Strategic Energy Management Plan

DECEMBER 2015

Presented by:

Digital Energy, Inc.

Long Term Vison and Aspirational Goals

Sustainability has always been and will continue to be a priority for CSUN. This was made clear by university’s president Dianne F. Harrison in 2013 when she signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) on behalf of CSUN, , asserting that the university will exercise leadership by modeling ways to minimize global warming emissions and by educating graduates with knowledge that will help to achieve carbon neutrality.

In 2006, California passed pioneering legislation in the form of AB 32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act – to lead the nation in reducing emissions that contribute to Climate Change. This policy states that California will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

As of 2015, CSUN has successfully reduced its GHG emissions to 1990 levels, more than five years ahead of the goal. While this is a great accomplishment, it is only the first step towards bolder goals outlined below:

• Per the AB 32 policy, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

• The new 2014 CSU Sustainability Policy, just approved by the Board of Trustees in 2014, accelerates the CSU’s goal by 10 years – reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2040.

• During 2007/2008 the Energy & Utilities Commissions adopted the aspirational “Big Bold goals” of making State of California Residential Construction to Zero Net Energy Buildings by 2020 and make all new commercial buildings Zero Net Energy buildings by 2030. Additionally, per the Big Bold goals, 50% of the existing buildings will be retrofitted to be Zero Net Energy buildings by 2030.

Definition of a Zero Net Energy (ZNE) Building

A building with zero net energy consumption, meaning the total amount of energy used by the building on an annual basis is roughly equal to the amount of renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, biomass) created on the site, or in other definitions by renewable energy sources elsewhere.

Accomplishments

The CSUN Campus, under the leadership of the Facilities Planning, Design, and Construction department and working in collaboration with the rest of the campus community, has consistently demonstrated leadership in energy and sustainability over the last several decades. The following outlines various key Campus accomplishments:

• AB 32’s goal of achieving 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020 has been successfully met more than 5 years ahead of time.

• CSUN has multiple solar photovoltaic (PV) systems installed across campus with a total capacity of 843 kW. Installations were done in various stages starting in 2003. Facilities where PV is installed include parking lots B2 and E6 (692 kW combined), a rooftop system at the Student Recreation Center (90 kW), and the Boeing PV site (61 kW).

• A campus owned Combined Heat and Power (CHP) power plant, comprised of four molten carbonate fuel cells, has been operating since February of 2007, and supplies approximately 8.3 million kWh of electricity annually. When first installed, this was approximately 18 percent of the campus' base-load power requirements. The plant also produces 22 billion British Thermal Units (BTUs) of thermal energy per year in the form of usable hot water.

• For all new building construction projects, CSUN has embraced sustainability and it is demonstrated by its recent track record of LEED certified buildings. These include Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC), Student Recreation Center (SRC), and Student Housing (Phase II), all with LEED gold certifications. Presently in construction is the Extended Learning Building which is also proposed for LEED gold certification.

• The Campus recently completed a retro-commissioning and monitoring-based commissioning projects for the Central Plant and Satellite Plants. Through implementation of sequences and various other measures, these efforts have helped optimize operations and energy efficiency at the campus.

• Because of its efforts, CSUN continues to be regarded by local, regional and national organizations as a leader in sustainability and energy efficiency. The university also continually holds the top spot for the best energy efficiency in the CSU system.

For more details, the CSUN Sustainability Plan, last updated in June 2015 gives a comprehensive summary of campus vision, accomplishments, and its commitment to energy efficiency.

Campus Energy Use and GHG Emissions

Fiscal Year: FY 14/15 (i.e., July 2014 to June 2015)

Building Size: 4.44 million GSF

Annual Campus Energy Use:

Electricity: 61.6 million kWh Natural Gas: 1.49 million Therms

Approximately 86% of the electricity use during FY ‘14/15 was purchased from LADWP, which currently reports a Renewable Energy Portfolio of 20%. Remaining electricity use is generated on-site.

Equivalent GHG Emissions:

78.6 million lbs. (or 35,646 metric tons)

The combined GHG emissions are 4% lower than the GHG emissions calculated for FY ‘90/91.

Considering that the campus building GSF increased from 2.46 million GSF to 4.44 million GSF (i.e., 81% increase since FY ‘90/91), existing GHG emissions being lower than what they were in FY ‘90/91 levels today is a remarkable accomplishment. AB 32’s goal of achieving 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020 has been successfully met by the CSUN campus more than 5 years ahead of time.

81.5 77.8

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

FY '90/91 FY '14/15

GHG

Emm

issio

ns (M

illio

n Lb

s./Y

ear)

AB 32 Goal for 2020

5% Reduction

Campus Energy Use and GHG Emissions

The GHG emissions (Direct and Indirect under Scope 1 and Scope 2) in FY ‘14/15 are estimated as 77.8 million lbs. Compared to 81.6 million lbs. in FY ‘90/91, the combined Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions in FY ‘14/15 are 5% lower.

Scope IDFY '90/91

GHG Emissions (Lbs.)

FY '14/15GHG Emissions

(Lbs.)Scope 1 (Direct) - Includes natural gas 29,113,496 17,467,702

% of Total 36% 22%Scope 2 (Indirect) - Includes electricity purchased from utility 52,436,154 60,331,660

% of Total 64% 78%Total (Lbs.) 81,549,650 77,799,363

29,113,496 , 36%

52,436,154 , 64%

FY '90/91 GHG Emissions (Lbs.)

Scope 1 (Direct) -Includes natural gas

Scope 2 (Indirect) -Includes electricitypurchased from utility

17,467,702 , 22%

60,331,660 , 78%

FY '14/15 GHG Emissions (Lbs.)

Scope 1 (Direct) -Includes natural gas

Scope 2 (Indirect) -Includes electricitypurchased from utility

Campus Energy Use 1990 vs. 2014

Even though the Campus building area has increased by 81% since FY ‘90/91, energy use index has decreased considerable leading to the fact that during later years, energy efficiency concepts have been aggressively adapted to new and existing systems.

2.5

4.4

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

FY '90/91 FY '14/15

Build

ing

Area

(Mill

ion

GSF

)

Building Area Comparison

81% Increase

148.1

81.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

FY '90/91 FY '14/15

ENER

GY U

SE IN

DEX

(EU

I) (K

BTU

/SFT

)

Energy Use Index (EUI) Comparison

Inludes electricity and natural gas only (i.e., Source

1 and Source 2)

45% Reduction

Combined Impact of Near Term Plan Near term projects (or Phase-1 project) identified in the SEMP have the potential to reduce the electricity purchases from 56,671,433 kWh (including future buildings) to 31,543,492 kWh with an overall 44% reduction in electricity purchases.

These projects could also yield gas use reduction from 1,529,737 Therms (including future buildings) to 1,343,305 Therms with an overall savings of 12%.

56,671,433

46,185,19840,066,202 39,272,308

31,543,492

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

AdjustedBaseline

(kWh)

LightingEEMs(kWh)

MechanicalEEMs(kWh)

Other EEMs (kWh)

PV Offset(kWh)

Elec

tric

ity U

se (k

Wh)

PROJECT CATEGORY

Progressive Potential Electricity Use Reduction Post-Implementation of Measures

1,529,737 1,529,737

1,343,305 1,343,305 1,343,305

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

AdjustedBaseline(Therms)

LightingEEMs

(Therms)

MechanicalEEMs

(Therms)

Other EEMs (Therms)

PV Offset(Therms)

Gas

Use

(The

rms)

PROJECT CATEGORY

Progressive Potential Gas Use Reduction Post-Implementation of Measures

Combined Impact of Near Term Plan

Near term projects could reduce the utility use index by 30% from 73.4 kBTU/SFT to 51.3 kBTU/SFT.

Near term project could reduce GHG emissions by 37% from 82.2 million lbs. to 51.5 million lbs.

73.465.8

57.5 56.951.3

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.0

AdjustedBaseline [1]

LightingEEMs

MechanicalEEMs

Other EEMs PV Offset

Util

ity U

se In

dex

(kBT

U/S

FT)

PROJECT CATEGORY

Progressive Potential Utility Use Index Reduction Post-Implementation of Measures

82,219,99870,318,120

61,191,80860,290,738

51,518,532

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

Baseline [1] LightingEEMs

MechanicalEEMs

Other EEMs PV OffsetEqui

vale

nt G

HG E

mis

sion

s (Lb

s.\Y

ear)

PROJECT CATEGORY

Progressive Potential Equivalent CO2 Reduction Post-Implementation of Measures

Meeting the Big Bold Aspirational Goals of Zero Net Energy

Achieving Zero Net Energy at the Campus faces massive challenges. In order meet this incredible milestone, the following scenarios would need to be realized:

• Campus energy efficiency improves to an extent where building electricity and natural gas use indices drop by 50% compared to FY ‘14/15 levels,

• Campus continues to operate its fuel cell plant which generates approximately 7.75 million kWh of electricity per year,

• LADWP’s carbon rate drops from the existing 1.135 lbs./kWh to 0.563 lbs./kWh (or 50% reduction over FY ‘14/15 levels),

• In addition to the 50% building energy use savings, the campus would have to generate renewable energy that is equivalent of 39.7 million kWh, almost double of the current PV capacity. This is equivalent to a PV capacity of approximately 25.1 MW (DC). Excess energy generated through renewables will need to be exported to the grid to offset the campus GHG emissions footprint

Progressive potential GHG emission reduction post-implementation of measures are illustrated below. Phase 1 are near term measures identified in the SEMP. Phase 2 are remaining measures to achieve Zero Net Energy.

81,549,650 77,799,363

82,219,998

51,518,532

3,998,062

0% -4.6% 0.8%

-36.8%

-95.1%

-120%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

-

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

FY '90/91 FY '14/15 FutureBuilding

Additions

Phase 1 Phase 2

% P

oten

tial C

hang

e in

GHG

Em

issi

ons

with

re

spec

t to

199

0 Le

vels

Equi

vale

nt G

HG E

mis

sion

s (L

bs.\

Year

)

Potential Equivalent CO2 Reduction Post-Implementation of Measures (Progressive)

Meeting the Big Bold Aspirational Goals of Zero Net Energy The SEMP outlines various energy measures (i.e., Phase 1) that would help the university reduce its GHG emissions to 37% below 1990 levels.

A bigger challenge is presented beyond Phase 1. As CSUN continues to push the envelope on energy efficiency and strives to reach Net Zero (i.e., Phase 2), every aspect of existing building energy use needs to be closely tracked to determine where newer technologies and opportunities can be leveraged to retrofit older buildings and make them more efficient. Achieving Net Zero economically requires adoption of aggressive energy efficiency measures as well as generation of renewable energy to the extent of energy use remains after conservation.

The following presents broad areas and opportunities where the energy industry and research activities will continue on the path of innovation to bring new cost effective technologies. Continued research and development in all of these areas plus the successful implementation in existing university buildings will be pivotal in successfully achieving carbon neutrality at the university campus.

• Retrofit of existing building glazing with high efficiency glazing • Insulation of walls & roofs where presently there none or minimal • Retrofit of interior & exterior lighting with long life LED technology • More intelligent control of lighting in interior and exterior areas • Use of direct DC power for lighting and other plug loads to avoid

traditional AC power conversion losses • Traditional method of providing comfort through central systems

that condition the entire space as opposed to the micro zone occupied by the occupant could see potential reengineering

• Natural ventilation, economizing and direct/indirect evaporative cooling means

• Heat recovery systems may be more readily applied • New choices of refrigerants and refrigeration processes could

result in improved chiller or compressor efficiencies • Fans, pumps and motors could achieve greater efficiencies through

reduced losses and friction in bearings • Revolutionary advancements in the software and informational

technology fields can help achieve greater sophistication in systems operation to help achieve greater operating efficiencies

Feasibility of Achieving Zero Net Energy

There could be various combinations of scenarios that could help accomplish the same Zero Net Energy goal. Other forms of renewable energy beyond PV could be considered (e.g., fuel cell).

Achieving 50% reduction in building side heating and power use will need to consider drastic changes to how these are currently being provided. While cost of renewable energy alone appears to be in the range of $6 - $8/Watt in 2015 (or approximately $121 million of investment for incremental long term 19.5 MW of PV), it is impossible to forecast with any degree of certainty what the costs would be in 20-30 years.

In rough order of magnitude, it’s estimated that achieving the Big Bold strategies could require at least $121 million in renewable energy investment and $220 million in building side improvements with future technology and systems not yet commercial today.

The following identifies the "Big Bold Goal" efficiency improvements and renewable generation projects along with the respective energy savings, utility savings, and project costs. Note that the numbers presented are the best estimates only. At later stage a more specific and detailed analysis of the available technologies and an economic feasibility will be required before the final determination/selection of the specific project can be made.

Projects Identfied Electricity Savings (kWh)

Natural Gas Savings (Therms)

Project Cost ($)

Project Savings ($)

Simple Payback (Years)

Lighting EEMs 10,486,235 - $29,350,289 $1,080,082 27.2 Mechanical EEMs 6,118,995 186,432 $98,701,383 $752,929 131.1 Other EEMs 793,894 - $4,747,219 $81,771 58.1 Photovoltaic Installation (4.9 MW)

7,728,816 - $33,127,920 $796,068 41.6

Sub Total: 25,127,941 186,432 $165,926,811 $2,710,850 61.2

Projects Identfied Electricity Savings (kWh)

Natural Gas Savings (Therms)

Project Cost ($)

Project Savings ($)

Simple Payback (Years)

PV Installation to Achieve Net Zero Emissions (15.8 MW)

23,040,119 0 $87,438,780 $2,373,132 36.8

Building Side Improvements 13,400,181 560,051 $87,436,615 $1,748,732 50.0Sub Total: 36,440,299 560,051 $174,875,395 $4,121,865 42.4

Total: 61,568,240 746,483 $340,802,206 $6,832,715 49.9

Phase 1 - Short Term Goals

Phase 2 - Long Terms Goals - Big Bold Goals