,�0, ,�^� �tX
�O ,LO 1p �O
Year
Figure 8: Plan B GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector
Climate Protection Campaign 36 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
The tables below lists the measures included in Plan B, along with the measure status and the net
cash flow.
Plan B Cash Flow Analysis
Year
Cash Flow
(gross)
Annual Debt
payme is
Net Cash
Flow
Outstanding
Principal
2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
$0
$0
$0
$0
2004
$0
$0
$0
$0
2005
$0
$0
$0
$0
2006
$0
$0
$0
$0
2007
($5,000)
$0
($5,000)
$116,445
2008
$51,380
($32,811)
$18,569
$342,522
2009
$82,236
($61,662)
$20,573
$370,389
2010
$92,389
($61,152)
$31,237
$389,617
2011
$127,707
($72,086)
$55,621
$332,921
2012
$133,252
($72,086)
$61,166
$273,985
2013
$138,997
($72,086)
$66,911
$212,721
2014
$144,950
($61,054)
$83,896
$160,069
2015
$151,117
($39,786)
$111,332
$126,607
2016
$157,507
($39,786)
$117,721
$91,822
2017
$164,127
($39,786)
$124,341
$55,663
2018
$170,984
($28,852)
$142,132
$29,010
2019
$75,950
($6,507)
$69,443
$23,649
2020
$132,538
($6,507)
$126,031
$18,076
2021
$193,067
($6,507)
$186,560
$12,282
2022
$200,962
($6,507)
$194,454
$6,260
2023
$209,138
($6,507)
$202,630
$0
2024
$217,606
$0
$217,606
$0
2025 1
$226,375.
$0 1
$226,375
$0
Measure I Descriptio
Measure 01
APS Meas
Measure 02
LightingRetrofit
Measure 03
Building H
Measure 05
;Addtl Ligt
Measure 06
Pool Cov,
Measure 07
Decommission
Measure 08
Boiler Replcmnt S
Measure 11
Pool Pump M
Measure 13
PV -New Cit
Measure 15
PV AR
Measure 18
PV6 CRE
Measure 20
Fleet 2000-
Measure 21
Biodiesel l
Measure 23
City Fleet N
Measure 26
Pump MeasIures(4i
Measure 28
Pump Measures (S
$1500)
Measure 29
Staff Coordi
Measure 30
APS Public Safety!
n I Status
es
Completed
ulti-bldg) - -.
Completed
�C
Future
g
Future
Completed
)untain
Future
rts Center
Future
sures
Future
fall
Future
Completed
S
Future
06
Completed
0
Future
v 1
Future
plemented)
Completed
ings criteria
Fulure
for
Future
ntral DDC `
Future
Climate Protection Campaign 37 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Plan C 978 Tons CO2 Avoided
35.6%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
Financial Metrics
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$6,776,259
SPB:
12.4
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$1,473,872
IRR:
15.3%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$5,010,979
NPV:
$1,286,650
Plan C: This plan includes all completed projects and another 17 measures. In addition to many
of the measures of Plan B, a wide range of projects are included from building air conditioning to
fleet measures. This plan includes additional photovoltaic projects, biodiesel fuel (100 %), and
ethanol fuel (85 %). This plan significantly exceeds the City target of 20% GHG emissions
reduction by 2010, yet maintains very attractive financial metrics. The Internal Rate of Return is'
over 15% and the Net Present Value exceeds $1,000,000. The annual net cash flow is negative
for several years. However, the magnitude appears quite reasonable given the IRR and NPV
results.
0
-250
-500
-750
_-11,000
N
C -1,250
O - 1,500
U-1,750
- 2,000
-2,250
-2,500
-90%
-2,750 -100%
00 O� O� OHO 01 O`b & NO N"' 0 N3 NN 43
r1O �O �O ,�O rL0 rL0 �O �O f rO rO rip 1O rp 1O 1P
Year
Figure 9: Plan C GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector
Climate Protection Campaign 38 Sonoma County Energy Watch
r- El P'\/
-30%
.2
® Water /Sew er
-40%
'a
d
o Commute
-50%
-60%
= 0 Fleet
m
-70%
IN Street Lights
IL
-80%
ED Buildings
-90%
-2,750 -100%
00 O� O� OHO 01 O`b & NO N"' 0 N3 NN 43
r1O �O �O ,�O rL0 rL0 �O �O f rO rO rip 1O rp 1O 1P
Year
Figure 9: Plan C GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector
Climate Protection Campaign 38 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
The tables below lists the measures included in Plan C, along with the measure status and the net
cash flow.
Plan C Cash Flow Analysis
Year
Cash Flow
(gross)
Service Annual Debt
Payments
Net Cash
Flow
Outstanding.
Principal
2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
$0
$0
$0
$0
2004
$0
$0
$0
$0
2005
$0
$0
$0
$0
2006
$0
$0
$0
$0
2007
($5,000)
$0
($5,000)
$208,585
2008
$51,144
($46,708)
$4,436
$382,488
2009
$95,494
($80,100)
$15,394
$393,496
2010
$114,306
($79,590)
$34,717
$1,211,527
2011
$181,491
($205,160)
($23,668)
$1,541,806
2012
$111,756
($254,077)
($142,321)
$1,348,630
2013
$204,376
($254,077)
($49,700)
$1,147,825
2014
$212,523
($243,045)
($30,521)
$950,119
2015
$220,959
($211,928)
$9,031
$775,720
2016
$229,694
($211,928)
$17,766
$594,433
2017
$238,737
($211,928)
$26,809
$405,985
2018
$248,101
($142,274)
$105,826
$279,747
2019
$257,794
($119,930)
$137,864
$170,867
2020
$214,923
($119,930)
$94,993
$57,606
2021
$278,220
($59,965)
$218,255
$0
2022
$58,215
$0
$58,215
$0
2023
$198,365
$0
$198,365
$0
P
$311,636
$0
$311,636
$0
202024
25
$323,567
$0
$323,567
$0
Measure
Description
Status
Measure 01
APS Measures
Completed
Measure 02
Lighting Retrofit (multi -bldg)
Completed
Measure 03
Building HVAC
' Future
Measure 04
Computer Network Controls
Future
Measure 05
Addtl Lighting
Future
Measure 06
_. Pool Covers
Completed '.
Measure 07
Decommission Fountain
Future
Measure 09
Lift Station #1
Future
Measure 10
H -Pool Solar. WIT
Future
Measure 11
- Pool Pump Measures
'.Future
Measure 13
PV -New City Hall
Future
Measure 15
PV APS
Completed
Measure 16
PV4 -
'Future
Measure 17
PV5
Future
Measure 18
PV6 -CREBS
Future
Measure 20
- Fleet 2000 -2006
Completed -�
Measure 23
,City Fleet New 1
:Future
Measure 24
Biodiesel B100
Future
Measure 25
Ethanol E85
Future
Measure 26
Pump Measures (4 implemented)
Completed
Measure 28
Pump Measures (Savings criteria
$1500) -
Future
Measure 29
Staff Coordinator
Future.
Measure 30
APS Public Safety Central DDC
Future
Climate Protection Campaign 39 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Plan D 1,179 Tons CO2 Avoided
42.9%
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
% Reduction
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$8,018,672
SPB:
16.5
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$2,614,190
IRR:
9.1%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$7,544,220
NPV:
$1,029,859
Plan D: This plan includes all completed projects, and another 18 measures. In addition to many
of the measures included in Plan B and C, Plan D includes the wide range of projects from
building air conditioning to fleet fuel measures. This plan is less aggressive with PV projects
and more aggressive with the fleet purchases and pump efficiency measures, resulting in a
doubling of GHG emissions reduction as compared to the City target of 20 %. However, these
impressive results are not without additional costs, resulting in an Internal Rate of Return under
10 %. The Net Present Value remains near $1,000,000. The annual net cash flow is significantly
more challenging than the previous plans.
Figure 10: Plan D GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector
Climate Protection Campaign 40 Sonoma County Energy Watch
CO2 Reduction by Sector)
0
0%
-250
A,� n3 Ej
�'
--10%
-500
r'x
-20%
_ MPV
-750
r
0
m
-30%
++
^
-1 000
F� z "r "��
Water /Sewer
W
- -40%
o
-1,250
h
a�
����� �,�
-50%
W Commute
rq
-1,500-
" � -60%
M
V
-1 750
3
Syy`
Fleet
�r f a
-70%
-2 000
�
2 M Street Lights
-2,250
�� ��� a
-80%
a
��
f-
Buildings
-2,500-
r
o
-90 /o
e,.a.r^�
-2,750
e �.<�� .��_,,_�,�.� x.� ,`_
-100%
�O �( �O �O �O �O �O
Year
Figure 10: Plan D GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector
Climate Protection Campaign 40 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
The tables below lists the measures included in Plan D, along with the measure status and the net
cash flow.
Plan D Cash Flow Analysis
Year
Cash Flow
(gross)
Annual Debt
payments
Net Cash
Flow
Outstanding
Principal
2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
$0
$0
$0
$0
2004
$0
$0
$0
$0
2005
$0
$0
$0
$0
2006
$0
$0
$0
$0
2007
($5,000)
$0
($5,000)
$149,365
2008
$51,144
($36,859)
$14,284
$797,876
2009
$101,741
($142,364)
($40,623)
$1,119,028
2010
$118,187
($177,935)
($59,748)
$4,777,269
2011
$431,592
($517,798)
($86,206)
$4,448,174
2012
$447,191
($506,750)
($59,559)
$5,058,126
2013
$509,957
($721,102)
($211,145)
$4,541,995
2014
$527,811
($710,070)
($182,259)
$4,015,563
2015
$546,267
($705,850)
($159,583)
$3,471,569
2016
$565,344
($640,244)
($74,901)
$2,970,660
2017
$585,063
($640,244)
($55,182)
$2,448,885
2018
$605,446
($421,844)
$183,602
$2,123,772
2019
$336,229
($399,500)
($63,271)
$1,808,161
2020
$595,385
($346,370)
$249,015
$1,533,213
2021
$670,803
($346,370)
$324,433
$1,247,405
2022
($1,364,165)
($346,370.)
($1,710,536)
$950,307
2023
$718,122
($346,370)
$371,752
$641,473
2024
$742,982
($339,863)
$403,119
$326,949
2025
$768,678
($339,863)
$428,815
$0
Measure
Description
Status
Measure 01
APS Measures
Completed
Measure 02
Lighting Retrofit (multi bldg)
Completed
Measure 03
Building HVAC
Future
Measure 04
Computer Network Controls
Future
Measure 05
-Addtl Lighting
- .Future
Measure 06
Pool Covers
Completed
Measure 07
Decommission Fountain
Future
Measure 08
Boiler Replcmnt Sports Center `
Future
Measure 09
Lift Station #1
Future
Measure 10
H =Pool Solar Wtr
`'Future
Measure 11
Pool Pump Measures
Future
Measure 12
City Fleet New 2
Future
Measure 13
PV -New City Hall
Future
Measure 14
PV Suppying 100% Wtr &Wste
Energy Cost
Future
Measure 15
PV APS
Completed
Measure 18
PV6 -CREBS
Future
Measure 19
Commute
Future
Measure 20
Fleet 2000 -2006
Completed
Measure 22
Fleet Natural Gas Conversions `
Future
Measure 24
Biodiesel 8100
Future
Measure 26
Pump Measures (4 implemented)
Completed
Measure 27
Pump Measures (Savings criteria
$800)
Future
Measure 29
Staff Coordinator
Future
Measure 30
APS Public Safety Central DDC
Future
Climate Protection Campaign 41 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Plan E 1,384 . Tons CO2 Avoided
50.3 %
GHG Reduction
Community Benefit (over 25 year life of
plan)
Financial Metrics
$$$ Avoided Utility Company Payments
$8,983,255
SPB:
20.1
$$$ Avoided Fuel Purchases
$2,927,243
IRR:
3.4%
$$$ Invested Locally in GHG Projects
$8,980,626
NPV:
($357,822)
Plan E: This plan includes all completed projects, and another 20 measures. All measures are
implemented to their maximum identified potential. Two PV projects (measures 16 and 17) are
doubled in size, to 60 kWac. The resulting reduction in GHG emissions approaches 50% by
2012. Yet, this strategy yields in a challenging cash flow and a low IRR of 3.4 %. The NPV is
negative, due in large part to the poor economics of the two PV projects mentioned above. The
implementation date of 2011 of these projects is after the CPUC18 incentives are projected to
expire. However, this plan provides the greatest security against energy cost escalations as
detailed in Figure 6 discussed in the Energy Cost Vulnerability section.
j CO2 Reduction by Sector
0%
-10%
El P/
-20%
-30% o Water /Sew er
.2
-40% 0 Corrumte
m
-50% N
-60%
CO 0 Fleet
d
-70% L
m M Street Lights
a
-80%
® Buildings
-90%
- 100%
Figure 11: Plan E GHG Emissions Reduction by Sector
18 California Public Utilities Commission
Climate Protection Campaign 42 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
The tables below lists the measures included in Plan E, along with the measure status and the net
cash flow.
Plan E Cash Flow Analysis
Year
Cash Flow
(gross)
Annual Debt
Service
payments
Net Cash
Flow
Outstanding
Principal
2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
$0
$0
$0
$0
2003
$0
$0
$0
$0
2004
$0
$0
$0
$0
2005
$0
$0
$0
$0
2006
$0
$0
$0
$0
2007
($5,000)
$0
($5,000)
$208,585
2008
$51,144
($46,708)
$4,436
$1,046,834
2009
$43,299
($185,015)
($141,716)
$1,335,169
2010
$64,891
($220,586)
($155,695)
$5,446,880
2011
$395,604
($620,414)
($224,810)
$5,529,200
2012
$429,082
($669,331)
($240,249)
$6,017,273
2013
$491,951
($883,228)
($391,277)
$5,376,892
2014
$509,395
($872,196)
($362,801)
$4,721,304
2015
$527,432
($858,127)
($330,695)
$4,052,903
2016
$546,083
($759,719)
($213,636)
$3,455,476
2017
$565,368
($759,719)
($194,351)
$2,833,375
2018
$585,309
($541,774)
$43;535
$2,403,519
2019
$315,642
($519,430)
($203,787)
$1,979,028
2020
$574,341
($466,300)
$108,040
$1,590,900
2021
$649,293
($406,335)
$242,958
$1,247,405
2022
($1,485,207)
($346,370)
($1,831,577)
$950,307 .
2023
$593,910
($346,370)
$247,540
$641,473
2024
$720,024
($339,863)
$380,161
$326,949
2025
$745,221
($339,863)
$405,358
$0
Measure
Description
Status
Measure 01
APS Measures
Completed
Measure 02
Lighting Retrofit (multi -bldg)
- Completed
Measure 03
Building,HVAC
Future
Measure 04
Computer Network Controls
Future
Measure 05
Addtl Lighting
Future
Measure 06
-. Pool Covers
- Completed.
Measure 07
- Decommission Fountain
Future
Measure 08
Boiler Replcmnt Sports. Center
Future
Measure 09
Lift Station #1
Future
Measure 10
'.H -Pool Solarwtr
Future '
Measure 11
Pool Pump Measures
Future
Measure 12
City Fleet New 2
Future
Measure 13
PV -New City Hall
Future
Measure l4
PV Suppying 100% wtr &Wste
Energy Cost
Future
Measure 15
PV APS
Completed
Measure 16
PV4
Future
Measure 17
PV5
Future
Measure 18
PV6 -CREBS
Future
Measure 19
Commute.
Future
Measure 20
Fleet 2000 -2006
Completed
Measure 22
Fleet Natural Gas Conversions
Future
Measure 24
Biodiesel 8400
Future
Measure 26
Pump Measures (4 implemented)
Completed
Measure 27
Pump Measures (Savings criteria
$800)
Future
Measure 29
Staff Coordinator
Future
Measure 30
APS Public Safety Central DDC
Future
Climate Protection Campaign 43 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
5.0 Measure Details
Table 6 below provides a complete list of the measures considered in this analysis along with the
financial data and results for each. The individual measures are described in the Measure Results
section of this report. Note that some measures have options that are not represented in this
table. These options are detailed in the Measure Results section.
Table 6: List of Measures
Climate Protection Campaign 44 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Net Capital
O &M
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Net Present
% of
Description
Cost
incremental
Savings
Reduction
Payback
IRR
Value
Total
Cost
GHG
- APS Measures
$920,216
($2,982)
$54,228
235,782
17.0
7.3%
$250,036
4.08%
Lighting Retrofit (multi-
$96,850
$0
$48,425
163,309
2.0
55.2%
$869,197
2.82%
.... bldg)
Building HVAC
$25,380
$0
$6,090
20,538
4.2
28.2%
$96,740
0.35%
Computer Network
$4,138
$0
$2,500
8,431
1.7
- 66.0%
$45,694
0.15%
Controls
Addtl Lighting
$46,698
$0
$11,750
38,303
4.9
24.3%
$178,109
0.66%
Pool Covers
$18,738
$0
$10,087
124,470
1.9
59.2%
$182,417
2.15%
Decommission Fountain.
$15,000
$0
$11,406
38,467
1.3
82.2%
$212,175
0.66%
Boiler Replcmnt Sports ..
$72604
$0
$4,777
58,943
15.2
7.9%
$25,688
1.02%
Center,
Lift Station #1
$32,920
$0
$3,770
12,714
8.7
14.4%
$43,497
0.22%
H -Pool Solar Wtr
$30,688
$0
$16,982
209,555
1.8
60.8%
$307,931
3.62%
-Pool PumpMeasures -.
$33,140
0
$13,340
44,988
2.5
45.2%
$233,291
0.78%
- City Fleet New 2
$941,000
$0
$45,493
353,646
20.7
NA
($1,441,768)
6.11
PV-New 'City Hall
$181,684
$632
$5,145
19,181
35.3
6.1%
$15,214
0.33%
PV Suppying 100% Wtr
$3,791,975
$9,476
$142,763
287,720
26.6
8.6%
$1,369,901
4.97%
&WSte energy cost
PV APS
$136,491
$599
$9,029
18,198
15.1
14.2%
$154,123
0.31%
PV4
$199,421
$599
$4,881
18,198
40.9
1.2%
($63,444)
0.31%
PV5 -
$199,421
$599
$4,881
18,198
40.9
12%
($63,444)
0.31%
PV6.CREBS
$0
$0
$34,298
127,876
0.0
NA
$1,303,182
2.21
Commute
$0
$75,000
$0
100,355
NA
NA
($1,404,117)
1.73%
Fleet 2000-2006
$0
$0
$1,925
12,833
NA
NA
$38,219
0.22%
BiodieselB20
$5,000.
$0
$80
35,163
NA
NA
($3,175)
0.61%
Fleet Natural Gas
$432,000
$0
$19,493
165,196
22.2
NA
($334,160)
2.86
Conversions
City Fleet New 1
$76,000
$0
$15,416
102,774
4.9
19.5%
$124,702
1.78%
Biodiesel B100
$5,000
$0
$1,323
116,417
NA
NA
$21,503
2.01%
Ethanol E85
$96,000
$0
- $11,247
68,617
NA
NA
($452,398)
1.19%
'Pump Measures (4
$197,247
$0
$12,758
43,027
15.5
7.7%
$65,452 -
0.74%
implemented)
Pump Measures
$394,494
$0
$15,366
51,819
25.7
3.3%
($70,638)
0.90%
(Savings criteria $800)
Pump Measures
$65,749
$0
$3,561
12,010
18.5
6.1%
$8,089
0.21
(Savings criteria $1500);
Staff Coordinator
$0
$50,000
$0
0
NA
NA
($747,032)
0.00%
APS Public Safety
$5,000
$0
.$18,463
182,314
0.3
385.7%
$361,795
3.15%
_ -
'Central DDC
Table 6: List of Measures
Climate Protection Campaign 44 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
5.1 Measure Selection
Each Plan is comprised of measures from the tables above. The makeup of each plan is provided
in the table below. A "y" in the column under the Action Plan (A —E ) in the first five columns
indicates that.the measure is included in that plan. Action Plan A is comprised of 6 measures,
which have already been implemented. Action Plan E is comprised of 26 individual measures.
Table 7: Plan Compositions
Climate Protection Campaign 45 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
5.2 Measures Results
The measures considered for inclusion in the plans are described below. Each measure includes
a table indicating which Action Plans include that measure. For example, Measure 3 - HVAC
Measures is included in Plans B, C, D, and E as indicated by "y" under each plan. However, this
measure is not included in Action Plan A.
Action Plan
A
B
C
D
E
ri
Net Present
% of Total
The description of each measure also includes a table listing the results of the measure: the cost
of implementation, the annual savings, the GHG impact and the financial metrics of simple
payback, internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV). Again using Measure 3-
HVAC as an example:
Measure
Net Capital
O &M
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Net Present
% of Total
Financial
Description
GHG
incremental
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
IRR
Metrics
Summary
Visibility
cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Problem
Value
GHG
5
4
5
1
3
3
5
Measure 03
Building HVAC
$25,380
$0
$6;090
20,538
4.2
28.20/6
$96,740
0.35%
Finally, each measure description includes the Selection Evaluation table to. enable a
comprehensive appraisal and relational comparison of the benefits of each opportunity. The
complete table of measure evaluations is provided in the Appendices. The Selection Evaluation
table for Measure 3 is provided below as an example:
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
5
4
5
1
3
3
5
26
Table 8: Example Measure Evaluation Table
The measures considered in this analysis are listed in the following pages, with a brief
description of each. The inputs, assumptions and results are provided for each measure in the
Appendices.
Climate Protection Campaign 46 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan 1 -APS Energy Services (Implementation Date: 2006)
A B C D E
Y1, I Y _Y.. 'Y
8.20.07
Measure
Description
Net Capital
O&M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Summary
of Existing
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Value
GHG
Measure 01
APS Measures
$920,216
($2,982)
$54,228
235,782
17.0
7.3%
$250,036
4.08%
These measures were identified in the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report"
APS Energy Services, May, 2005. This analysis assumes that all measures were implemented in
2,006 except as noted below. The 30kW PV project was implemented and is evaluated
individually to allow for reporting by sector.
The following projects were included in the APS recommendations.
1) LED Pedestrian Crossing Lights
2) Programmable Thermostats
3) HVAC Direct Digital Controls (DDC) and Retro - Commissioning (RCx) (not
implemented, but included in this analysis as measure 30)
4) HVAC Condensing Units
5) Economizers and VSDs
6) Vending Mizers
7) 30kW Photovoltaic System for Sports Center (included as measure 15)
8) HVAC Rooftop Servicing
The cost for this package ($907,257) and the annual energy savings estimate (337,833 kWh)
reflect the cost and savings provided in the APS report, after the 30kW Photovoltaic System for
the Sports Center is removed for separate analysis as Measure 15.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (54avorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
0
4
4
5
31
3
5
24
Measure 1 is included all plans as a completed measure.
Climate Protection Campaign 47 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan
A A C D E 2- Lighting Upgrades - Chevron Energy Service (implementation Date: 2001)
Y I Y I Y I Y Y,
Measure
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Summary
of Existing
cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Value
GHG
Measure 02
Lighting Retrofit (multi -
$96,850
$0
$48,425
163,309
2.0
55.2%
$869,197
2.82%
bld
3
4
5
5'
3
4
5
These measures were identified in the Draft Plan: City of Rohnert Park Building Energy
Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas and based on the Chevron Energy Services lighting retrofit
project implemented in ' 2001. This analysis assumes that all measures identified in the
associated report were implemented. The cost for this measure is not available. However, an
assumed cost has been developed from the cost savings information provided by Staff. A simple
payback (SPB) of 2.0 years as applied to the savings to determine an estimate of the project cost
for this analysis. A SPB of 2.0 for lighting projects is a conservative estimate.
The buildings and facilities involved include:
1) Sports Center
2) Swimming Pool
3) Main Station
4) Parks
5) Spreckels Perfoming Arts Center
6) Animal Shelter
7) Senior Center
The table below provides the results for this measure for the Selection Matrix. This analysis
assigns values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum
measure score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6, and
the median score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG Impact
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
3
4
5
5'
3
4
5
29
Climate Protection Campaign 48 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan
A B E
3 -HVAC Measures (Implementation Date: 2007)
C D
n Y ! Y Y
The APS report identified numerous HVAC measures serving several buildings for possible
retrofit. The report did not provide the cost or savings associated with these recommendations.
However, the ABAG EW program has quantified the projected cost and potential savings for
three Community Center units.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
O &M
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Description
Net Capital
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Metrics
Cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
5
f
Cost
3
5
26
Building HVAC
$25,380
$0
$6,090
20,538
4.2
28.2%
$96,740
0.35%
The APS report identified numerous HVAC measures serving several buildings for possible
retrofit. The report did not provide the cost or savings associated with these recommendations.
However, the ABAG EW program has quantified the projected cost and potential savings for
three Community Center units.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
5
4
5
f
3
3
5
26
Climate Protection Campaign 49 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan 4- Computer Network Controls (Implementation Date: 2008)
A B C D E
n I n 6Y I Y Y
This measure was identified in -the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report" APS
Energy Services, May, 2005. This measure has not been implemented, and cost and savings
were specified. However, an estimated savings of $25 per unit is estimated based on discussions
with ABAG EW. The number of computer units (CPU) is estimated to be 100. Support for this
measure is available from PG &E via ABAG EW. The project cost of $5,000 is a rough estimate.
This measure is available for evaluation by the ABAG EW program.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
O &M
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Description
Net Capital
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Metrics
cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
2
1
Cost
2
5
23
Computer Network
Controls
$4,138
$0
$2,500
8,431
1.7
66.0%
$45,694
0.15%
This measure was identified in -the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report" APS
Energy Services, May, 2005. This measure has not been implemented, and cost and savings
were specified. However, an estimated savings of $25 per unit is estimated based on discussions
with ABAG EW. The number of computer units (CPU) is estimated to be 100. Support for this
measure is available from PG &E via ABAG EW. The project cost of $5,000 is a rough estimate.
This measure is available for evaluation by the ABAG EW program.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
5
5
2
1
3
2
5
23
Climate Protection Campaign 50 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan 5- Lighting Retrofit (T8 first generation to T8 third -generation)
A B C o E (Implementation Date: 2007)
Yl .. Y!
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
of Existing
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Value
GHG
Metrics
Problem
Cost
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
4
5
Addtl Lighting
$46,698
$0
$11,750
38,303
4.9
24.3%
$178,109
0.66%
The Chevron Energy Services lighting retrofit implemented in 2001 replaced building T -12
lighting with first generation T -8 linear fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts. The results of
this retrofit are presented in Measure 1 above. Since then, T -8 lighting technology has advanced
considerably which provides the opportunity for considerable savings by replacing the T -8 first
generation lighting with new third generation T -8 technology lamps and ballasts. This measure
has been recommended by the ABAG EW program.19 They are available to support the City
Staff in implementation.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
4
5
31
3
3
3
5
26
19 Draft Preliminary Audit Report for City of Rolmert Park Facilities, ABAG EW, June 1, 2007
Climate Protection Campaign 51 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan 6- Pool Covers (Implementation Date: 2006)
A 8 C D E
Y Y,7. Y Y .Y�
8.20.07
Pools lose heat energy in a variety of ways, but evaporation is by far the largest source of energy
loss for swimming pools. When compared to evaporation, all other losses are small. The reason
evaporation has such an impact is that evaporating water requires large amounts of energy.
Evaporation is approximately 70% of the heat loss from a pool. Pool covers will reduce energy
consumption by 40 to 60 %, reduce make -up water by 30 -50% and reduce the pool's chemical
consumption by 35- 60 %.20
This measure is now being utilized consistently at all pools and is considered a completed
measure for this analysis.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
O &M
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
Net Capital
of Existing
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Net Present
% of Total
Description
Problem
incremental
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
IRR
5
5
3
Cost
4
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Value
GHG
Cost
Pool Covers
$18,738
$0
$10,087
124,470
1.9
59.2%
$182,417
2.15%
Pools lose heat energy in a variety of ways, but evaporation is by far the largest source of energy
loss for swimming pools. When compared to evaporation, all other losses are small. The reason
evaporation has such an impact is that evaporating water requires large amounts of energy.
Evaporation is approximately 70% of the heat loss from a pool. Pool covers will reduce energy
consumption by 40 to 60 %, reduce make -up water by 30 -50% and reduce the pool's chemical
consumption by 35- 60 %.20
This measure is now being utilized consistently at all pools and is considered a completed
measure for this analysis.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
5
5
3
5
4
2
5
29
20 Draft Preliminary Audit Report for City of Rohnert Park Facilities, ABAG EW, June 1, 2007, pg 9.
Climate Protection Campaign 52 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan 7-Decommissioning the Community Center Fountain (Implementation
A B O D E Date: 2010) -
n I Y I Y I Y I Y.
This measure was identified in the APS report but not implemented. It is listed in the CIP for
decommissioning in 2006 -07. This measure may be implemented in 2007, rather than the
assumed 2010 date, which will improve the overall cash flow of Plans B through E.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (54avorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
O
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Net Capital
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Stabilization
Net Present
% of Tota l
Description
Problem
incremental
IRR
5
5
B
Cost
3
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Value
GHG
Cost
Decommission Fountain
$15,000
$0
$11,406
38,467
1.3
82.2%
$212,175
0.66%
This measure was identified in the APS report but not implemented. It is listed in the CIP for
decommissioning in 2006 -07. This measure may be implemented in 2007, rather than the
assumed 2010 date, which will improve the overall cash flow of Plans B through E.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (54avorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
5
5
B
3
3
3
5
27
Climate Protection Campaign 53 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan 8-Replacement of Sport Center Boiler (Implementation Date: 2008)
A B C D E
n I n I n Y
8.20.07
This measure was identified in the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report" APS
Energy Services, May, 2005. This measure has not been implemented. Rough cost and savings
were provided by ABAG,EW, based on an assumed 20% energy savings, and the natural gas
consumption of the Sports Center. This measure is available for evaluation by the ABAG EW
program. Staff identified the. following 25 year old units as needing replacement: (1) 300k BTU
watertube boiler supplying hydronic system; (1) 300k BTU watertube boiler supplying domestic
HW.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Net Capital
O &M
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Employee
Net Present
% of Total
Description
incremental
IRR
Metrics
Cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
Problem
Cost
3
4
5
Boiler Replcmnt Sports
$72,604
$0
$4,777
58,943
15.2
7.9%
$25,688
1.02%
Center
This measure was identified in the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report" APS
Energy Services, May, 2005. This measure has not been implemented. Rough cost and savings
were provided by ABAG,EW, based on an assumed 20% energy savings, and the natural gas
consumption of the Sports Center. This measure is available for evaluation by the ABAG EW
program. Staff identified the. following 25 year old units as needing replacement: (1) 300k BTU
watertube boiler supplying hydronic system; (1) 300k BTU watertube boiler supplying domestic
HW.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
3
4
5
4
3
3
5
27 ..
Climate Protection Campaign 54 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan 9_ Waste Water Lift Station #1 (Implementation Date: 2007)
A B 1; D E
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Value
GHG
Lift Station 41
$32,920
$0
$3,770
12,714
8.7
14.4%
$43,497
0.22%
City Staff has identified the sewage pump station #1 as a likely opportunity for energy. savings.
A preliminary review by ABAG EW outlines the measure:
Retrofitting the two 60 HP pumps with VFDs and new inverter duty motors will
reduce energy consumption by approximately 26,000 kWh/year assuming the
VFD is 10% more efficient than a magnetic pickup drive. v
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
5
4:
4
2
3
3
5,
26
2' Draft Preliminary Audit Report for City of Rohnert Park Facilities, ABAG EW, June 1, 2007, pg 11.
Climate Protection Campaign 55 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan
A A C D E 10 -Solar Water Heating for H -Pool (Implementation D ' ate: 2008)
n n:' Y Y Y,:.
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Stabilization
Value
GHG
H -Pool Solar Wtr
$30,688
$0
$16,982
209,555
1.8
60.8%
$307,931
3.62%
This measure was identified in the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report" APS
Energy Services, May, 2005. This measure has not been implemented, and cost and savings
have been estimated using general assumptions identified in the measure inputs in the
Appendices.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
5
4
2
5
5
3
5
29
Climate Protection Campaign 56 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan 11 -Pool Pump Measures (Implementation Date: 2007)
A B C D E
n Y Y Y Y;,
8.20.07
There are several measures available to reduce the energy consumption of the pools. These
include limiting the filtration pumping to meet public health regulatory requirements and adding
VFDs on the pumps. A preliminary review by ABAG EW outlines the measure:
We recommend installing controllers that cycle the pumps at night as well as
installing variable frequency drives (VFDs) on the pool pumps so that the pump
flow rates can be varied over the day—Estimated savings for the addition of
pump speed control is 50% of current kWh or about 92,000 kWh per year. 22
The. table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
O &M
Resolution
Description
Net Capital
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Metrics
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
Pool Pump Measures ,
$33,140
0
$13,340
44,988
2.5
45.2%
$233,291
0.78%
There are several measures available to reduce the energy consumption of the pools. These
include limiting the filtration pumping to meet public health regulatory requirements and adding
VFDs on the pumps. A preliminary review by ABAG EW outlines the measure:
We recommend installing controllers that cycle the pumps at night as well as
installing variable frequency drives (VFDs) on the pool pumps so that the pump
flow rates can be varied over the day—Estimated savings for the addition of
pump speed control is 50% of current kWh or about 92,000 kWh per year. 22
The. table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
3
5
2
S
4
2
5
26
22 Draft Preliminary Audit Report for City of Rohnert Park Facilities, ABAG EW, June 1, 2007, pg 8.
Climate Protection Campaign 57 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
A B C .F: 12- New Fleet Purchase Strategy 2 (implementation Date: 2012)
n n I n ,y I Y-
8.20.07
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
MPG / MPkWh
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Energy Cost
Value
GHG
City FleetNew 2
$941,000
$0.
$45,493
353,646
20.7
NA
($1,441,768)
6.11%
This is a very aggressive strategy which maximizes the potential fleet GHG emissions reductions
by directing future fleet purchases to the most energy efficiency purchases. The high cost vs.
energy cost savings results in both a negative IRR and NPV. However, the implementation date
of this measure is 2012. There are rapidly emerging electric vehicle opportunities based on the
lithium battery, as demonstrated by the PG &E commitment to the Phoenix pilot program. These
opportunities should expand and be available for consideration within the life of these Action
Plans. More information on road worthy electric vehicles is provided in Appendices. The full
fleet list for each fleet measure is also provided in the appendices.
The following substitutions are included in this measure, affecting 46 unit purchases. The last
entry Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) was applied to one unit. This strategy can be
expanded for units driven less than 30 miles per day. Furthermore, advances in, battery
technology just entering the market will expand the range of these vehicles.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Strategy
Resolution
Original
Replacement
Fuel
MPG / MPkWh
Incremental
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Cost
Taurus
Metrics
Prius;
Gasoline
4$.0 "
4000
Escape
Score
Escape Hybritl
Gasoline, ::
30 0 •
4000
Explorer `
Escape Hybrid
": Gasohrie
30:0
4000
Expedition
`
Pijoernx SUV
Electric;
3 7 •
„15,000
Sonoma,•.:
Phoenix 5UT
Electric "
3T
31,000
Accord,,
Pt us
-Gasoline
48 0;
4000
Ranger, • •
•`.
Phoernx SUT
" " Electric
2500 SL.'
PhoenixSUT'
Electric
3:7
21,000
Selected ",,
`NEW.—,"'
� Electric,,
5`
=2000 ".
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
0
0
2
5
5
1
41
17
Climate Protection Campaign 58 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
A B 'C D E 13- Photovoltaic System on new City Hall (Implementation Date: 2008)
n Y Y Y Y3
8.20.07
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Stabilization
Value
GHG
PV -New. City. Hall
$181,684
$632
$5,145
19,181
35.3
2.5%
($39,715)
0.33%
A 30kW (ac) system will be included on the new City Hall building due to be occupied
December 2007.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
0
2 !
3
2
5
3
5
20
Climate Protection Campaign 59 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan 14- Photovoltaic Svstems to offset metered usage at water system
A B C D E
•pumps (Implementation Date: 2010)
Net Capital
Description
O&M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Energy Cost
Value
GHG
PVSuppying gycost r''
$3,791,975
$9,476
$142,763
287,720
26.6
7.1%
$880,685
4.97%
&V!/ste energy cost
0
4
3!
Photovoltaic (PV) systems are available for electricity generation to offset the energy
consumption of water pumping. This strategy has been successfully used within other Sonoma
County enterprise funds, providing a positive cash flow to the fund by financing the measure
with an appropriately long term for repayment. The application of PV systems to water supply
pumping situations is particularly attractive due the ability to schedule the majority of the
pumping at night when energy rates are low (utilizing the capacity of the storage tanks). The PV
systems generate energy during the day when it is most valuable. Therefore the energy produced
is much more valuable than the energy purchased from the utility for that meter. This advantage
is reflected in the attractive IRR and NPV relative to the financial metrics of PV measures 16 and
17.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
0
4
3!
5
5
3
5
25
Climate Protection Campaign 60 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Action Plan 15- Photovoltaic System (APS) Sports Center (Implementation Date: 2006)
A B C D E
A photovoltaic (30kWac) system was installed as part of the APS energy efficiency package and
completed in 2006. The cost and rebate are based on the current values. This measure was
included in the comprehensive APS package. The cost and energy savings have been
disaggregated to allow reporting by sector (building, PV, etc).
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
O &M
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Description
Net Capital
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
4
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
25
Value
GHG
PV APS
$136,491
$599
$9,029
18,198
15.1
14.2%
$154,123
0.31%
A photovoltaic (30kWac) system was installed as part of the APS energy efficiency package and
completed in 2006. The cost and rebate are based on the current values. This measure was
included in the comprehensive APS package. The cost and energy savings have been
disaggregated to allow reporting by sector (building, PV, etc).
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
3
4
3
2
5
3
5
25
Climate Protection Campaign 61 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
H�16- Photovoltaic System (Implementation Date: 2010)
A B C D E
n n Ey. n I Y' .
8.20.07
Strategy A
Photovoltaic (30kWac) system installation which would offset the kWh consumption of a city
building, installed on the existing roof or as a parking shade structure. Strategy A was not
included in any of the action plans, but is available for analysis.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
O &M
Resolution
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Net Present
Description
Net Capital
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Metrics
Cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
Problem
Cost
Measure 16
PV4
$487,583
0
0
3
PV4 !
$199,421
$599
$4,881
18,198
40.9
1.2%
($63,444)
0.31%
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Net Capital
Resolution
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Net Present
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
IRR
Metrics
GHG
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
Measure 16
PV4
$487,583
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
18
Strategy B
Photovoltaic (60 kWac) system installation which would offset the kWh consumption of a city
building, installed on the existing roof or as a parking shade structure. This strategy is included
in Action Plan C and E. The negative IRR and NPV reflect the diminishing CPUC incentives
over the next few years. The current incentive programs will end prior to the implementation
date of 2010. However, the CPUC may refund the PV incentive programs, which would improve.
the financial metrics of this opportunity.
Measure
Net Capital
O &M
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Net Present
% of Total
Summary
Description
Cost
incremental
Savings
Reduction
Simple Payback
IRR
Value
GHG
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Cost
Score
Problem
Measure 16
PV4
$487,583
$1,215
$9,894
36,887
49.3
-0.4 %'
($207,986)
0.64%
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
0
0-
3
2
5
3
5
18
Climate Protection Campaign 62 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
A s c o e 17- Photovoltaic System (Implementation Date: 2011)
(note: this is a duplicate of measure 16)
n n -.y I n I _
8.20.07
Strategy A
Photovoltaic (30kWac) system installation which would offset the kWh consumption of a city
building, installed on the existing roof or as a parking shade structure. This strategy was not
included in any of the action plans, but is available for analysis.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Measure
O &M
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Description
Net Capital
Incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Metrics
Cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
Problem
Cost
0
0
3
PV4
$199,421
$599
$4,881
18,198
40.9
1.2%
($63,444)
0.31%
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Measure
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
% of Total
of Existing
Summary
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Cost
Problem
0
0
3
2
5
3
5
18
Strategy B
Photovoltaic (60 kWac) system installation which would offset the kWh consumption of a city
building, installed on the existing roof or as a parking shade structure. This strategy is included
in Action Plan C and E. The negative IRR and NPV reflect the diminishing CPUC incentives
over the next few years. The current incentive programs will end prior to the implementation
date of 2011. However, the CPUC may refund the PV incentive programs, which would improve
the financial metrics of this opportunity.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Measure
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annuat CC2
Simple Payback
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
of Existing
Summary
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Metrics
Value
GHG
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Cost
Problem
0
Measure 16
PV4
$487,583
$1,215
$9,894
36,887
49.3
-0.4%
($207,986)
0.64%
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
0
0-
3
2
5
3
5
18
Climate Protection Campaign 63 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan 18- CREBS funded Photovoltaic Systems (Implementation Date: 2008)
A B C D E
n q ..y....y y
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
of Existing
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Value
GHG
Metrics
Cost
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
PV6 -CREBS
$0
$0
$34,298
127,876
0.0
NA
$1,303,182
2.21%
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS) are IRS enabled tax free bonds for renewable energy
allowing the installation of photovoltaic systems at no cost to the City. These can be installed on
existing buildings and on parking shade structures. The "rights" to the power are assigned to the
bondholders and a power purchase agreement is established with the city. The rate is set
marginally below the utility rate. At the end of the term of the contract the rights to the power
revert back to the city for the remainder of the. life of the system. This analysis is based on total
of 200kW ac, installed as numerous smaller systems ( -30kW) on city owned facilities yet to be
defined.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
31
Climate Protection Campaign 64 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
19- Commute Reduction (Implementation Date: 2008)
A B C D E
n n n y y,
8.20.07
The general assumptions of a transit demand management (TDM) program are based on the
documented cost and impact of successful programs provided in published case studies. This
analysis assumes a minimal investment of $75k per year resulting in an impact of 20% on the
commuting patterns of city employees. A general summary of commute programs is provided in
the appendices. Further study is recommended to allow a more aggressive analysis of commute
program impacts.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
f
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Net Capital
O &M
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Employee
Net Present
% of
Description
incremental
IRR
Total
Metrics
Cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
Problem
Cost
3
3
GHG
Commute
$0
$75,000
$0
100,355
NA
NA
($1,404,117)
1.73%
The general assumptions of a transit demand management (TDM) program are based on the
documented cost and impact of successful programs provided in published case studies. This
analysis assumes a minimal investment of $75k per year resulting in an impact of 20% on the
commuting patterns of city employees. A general summary of commute programs is provided in
the appendices. Further study is recommended to allow a more aggressive analysis of commute
program impacts.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
f
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
22
Climate Protection Campaign 65 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan 20- City Fleet 2000 to 2007. (Single retired vehicle, not replaced)
A B C D E (Implementation Date: 2005)
-Y Y I Y I Y 'Y'
8.20.07
Net Capital
This measure documents the elimination of one..vehicle from the City fleet, from the baseline
year of 2000 to the present (based on best available information). This is a completed measure,
which does not have a significant impact on the results of this analysis.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
O&M
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Employee
Net Present
% of Total
Description
incremental
IRR
Metrics
Cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
3
2
Cost
3
3
20
Fleet 2000 -2006
$0
$0
$1,925
12,833
NA
NA
$0
0.22%
This measure documents the elimination of one..vehicle from the City fleet, from the baseline
year of 2000 to the present (based on best available information). This is a completed measure,
which does not have a significant impact on the results of this analysis.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
of Existing
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
20
Climate Protection Campaign 66 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
A B C o E 21 -Fleet use of Biodiesel (B20) (Implementation Date: 2009)
n ''Yr n n n
1IA
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Problem
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Stabilization
Value
GHG
2 ',
2
Cost
4
2
2
18
Biodiesel 13,20
$5,000
$0
$80
35,163
NA
NA
($3,175)
0.61%
This measure changes the fuel mix for all diesel vehicles to a 20/80% (biodiesel /diesel) blend for
all fleet vehicles currently using diesel fuel. Biodiesel is now readily available at a reasonable
price allowing rapid implementation of this GHG reduction strategy. This analysis assumes
$4.00 per gallon and $5,000 for infrastructure improvements (tanks, etc). Local prices are now
$3.05 per gallon, similar to the cost of standard diesel fuel. Therefore, the annual cost and NPV
will actually be closer to zero.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5 =favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
3
2 ',
2
3
4
2
2
18
Climate Protection Campaign 67 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan 22_ Fleet use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
A s c o E (Implementation Date: 2009)
n . n I n I Y I Y.
8.20.07
This measure specifies the use of Compressed Natural Gas in the Crown Victoria units (PD
patrol). The implementation date is aggressive, assuming that all units would be converted to
CNG by 2009. The IRR and NPV are both negative for this measure.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Net Capital
O &M
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Net Present
% of Total
Description
Financial
incremental
GHG
Public.
Employee
IRR
Measure
Metrics
Cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
Problem
Cost
0
0
2
Fleet Natural Gas
4
2
1
14
Conversions
$432,000
$432,000
$0
$19,493
165,196
22.2
NA
2.86%
This measure specifies the use of Compressed Natural Gas in the Crown Victoria units (PD
patrol). The implementation date is aggressive, assuming that all units would be converted to
CNG by 2009. The IRR and NPV are both negative for this measure.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public.
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
0
0
2
s
4
2
1
14
Climate Protection Campaign 68 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
A B o E 23- Purchase of Fuel Efficient Vehicles (Implementation Date: 2009)
n -y" y I n I n
8.20.07
This is a less aggressive fleet purchase strategy which relies on more energy efficiency fleet
purchases. The full fleet list for each fleet measure is provided in the appendices.
The following fleet purchase substitutions are included in this measure, affecting 19 unit
purchases.
Strategy
O &M
Resolution
Original
Replacement
Fuel
MPG/
Incremental
Cost
Net Capital
of Existing
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
Prius
Net Present
% of Total
Description
Cost
incremental
Savings
Reduction
Payback
IRR
Value
GHG
30
$4' 000
Cost
Escape Hybrid
Gasoline
30
$4;000
City Fleet New 1
$76,000
$0
$15,416
102,774
4.9
19.5%
$124,702
1.78%
This is a less aggressive fleet purchase strategy which relies on more energy efficiency fleet
purchases. The full fleet list for each fleet measure is provided in the appendices.
The following fleet purchase substitutions are included in this measure, affecting 19 unit
purchases.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Strategy
Financial
Resolution
Original
Replacement
Fuel
MPG/
Incremental
Cost
Metrics
of Existing
MPkWh
Cost
Taurus
Prius
Gasoline..
48
$4 ;000
Escape
Escape Hybrid
Gasoline
30
$4,000
Explorer
Escape Hybrid
Gasoline
30
$4' 000
Expedition
Escape Hybrid
Gasoline
30
$4;000
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
Metrics
of Existing
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
3
4
3
4
5
2
4
25
Climate Protection Campaign 69 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
B C o E 24- Fleet use of Biodiesel (13100) (Implementation Date: 2009)
n I n 1, Y Y I Y ='
8.20.07
Measure 24 is based on two strategies. Strategy A assumes 100% biodiesel is utilized in all
diesel vehicles model year 1995 and later. It is assumed that no conversion is required for these
vehicles. As the price of biodiesel is now on par with diesel, a new development since the
analysis was completed, the annual cost savings and NPV will be closer to zero. Strategy B
assumes that all diesel units utilize 100% biodiesel, requiring the conversion of rubber hoses in
the model years earlier than 1995. Again, the cost of biodiesel is on par with diesel. Therefore
the annual cost savings will be closer to zero. The cost of the tanks is assumed to be $5,000.
Strategy A (All Diesel Vehicles model year 1995 and later) utilized in Plan D.
Description.
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
of Existing
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Energy Cost
Value
GHG
Metrics
Cost
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Biodiesel13100
$5,000
$0
$1,323
116,417
NA
NA
$21,503
2.01%
This strategy assumes that 11 units are fueled with 100% biodiesel. The table below provides
the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns values between 0 and 5 for
seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure score is 31. The minimum
score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Resolution
Annual CO2
Simple Payback
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
GHG
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
$11,000
$0
$1,998
175,817
NA
3
1
2
5
11 4
2
2'
19
Strategy B (All Diesel Vehicles, conversion kits required for model years earlier
than 1995) utilized in Plans C and E.
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple Payback
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
of Existing
Savings
Reduction
Employee
Energy Cost
Value
GHG
Metrics
Cost
Visibility
Impact
'Stabilization
Score
Bo diesel 6100
$11,000
$0
$1,998
175,817
NA
NA
$29,191
3.04%
This strategy assumes that 16 units are fueled with 100% biodiesel.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Impact
Visibility
Impact
'Stabilization
Score
Problem
3
1
21
5
4
2
2;
19
Climate Protection Campaign 70 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
A B o E 25- Fleet use of Ethanol (E85) (Implementation Date: 2012)
n n Y:.:'. n n
8.20.07
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
°f Existing
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Stabilization
Value
GHG
Problem
Cost
2
0
Ethanol E85
$96,000
$0
- $11,247
68,617
NA
NA
($452,398)
1.19%
This measure assumes the use of of 85% / 15% mix of ethanol /gasoline (E85) in all Crown
Victoria units (PD patrol). Flex fuel versions of this model are available. The implementation
date of 2012 allows for the conversion as new units are purchased.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Cost
Metrics
°f Existing
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Problem
2
0
2
4
4
2
1
15
Climate Protection Campaign 71 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan
A B o E 26- Water Supply Pump Measures Completed (implementation Date: 2006)
Y Y Y Yy..
All water supply pumps were tested for efficiency resulting in the retrofit of four pump stations.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
O&M
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Description
Net Capital
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
3
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
21
Value
GHG
Pump Measures (4 -.
I impleme nted)
;
$197,247
$0
$12,758
43,027
15.5
NA
$0
0.74%
All water supply pumps were tested for efficiency resulting in the retrofit of four pump stations.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
21
Climate Protection Campaign 72 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Action Plan
27 -Water Supply Pump Measures (Implementation Date: 2008)
A B C D E
n n I n I y Yti
The remaining water supply pumps, tested but not retrofitted are considered for energy efficiency
improvements. Strategy A sets the annual energy savings at the minimal level of $500 for
selection for retrofit. This aggressive approach is more costly, but yields the greatest benefits.
Strategy B sets the annual energy savings criteria of selection at $800 which results in fewer
pumps meeting the criteria.
Strategy A: $500 savings required for selection, utilized in Plan E (a pump list is provided in the
appendices).
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
O &M
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Description
Net Capital
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple Payback
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
1
Cost
4
Savings
Reduction
5
19
Value
GHG
Cost
Pump Measures
(Savings criteria $500)
$591,741
$0
$19,431
65,530
30.5
2.0%
($177,775)
1.13%
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
0
1
3
4
3
3
5
19
Strategy B: $800 Savings required for selection, utilized in Plan D and E.
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Stabilization
Value
GHG
Pump Measures
(Savings criteria $800)
$394,494
$0
$15,366
51,819
25.7
°
3.3/°
($70,638)
0.90%
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
0
1
3
4
3
3
5
19
Climate Protection Campaign 73 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan
A a c o E 28- Water Pumps 2 (Implementation Date: 2010) utilized in Plan B.
n y ". y.. n - n
8.20.07
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Stabilization
Value
GHG
Pump Measures
$65,749
$0
$3,561
12,010
18.5
6.1%
$8,089
0.21%
(Savings criteria $1500)
This measure sets the annual energy savings at the minimal level of $1500 for selection for
retrofit. This much less aggressive approach yields modest GHG results but also is less costly.
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
3
3
3
2
3
3
5
22
Climate Protection Campaign 74 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Action Plan "
AB o E 29- Staff Efficiency Coordinator (Implementation Date: 2008)
n Y I Y Y Y..
8.20.07
Description
Net Capital
O &M
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Cost
Cost
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Stabilization
Value
GHG
Staff Coordinator
$0
$50,000
$0
0
NA
NA
($747,032)
0.00%
The implementation and monitoring of an aggressive GHG emissions reduction program, and the
associated energy cost savings, will be greatly enhanced with the dedicated time of a City Staff
member. Plans B - E include a 0.5 FTE position. The expense for this position is included in the
financial analyses, and the net cash flow for each plan. Essentially, the cost savings for the
added halftime position are funded by the plans with a positive cash flow.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Cost
Financial
Resolution
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
1
0
5
3
3
4
3
19
Climate Protection Campaign 75 . Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Aclion Plan 30- Public Safety HVAC DDC Controls (Implementation Date: 2007)
A B c D E
Y Y I Y I Y
This measure was recommended and implemented by the APS Energy Services contract
completed in 2006. However, comfort issues and staff needs apparently were not adequately
addressed and the DDC controls were reversed and the system reverted back to the original
controls methodology. The opportunities with this measure are significant. The implementation
costs assigned to this measure are intended to cover the retro- commissioning required to
implement the DDC controls, and to resolve the comfort and staff needs issues.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
O &M
Resolution
Description
Net Capital
incremental
Annual Cost
Annual CO2
Simple
IRR
Net Present
% of Total
Metrics
Cost
Impact
Savings
Reduction
Payback
Score
Value
GHG
2
5
Cost
1
5
26
APS Safety
Centrntral -DDC
al
$5,000
$0
$18,463
182,314
0.3
385.7%
$361,795
3.15%
This measure was recommended and implemented by the APS Energy Services contract
completed in 2006. However, comfort issues and staff needs apparently were not adequately
addressed and the DDC controls were reversed and the system reverted back to the original
controls methodology. The opportunities with this measure are significant. The implementation
costs assigned to this measure are intended to cover the retro- commissioning required to
implement the DDC controls, and to resolve the comfort and staff needs issues.
The table below provides the comprehensive evaluation of this measure. This analysis assigns
values between 0 and 5 for seven important aspects of the measures. The maximum measure
score is 31. The minimum score is 14. The average score of all measures is 22.6. The median
score is 22.5.
Selection Evaluation (5= favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Resolution
Cost.
Financial
of Existing
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Metrics
Problem
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
5
5
2
5
3
1
5
26
Climate Protection Campaign 76 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Additional Opportunities not quantified in this report.
HVAC and Hot Water
These measures were identified in the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report"
APS Energy Services, May, 2005. These measures have not been implemented, and cost and
savings were not estimated.
The measures included are:
Animal Shelter: Replace (2) Rooftop gas /electric units, add two economizers.
• Cultural Arts: (9) rooftop units EER =9.0, AFUE =78%
• All buildings: HVAC controls and /or controls retro - commissioning (RCx)
• . Reactivate disabled economizers on numerous HVAC units.
• Community Center: Consider Economizers
• Corporation Yard: HVAC repl. (3) units "EER " =9.5, 9.5 and 7.8;afue =75%
Direct Digital Control System Expansion
This measure was identified in the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report" APS
Energy Services, May, 2005. This measure has not been implemented, and cost and savings
were not estimated.
Insulating Corp Yard buildings
This measure was identified in the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report" APS
Energy Services, May, 2005. This measure has not been implemented, and cost and savings
were not estimated.
Cogeneration for Pools
This measure was identified in the "City of Rohnert Park Technical Energy Audit Report" APS
Energy Services, May, 2005. This measure has not been implemented, and cost and savings
were not estimated.
Carbon Credits
This is an emerging industry. The report in the Appendices provides the range of programs
available, and a brief analysis.
E- Billing
The city billing can be converted to electronic billing for those customers willing to participate.
There would be considerable material and cost savings associated with this measure. However,
verifiable data on the savings was not available for this. analysis.
Climate Protection Campaign 77 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
6.0 Summary and Conclusions
The GHG emissions reduction of 20% by 2010 can be achieved by a number of paths
documented in this report. Each path, or Action Plan, is comprised of up to 26 individual
measures and each is evaluated for the financial, cost, and the other benefits they contribute to
the overall strategy. The analysis model underpinning these results will be available for
incorporating new information and technologies as they come available, as well as truing the
analysis with monitoring data. The comprehensive approach to addressing this goal allows the
City to meet a number of related goals, including improving the long term financial health of
Rohnert Park, addressing the existing maintenance demands of aging equipment, and providing
the public demonstration of commitment and progress in the highly visible challenge of
greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
7.0 Appendices
7.1 Action Plan Evaluations
7.2 Plan Comparisons Including Completed Projects
7.3 Pump Lists
7.4 Vehicle Lists
7.5 Carbon Credits
7.6 Electric Vehicles
7.7 Commute Programs
7.8 Measure Input Summaries
Climate Protection Campaign 78 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
7.1 Action Plan Evaluations
The GHG Emission Reduction Action Plans involve more than CO2e reduction and cash flow.
There are critical concerns that should be factored into the decision making process. These
include the financial metrics of internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) used to
evaluate the worthiness of the investment; the cost of implementing the measure, some measures
come with a large price tag which will challenge liquidity; the degree to which the plan resolves
existing problems, such as old, high maintenance air conditioning units; the visibility of the
measures to the public, for example the photovoltaic systems are a physical example of actions
taken the city and communicate action and commitment to the community. Other key
considerations include the employee impacts of new equipment or procedures, which may
generate internal opposition; and the impact on the variability of future energy costs and the
associated budgetary vulnerability.
Each measure, and the plans as a whole are evaluated by the following considerations:
• Measure Capital Cost:
• Financial Metrics (IRR and NPV)
• Resolution of Existing Problems
• GHG Impact
• Public Visibility
• Employee Impact
• Energy Cost Stabilization
Table 9 below provides the evaluation results for each measure by individual criteria. The
individual scores for each category (cost, financial metrics, etc) are summed to provide an
overall score for that measure. While this table provides important information to be considered
when selecting measures, the scores are advisory only. A relatively low score does not preclude
a measure, nor should a high score guarantee inclusion of the measure in the Action Plans.
There will always be additional considerations that are not reflected in the Selection Evaluation
process. The "adjusted measure score" is a feature under development which will allow the
weighting of the criteria. This feature is not active for this analysis.
Climate Protection Campaign 79 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Table 9: Measure List and Evaluations
* Scoring: Higher Score = More Favorable
Climate Protection Campaign 80 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Selection Evaluation (5--favorable, 3= neutral, 0 =not favorable)
Description
Financial
Resolution
GHG
Public
Employee
Energy Cost
Measure
Adjusted
Cost
Metrics
of Existing
Impact
Visibility
Impact
Stabilization
Score
Measure
Problem
Score
PV6 -CREBS
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
31
31.00
Lighting Retrofit (multi-
bldg)
3
4
5
5
3
4
5
29
29.00
Pool Covers
5
5
3
5
4
2
5
29
29.00'
H -Pool Solar.Wtr
5
4
2
5
5
3
5
29
29.00
Decommission' Fountain
5
5
3'
3
3
3
5
27
27.00
Boiler Replcmnt Sports
Center
3
4
5
4
3
3
5
27
27.00
Building HVAC
51
4
5
1
3
3
5
26
26.00
Addtl Lighting
4
5
3
3
3
3
5
26
26.00
Lift Station #1
5
4
4
2
3
3
5
26
26.00
Pool Pump Measures
3
5
2
5
4
2
5
26
26.00
APS Public Safety
Central CDC
5
5
2
5 ''
3!
1
5
26
26.00
PV Suppying 100% Wtr
&Wste energy cost
0
4
3
5-
5
3
5
25
25.00
PV APS
3
4
3
2
5 !'
3
5
25L
25.00
City Fleet New 1
3
4
3
L 4
5
2'
4
25
25.00'
APS Measures
0
4 L
4
5 ,'
3
3
5
24
24.00
Computer Network
Controls
5
5
2
1
3
2,
5
23
23.00!
Commute' L.
: 3
3
3
3:
3
4'
3
22 ,
22.00 r
Pump Measures.
(Savings criteria $1500)
3
3
3
2
3
3'
5
22
22.00
Pump Measures (4
implemented)
1
3
3
3
3
3:
5
21
21.00 :.
PV -New City Halt
0 L
2
3
2
5:
3 1
5
20
20.00
Fleet 2000 - 2006
3
3
3
2
3
3 ^: LL L
3
20
20.00',
BlodleselL B100
3
1
2
5
4
2
2
19
19.00'
Pump Measures'
(Savings criteria $800)
0
1
3
4
3
3
S
19
19.00
Staff Coordinator
1
0
5
3
3
4
3
19
19.00
PV4
0
0
3
2!
5
3
5 L L
18 L
18.00
PV5
0
0
3
L 2
5
3
5
18
18.00 s
Biodiesel B20
L L 3 L
2
2
3 L
4
2
2 L L L
18
18.00
City Fleet New 2
0
0
2
LL
5
5
1!
4
17
17.00
Ethanol E85,
" 2
0
2
L 4 L
4
2
1
15
15.00
Fleet Natural Gas
Conversions
0
0
2 L
5
4
2
]
14
14.00 rr
Table 9: Measure List and Evaluations
* Scoring: Higher Score = More Favorable
Climate Protection Campaign 80 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
8.20.07
Table 10 below compiles the scoring for each measure included in each plan (the measure
scoring is provided in Table 9) and yields an average score for each metric. The Energy Cost
Stabilization is based on the reduction of reliance on electricity and natural gas, whose associated
costs are vulnerable to rapid escalation. Because Plan E is the most aggressive, and therefore has
the greatest impact on reducing vulnerability, it is assigned a value of 5: The scoring for each of
the other plans is defined by its impact relative to the impact of Plan E. A higher score indicate
more a more favorable evaluation for that metric. The GHG Impact metric is omitted from this
aggregated scoring to avoid disproportionate influence of this category.
Plan Scoring
Metric \ Plan
A
B
c
D
E
Cost
2.5
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.5
Financial Metrics
18
3.7
3.2
3.3
3.0
Resolution of Existing
Problem
3.5
3.3
3:1
3.1
3.2
Public Visibility
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.8
Employee Impact
3.0
2.8.,
2.9
2.8
2.5
Energy Cost
Stabilization
1.5
2.9
4:0
4.4
5.0
Total
17.9
19.4
19.9
20.0
19.9
Table 10: Evaluation Matrix
Figure 12 below presents the information in the table above in graph form to allow visual
comparison of the plans on the various metrics.
Figure 12: Relative Strengths of Each Plan
Climate Protection Campaign 81 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
7.2 Plan Comparisons Including Completed Projects
This cash flow comparison includes the projects that were completed between 2000 and 2007.
The results, are significantly more favorable due to the large energy cost savings associated with
these efforts. The completed projects affecting the analysis are listed below.
• APS Measures
• Chevron Energy Services Lighting Retrofit
• Pool Covers
• APS, Photo - voltaic System
• Fleet Enhancements from 2000 through 2006
• Water System Pump Improvements
The financial results are provided below.
GHG Action Plan Summary
Analysis
Plan A
Plan B
Plan C
Plan D
Plan E
%Reduction
10.9 %
23.2%
35.6%
42.9%
50.3
SPB
2.1
0.9
7.9
12.0
16.0
IRR
76.6%
133.5%
26.4%
20.2%
11.2%
NPV
$1,758,018
$3,377,939
$3,478,383
$3,262,793
$2,256,514
Annual Cash Flow
Plan A
Plan B
Plan C
Plan D
Plan E
2000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2002
$34,014
$34,014
$34,014
$34,014
$34,014
2003
$35,768
$35,768
$35,768
$35,768
$35,768
2004
$37,583
$37,583
$37,583
$37,583
$37,583
2005
$39,463
$39,463
$39,463
$39,463
$39,463
2006
$24,662
$24,662
$24,662
$24,662
$24,662
2007
$15,744
$10,744
$29,680
$10,744
$29,680
2008
$21,330
$39,899
$45,365
$35,615
$45,365
2009
$43,216
$77,111
$92,217
$15,915
($64,893)
2010
$49,196
$93,755
$118,229
$2,769
($72,183)
2011
$55,383
$124,325
$66,765
$101,144
($15,730)
2012
$61,783
$136,271
($44,726)
$134,193
($24,008)
2013
$68,406
$148,638
$55,304
($10,772)
($167,626)
2014
$108,060
$191,955
$101,630
$44,447
($112,003)
2015
$115,149
$226,480
$149,115
$74,212
($71,965)
2016
$122,483
$240,204 1
$166,056
$47,582
($65,346)
2017
$130,071
$254,412
$183,591
$74,889
($37,569)
2018
$87,728
$229,860
$221,200
$271,330
$158,909
2019
$146,045
$215,488
$312,523
$82,774
($29,129)
2020
$154,449
$280,480
$279,057
$403,464
$292,105
2021
$163,145
$349,705
$412,051
$487,578
$436,754
2022
$269,648
$464,102
$359,587
($1,440,888)
($1,530,205)
2023
$278,956
$481,587
$510,156
$650,708
$559,331
2024
$288,587
$506,193
$634,207
$691,706
$702,732
2025
$298,552
$524,928
$657,292
$727,367
$739,084
Table 11: Net Cash Flow Including Completed Projects
Climate Protection Campaign 82 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
7.3 Pump Lists
$500
Savings
Criteria
Pump List
Provided in Test Reports
Additional
Information
Included
Description
Total Annual
Usa e kWh
kWh
Cost
Cost Savings
Efficiency
VFD
HP
yes
Well #9, 40hp, 570 Southwest Blvd, Ref# 100949
35,548
13,443
$32,875
$1,949
36.1 % to 58.0%
no
40
yes
Well #29, 20hp, 4699 Snyder Ln. Ref# 100964
24,683
11,118
$32,875
$1,612
34.1 %to 62.0%
no
20
yes
Well #20, 30hp, 1150 Golf Course Dr, Ref# 100967
21,616
10,670
$32,875
$1,547
31.4% to 62.0%
no
30
yes
Well #11, 60hp, 6096 Daphine Ct, Ref# 100971
36,151
9,900
$32,875
$1,436
47.2% to 65.0%
no
60
yes
Tanks STA 4, P1 &2, 60hp, Ref # 100963
45,041
8,959
$32,875
$1,299
49.7% to 62.0%
no
60
yes
Well #8A, 15hp, 842 Lunar Ct. Ref# 100946
16,697
8,784
$32,875
$1,274
27% to 57.0%
no
15
yes
ITank #3, 60hp, 1432 Jasmine Circle, Ref# 100979
15,360
8,617
$32,875
$1,249
28.5% to 65.0%
no
60
yes
Well #41, 40hp, 4613 Harmony Place, Ref# 100973
35,534
7,720
$32,875
$1,119
50.9% to 65.0%
no
40
yes
Well #22, 20hp, Medical Center Dr. Ref# 100944
14,668
7,169
$32,875
$1,040
29.1% to 57.0%
no
20
yes
Well #39, 40hp, 7309 Rebas Way, Ref# 100943
35,971
7,031
$32,875
$1,019
52.3% to 65.0%
no
40
yes
Well #15, 60hp, 200 Golf Course Drive, Ref# 100977
51,398
6,399
$32,875
$928
56.9% to 65.0%
no
60
yes
Tank #1 50hp, 779 East Cotati Ave
44,740
6,338
$32,875
$919
49.8% to 58.96/6
no
50
yes
Well #18, 50hp, 610 Hudis, Ref# 100965
16,240
6,160
$32,875
$893
35.8% to 58.0%
no
50
yes
Well#40, 30hp, 5302 Business Park Drive, Ref# 100978
24,761
5,043
$32,875
$731
46.2% to 58.0%
no
30
yes
Well # 21, 20hp, 5165 Snyder Lane, Ref# 100983 -
14,819
4,569
$32,875
$663
42.2% to 61.0%
no
20
yes
Tank STA. 4,P2, 30hp, ref #100961
24,605
4,539
$32,875
$658
47.3% to 58.0%
no
30
yes
Well #42, 30hp, 4613 Harmony Place, 100968
22,673
4,182
$32,875
$606
50.6% to 62.0%
no
30
yes
Well #34, 10hp, 8069 Broadway Parkway, Ref# 100958
9,096 1
3,367
$32,875 1
$505
36.5% to 58.0%
no
10
$800
Savings
Criteria
Pump List
Provided in Test Reports
Additional
information
Included
Description
Total Annual
Usage kWh
kWh
Cost
Cost Savings
Efficiency
VFD
HP
yes
Well #9, 40hp, 570 Southwest Blvd, Ref# 100949
35,548_
13,443
$32,875
$1,949
36.1 %to 58.0%
no
40
yes
Well #29, 20hp, 4699 Snyder Ln. Ref# 100964
24,683
11,118
$32,875
$1,612
34.1% to 62.0%
no
20
yes
Well #20, 30hp, 1150 Golf Course Dr, Ref# 100967
21,616
10,670
$32,875
$1,547
31.4% to 62.0%
no •
30
yes
Well #11, 60hp, 6096 Daphine Ct, Ref# 100971
36,151
9,900
$32,875
$1,436
47.2% to 65.0%
no
60
yes
Tanks STA 4, P1 &2, 60hp, Ref # 100963
45,041
8,959
$32,875
$1,299
49.7% to 62.0%
no
60
yes
Well #8A, 15hp, 842 Lunar Ct. Ref# 100946
16,697
8,784
$32,875
$1,274
27% to 57.0%
no
15
yes
Tank #3, 60hp, 1432 Jasmine Circle, Ref# 100979
15,360
8,617
$32,875
$1,249
28.5% to 65.0%
no
60
yes
Well #41, 40hp, 4613 Harmony Place, Ref# 100973
35,534
7,720
$32,875
$1,119
50.9% to 65.0%
no
40
yes
Well #22, 20hp, Medical Center Dr. Ref# 100944
14,668
7,169
$32,875
$1,040
29.1% to 57.0%
no
20
yes
Well #39, 40hp, 7309 Rebas Way, Ref# 100943
35,971
7,031
$32,875
$1,019
52.3% to 65.0%
no
40
yes
Well #15, 60hp, 200 Golf Course Drive, Ref# 100977
51,398
6,399
$32,875
$928
56.9% to 65.0%
no
60
yes
Well #18, 50hp, 610 Hudis, Ref# 100965 1
16,240 1
6,160
$32,875
$893
35.8% to 58.0%
no
50
$1500
Savings
Pump List
Provided in Test Reports
Additional
Criteria
Information
Included
Description
Total Annual
Usage (kWh)
kWh
Cost
Cost Savings
Efficiency
VFD
HP
yes
Well #29, 20hp, 4699 Snyder Ln. Ref# 100964
24,683
11,118
$32,875
$1,668
34.1 % to 62.0%
no
20
yes
Well #9, 40hp, 570 Southwest Blvd, Ref# 100949
35,548
13,443
$32,875
$1,614
36.1 % to 58.0%
1 no
40
Climate Protection Campaign 83 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
7.4 Vehicle Lists
Vehicle Summary
Crn Vic
48
Sonoma
11
Ranger
9
Taurus
7
2500 SL
6
Explorer
6
Pumper
6
Expedition
5
2500 Cheyenne
4
PD Mtrcycle
4
3500
3
Crew Cab
3
2500 HD
2
F150
2
Impala
2
Pickup
2
Ram 2500
2
S -10
2
3500 HD
1
3500 HD BOOM TR
1
3500SL Sierra
1
4600LP Dump Tr
1
4700 DUMP TR
1
51600 Dump Tr
1
7000 SIERRA
1
Accord
1
Aerial
1
AEROSTAR
1
Airtruck
1
ASTRO
1
Astro Van
1
Bus
1
CHEROKEE
1
E -250 Clubwa on
1
E -250 Econoline
1
E250 Van
1
E -350 Clubwa on
1
Escape
1
G -20 VAN
1
Malibu
1
Mustang
1
Penetrator
1
Ram 1500
1
S -15
1
S -15 Jimmy
1
Sable
1
Vacon
1
VAN
1
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign 84 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 820.07
The following fleet tables provide the vehicle substitutions analyzed in Measure 12.
Fire Services, Recreation, Performing Arts and Misc.
Vehicle No.
Dept.
Make
Year
Model
Fuel Type
MPG
Miles/Year
Replace
Vehicle
Incr. Cost
Fuel
MPkWh
C -2
Misc. Vehicles
FORD
1996
TAURUS
gasoline
17
3500
:''es
Prius `<
$4,000
Gasoline
48.0
C -3
Misc. Vehicles
FORD
1996
TAURUS
gasoline
17
3500
yes
Prius
$4,000
Gasoline
48.0
C -6
Misc. Vehicles
HONDA
2001
ACCORD
gasoline
23
3500
yes
Prius "'
$4,000
Gasoline
48.0
C -9
Misc. Vehicles
MERCURY
1994
SABLE
gasoline
19
3500
yes,
NEV ",-
- $2,000
Electric
" - 5-0
P-1
Misc. Vehicles
GMC
1997
SONOMA
gasoline,
17
3500
Ves
Phoenix SLIT
$31,000
'Electric
3-7 '
P -19
Misc..Vehicles
GMC
1989
S -15
gasoline
17
3500
no
P -43
Misc. Vehicles
GMC
1993
S -15 Jimmy
gasoline
16
3500
no
P -61
Misc. Vehicles
FORD
2005
ESCAPE
gasoline
20
3500
"es
Escape Hybrid
$4,000
Gasoline'
` 30.0 -
172
Animal Shelter
CHEV
1999
ASTRO VAN
gasoline
15
3500
no
103
Animal Shelter
FORD
1990
RANGER
gasoline
16
3500
"es
Phoenix SLIT
$31,000
Electric
3.7 '
9935
Fire Services
VAN PELT
1978
PUMPER
Diesel
6
3500
no
9940
Fire Services
FORD
1995
BUS
gasoline
8
3500
no
9943
Fire Services
CHEV
1994
AIRTRUCK
gasoline
8
3500
no
9950
Fire Services
INT'L
1995
AERIAL
Diesel
8
3500
no
9960
Fire Services
GMC
1989
PUMPER
Diesel
6
3500
no
9980
Fire Services
HTE
1998
PENETRATOR
Diesel
8
3500
no
9982
Fire Services
PIERCE
2006
PUMPER
Diesel
6
3500
no
9983
Fire Services
VAN PELT
1985
PUMPER
Diesel
6
3500
no
9984
Fire Services
INTL
1991
PUMPER
Diesel
6
3500
no
9985
Fire Services
PIERCE
2005
PUMPER
Diesel
6
3500
no
C -14
Recreation
FORD
1998
-350 Clubwa o
gasoline
12
3500
no
C -16
Recreation
CHEV
1986
G -20 VAN
gasoline
15
3500
no
C -18
Recreation
CHEV
1999
ASTRO
gasoline
15
3500
no
-
C -25
Recreation
FORD
1991
-250 Clubwaqoi
gasoline
11
3500
no
C -26
Recreation
FORD
1997
VAN
gasoline
14
3500
no
C -27
Recreation
FORD
1991
AEROSTAR
gasoline
16
3500
no
C -28
Recreation
FORD
1993
TAURUS
gasoline
18
3500
VeS
Prius
$4,000
Gasoline
48.0
C -7
Performing Arts
JEEP
2001
CHEROKEE
gasoline
15
3500
no
P -20
Performing Arts
FORD
1990
RANGER
gasoline
16
3500
es I
Phoenix SUIT
- $31,000
Electric
3:7
Climate Protection Campaign 85 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Public Safety
Vehicle No.
Dept.
Make
Year
Model
Fuel Type
MPG
Miles/Year
Replace
Vehicle
Incr. Cost
Fuel
MPkWh
8
Public Safety
FORD
2006
F150
gasoline
14
7500
no
9
Public Safety
FORD
2004
CREW CAB
gasoline
15
7500
no
10
Public Safety
FORD
2003
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
11
Public Safety
FORD
2003
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
12
Public Safety
FORD
2003
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
13
Public Safety
FORD
2003
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
14
Public Safety
FORD
2003
EXPEDITION
gasoline
13
7500
ye s
Phoenix SUV
$15,000
Electric
3.7 ;
16
Public Safety
FORD
2004
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
17
Public Safety
FORD
2004
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
18
Public Safety
FORD
2004
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
19
Public Safety
FORD
2004
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
20
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
21
Public Safety
FORD
1998
EXPLORER
gasoline .
14
7500
yes
Escape Hybrid
$4,000
Gasoline
30.0
22
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
23
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
24
Public Safety
FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
25
Public Safety
FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
26
Public Safety
FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
27
Public Safety
FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
28
Public Safety
FORD
1993
TAURUS
gasoline
18
7500
yes
'Pnus
$41000:
Gasoline
48.0
29
Public Safety
FORD
1993
TAURUS
gasoline
18
7500
es
Pnus
$4,000
Gasoline
48.0`
30
Public Safety
FORD
1993
TAURUS
gasoline
18
7500
yes
Pnus
$4,000
Gasoline
48.0!
32
Public Safety
FORD
2001
CRN VIC
gasoline
15
7500
no
33
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
35
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
36
Public Safety
FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
37
Public Safety
FORD
2000
CRN VIC
gasoline
15
7500
no
38
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
42
Public Safety
FORD
1994
TAURUS
gasoline
18
7500
yes
Prius
$4,000
Gasoline
48.0
43
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
45
Public Safety
FORD
1996
CRN VIC
gasoline
17.
7500
no
48
Public Safet
GMC
1997
SON OMA
asoline
17
7500
es
Phoenix SLIT
$31,000
Electric
3.7
49
Public Safet
GMC
1997
SONOMA
asoline
17
7500
es
Phoenix SUT
$31,000'
Electric
3.7 I-
50
Public Safety
FORD
2005
EXPEDITION
gasoline
14
7500
es
Phoenix SUV 1
$15,000
Electric
3.7
Climate Protection Campaign 86 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Public Safety
Vehicle No.
Dept.
Make
Year
Model
FuelTvpe
MPG
Miles/Year
Replace
Vehicle
Incr. Cost
Fuel
MPkWh
51
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CREW CAB
gasoline
15
7500
no
52
Public Safety
FORD
1997
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
53
Public Safety
FORD
1997
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
54
Public Safety
FORD
1997
EXPLORER
gasoline
14
7500
yes
Escape Hybrid
$4,000
Gasoline
30.0
55
Public Safety
FORD
1997
EXPLORER
gasoline
14
7500
yes
Escape Hybrid
$4,000
Gasoline
30.0
56
Public Safety
FORD
2001
RANGER
gasoline
15
7500
es
Phoenix SLIT
$31,000
Electric
3.7
57
Public Safety
FORD
1997
EXPLORER
gasoline
14
7500
es
Esca H brid
$4 000
Gasoline
30.0
58
Public Safe
FORD
1997
EXPLORER
gasoline
14
7500
es
Esca e H brid
$4,000
Gasoline
30.0
59
Public Safe
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
60
Public Safety
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
61
Public Safe
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
62
Public Safety
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
63
Public Safety
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
65
Public Safety
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
66
Public Safety
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
67
Public Safety
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
68
Public Safety
FORD
1999
CRN VIC
gasoline
14
7500
no
69
Public Safety
FORD
1998
MUSTANG
gasoline
17
7500
no
71
Public Safety
CHEV
1999
MALIBU
gasoline
20
7500
no
72
Public Safety
FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
'no
73
Public Safety
FORD
1997
EXPLORER
gasoline
14
7500
yes
Escape Hybrid
$4,000
Gasoline
30.0 r
74
Public Safety
GMC
2000
SONOMA
gasoline
17
7500
yes
Phoenix SLIT
$31,000
Electric
3.7'
75
Public Safety
FORD
2001
RANGER
gasoline
14
7500
yes
Phoenix SLIT
$31,000
Electric
3.7
76
Public Safety
FORD
2005
PICKUP
gasoline
16
7500
no
77
Public Safety
FORD
2000
CROWN
gasoline
15
7500
no
78
Public Safety
FORD
2000
CROWN
gasoline
15
7500
-no
79
Public Safety
FORD
2000
CROWN
gasoline
15
7500
no
80
Public Safety
CHEV
2006
IMPALA
gasoline
18
7500
no
81
1 Public Safety
FORD
2005
PICKUP
gasoline
16
7500
no
82
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
83
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
84
Public Safety
FORD
2001
CRN VIC
gasoline
15
7500
no
85
Public Safety
FORD
2001
CRN VIC
gasoline
15
7500
no
86
Public Safety
FORD
2001
CRN VIC
gasoline
15
7500
no
87
Public Safety
FORD
2002
CRN VIC
gasoline
15
7500
no
88
Public Safety
FORD
2003
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
89
Public Safety
FORD
2003
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
no
90
Public Safety
FORD
2003
CRN VIC
gasoline
13
7500
nor
91
Public Safety
CHEV
2005
IMPALA
gasoline
19
7500
no
92
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CRN VIC
gasoline
18
7500
no
93
Public Safety
FORD
2006
EXPEDITION
gasoline
14
7500
yes
Phoenix SUV
$15,000
Electric
3.7
94
Public Safety
FORD
2006
EXPEDITION
gasoline
14
7500
es
Phoenix SUV
$15,000
Electric
3.7.
95.
Public Safety
FORD
2006
EXPEDITION
gasoline
14
7500
yes
Phoenix 'SUV
$15,000
Electric
3.7 ! r
96
Public Safety
FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no.
97
Public Safe
-FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
98
Public Safety
FORD
2006
CRN VIC
gasoline
17
7500
no
99
Public Safety
FORD
2005
CREW CAB
gasoline
16
7500
no
118
Public Safety
FORD
2006
E250 VAN
gasoline
17
7500
no
M -1
Public Safety
BMW
2002
PD Mtrc cle
gasoline
19
7500
no
M -2
Public Safe
BMW
2002
PD Mtrc cle
gasoline
19
7500
no
M -3
Public Safety
KAWASA
1989
PD Mtrc cle
asoline
18
7500
no
M -4
Public Safety
YAMAHA
1983
PD Mtrc cle
asoline
18 1
7500
no'
Climate Protection Campaign 87 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Public Works
8.20.07
Vehicle No.
IDept.
Make
Year
Model
Fuel T pe
MPG
Miles/Year,
Replace
Vehicle
Incr. Cost
Fuel
MPkWh
B -1
Public Works
SEARS
1970
BOAT
gasoline
0
6000
no
yes l
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
P -2
Public Works
GMC
1997
SONOMA
gasoline
16
6000
yes
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
3:7
P -3
Public Works
GMC
1997
SONOMA
gasoline
16
6000
yes
Phoenix SUT"
$31,000
Electric
3.7
P -4
Public Works
GMC
1997
SONOMA
gasoline
16
6000
yes
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
3.7
P -5
Public Works
GMC
1997
SONOMA
qasoline
16
6000
ves
Phoenix SUIT I'
$31.000.
Electric
3.7
P -6
Public Works
GMC
1997
1 SONOMA
gasoline
16
6000
'es
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
3.7
P -7
Public Works
CHEV
1998
500 CHEYENNI
gasoline
14
6000
no
no
P -8
Public Works
CHEV
1998
500 CHEYENNI
gasoline
14
6000
no-
no
P-9
Public Works
DODGE
1999
RAM 1500
gasoline
12
6000
no
no
P -10
Public Works
DODGE
1999
RAM 2500
gasoline
12
6000
no
no
P -11
Public Works
GMC
2000
2500 SL
oasoline
14
6000
es
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
3.7
P -12
Public Works
CHEV
2000
500 HD BOOM 1
gasoline
14
6000
no
no
P -13
Public Works
GMC
2000
2500 SL
gasoline
14
6000
es
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
3.7 -
P -14
Public Works
GMC
2000
2500 SL
gasoline—
14
6000
yes
Phoenix SUT'-
$31,000
Electric
3.7'
P -15
Public Works
GMC
2000
2500 SL
gasoline
14
6000
es:
Phoenix SUT'
$31,000
Electric
3.7
P -16
Public Works
GMC
2000
2500 SL
gasoline
14
6000
yesl'
Phoenix SUT!
$31,000
Electric
3.7
P -17
Public Works
FORD
1999
RANGER
oasoline
16
6000
yes '
Phoenix SUT
: $31,000'
Electric
3.7
P -18
Public Works
FORD
1989
RANGER
gasoline
1 16
6000
yes l'
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
3.7
P -21
Public Works
CHEV
1988
S -10
gasoline
17
6000
no
yes
Phoenix SUT
$31,000'
Electric
P -22
Public Works
CHEV
2006
2500 HD
gasoline
14
6000
no
P -23
Public Works
CHEV
2006
2500 HD
gasoline
14
6000
no
P -24
Public Works
FORD
2006
F150
gasoline
14
6000
no
P -29
Public Works
CHEV
2005
3500
gasoline
15
6000
no
P -30
Public Works
CHEV
2005
3500
gasoline
15
6000
noi'
P -34
Public Works
CHEV
1988
1500 CHEYENNI
qasoline
14
6000
no
P -35
Public Works
CHEV
1988
S -10
gasoline
17
6000
no
P -37
Public Works
GMC
1987
2500 SIERRA
gasoline
15
6000
no
P -44
Public Works
CHEV
1990
3500
gasoline
15
6000
no
P -46
Public Works
FORD
1990
RANGER
gasoline
16
6000
y . es
Phoenix SUT`
$31,000
Electric
3.7
0-49
Public Works
FORD
1991
RANGER
gasoline
16
6000
es
Phoenix SUT'
$31,000'
Electric
3.7
P -50
Public Works
FORD
1991
E -250 EconolinE
gasoline
11
6000
no.
P -51
Public Works
FORD
1991
RANGER
gasoline
16
6000
yes, '-
Phoenix SUT
:' $31,000-
Electric
3.7
P -52
Public Works
GMC
1991
t5OO CHEYENNI
qasoline
13
6000
no
P -54
Public Works
CHEV
1991
i500 CHEYENNI
gasoline
13
6000
no
P -55
Public Works
FORD
1991
E -350 EconolinE
gasoline
11
6000
no
P -57
Public Works
GMC
1996
SONOMA
gasoline
16
6000
v es':
Phoenix SUT
$31000
Electric
8;7
P -58
Public Works
GMC
1996
SONOMA
gasoline
16
6000
yes
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
3.7 i !'
P -59
Public Works
GMC
1996
2500 SL
qasoline 1
14
6000
yes l
Phoenix SUT
$31,000
Electric
3.7 -'
P-60
Public Works
DODGE
1995
RAM 2500
gasoline
11
6000
no
T -1
Public Works
INT'L
1991
60OLP Dump T
Diesel
8
6000
no
T -4
Public Works
CHEV
1998
3500 HD
Diesel
15
6000
no
T -5
Public Works
INTL
2004
Vacon
Diesel
8
6000
no
T -6
Public Works
INTL
1987
51600 Dump Tr
Diesel
8
6000
no
T -7
Public Works
GMC
1989
3500SL Sierra
gasoline
15
6000
no
T -8
Public Works
GMC
1996
3500 SC
gasoline
15
6000
no
T -9
Public Works
GMC
1980
7000 SIERRA
gasoline
8
6000
no
T -10
Public Works
INTL
1999
4700 DUMP TR
Diesel
8
6000
no
C -14
Recreation
FORD
1998
-350 Clubwagoi
gasoline
12
3500
no
C -16
Recreation
CHEV
1986
G -20 VAN
gasoline
15
3500
no
C -18
Recreation
CHEV
1999
ASTRO
gasoline
15
3500
no
C -25
Recreation
FORD
1991
-250 Clubwa o
qasoline
11
3500
no
C -26
Recreation
FORD
1997
VAN
gasoline
14
3500
no
C -27
Recreation
FORD
1991
AEROSTAR
gasoline
16
3500
no
C -28
Recreation
FORD
1993
TAURUS
gasoline
18
3500
ves '
Pdus
$4000
Gasoline
48.0
C -7
Performing Arts
JEEP
2001
CHEROKEE
asoline
15
3500
no
P -20
Performing Arts
FORD
1990 1
RANGER
gasoline
16
3500
yes
Phoenix SUT
$31,000'
Electric
3.7 !'
Climate Protection Campaign 88 Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
7.5 Carbon Credits
Carbon Offsets /Green Tags
Prepared by Peter Spencer
The David Suzuki Organization defines a carbon offset as "an emission reduction credit from
another organization's project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tons of CO2-
equivalents (or 'CO2e') and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers,
online retailers, and trading platforms."
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate—Change/What You Can Do /carbon offsets asp
A green tag is a specific type of carbon offset also referred to as Renewable Energy Certificates
(RECs). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, "Renewable Energy Certificates
represent the environmental, social, and other positive attributes of power generated by
renewable resources."
The carbon offset is a generic term for all types of purchasable GHG reduction programs sold in
the market. For example, CO2 emissions can be offset by paying a group to plant trees anywhere
in the world. The green tag, a subset of carbon offsets, is specific to electricity generation. To
offset CO2 emissions with a green tag, a purchase is made which supports renewable electricity
generation and consumption somewhere else. That green- generated electricity becomes part of
the total pool of power and thereby reduces emissions from overall electricity production.
Individuals and organizations can purchase carbon offsets to reduce climate impacts from their
activities. When carbon emissions are too difficult or costly to avoid, it's possible to pay
someone else to reduce GHG. Dozens of companies, both commercial and nonprofit, offer a
variety of offset types and prices.
The most common type of offset involves trees, either reforestation or avoided deforestation.
Other common offsets are renewable energy and energy conservation projects. Prices for
offsets /green tags vary widely from $3.56 to $30.00 per metric ton. (See survey in appendix)
These prices are low compared to many other mitigation measures.
Renewable energy offsets, sold as green tags, fund wind, solar, biomass, and biodiesel projects
worldwide. For every megawatt of power produced by a renewable source, one green tag is
issued to the producer. The green tags can be sold to raise profits from renewable energy
generation thus making it more competitive in the market. Energy conservation offsets often
involve purchasing a GHG emission allowance from a company on the Chicago Climate
Exchange. This "retires" the allowance preventing.others from purchasing it to emit GHG.
Verification and accounting systems for offsets differ and there are currently no accepted
standards. There is a wide variation of GHG baseline calculations for activities and also for the
calculations of GHG reductions from projects. However, many providers make a good effort to
ensure their product's value and provide documentation. The Green -e program is the most
accepted certification program and referenced by the EPA. (http: / /www.green -e.orgo
Arguments in favor of Carbon Offsets:
MSI Integrated Solutions 89 707.634.700
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
• Supports growth of the renewable energy industry
• Compensates for GHG emissions which are too difficult or costly to avoid
• Lowers cost of GHG reductions
• Provides a market -based system for GHG reduction
• Can benefit poor countries with investments
• Positive PR for organizations that reduce emissions
• Raises awareness and encourages public policy changes
Sources of supportive information:
An excellent resource for consumers with ratings for top providers:
A Consumer's Guide to Retail Offset Providers
Clean Air -Cool Planet:
http: / /www.cleanair- coolplanet. orgy , /ConsumersGuidetoCarbonOffsets pdf
EPA description of various green purchasing options:
Guide to Purchasing guide for Green Power
Environmental Protection Agency:
http:// www. epa .gov/greenpower /pdf/purchasing_ guide for web.pdf
Realistic assessment supportive of offsets with large number of links:
How the Retail Carbon Offsets Market Can Further Global Warming Mitigation Goals
EM Market Insights:
htip:Hconserveonline.or workspaces/ climate.change /carbomnarkets /em going carbon neutral p
df
Arguments against Carbon Offsets:
Trees:
• Trees store carbon, but don't reduce total biological carbon brought to the earth's surface
in fossil fuels
• Planting releases carbon from the soil
• An unrealistic amount of trees would need to be planted to be effective
• Most projects are planting monocultures causing ecosystem problems
• Predicting the carbon performance of trees is not possible
• Increasingly challenged by scientists as unsuccessful strategy
All methods:
• Don't address the fundamental problem of emissions
• Makes it easy to .avoid measures reducing emissions
• Removes money from local economy
• Poor accountability
• No proof that there is an overall improvement in the climate with offset system
• Short-term solution with little direct benefit to offset purchasing organization
• May ignore local problems such as air pollution or need for more power plants
• Questionable future of unregulated and unproven strategies in new offset industry
• Doesn't create lasting benefit for organization
MSI Integrated Solutions 90 707.634.700
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Ecobusinesslinks.com
Carbon Offset Survey
Carbon Offset
Price
Non-
Projects Types
Project
Offset
Product Certification/
Provider
US /Metric
rofiit
Choice
TvDes
Verification
AtmosClear
$3.56' -
No
Methane
No
Car, Home
Environmental Resources Trust
Climate Club
$25.00
US
Carbonfund.org
$4.306 - 5.50
Yes
Renewables, Efft
ciency,
Yes
Home, Car,
Air, Events,
Green -e, Chicago Climate
Exchange, Environmental
US
Reforestation
Business
Resources Trust
e- BlueHorizons
$5.00
No
Renewables,
Reforestation
No
Home, Car,
Air
Chicago Climate Exchange,
Environmental Resources Trust
US
Terrapass
$7.35' -
No
Renewables,
No
Car, Air,
Green -e, Chicago Climate
US
11.00
Efficiency
Events,
Exchange, Center for Resource
Business
Solutions
DriveNeutral.orq
$7.50 & up
Yes
Efficiency
No
Car
Chicago Climate Exchange
US
Native Energy
$13.20
No
Renewables
Yes
Home, Car,
Air, Events,
Green -e
US
Business
The
$14.00 -18.00
No
Renewables,
Yes
Business,
KPMG, Edinburgh Centre for
CarbonNeutral
Efficiency,
Reforestation
Home, Car,
Air, Events
Carbon Management, Independent
Advisory Committee
Company
UK
Climate Friendly
$16.00 - 19.00
No
Renewables
No
Home, Car,
Air,
Office of the Renewable Energy
Regulator, NSW Government,
Aus
Business
Ernst & Young.
Sustainable
$18.00
Yes
Renewables
No
Air, Car,
See Myclimate
travel
Home,
International
Hotel
US, Switzerland
Bonneville
$29.00
Yes
Renewables
No
Home, Air,
Green -e
Environmental
Business,
Event
Foundation
US
Myclimate
$30.00
Yes
Renewables
No
Air, Events,
Designated Operational Entity
Switzerland
Business
Global Cool
£20.00 I
Yes lRenewables,
I
No
n/a
CDM
UK
($39.48)
Efficiency
Services
for which independent
product certification
or verification information not available
Carbon Offset
Price
Non-
Projects Types
Project
Offset
Product Certification/
Provider
(US$/Metric
profit
Choice '
Types
ton CO2)
Verification
DrivinoGreen
$8.00
No
Renewables
No
Car, Air,
n/a
Ireland
Events
Solar Electric
$10.00
Yes
Renewables
No
External
n/a
Light Fund
Calculators
US
Carbon Clear
$17.00
No
Reforestation
No
Home, Car,
n/a
Air, Babies
UK
a: Atmos Clear - Low price for 25 Ton option at $89
b: Carbonfund.org - Low price for ZeroCarbon tags option: 18 Ton + 5 Ton match, pay $99 for $23 Ton
c: Terrapass - Low price when purchasing 204 metric ton of carbon offsets for $1,499.95
1. Offset Types: There are hundreds of potential offset types. We have limited our survey to just the most common.
2. Verification: "n /a" means we were unable to determine a third -party verification body. The projects may, however, be verified.
3. Choice: refers to whether customers may choose between project types and /or speck projects.
4. Price: prices change and exchange rates fluctuate. The data listed was first gathered from the respective websites July 21, 2006
5. Other offset providers may exist This•survey provides a cross section of the industry, projects may be added or removed over time.
6. Some information may be incomplete or has changed. We welcome updates.
Sources of Offset critical information:
8.20.07
MSI Integrated Solutions 91 707.634.700
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
The most complete, well - written analysis of climate science and offsets: Carbon
Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatization and Power
Dag Hammarskjold Centre:
http : / /www.dhfuu.se /pdffler /DD2006 48 carbon trading /carbon trading_web. -df
Excellent analysis from a sustainability perspective:
The International Challenge of Climate Change
United Kingdom, Environmental Audit Committee:
http: / /www.defra.gov.uk/ environment /climatechangp/pubs /eac /pdf /cc- og vres.pdf
Scientific paper explaining why reforestation won't help climate change:
Planting trees will not cancel out climate change:
Nature:
http: / /www.scidev.net/pdffiles /nature /nature04486.pdf
Short negative view of green tags:
The wooly world of green tags
out of Kirby Mountain:
http: / /kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006 /04 /woolly - world -of- egr en -ta sg html
In -depth assessment of trading systems and their limitations:
Is the US Experience with Pollution Markets Really an Argument for Global Carbon
Trading?
McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development, Law and Policy, fall 2005:
http : / /www.fem.org/media/documents /document 3657_3658.pdf
Good short summary of why offsets don't work:
Carbon `offset' - no magic solution to `neutralize' fossil fuel emissions
Forests and the European Union Resource Network:
bitp://www.fem.org/media/documents/document-884-885.pdf
Strong short letter opposing carbon trading:
We must reduce fossil fuel use, not trade carbon:
Financial Times:
bLtp://www.fem.org/media/documents/`document
(Source: http:// www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon offset wind credits carbon reduction.htm)
For the most complete and up to date list of green tag products and marketers, visit the Green
Power Network, part of the U.S. Dept of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office.
http: / /www.eere.energy.gov/ rg eeppower /markets /certificates.shtml ?page =0
For a detailed report on the status of green power marketing, check out the following publication
from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greeppower/resources/Tdfs/40904.pd f
MSI Integrated Solutions 92 707.634.700
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
7.6 Electric Vehicles
Electric Vehicle Current Status
Jim Housman, P.E. (retired)
May 7, 2007
8.20.07
Battery powered electric vehicles pose opportunities for cost savings and enhanced convenience
in an increasing number of applications where their unique properties can be used to advantage.
While gasoline as a motor fuel has significantly higher energy density and lower cost per unit of
energy, when the overall "well -to -wheel efficiencies of electrical power are taken into account it
can be advantageous to operate electrical vehicles in place of their gasoline or diesel
counterparts.
The majority of electric vehicles available today; not including hybrids, are classified as
"Neighborhood Electric Vehicles" (NEV). In general these vehicles are limited to a top speed of
25 miles per hour and are only permitted on public roads with speed limits below 35 miles per
hour. They have minimal requirements for lighting and passenger protection in keeping with
their low speed nature. Some of the larger manufacturers of NEVs are listed on the following
web site:
hfp: / /www.eere.energy.gov /afdc /afv /elec vehicles.html
In a recent study (2001) the Department of Energy 23 evaluated the performance of 348 NEVs
operated in 15 automotive fleets. The fleets included in the study belonged to military,
commercial, municipal, rental and transportation organizations. The NEVs were found to be
successful replacements for gasoline powered vehicles in most circumstances. Success was
indicated by satisfied users, improved economy and "reliability of the vehicles.
The study did find some areas where improvements could be made. Higher speed capability and
improved range were listed as desireable. In addition users would have liked improved
passenger protection, including solid doors and roll down windows. Both were lacking in the
majority of the fleet vehicles. While the study found that 91 % of the vehicles had operated
without problems there were some reliability issues. Fourteen vehicles had battery packs
replaced, Five had problems with switches and four controllers were replaced.
By a large majority the study found that fleet owners were satisfied with the performance of their
vehicles. Some were used only on public roads, some were never used on public roads and some
were used under both circumstances. Specific uses included police work, material handling,
towing, personnel transportation and community shopping uses.
A large market currently exists for this type of vehicle permitting competitive pricing. The most
sophisticated of the NEVs retail in the $10 to $15 thousand dollar range. At the higher end of
this range will be found vehicles with features and styling that compare favorably with
23 http:// avt .inel.gov /pdf /nev /nevstudy.pdf
MSI Integrated Solutions 93 707.634.700
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
conventional automobiles but lacking only the gasoline engine performance. The simplest and
least expensive NEVs, resembling golf carts can be purchased for less than $5000. Used but
functional vehicles are generally available under $1000.24 Because of the simplicity of the
electric power train vehicle maintenance costs are a fraction of that required for gasoline or
diesel engines. There is no oil to change, no sparkplugs, filters or coolant issues. The light
weight of most electrical vehicles also means that brakes, tires and suspension components are
very durable.
Currently one of the most conventional appearing NEVs is the Zenn. While still relying on
traditional lead -acid battery technology the Toronto Canada based company has. created an
unusually sophisticated NEV using a small urban vehicle built in France and converted in
Canada to electric power. Because of the volume production already in place with the basic car
(originally diesel powered) Zenn has managed to price the vehicle just above the "golf cart"
market while delivering a vehicle with both the style and convenience of a small gasoline
powered vehicle.
The majority of NEVs currently on the market use technology that has not changed significantly
for the past half century. They use lead -acid batteries, DC motors and simple control systems. A
new regime of electrical vehicles are appearing in the market in the very near future, most likely
prompted by the rapidly increasing price of fossil fuels and the increased awareness of
Americans that our access to fossil fuels is becoming precarious. One of these new electrical
vehicles, the Tesla roadster, is a technological showcase in the form of a high performance sports
car. Another, the Phoenix SUT (sport utility truck), also uses state -of -the -art technology in a
practical utility vehicle.
Both vehicles use sophisticated AC motors, Lithium ion batteries, heat pump HVAC systems,
regenerative braking and computerized control systems. Both are advertising operating ranges of
over 100 miles on a single charge and, based on the battery technology, charge times of under 30
minutes should be expected. Early test data on both vehicles describe performance equal to
comparable gasoline powered vehicles. In the case of the Tesla roadster that means acceleration
to 60 miles per hour in less than 6 seconds and a top speed of 130 miles per hour. 25 The Phoenix
SUT boasts a 1000 pound payload, 90 mile per hour top speed and 60 mile an hour in less than
10 seconds
While these vehicles are especially designed for specific audiences they represent logical entry
points for new technologies into an existing, mature, market. The Tesla roadster is aimed at the
wealthy car enthusiast who is willing to pay above market price for the uniqueness of an electric
powered performance car. The Phoenix is marketed to fleet purchasers who value their
environmental image above the short term ownership cost. Success in these two markets will
I ork as both test beds for these technologies in real operating environments and as bootstrapping
operations to bring down the cost of these technologies as production volumes increase.
For the past one hundred years battery technology has been the limiting factor in keeping electric
powered vehicles from competing with fossil fuel powered vehicles. For most of this time the
24 http : / /www.eaaev.orp-/eaalinks.html
25 http: / /www.teslamotors.com/
MSI Integrated Solutions 94 707.634.700
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
only practical battery technology for use in electric cars was the same lead -acid battery used for
starting power in conventional automobiles. The combination of high weight, slow re- charging,
and low energy density prevented the development of electric vehicles even moderately
competitive with liquid fueled vehicles. In the late 1990s electric car and hybrid- electric car
developers began investigating the advances made in battery technology for use in portable
computers and other electronic devices.
The first of these technologies evaluated for vehicle use was the Nickel -Metal Hydride battery.
This battery was promising enough to be used in the second generation EV 1 electric car
developed by General Motors for compliance with the proposed California Zero Emissions
Standard. While not significantly lighter than the lead -acid battery it replaced, the increased
energy -to -size ratio allowed for a significantly increased range for the EV 1.
Since that time electric car enthusiasts have turned their attention to the Lithium ion battery.
These batteries have both significantly better energy -to- weight and energy -to- volume
characteristics. Early versions of these batteries were sensitive to high discharge rates and to
certain manufacturing defects which resulted in a number of fires occurring in portable
computers using this technology. Since that time changes in the cathode material, manufacturing
improvements and the development of external control methods have potentially eliminated the
problem. As a result a new wave of enthusiasm for electric vehicles is developing. Both the
high performance Tesla Roadster sports car and the Phoenix Sort Utility Trucks (SUT) are
designed around the latest versions of the Lithium ion battery. 6
Phoenix Motorcars plans to sell approximately 500 Sport Utility Trucks in 2007 to selected fleet
operators. One such operator is Pacific Gas and Electric, the northern California utility
company. Phoenix plans to begin selling to individual users in 2008 and estimates that it will
sell 6000 vehicles in that year. Pricing for the 2008 model year should be in the $40 to $50
thousand range. 4 First shipments of the Tesla Roadster are scheduled for August 2007.
Technological changes are appearing rapidly. Recently EEStor, a Texas company has
announced a breakthrough battery/ultra- capacitor system that may leapfrog the Lithium ion
battery technology with improved storage capacity, discharge rate and cost. Zenn motorcars has
signed an exclusive agreement with EEStor to provide storage systems for their next generation
of electric vehicles 27. Regardless of the success of such efforts it is an indication of a growing
interest in non - fossil fueled power systems.
For short distance, light load applications electric powered vehicles are the right choice for a
large number of applications. The long charging times needed by lead -acid batteries limit the
application of these vehicles to under fifty miles per day in most cases. For those fleet
applications that can justify the high first cost Phoenix Motorcars SUTs are a practical vehicle
available this year. With the rapid changes taking place in battery, motor and motor controller
technologies look for increased choices in the zero emission vehicle market.
26 http: / /en.wikipedia.org /wiki /Altaimano
27 http:// www. technologyreview .com/Biztech/18086 /page I/
MSI Integrated Solutions 95 707.634.700
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Further Reading
The GM EV 1:
htt-p://www.thejaffes.org/rory/evl/evl.pdf
The French postal service plans to order 10,000 electric vehicles:
http:/ /www. autobloggreen.com[2007 /04/18/ the - french - postal - service - plans -to- order- 10 -000-
electric- vehicle/
Nissan and NEC to produce electric -car batteries:
http: / /www. detnews. com /apps /pbcs. dll /article? AID = /20070413 /UPDATE /70413 043 3 / 114 8 /rss2
5
Electric car batteries might serve as reservoirs of green power ?:
http: / /www.edii.com/index.asp ?layout= blog&blog id= 1470000147 &blog post id= 1170007917
Basic battery technology:
http://www.battMniversily.com/index.htm
Battery data:
http :Hen.wikipedia.orR /wiki/Nickel metal hydride battery
http: / /en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Lithium ion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead—acid
Specs on Altair nano battery:
http: // www. altaimano .com /documents/NanoSafe Datasheet.pdf
Johnson Controls reveals new hybrid - electric car batteries:
http://wistechnology.com/article.ph p ?id =1485
Altairnano lithium ion battery system:
http: // www.azonano.com /news.asp ?newsID =1967
Safety of lithium ion batteries:
http: / /www.technologyreview.com /read article.aspx ?id= 17250 &ch = biztech
Lithium ion battery improvements:
http: // www. technologvreview .com /read _ article.aspx ?id =163 84 &ch= biztech
MSI Integrated Solutions 96 707.634.700
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
7.7 Commute Programs
Commute Programs: Examples of Success
6/17/07
. Jim Housman, PE
The United States of America consumes 9.2 million barrels of gasoline every day, approximately
25% of all the gasoline consumed in the world .28 Yet the United States contains only 4.5% of
the world's population. We drive bigger vehicles and we drive them farther each year than any
other society. We have the cheapest gasoline of any nation that imports more petroleum than it
exports (excepting China and Thailand)29. Americans are used to using their cars for virtually
100% of their transportation needs. We have built our cities, and even our small towns, around
the assumption that everyone who wants to go anywhere will drive. Our driving has been cheap
and convenient. But in recent years that has begun to unravel. As our homes have become
farther away from our workplaces and as our need to import oil has increased driving has
become more and more expensive and more irksome. And in spite of spectacular efforts to
reduce pollution our driving has continued to be a major factor in environmental degradation.
Slowly over time these factors have been at the root of a change in behavior that is taking place
all over the continent. In all 50 states, and in Canada, programs are arising to limit the number of
automobiles on the road during peak driving hours. A number of states have established
transportation demand management (TDM) legislation to reduce public road usage. In addition,
local governments have established regional traffic mitigation programs to assist local employers
in encouraging their workforce to stop driving to work alone. Often these programs enable
groups of employers to share incentives and facilities to enhance the commuter experience while
reducing costs for both employer and employee. California has no state wide traffic mitigation
program, however the recently passed AB 1.431 (Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions) will almost
certainly address the effects of commuting on greenhouse gases.
The US Department of Transportation has created 'a program dubbed "Best Workplaces for
Commuters" (BWC) to acknowledge those employers that have done the most to make alternate
commute options work the best for their employees. As of June 2007 the site has over 1,400
employers listed as meeting the department's stringent standard for inclusion on the list.
Typically to win acknowledgement employers must provide emergency ride home capabilities
for transit and car /van pool commuters, provide some kind of subsidy or support for those not
driving to work alone and commit to having 14% of employees participate in the program within
18 months. In addition to the BWC program the Internal Revenue Service permits employers to
pay for certain commute benefits with pre -tax dollars, saving money for both employers and
employees.30
28 http: / /www.eia. doe. gov /neic /quickfacts /quickoil.html
29 http : / /europe.theoildrum.com/node /2653
30 http: / /www.bwc.gov/
MSI Integrated Solutions 707.634.7050
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
Commute programs exist at the federal, state, county and jobsite levels because they work. In a
survey funded by the US Department of Transportation (DOT) in 2004 found that well designed
commute programs reduced vehicle trips by an average of 15.3 %.31 That kind of reduction pays
off. It pays off in savings to the employer, government at all levels and the employee.
Most employers are probably so accustomed to providing parking spaces for employees that it is
not considered to be a real cost of.doing business. Yet some employers must set aside more land
for parking than is used for generating income. The Victoria (B.C.) Transport Policy Institute
estimated in 2000 that parking lot construction costs can vary between $1500 (US) and $1900
(US) per space. That cost is in addition to the value of the unimproved land. When parking
structures become necessary per space costs can exceed $9000 per space. In addition there are
annual maintenance costs. 32 One estimate of the value to U.S. employers of this unproductive
land placed the rental value nationwide at over 35 billion dollars.33
DOT estimates that current freeway construction costs exceed one - quarter million dollars per
lane -mile with a continuing cost of about one percent of that amount for annual maintenance.
While this cost is not apparent directly to the taxpayer it is there and as more roadways are
constructed to accommodate peak traffic loads for commuters both the capital costs of
construction and the annual maintenance costs are an increasing burden on taxpayers and on the
local officials who must negotiate to find the funds. 34
Commute costs to employees is more than the obvious. A UC Berkeley study in 1990 indicated
that the average Bay Area one -way commute distance increased between 1980 and 1990 from
10.6 miles to 11.8 and the average duration from 27.7 minutes to 29.0 minutes. Over a 50 week
working year that amounts to 5900 miles per year and 242 hours on the road. With per -mile
driving costs approaching 50 cents employees are spending almost $3000 per year just to get to
work. Since employers do not pay for the time that commuters sit in their cars in heavy traffic it
is the individual worker whose time is wasted crawling through traffic. According to the Texas
Transportation Institute California commuters who have recently moved to a metropolitan area
spend, on average, 250 hours per year in commuter traffic.
There are great success stories in communities developing programs to reduce vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). Boulder, Colorado has a program called Ride Arrangers that reports having
saved 28 million VMT in 2006. Ride Arrangers has 6,000 people in their carpool database, 380
people vanpooling with a waiting list to fill 10 more vans. There are 4,000 "teleworkers" and
11,000 families enrolled in the "schoolpool" database. In the annual Bike to Work Day in 2006
there were 20,000 participants. 35
31 Mitigating Traffic Congestion; Association for Commuter Transportation; PO Box 15542, Washington, DC
20003 - 0542;2004
32 Todd Litman; Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning; Victoria Transport Policy Institute; 2006
33 http: //72.14. 253. 104 /search ?q = cache: biyCdgRbNHQJ: www. commuterchoice .gov /pdFsanfran/bwc- present-
sfa.ppt +sonoma+ best +workplaces &hl= en &ct= clnk &cd =2 &g1= us &lr= lang_en
34 http: / /www.publicpurpose.com/hwy- fy$.htm
35 Linda Dowlin, Denver TDM Manager; personal communication; 6/11/07
MSI Integrated Solutions 707.634.7050
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
In the Bay area Contra Costa county reports that their SchoolPool program has reduced VMT by
4 million miles in 20028. The San Mateo County Commute Alternatives Program has mailed
80,000 Commuter Checks to employees of 3,200 employers in the county since 1991.36 C2HM
Hill reports a 115,000 mile reduction in VMT in 2002 at a single worksite in Denver. In Seattle
the University of Washington estimates that the UPASS program has eliminated 91 million
vehicle trips since it was established in 19914. These examples show that in a large variety of
environments and over long periods of time employers, employees, taxpayers and the
environment. are benefiting from well designed commute programs.
Today, more than ever in the past, it makes sense to create programs allowing commuters to get
out of their cars and find more appropriate ways to get to and from work. The ability of the
modern passenger vehicle to take us anywhere we want, when we want is at its least beneficial
when we are traveling the same path at the same time of day over many months and years. The
rising cost of operation, the increasing time spent unproductively and the anger and frustration so
often connected with present day commuting will continue to get worse in the future. We cannot
pave the entire nation to enable every person to drive effortlessly where ever they want to go at
any time of day. It follows that community leaders in every American community should be
emulating the examples of those communities that have gained so much by instituting these
programs.
36 http: / /www.smecap.org/index.jsp
MSI Integrated Solutions 707.634.7050
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
FURTHER READING
1. MASSRides, Massachusetts Office of Transportation; http: / /www.commute.com/
2. Burby, John; The Great American Motion Sickness (or Why You Can't Get There From
Here), Little, Brown and Co., New York; 1971
3. Yergin, Daniel; The Prize; Simon & Schuster, New York; 1991
4. Meadows, Donella et al; The Limits to Growth; The New American Library, New York;
1971
5. Commuter Connections, Metropolitan Council of Governments; Washington DC;
http: // www. mwcog.org /commuter /ccindex.html
6. Census Bureau Study of Commute Distances; http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release /www /releases /archives /american — community_survey_acs/00 I 695.htm1
w
7. Santa Cruz Commute Solutions; http : / /ww.commutesolutions.org /
S. Commuter Calculator; http : / /www.rideworks.com/rwcalc2.htm
9. Strategies for Increasing the Benefits of Commuter Benefits Programs; TCRP Report 87;
Transportation Research Board; 2003
10. Commuter Check; Section 132 (f) pre -tax transportation benefit program;
http://www.commutercheckpremium.com/
11. Bay Area Commuter Comments; http: / /www.ibabuzz.com /transportation/
12. Westchester County New York Commute Program:
http: // www. westchestergov. com/ smartcommute /programs_services.htm
13. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials; Transportation Demand Management
Institute of theAssociation for Commuter Transportation
1518 K St., N.W., #503; Washington, DC 20005; 1997
14. Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Program;
http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfin?ID=14
15. Boulder, CO "GOBoulder program:
http: // www .bouldercolorado.gov /index.h ?option= com_content &task = view &id = 705 &It
emid =311
16. Accordia Northwest, Inc., Seattle WA; Commute Trip Reduction Program;
17. http: // www. commuterchallenge .org /cc /daw99acordia.html
18. Sustainable Transportation Success Stories; Smart Communities Network;
http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/transprt/trsstoc.shtml
19. Ride Solutions; Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission;
http: / /ridesolutions.morpc.org/
20. City of Palo Alto Way 2 Go Program; http:/ /www. city .palo - alto.ca.us /transportation-
division/commute - index.html
21. Washington D.C.; Capital Rideshare Program; http: / /capitolrideshare.com/index.htm
MSI Integrated Solutions 707.634.7050
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan S.20.07
Examples of Successful Programs
MSI Integrated Solutions 707.634.7050
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
7.8 Measure Input Summaries
City of Rohnert Park Green House Gas Reduction Plan
B1 -APS Measures
Meaures Name
APS Measures
Measure Category
Building
Measure Status
Completed
Capital Cost
$920,216
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$920,216
Rebate
$0
Net Capital Cost
$920,216
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
- $2,982
Annual Cost Savings
$54,228
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
1.0
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
304,416
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
7,044 —�
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
235,782
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$85,273
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to,
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
15
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
4.43%
Inflation Rate
2.00%
Time of Use (PV)
0.00
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
SPB
17.0
IRR
#NUM!
NPV
$0
CO2 reduction (tons)
117.89
Notes
2006
Source Next Steps
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided,
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Source:
ESCO: Includes PV, HVAC, LED lighting.
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
I Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
B2- Lighting Retrofit (multi -bldg)
Lighting Retrofit
(multi-bldg)
Building
Completed
$96,850
100%
$96,850
$0
$96,850
$0
$48,425
0.0
333,966
0
I- 163,309
yes.
$16,106
$0
Notes
2001
Source
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Component Life
r 15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
7
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($/kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Next Steps
Results Source:
SPB 2.0 Draft Plan: City of Rohnert Park Building Energy
IRR #NUM! Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission
NPV $0 Reduction, CPC August 2006.
CO2 reduction (tons) 81.65
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
Climate Protection Campaign
B3 -Bldg HVAC
Building HVAC
Building
Future
$84,600
30%
$25,380
$0
$25,380
$0
$6,090
0.0
42,000
0
20,538
yes
($4,221)
$0
r 15
25
7
5.00%
3.50%
$0.145
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100%
es
4.2
28.2%
$96,740
1 0.27
Notes
2007
Source
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Next Steps
Source:
ABAG EW Report 5/07
1 1
Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
_1 11
134- Computer Network Controls I
Next Steps
Results Source:
SPB 1.7 Assumes 100 CPU's, $25 savings per unit, kWh
IRR 66.0% savings based on estimated cost savings
NPV $45,694 provided by ABAG EW. Project Cost is
CO2 reduction (tons) 4.22 estimated with no substantiation.
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Computer
Notes
Meaures Name
Network
Controls
Measure Category
Building
Measure Status
Future
2008
Source
Capital Cost
$5,000
Provided
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$5,000
Rebate
$862
Provided
Net Capital Cost
$4,138
Provided
Annual 0 &M (incremental cost)
$0
Provided
Annual Cost Savings
$2,500
Provided
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Provided
Annual, Energy Savings (kWh)
17,241
Provided
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Provided
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
8,431
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
no
Payment Amount
$0
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
7
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Next Steps
Results Source:
SPB 1.7 Assumes 100 CPU's, $25 savings per unit, kWh
IRR 66.0% savings based on estimated cost savings
NPV $45,694 provided by ABAG EW. Project Cost is
CO2 reduction (tons) 4.22 estimated with no substantiation.
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
B5 -Addtl Lighting
Addtl Lighting
Building
Future
$57,925
100%
$57,925
$11,227
$46,698
$0
$11,750
0.0
78,330
0
38,303
es
$11,032
r— $0
15
25
6
5.00%
3.50%
$0.150
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100%
es
4.9
24.3%
$178,109
19.15
Notes
Source
Provided
2007
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Next Steps
Source:
ABAG EW Report 5/07
1 1/
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
I Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
B6 -Pool Covers
Pool Covers
Building
Completed
$18,738
100%
$18,738
$0
$18,738
$0
$10,087
—00
0
10,087
124,470
no
$0
$o
15
25
7
5.00%
3.50%
$0.145
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100%
es
1.9
#NUM!
$0
62.24
Notes
2006
Source
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Source:
City Staff
Next Steps
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
IB7- Fountain Decommissioning I
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
Decommission
Fountain
Building
Future
$15,000
100%
$15,000'
$0
$15,000
$0
$11,406
0.0
78,664
0
38,467
no
$0
so
15 1
25
7
5.00%
3.50%
$0.145
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100%
es
1.3
82.2%
$212,175
19.23
Notes
2010
Source
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Next Steps
Source:
APS recommendation (not adopted)
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
B8 -Sports Cntr Boiler Replacement
Meaures Name
Boiler Replcmnt
Sports Center
Measure Category
Building
Measure Status
Future
Capital Cost
$76,426
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$76,426
Rebate
$3,821
Net Capital Cost
$72,604
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
�— $o
Annual Cost Savings
$4,777
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
4,777
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
58,943
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$6,507
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0�
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
15
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
SPB
15.2
IRR
7.9%
NPV
$25,688
CO2 reduction (tons)
29.47
Notes
2008
Source
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Next Steps
Source:
APS recommendation (not adopted)
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
I Rebate
Net Capital Cost.
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
M -Lift Station #1
Lift Station #1
Water /Sewer
Future
$35,000
100%
$35,000
$2,080
$32,920
$0
$3,770
0.0
26,000
0
12,714
es
($4,049)
$0
15
25
10
5.00%
3.50%
$0.145
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100 %
es
8.7
14.4%
$43,497
6.36
Notes
2007
Source
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Next Steps
Source:
ABAG EW report 5/07
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
1310 -Pools Solar Wtr
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
3
Notes
Meaures Name
Energy Inflation
H -Pool Solar Wtr
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Measure Category
$1.00
Building`
3.95%
Inflation Rate
Measure Status
Time of Use (PV)
Future
Incremental Capital Cost
2008
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Source
Capital Cost
SPB
$30,688
IRR
Provided
Incremental Capital Cost %
$307,931
100%
104.78
Incremental Capital Cost
$30,688
Rebate
$0 ,
Provided
Net Capital Cost
$30,688
Provided
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Provided
Annual Cost Savings
$16,982
Provided
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Provided
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Provided
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
16,982
Provided
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
209,555
Calculated
(Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$11,048
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
3
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
SPB
1.8
IRR
60.8%
NPV
$307,931
CO2 reduction (tons)
104.78
Climate Protection Campaign
Key Assumptions
Next Steps
Source:
APS recommendation (not adopted)
8.20.07
Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
1311 -Pool Measures
Notes
2007
Source
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Next Steps
8.20.07
Source:
ABAG EW (savings estimate, rebate, cost) CPC
report 8/06 (annual NG usage)
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Pool Pump
Meaures Name
Measures
Measure Category
Building
Measure Status
Future
Capital Cost
$40,500
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$40,500
Rebate
$7,360
Net Capital Cost
$33,140
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Annual Cost Savings
$13,340
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
92,000
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
44,988
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$17,558
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
2
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
SPB
2.5
IRR
45.2%
NPV
$233,291
CO2 reduction (tons)
22.49
Notes
2007
Source
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Next Steps
8.20.07
Source:
ABAG EW (savings estimate, rebate, cost) CPC
report 8/06 (annual NG usage)
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
H -City Fleet New 2
Next Steps
:_11A
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Notes
Meaures Name
City Fleet New 2
Measure Category
Fleet
Measure Status
Future
2012
Source
Capital Cost
$939,000
Provided
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$939,000
Rebate
$0
Provided
Net Capital Cost
$939,000
Provided
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Provided
Annual Cost Savings
$45,999
Provided
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Provided
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Provided
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
[-- 0
Provided
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
357,699 I
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$213,896
Incremental Replacement Cost
$939,000
Component Life
10
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
5
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
2.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
4.50%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
SPB
20.4
MSI
IRR
NA
NPV
($1,428,048)
CO2 reduction (tons)
178.85
Next Steps
:_11A
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
PV1
Meaures Name
PV -New City
Component Life
Hall
Measure Category
PV
Measure Status
Future
Capital Cost
$254,332
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$254,332
Rebate
$72,648
Net Capital Cost
$181,684
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$632
Annual Cost Savings
$5,145
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
39,226
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
19,181
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$22,344
Incremental Replacement Cost
$37,108
Component Life
12
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
2.5% renovation
individual measure overide)
($39,715)
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
10
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.120
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
1.00
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Notes
31.6 _ Size (kWac)
2008_ _ Implementation Date
Source Next Steps
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Results
Source:
SPB
35.3 Green Building Studio Report on City Hall
IRR
2.5% renovation
NPV
($39,715)
CO2 reduction (tons)
9.59
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
PV2
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
PV Suppying
Notes
Meaures Name
100% Wtr
&Wste energy
cost
Measure Category
PV
473.8 Size (kWac)
Measure Status
Future
2010 Implementation Date
Source Next Steps
Capital Cost
$3,791,975
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$3,791,975
Rebate
$0
Calculated
'Net Capital Cost
$3,791,975
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$9,476
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
$142,763
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
588,384
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
287,720
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$339,863
Incremental Replacement Cost
$556,623
Component Life
12
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
15
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.120
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
1.85
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
SPB
26.6
MSI
IRR
7.1%
NPV
$880,685
CO2 reduction (tons)
143.86
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
PV3
Meaures Name
PV APS
Notes
Measure Category
PV
30.0 Size (kWac)
Measure Status
Completed
2006 Implementation Date
Source Next Steps
Capital Cost
$241,373
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$241,373
Rebate
$104,882
Calculated
Net Capital Cost
$136,491
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$599
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
$9,029
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
r- 0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
37,214
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
18,198
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$12,233
Incremental Replacement Cost
$35,205
Component Life
12
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
15
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.120
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
1.85
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
SPB
15.1
APS report
IRR
#NUM!
NPV
$0
CO2 reduction (tons)
18.61
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
PV4
Meaures Name
PV4
Notes
Measure Category
PV
60.7 Size (kW.ac)
Measure Status
Future
2010 Implementation Date
Source Next Steps
Capital Cost
$487,583
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$487,583
Rebate
$0
Calculated
Net Capital Cost
$487,583
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$1,215
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
$9,894
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
75,434
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
36,887
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$59,965
Incremental Replacement Cost
$71,362
Component Life
12
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
10
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.120
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
1.00
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
SPB
49.3
MSI
IRR
-0.4%
NPV
($207,986)
CO2 reduction (tons)
18.44
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rolmert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
PV5
PV5
PV
Future
$487,583
100%
$487,583
$0
$487,583
$1,215
$9,894
0.0
75,434
0
36,887
es
$59,965
$71,362
12�
25
10
5.00%
3.50%
$0.120
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
1.00
100%
es
49.3
-0.4%
($207,986)
18.44
8.20.07
Notes
60.7 Size (kWac)
2011 Implementation Date
Source Next Steps
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated,
Key Assumptions
Source:
MSI
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
PV6 -CREBS
8.20.07
Meaures Name
PV6 -CREBS
Notes
Measure Category
PV
210.6 Size (kWac)
Measure Status
Future
2008 Implementation Date
Source Next Steps
Capital Cost
$0
Provided
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$0
Rebate
$0
Provided
Net Capital Cost
$0
Provided
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$o
Provided
Annual Cost Savings
$34,298
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
261,504
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
127,876
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
no
Payment Amount
$o
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
r -12
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
_
25
Term of Finance
7
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.120
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
1.00
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
I yes
Results
Source:
SPB
0.0
MSI
IRR
#DIV /0!
NPV
$1,303,182
CO2 -reduction (tons)
63.94
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
C1- Commute
Meaures Name
Commute
Measure Category
Commute
Measure Status
Future
Capital Cost
$0
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$0
Rebate
$0
Net Capital Cost
$0
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$75,000
Annual Cost Savings
$0
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
100,355
Financed (yes /no)
no
Payment Amount
$0
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
7
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
0.20
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
SPB
#DIV /0!
IRR
#DIV /0!
NPV
($1,404,117)
CO2 reduction (tons)
50.18
Notes
2008
Source
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Key Assumptions
Source:
MSI
Next Steps
20.00% % impact
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
F1 -City Fleet Completed
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Notes
Meaures Name
Fleet 2000 -2006
Measure Category
Fleet
Measure Status
Completed
2005
Source Next Steps
Capital Cost
$0
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100 %
Incremental Capital Cost
$0
Rebate
$0
Calculated
Net Capital Cost
$0
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
$1,925
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
12,833
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
no
Payment Amount
$0
Incremental Replacement Cost.
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
7
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
0.00
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
SPB
0.0
IRR
#NUM!
NPV
$0
CO2 reduction (tons)
6.42
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
F2- Biodiesel B20
Meaures Name
Biodiesel B20
Notes
Measure Category
Fleet
Measure Status
Future
2009
Source Next Steps
Capital Cost
$5,000
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$5,000
Rebate
$0
Calculated
Net Capital Cost
$5,000
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
[— $0
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
$80
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
— 0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
35,163
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
no
Payment Amount
$0
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
7
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
0.20
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
SPB
62.6
IRR
-2.8%
NPV
($3,175)
CO2 reduction (tons)
17.58
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma.County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan 8.20.07
F3 -City Fleet CNG
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Fleet Natural
Notes
Meaures Name
Gas
Conversions
Measure Category
Fleet
Measure Status
Future
2009
Source Next Steps
Capital Cost
$432,000
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$432,000
Rebate
$0
Calculated
Net Capital Cost
$432,000
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
$19,493
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
165,196
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
($53,129)
Incremental Replacement Cost
$216,000
Component Life
10
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
10
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
(Results
Source:
SPB
22.2
IRR
#DIV /0!
NPV
($334,160)
CO2 reduction (tons)
82.60
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
174 -City Fleet New 1
Next Steps
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Notes
Meaures Name
City Fleet New 1
Measure Category
Fleet
Measure Status
Future
2009
Source
Capital Cost
$76,000
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$76,000
Rebate
$0
Calculated
Net Capital Cost
$76,000
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
$15,416
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
102,774
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
(� yes
Payment Amount
($17,048)
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
5
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
SPB
4.9
IRR
24.3%
NPV
$233,690
CO2 reduction (tons)
51.39
Next Steps
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
H- Biodiesel B100
Meaures Name
Biodiesel B100
Notes
Measure Category
Fleet
Key Assumptions
Measure Status
Future
2009
Term of Finance
7
Source
Capital Cost
$11,000
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$11,000
Rebate
$0 —�
Calculated
Net Capital Cost
$11,000
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
$1,998
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
175,817
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
no
Payment Amount
$0
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
15
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
NA
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
CO2 reduction (tons)
Term of Finance
7
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
1.00
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
SPB
NA
IRR
NA
NPV
$29,191
CO2 reduction (tons)
87.91
Next Steps
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
H- Ethanol
Meaures Name
Ethanol E85
Notes
Measure Category
Fleet
Measure Status
Future
2012
Source
Capital Cost
$96,000
Calculated
Incremental Capital Cost %
100 %
Incremental Capital Cost
$96,000
Rebate
$0
Calculated
Net Capital Cost
$96,000
Calculated
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Calculated
Annual Cost Savings
- $11,247
Calculated
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
[— 0.0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
0
Calculated
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Calculated
Annual CO2 Savings_(Ibs)
68,617
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
no
Payment Amount
$0
Incremental Replacement Cost
$96,000
Component Life
10
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Key Assumptions
Term of Analysis
25
# /gal Ethanol
Term of Finance
7
Participation Rate
Discount Rate
5.00%
% locally processE
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.145
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Time of Use (PV)
0.85
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
Source:
S PB
-8.5
IRR
#DIV /0!
NPV
($452,398)
CO2 reduction (tons)
34.31
Next Steps
17.73
80%
0%
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
IMeaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis.
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
W1 -Pump Measures
Pump Measures
(4 implemented)
Water /Sewer
completed
$197,247
100%
$197,247
$0
$197,247
$0
$12,758
00
87,989
0
43,027
es
$32,803
$0
12
25
7
5.00%
3.50%
$0.145
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100%
es
15.5
#NUM!
$0
21.51
Notes
2006 Implementation Date
8.20.07
Provided (Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Calculated
(Provided or Calculated)
Key Assumptions
Identify pump efficiency problems and correct
Modeling for scheduling and VFD opportunities
Source:
City Staff
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
I . W2 -Pump Measures
IMeaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
[Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
Climate Protection Campaign
Pump Measures
(Savings criteria
$500)
Water /Sewer
Future
$591,741
100%
$591,741
so
$591,741
$0
$19,431
0.0
134,008
0
65,530
yes
$98,408
$0
12
25
7
5.00%
3.50%
$0.145
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100%
es
30.5
2.0%
($177,775)
32.76
Notes
8.20.07
2008 Implementation Date
Provided (Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Calculated
(Provided or Calculated)
Key Assumptions
Identify pump efficiency problems and correct
Modeling for scheduling and VFD opportunities
Source:
ABAG EW
Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
W3 -Pump Measures
Meaures Name
Pump Measures
Notes
Measure Category
Water /Sewer
Measure Status
Future
2010 Implementation Date
Capital Cost
$394,494
Provided
Incremental Capital Cost %
100%
Incremental Capital Cost
$394,494
Rebate
$0
Provided
Net Capital Cost
$394,494
Provided
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
$0
Provided
Annual Cost Savings
$15,366
Provided
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
0.0
Provided
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
105,970
Provided
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
0
Provided
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
51,819
Calculated
Financed (yes /no)
yes
Payment Amount
$65,605
Incremental Replacement Cost
$0
Component Life
12
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
25
7
5.00%
3.50%
$0.145
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100%
es
25.7
3.3%
($70,638)
25.91
8.20,07
Key Assumptions
Identify pump efficiency problems and correct
Modeling for scheduling and VFD opportunities
Source:
ABAG EW
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
I Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual O &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (lbs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Staff Coordinator
Otall
buildin
future
$0
100%
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
$0
0.0
—�
0
no
$0
$0
Component Life
12
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
#DIV /0!
Term of Analysis
25
Term of Finance
7
Discount Rate
5.00%
Energy Inflation
3.50%
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
$0.150
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
$1.00
Interest Rate
3.95%
Inflation Rate
1.00%
Time of Use (PV)
NA
Incremental Capital Cost
100%
.Exclude "completed" measure C/B
yes
Results
SPB
#DIV /0!
IRR
#DIV /0!
NPV
($747,032)
CO2 reduction (tons)
0.00
Notes
2008
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Provided
Calculated
Key Assum ptions
0
0
Source:
MS I
Implementation Date
(Provided or Calculated)
(Provided or Calculated)
(Provided or Calculated)
(Provided or Calculated)
(Provided or Calculated)
(Provided or Calculated)
(Provided or Calculated)
(Provided or Calculated)
(Provided or Calculated)
8.20.07
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch
Rohnert Park Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan
I APS Public Safetv DDC
Meaures Name
Measure Category
Measure Status
Capital Cost
Incremental. Capital Cost %
Incremental Capital Cost
Rebate
Net Capital Cost
Annual 0 &M (incremental cost)
Annual Cost Savings
Peak Demand Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
Annual Energy Savings (Therms)
Annual CO2 Savings (Ibs)
Financed (yes /no)
Payment Amount
Incremental Replacement Cost
Component Life
Inputs Used in Analysis (subject to
individual measure overide)
Term of Analysis
Term of Finance
Discount Rate
Energy Inflation
Energy Cost ($ /kWh)
Energy Cost ($/Therm)
Interest Rate
Inflation Rate
Time of Use (PV)
Incremental Capital Cost
Exclude "completed" measure C/B
Results
SPB
IRR
NPV
CO2 reduction (tons)
APS Public
Safety Central
DDC
building
Future
$5,000
100%
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
$18,463
0.0
33,417
13,450
182,314
no
$0
so
25
25
7
5.00%
3.50%
$0.150
$1.00
3.95%
3.00%
NA
100%
es
0.3
385.7%
$361,795
91.16
Notes
8.20.07
2007 Implementation Date
Provided (Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Provided
(Provided or Calculated)
Calculated
(Provided or Calculated)
Key Assumptions
Source:
APS Recommendation
Climate Protection Campaign Sonoma County Energy Watch