# Annual Report and Work Plan

June 30, 2003

State Buildings Energy Efficiency Program

Prepared by the Utah Energy Office, Department of Natural Resources



# Executive Summary

From June 23, 1999 to June 30, 2003,

the State Buildings Energy Efficiency

Program produced gross energy savings

of least $8,344,511 and net savings from

energy efficiency of $1,004,970.

With state budget limitations continuing

into FY04, the FY04 SBEEP Work Plan

relies on energy savi ngs generated from

performance contracting to meet the

program goal of $20 million in savings

by 2010. Using this approach, cost

savings from energy units conserved in

FY04 should exceed the FY03 savings

of $5,605,398, and total savings to date

will exceed fifty percent of the

Governor’s goal of $20 million in

savings by 2010.

Background

This report of the State Building Energy

Efficiency Program is prepared pursuant

to 63-9-67 (2) of the Utah State Code as

enacted in H.B. 119, Quality Growth Act

of 1999 and pursuant to the Executive

Order entitled “Establishing A State

Building Energy Efficiency Program” as

released by Governor Michael Leavitt

dated June 23, 1999, paragraph 3d. For

FY03 the Utah Energy Office,

Department of Natural Resources in

conjunction with the Division of

Facilities Construc tion and Management,

administered the State Buildings Energy

Efficiency Program (SBEEP). The focus

for the program is Governor Michael

Leavitt’s SBEEP goals as established by

Executive Order and authorized under

63-9-67 (1) (f). U nder the Governor’s Executive Order titled of June 23, 1999,

the SBEEP program is directed to:

1. Achieve significant energy savings

through the implementation of a

comprehensive and coordinated

energy efficiency plan, the goal of

which is to reduce energy costs by a

cumulative total of $20,000,000 by

2010;

2. Provide, through these savings, a

source of funding for the LeRay

McAllister Critical Land

Conservation Fund;

3. Provide energy management

services, technical energy assistance,

and financial coordination necessary

to obtain energy co st reductions and

increased efficiency in state

facilities.

Since the Executive Order’s effective

date, there have been organizational

changes, renewed interagency

cooperation, and assignment of new staff

to help achieve the Governor’s purposes

for the SBEEP. Currently, one program

manager and two engineers are assigned

full-time to the program.

Progress to Date: SBEEP Savings

Achieved to June 30, 2003

Table 1 includes a conservative base of

savings attributable to SBEEP from June

23, 1999 through June 30, 2003. The

total gross energy cost savings equals

$8,344,511 and represents the value of

kilowatts, kilowatt hours, and therms

# conserved. Gross savings does not

factor out th e cost for th e energy

conservation m easures. Also shown in

Table I is net energy cost savings

totaling $1,004,970. The net savings

represents the value of energy units

conserved less the actu al cost of energy

conservation m easures. For accounting

purposes under the Quality Growth Act,

it is im portant to note that corresponding

reductions to an agency’s utility budget

m a y not occur during th e fiscal year if

that ag ency experiences cost per un it

increases for gas and electricity used. T o t a l

projects

co m p le ted

through

F Y 02 F Y 03

Results To ta ls fro m

June 23,

1999

through

F Y 03

Nu m b er of

State

Buildings 98 35

(with

another 140

buildings

currently inpr ogr ess to

be

co m p let e d

in FY04) 133

G r oss

Energy

Efficiency

Measure

Savings $2, 739, 1 13 5, 605, 39 8 $8, 344, 5 11

Esti m a ted

Net Energy

Efficiency

Measure

Cost

Savings $81, 43 1 $923, 5 39 $1, 004, 9 70 

# Due to the extrem e scarcity of state

funding for retrofit projects beginning in

FY02 and continuing into FY03 and

FY04, SBEEP and DFCM have focused

efforts on the use of perform a nce

contracts with energy s e rvice com p anies

(ESCOs) who will help fund and

guarantee energy project savings for

state buildings (see section below

entitled, “P rivate Sector Financing”). To

date, a total of $7,339,541 in gross

energy savings has been achieved by

SBEEP’s use of performance

contracting. This re presents 88 percent

of total gross savings achieved.

Three ESCO-based pro j ects are currently

in final contract negotiation for a

m i ni m u m of $409,832 in additional

annual gross energy sav i ngs. Because

ESCO-based projects have a 6-10 month

delay between project initiation and

accrual of energy savin g s, any savings

f r om these new projec ts will not app ear

until FY04.

Table I - SBEEP Ene r g y Cost Savings 1

1 

# For building r e tr ofit pr ojects funde d fr o m the DNR Public

Building L o an Pr ogr am loans or l eas e purchases with e n ergy

service co m p anies, net savings only occur af ter the ter m of

the loan or lease is fulfilled. Due to budget constraints, no

additional loans ha ve been tender e d fr o m the DNR Public

Building L o an Pr ogr am . For the New Building L o w Ener gy Design Pr ogr am , incentive pay outs ar e m a de to the

architectural and e ngineering design t e a m s that exceed

ASHRAE 90. 1 ( 1989) by 25%. Pr ojects include: State

L i br ary

, W S U Br o w ning Hall, W a satch State Par k

Clubho use, UDOT Traffic Contro l Center, and Davis C ounty

Cour t Addition. E n er gy efficient new buildings r e quir e

fewer long term O& M appr opr iations co m p ar ed to inef ficient

counter par t buildin gs. Data for total SBE E P s a vings thr ough

June 30, 200 2 ( t he cor r ected FY02 r e por ted savings) include:

New Building Design Pr ogr am ( 5 buildings at $71, 07 3)

, Univer sity of Utah ( 88 buildings at $ 2

, 657, 68 2)

, and the

DNR co m p lex ( 5 buildings at $10, 3 5 8 )

. For FY03, savings

ar e der i ved fr o m : the new Soldier Ho llow Clubhouse

( $7, 599)

, M a theson Cour thouse r e tr oco m m i ssioning

( $75, 000)

, Salt L a ke Co m m unity College S. City Ca m p us

r e tr oco m m i ssioning ( $38, 600)

, DFCM ener g y retr ofits

co m p leted in FY0 3 ( 33 pr ojects with $498, 96 1) in savings

fun d ed in FY02)

, New Building L o w E n er g y Design

Pr ogr am ( 7 buildings at $282, 09 3 in continui ng saving s)

, DNR Buildings ( 5 buildin gs at $5, 24 5)

, Utah National Guar d

Ca m p W illia m s wi nd unit ($16,0 41 to tal to 12/31/02), and

Univer sity of Utah ( $4, 681, 859)

. T o tal building pr ojects

begun in FY03 but not to be co m p lete d until FY04 inclu d e

the Ogden Region al Center ( 1 bldgs. )

, UVSC ( 12 bldgs. )

, the

Utah State Pr ison (112 bld g s. )

, and DFCM funded pr oje c ts in

FY03 ( 14 building s )

. T h e savings for the Univer sity of Utah

pr ovides a cu m u lative total pr oject savings thr o u gh Apr il 30,

2003, o f $7, 33 9, 54 1 using no n- weather adjusted data an d

current utility rat e s. The en tire UPL rate refund for 200 0

($311,76 0) was de posited to the LeRay McAlliste r Fun d in

FY00 as r e quir e d by the Quality Gr owth Act. ( 63- 38- 18)

, but

is not " n et savings" as define d by the Act. 63- 9- 67( 1) ( d )

. The Qualit y G r owt h Act requires that 50% of net savin g s be

r e por ted to the legislatur e pe r 63- 9- 67( 2) ( b ) ( i ) and deposited

to the L e Ray Fund, subject to legislative appr opr iation. [63-

9- 67( 2) ( c ) ]

.



# 2

# Outloo k to the Future: Program

Work Plan for FY04

W ith due consideration to SBEEP’s

overall purpose as outlined in the

Executive O r der, th e FY03 SBEEP

Work Plan has been updated for FY04

including appropriate perform a nce goals,

m ilestones, and delineation of

responsibilities for SBEEP staff (see

Attachm e nt 1). The following describes

m a jor SBEEP accom p lishm ents for

fiscal year ending June 30, 2003.

Needs Assessm e nt Surveys The FY03

SBEEP Wor k Plan inclu d ed the

developm ent of an energy needs

assessm ent survey to be com p leted by

each state ag ency including higher

education. The purpose of the

assessm ent survey is to identif y thos e

agencies m o st need ing assistance fro m

SBEEP and those agen cies with th e

greatest po te ntia l f o r leveraged energy

saving. The needs assessm e nt survey

was distributed to all state agencies on

May 14, 2002.

Because of lim ited funding and staffing,

SBEEP concentrated field asses s m e nts

on a lim ited subset of all state build in gs,

com p leting 26 site assessm e nts for

FY03. SBEEP will complete additio n al

on-site needs assessm ents beginning in

FY04 in order to identify and prioritize

best candidates for perform a nce

contracting.

Internally Funded Building Retrofit

Projects

Lim ited capital im provem e nt funding for

energy saving retrofit projects is derived

from State General Funds appropriated

to DFCM. The list of funding for energy

efficiency measures includes $1,809,328

for FY02, $1,324,900 for FY03, and $484,200 for FY04 (See attachm e nts 2a

through 2d).

Generally, projects are selected for

funding based upon several factors

including energy cost saving potential.

However, projects are also selected f o r

funding based upon the need to replace

aging and failed equipment, life and

safety or air quality issues. W ith a lag

tim e of up t o twelve m o nths between the

availability of legisl atively appropriated

funds, design, procurem ent and bidding,

equipm ent installation, closeout, and

accrual of th e first m onth’s energy co st

savings; the only internally funded

projects with reportable savings for this

report com e from the FY02 funded

projects. For FY02 funded projects

com p leted by June 30, 2002, the

calculated net value of energy units

saved is $498,961.

Private Sector Financing Between $85

m illion and $ 90 m illion is needed to

upgrade the energy efficiency of

rem a ining state buildings. Bonding is

one option to m eet this capital need. But

on a m o re immediate basis and with the

current state budget situation, the

SBEEP has developed a strategy for

procuring the techni cal s e rvices and

financial resources of private sector

energy service com p anies (ESCOs)

using perform a nce contracts.

Structured sim ilar to an equipm ent or

capital lease, the private sector ESC O s

com p lete retrofit work, arrange

financing with a thir d-party partner, and

provide an annual savings guarantee.

The financin g is structu r ed to allow a

cash flow of annual energy savings

sufficient to pay off the project cos t s

over the life or term of the financing

agreem ent. The ESCO approach allo ws

3

# projects to p r oceed with very lim ited

capital outlays from the state while

avoiding the construction delays and lost

opportunity costs of a design/bid/build

approach. Depending on project size,

funding using an ESCO averages 0.2

percent over the financing available

through the traditional bond sources. 2



# As found in Utah Code 63-9-67 (1) (d),

paybacks on energy projects funded

through a perform a nce contract with an

ESCO can range up to 25 years

depending upon the energy econom i c s of

a particular upgrade. Typically, a

perform a nce contract-b ased state

building p r o j ect do es not accrue n e t

savings until after the perfor m ance

contract term has ended and the

financing fully retired.

In a m odel project com p leted in 2001 at

the University of Utah, the private sector

financing approach generated $44

m illion in en ergy ef f i cien cy

im prove m e nts for 81 campus buildings

with no upfront capit al expense to th e

University or State of Utah. The ESCO

approach allowed the University of Utah

to upgrade cam pus-wide energy

efficiency while resolv in g issues with

deferred m a intenance issues and

occupant comfort. It should be noted

that ne t sav i ngs will no t be rea lized u n til

the term of t h e University of Utah’s

perform a nce contract has expired in

FY23.

Experience gained from the University

of Utah project has allowed SBEEP to

stream line s t andard pro c urem ent

docum ents and procedures, accelerating

procurem ent and construction for three new projects. In FY03, a procurem ent

resulted in three ESCO selec tions th at

total 112 buildings for the Departm e nt of

Corrections Utah State P r ison at

Bluffdale (1.13 m illion s quare feet), the

Odgen Regional Center (108,702 square

feet), and 12 buildings for Utah Valley

State Colleg e (1.18 m illion square feet).

Engineering and construction for these

projects is currently underway with

com p letion in FY04.

A 112 buildin g up gr ade began for the Utah State Prison at

Bluf fdale in 2003



# Energy Upgrades for 112 Bu ild ings at the Utah

State Prison



# The State of Utah’s use of perfor m a nce

contracting f o r the University of Utah

and the Utah State Prison have both

received national recognition from the

U.S. Departm e nt of Energy’s Rebuild

Am erica Pro g ram

. 3



# Energy Efficient New Design

In 2001 the Utah Energy Office, the

DFCM, and the State Building Board

developed and adopted a cost-effective

new standard of energy perform a nce for

new state buildings. Under this

standard, an integrated design team of

architects an d engineers is expected to

design new state build ings that perform

25 percent more efficiently than the new

commercial energy code adopted in

January 2001. This perform a nce level

significan tly lowers life cycle co sts f o r

3 

# “Un i v e rsity Sav e s Millio n s with Massi v e

Perform a nce Cont r a c t ”

, R e bui ld Am erica Partner

Up date , U. S. D e part m e nt of E n er gy , Was h i n gt o n

D

. C., May- Ju ne 20 03 issu e, pp

. 1 & 8

. Rebuild

Am erica and it s strategic part ners serve a s

valua b le techni cal resources t o SBE E P. 2 

# Per an unpublishe d study by Julio Rovi P. E

. , with the

Cad m us Gr oup, I n c.

, Ar lington, Vir g inia, lost oppor tuni ty

costs when using t h e m o r e tim e- consu m ing bonding

approach f o r f i nancing state building retrof its exceed the

increase in cost of m one y f o r E S CO- b ased f i nancing.



# 4

# new buildin gs with little or no incr ea ses

in project budgets. For F Y 04, the

SBEEP energy engineer from the Utah

Energy Of f i ce will work with DFCM

reviewers to com p lete plan reviews,

evaluate energy performance building

models, complete value engineering,

participate in comm issioning, and assist

with final inspections. T h e SBEEP

engineer will train architects and

engineers in m eeting the new

perform a nce standard. T h e exact

num b er of new buildings to be built is

dependent on the availability of state

revenue or bonding with 2-3 buildings

scheduled for design in FY04. USU Utah House – receiv ed SBEEP design

assistanc e and funding (de d ic ate d F e br uary 2003)



# Another energy efficient new design

projec t completed in FY03 is the So ldier

Hollow Clubhouse. An energy analysis

by SBEEP e ngineers suggests a saving

of 33.9% compared to sim ilarly-sized

buildings co nstruc ted on ly to th e cur r ent

commercial energy code. The Soldier

Hollow Clubhouse’s total FY03 savings

is calculated at $7,599 for gas and

electric

. 

# In February 2003, the Utah State

University Utah House in Kaysville was

dedicated. The building, which serves as

the m a in office and v i sitor’s cen ter for

the new USU Botanical Center of the

Davis County Extension, received direct

technical an d financial assistance

through the Utah Energy Office SBEEP

and State Energy Program (SEP). As an

Energy Star Building, the Utah House

dem onstrates the latest design and

construction features for energy savings

and sustainability including a ground

source geo-coupled heating and cooling

system , highly insulated walls,

photovoltaic panels to convert sunlight

to ele c tr ic ity , water cons erving

appliances and landscaping, daylighting

from light tubes and clearstory windows,

state-of-the-art tem p erature and lighting

contro ls, an d recycled m a terials. T h e

building is exem plary with features

replicable for other st ate buildings. The

USU Utah House will u s e approxim a tely

70% less energy than typically

constructed buildings. Retrocomm i ssioning Projects

Retrocomm i ssioning optim i zes the

perform a nce of a building’s heating,

ventilation and air conditioning system s.

Cost studies prepared by SBEEP

engineers indicate the best return for

energy savings in state buildings can be

achieved through retro-comm issioning. 4



# The retrocommissioning process

involves the analysis of an existing

building’s energy using system s and the

follow-on improvem e nt m easures to

reduce energy consum ption while

m a intaining or restoring the building

environm ent to m eet the occupants’

needs. The p r ocess assures that existing

building controls, heating and ventilation

equipm ent, chillers, boilers, and pumps

operate at peak levels of energy

efficiency. Retrocomm i ssioning agents

evaluate and revise settings and

4 

# For r e ference, see analy s is pr epared by Jam e s Hood P.E

. , Utah Depar t m e nt o f Natur a l Resour ces dated Apr il 12, 2 002.



# 5

# Energy Procurem ent schedules w h ile revisiting the general

condition and m a inte nance of energy

using equipm ent. SBEEP worked with the Division of

State Purchasing in FY03 to prom ote

Energy Star products as the products of

choice when agencies purchase under

state contracts (such as com puters,

lighting products, a nd refrigerators).

The Division of State Purchasing is

developing specifications that require

Energy Star products to be m o re easily

identifiable at vendor product websites

and in state contracts. T h e new state

contract for copiers is th e first

specif i ca tion to spec if ically iden tif y units that are Energy Star. A m a trix of

various energy saving products was also

developed and distributed to purchasing

agents acros s the state. Purchasing

agents are authorized to m a ke selections

from this m a trix using a life cycle cost

approach to optim ize the energy savings

over the long-term

. During FY03, the

Division of State Purchasing conducted

a products show for over 200 purchasing

officials held at the University of Utah

with a focus on Energy Star lighting

products. For FY03, the State Building Energy

Efficiency Program completed

retrocomm i s i oning on the 420,000

square foot Matheson C ourthouse and

began the process for the 350,000 square

foot South City Cam pus of the Salt L a ke

Community College. In April 2003, the

state’s Division of Facilities

Construction and Managem e nt and the

Utah Energy Office announced a savings

of $75,000 in the Matheson

Courthouse’s annual util ities costs.

The annual utility savings for the

Matheson C ourthouse represents an 18%

reduction in the $400,000 annual utilities

costs. Since this first year savings was

achieved during the same period that

other en ergy efficiency m easures were

im ple m ented, savings for subsequent

years is forecast to be greater.

The Matheson Courthouse sav e s $75,000 thro ugh

retro commis s i o n n i n g

.



# Although the South City Ca m pus

retocomm issioning is not fully com p l e te,

the portion of work com p leted during

FY03 has already saved $38,600. Energy Star Co mpact Fluorescent Bulbs Unde r

S t ate Con t ract



# For bulk purchases such as natural gas,

the Division of State Purchasing has

endeavored to “lock” up gas prices

through long-term contracts and

hedging. For the first nine m onths of

FY03, Duke Energy served as the S t ate

of Utah’s natural gas supplier under state Because of funding lim itations, SBE E P

will in clude retro c omm i ssioning as a

central com ponent within the scope of

work for each future perf orm a nce

contract with ESCOs.

6

# contract, resulting in $1,514,208 in

savings com p ared the standard Questar

I2 rates (see Table II). Although the

m a rgin available under the new FY04

state contract with W a satch Energy is

more favorable to the State of Utah, the

volatile nature of na tional and regional

natura l gas m a rkets m a y result in n a tura l

gas cost increases for state facilities.

Table II – Nat u ra l G a s Co mm odit y Saving 5 

# s

Fiscal Year Annual Cost Savi ngs

F Y 0 2 $ 7 9 4

, 8 0 4

F Y 0 3 $ 1

, 514, 2 0 8 

# 225 KW Camp Williams Wind Unit - $16,041 i n

Elect rica l Prod u c tion to Date



# A wind site northeas t of Cam p W illiam s

is also b e ing tested f o r in stallation of

additional w i nd units to be owned by the

Departm e nt of Corrections, Utah State

Prison. In FY03, the Utah Energy

Office helped procure a 50 m e ter wind

anem om eter to collect twelve m ont hs of

wind data near the Fred House Academ y in Draper. If this resource proves

tenable, wind units will be installed at

the Prison site in FY05. Renewable Energy Projects for State

Facilities

For FY03, SBEEP worked with the Utah

National Guard in acquiring a second

wind unit f o r Cam p W illiam s at Point of

the Mountain, Utah. This second unit

with a capa c ity app r oach ing 1 MW will

supplem ent the 225 KW unit installed at

Ca m p W illiam s in May 2000. Funded

with alm o st $800,000 from the National

Guard Bureau in W a shington D.C. and

$50,000 from the Utah Energy Offi ce,

this second wind unit will be operational

by fall 2003. Geotherm al water nearing 185 degrees

Fahrenheit lies under the Utah State

Prison at B l uffdale. SBEEP is working

with DFCM and an energ y service

com p any, Johnson Controls, to tap the

resource. Phase I construction of the

geotherm al heating system begins in

July 2003 an d will utilize the geoth e rm al

resource to heat Prison Oquirrh Units 1-

4. Funding is arranged by the ESCO for

a guaranteed annual energy saving of

$67,875. Ca m p W illiam s ’ highly visible 225 KW

wind unit, produced 224,312 KWH or

4% of the camp’s electrical need s du ring

the past year. This KWH production

equates to a cost savings of $6,213 in

2002 and a total cost savings of $16,041

since the wind unit was comm issioned

on May 20, 2000.

Energy Inform ation Managem e nt

System I m provem e nts

In order to assess SBEEP’s effectiveness

in m eeting the goal of $20 m illion in

energy savings by 2010, the Utah

Energy Offi ce in conjunction with

DFCM is implem enting a web-based

utility inf o rm ation m a nagem e nt 5 

# T h e savings for FY03 does not inclu d e savings or losses for

natur a l gas pur chases m a de dur i ng June 03 – that inform ation

was not available a s this report was c o m p iled.



# 7

# During FY03, SBEEP also cosponsored

four sem i nars and workshops targeted

f o r state f a c i lity m a nager s and DFCM

staff as well as the independent

architects and consulting engineers who

work on state buildings (see Table III). program . As a web-based program

, facility m a nagers from across th e state

can m onitor facility energy use over

tim e, identif y utility -re la ted prob lems,

and verify energy efficiency

im provem e nts. Utility d a ta is

autom a tically downloaded each m o nth

from Utah Power and Questar. For

Phase I a to tal of 75 state buildings were

included in the database. Phase II w a s

com p leted as part of SBEEP’s FY03

Work Plan bringing the total num ber of

participating buildings to 1100. Table III – SBEEP Cosponsored Seminars and

Workshops in FY03

Se minar &

work s h op top i cs Cospo n sor s

Nov. 14, 2002 -

Geoexchange

T echnology E ngineer ing E xper i m e nt Station

Sound Geotherm al

M a r c h 7, 2003 –

Designing High

Per f orm a nce

Buildings ASHRAE

M a y 9, 2003 -

E n er gy Codes for

Buildings ASHRAE

June 20, 200 3 -

Boiler Operation &

Maintenance

W o r k shop E ngineer ing E xper i m e nt Station

L a bor Co m m ission Safety Division

Energy S e rvices C o alition

Assoc. Pr ofessional E n er gy M ngr s. 

# Recognition of exem plary perf orm a nce

by facility managers is an im portant

aspect of SBEEP. The database helps

SBEEP to recognize the best-perform ing

state build in gs includ ing those th at

qualify for EPA/DOE Energy Star

recognition. On May 21, 2003, SBEEP

engineers qualified the Matheson

Courthouse as the thir d state building to

m eet EPA Energy Star B u ilding criteria,

entitling the building to s p ecia l natio n al

recognition and a plaque. This building

joins the tw o Energy Star buildings

qualified in FY02, Depa rtm e nt of

Environm ental Quality Building an d the

Utah Tax Comm ission Building. Although the actual m e tered savings

attributable to an education and

inform ation cam paigns is difficult to

quantify, the U.S. Departm e nt of Energy

reports that each dollar invested in

activities such as energy education,

inform ation dissem i nation, energy

sem i nars, and workshops generate up to

$7 in energy savings. 6



# FY04 Issues and Opportunities Education and Inform ation Ca m p aign

for FY03 The following issues and opportunities

have arisen since the Ex ecutiv e Ord e r

was issued. All of these af f e ct the

success of SBEEP: SBEEP released three energy awareness

news briefs to state higher education

f acility m a nagers su itab l e f o r inte rna l

routing and printing in cam pus

newspapers. In conjunction with the

Governor’s Power Forward in itiativ e

, two energy alerts were issued to s t ate

em ployees to encourage energy

conservation during the 2002 summer

months. For the Departm e nt of Natural

Resources C o m p lex alone, the savings

from August 2001 to May 31, 2003

totals $25,081. 1. LeRay McCallister Fund - State

agencies co ntinue to ex press concern

over the energy provisions of the

Quality Gro w th Act. Because s t ate

agencies have traditionally used any

excess energy savings to fund

6 

# Sch w eitze r

, Mart i n , Do n a ld W. Jones, L i nda G. Berr y, and

Br

uce E

. T onn, “Estim ating E n er g y Cost Savings and

Em issions Reductions for the State Ener gy Pr ogr a m B a sed

on E n u m er ation I n dicator s Da ta”, Oak Ridge National

L a bor ator y, January 2003, page 18.



# 8

# deferred m a intenance of state

facilities an d to fund addition a l

energy saving equipm ent upgrades,

there is concern a bout losing half of

any net savings to the L e Ray

McCallister Fund. For them , the

LeRay McCallister Fund provision

becom e s a disincentive to pursuing

or identifying energy projects. On

April 21, 2003 at the request of the

Critical Lands Subcomm ittee of the

Quality Gro w th Comm i ssion, the

SBEEP m a nager briefed m e mbers of

the subcom m ittee on this issue.

Responsibility to acquire any portion

of net savin g s under the Quality

Growth Act resides with state budget

offices including the Governor’s

Office of Planning and Budget and

the Legis l ative Fiscal Analyst’s

Office.

2. Energy Price Uncertainties

– Following the energy m a rket

uncertainties and crisis of 1999,

the ave r age utility rate s f o r sta t e

buildings rose a total of 11.7

percent per kilowatt hour, 5.6

percent per kilowatt of

electricity, and 24.3 percent per

decatherm of natural gas (see

Tables IV and V). Although

som e agencies m a y receive

supplem ental appropriations

f r om tim e to tim e, the net ef f ect

is increas ed energy cos t per

square foot as com p ared with the

pre-increase baseline. T h is

m a kes the calculation of actual

energy savings m o re difficult for

SBEEP and creates an

im pression that energy use is

rising rather than declining.

Moreover, total energy use is

actually declining on a square foot basis even though total

utility costs per square foot m a y be rising. As an opportunity

arising from the energy crisis,

state agencies are now more

concerned w ith long-term rate

stability and reliability o f utility

services, raising inherent interest

in SBEEP.

Tab l es IV an d V – Utilit y Rate In creases

Natu ral Gas Rates

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year$/Decatherm



# D eca t h er m s



# Po w e r a nd De m a nd Ra te s

$0.0220 $0.0230 $0.0240 $0.0250 $0.0260 $0.0270 $0.0280 $0.0290

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year$/kWh



# $7.40 $7.50 $7.60 $7.70 $7.80 $7.90 $8.00 $8.10 $8.20$/kW 

# kW h

kW



# Ch an ges in Natu ral Gas an d E l ect ric P r ic es fo r

State Buildings1998-2003



# 3. SBEEP Staffing Issues and

Coordination with DFCM – Due to

attrition and in-house reorganization

at both DNR and DFCM, there has

been a com p lete turnover of SBEEP

support staff since the June 23, 1999,

issuance of the Governor’s Executive

Order. Some program mom e ntum

was lost in the trans i tion to new staf f

as well as in c oordination between

DNR and DFCM.

The Departm e nt of Natural

Resources and the Departm e nt of

Adm i nistrative Services have

9

# discussed m oving staff and

responsibility for the State Buildings

Energy Efficiency Prog ram from the

Utah Energy Office to the Division

of

Facilities Constructio n and

Managem e nt (DFCM). W ith the

degree of coordi nation necessary

between UEO and DFCM to

effectively achieve program goals,

such a m ove m a kes sense. The two

agencies have agreed to revis it this

issue in FY04.

It should also be noted that although

the current s t aff comm it m e nt can

m eet the Governor’s m i nim u m $20

m illion goal f o r energy s a vings, an

in-house pro-form a completed in

FY03 indicates that a full contingent

of 10-12 in-house professional staff

would be needed to carry out an

aggressive state-wide program . W i t h

only a com b ined FTE count of 3.0

curren tly av ailab l e, s t af f will

continue to focus on the most cost

effective SBEEP program elem ents

including the outsourcing of retrofit

and retrocommissioning projects via

perform a nce contracts with privatesector energ y service co mpany

partners and energy efficiency in

new building design.

4

. W a t e r Savings – During FY03,

SBEEP has explored other utility

cost saving opportunities for state

buildings including re tr of its to lowe r

waste rem oval and water costs. If

the definition of savings under

Section 63-9-67 of the Utah State

Code can be interpreted and

broadened to include energy along

with water and waste savings,

perform a nce contracts can be

developed that capture the additional

savings for the State of Utah. For the Utah State Prison alo n e, waterconserving retrofits can save the

Departm e nt of Corrections and State

of Utah an estim ated $156,026 per

year, and waste m a nagem e nt

m easures can save an ad dition a l

$19,189.

5

. A i r Quality Connection – State,

regional, and nati ona l c onsidera tion

is being given to the environm ental

benefits from energy efficiency.

These benefits include: improved

visibility, air quality im provem e nts

through reductions in pollutants, and

secondary econom ic benefits such as

reduced health care costs, trading of

pollution credits, etc. The Division

of

Air Quality and the U t ah Energy

Office are prom ulgating policies and

procedures to better identify and

quantify the air quality benefits

arising from energy efficiency. W ith

the Governor’s aggressive goal for

upgrading the energy efficiency of

state buildings, the contribution to

regiona l and state air qua lity

provides an added perception of

value for SBEEP. Moreover, the

attached SBEEP Action Plan for

FY04 is consistent with the goals and

objectives of the W e stern Regional

Air Partnership.

6

. U t i l i t y

- b a s e d Incentives – Under

tariffs 115, 116, and 125, Utah

Power offer s rebates for qualified

energy conservation projects with

electrical savings. For the

Departm e nt of Corrections’ ESCObased project, the FY04 rebate will

total over $120,000. State facilities

are e ligib le to rece ive a r e bate on ly if

they prefile a letter of intent with

Utah Power. SBEEP forwarded

copies of the Utah Power Letter of

10

# Inten t and in struc tions to all s t ate

agencies including higher education

in June 2003. This alerts state

agencies about the rebate opportunity

and encourages their participation.

7. Calculation of Actual Energy Cost

Savings - The quantification of gross

and net cost savings is difficult when

m i scellaneo u s variab les im pact the

calcu lations. In a typ i cal year,

weather is n o t consis ten t , utility co sts

can change up and down, building

occupant schedules are revised,

utility b illin g error s occ u r, and the r e

is m o re energy consum i ng

equipm ent added building loads

(such as m o re com puters). In order

to best quantify savings for a

particular project and adequately

account for significant variables,

SBEEP has adopted the approach of

the In terna t ional Perf or

m a nce

Measurem ent and Verification

Protocol (IP MVP) in FY03. In the

case of perform a nce contracts with

ESCOs, the IPMVP is stipulated for

energy cost savings calc ulations.

SBEEP Co ntact Information:

Michael Glenn (UEO) – 538-5436

Jam e s Hood, P.E. (UEO) – 538-5251

Matt Bruce (UEO) – 538-5419

Kent Beers (DFCM) – 538-3418

Reed Taylor (Purchasing) – 538-3709

11ATTACHMENT 1Draft FY04 Work PlanState Building Energy Efficiency Program (SBEEP)(Action Items, Milestones, and Responsibilities)The purpose of the State Building Energy Efficiency Program is to:•Exemplify state buildings as models for energy efficiency,•Reduce the energy cost of government operations to meet the Governor’s goal of $20 million in energy saving for state buildingsby 2010,•Contribute to better air quality through energy savings in state buildings with wise use of Utah’s energy resources.SBEEP FY04 Goals, ActionItems, and MilestonesDNR - MikeGlenn (teamleader) – relatedresponsibilitiesDNR - Jim Hood(PE) – relatedresponsibilitiesDNR - VACANT(EIT) – relatedresponsibilitiesDFCM – relatedresponsibilitiesGoal #1 - Exemplify state buildings asmodels for energy efficiency.1. Develop at least 2-3 public newsreleases per year highlighting energyprojects for state government buildings (byJune 30, 2004).Work with DNRand Adm. ServicesPublic Affairs todraft and releasenews releasesProvideinformation forreleasesProvideinformation forreleases ProvideProvideinformation forreleases andreview drafts2. Compile the energy savings achievedfor state buildings from July 1, 1999 toJune 30, 2004 and prepare an annualSBEEP report to the Governor and GOPB(by June 30, 2004).Prepare report tothe Governor.Provide necessaryinformation anddata.Provide necessaryinformation anddata.Provide necessaryinformation anddata - review thereport draft beforefinalization.3. Identify and qualify 2-3 stategovernment buildings as Energy StarBuildings for special recognition (by June30, 2004).OversightProvide technicalassistanceGather therelevantinformation andprocess thecandidatebuildings to EPANA4. Organize an annual recognition eventfor state facility managers includingEnergy Star recognition (by May 31,2004).Work with DNRand Admin.Services andPublic Affairs andDFCMmanagement toorganize and holdevent.Provide nomineesfor recognitionProvide nomineesfor recognitionProvide nomineesfor recognitionSBEEPFY04Goals, ActionItems, andMilestonesDNR -MikeGlenn(teamleader) – relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -JimHood(PE)– relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -VACANT(EIT) – relatedresponsibilitiesDFCM– relatedresponsibilitiesGoal #2 - Reducethe energy cost ofgovernmentoperations tomeettheGovernor’s goal of $20million inenergysaving for state buildings by 2010 –energy information component..1.Maintain/update the database of statefacility energycontacts for distribution ofenergyinformation and workshopschedules (ongoingto June 30,2004).Oversight – workwith dataspecialists tomaintain andupdate database.NAProvidetechnicalassistance asnecessaryNA2.Inconjunction with PowerForward,issue at least 2-3 energyconservationalerts to generalstate employees thatencourage energyconservation (byMarch31,2004)Primeresponsibilityfordrafting andissuing the alertsusing the databaseNANAProvidereviewand comments asnecessary3.FortheSBEEPweb page,complete ageneral review and update of all pages andthe bulletin board(complete by December31,2004)Oversight –review relevantpages and submitupdates towebmasterReview relevantpages and submitupdates towebmasterReview relevantpages and submitupdates towebmasterProvide reviewand comments toSBEEP4. To raise theenergy expertiseofstatefacilitymanagers,provide 3 workshops orseminars for statefacilitymanagers(byJune 30,2004)Oversight –develop topics,issues notices, andcontact the SEPProgramManagerforfunding.Work withASHRAEtoprovide supportforone workshoporseminar.Work withAPEMto provide supportforone workshoporseminar.Provide input andcomments toSBEEP5. To disseminateSBEEP successesandinformation to facilitymanagers,participate in regularmeetings of UAPPA(attend quarterlyUAPPAmeetings)Attend 3-4UAPPA meetingsas scheduled forFY04Attend 3-4UAPPA meetingsas scheduled forFY04Attend 3-4UAPPA meetingsas scheduled forFY04(alreadyparticipating inUAPPA)Goal #3 - Reducethe energy cost ofgovernmentoperations tomeettheGovernor’s goal of $20million inenergysaving for state buildings by 2010 –existing buildingscomponent.1.Redistribute the needs assessmenttoolto state facilitymanagers and utilize theresults to prioritizecandidates for ESCOand DFCMfunding(byNovember 1,2004and March 1,2004).Insure that SBEEPteamutilizes theSBEEP toolforon-site visits with1-2 scheduled permonthConductassessments asscheduledConductassessments asscheduledHelp SBEEPevaluate and rankassessments13SBEEPFY04Goals, ActionItems, andMilestonesDNR -MikeGlenn(teamleader) – relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -JimHood(PE)– relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -VACANT(EIT) – relatedresponsibilitiesDFCM– relatedresponsibilities2.Clearrelease of a subsequent RFP (forcompleting additional ESCO-basedprojects) with theState Building Board,DFCM(byNov.1,2004).Submitnominations toDFCM forsubsequentprojectsNANAClearprojectswithBuilding Board3.Forlong termtracking of energyusageand savings,maintain a web-baseddatabase with direct data transfercapabilities fromUtah utilities.Provideon-line access to participating facilitymanagersbyOctober1,2003.Provide support asnecessaryNAOversightresponsibilityinconjunction withITstaff – trainlocal facilitymanagers to assessdatabaseProvide support asnecessary4. Participatein weekly projectmeetingsfor the ESCO-basedprojects at theUtahState Prison,UVSC,and the OgdenRegional Centerand anyotherprojectsbegun in FY04.– provide leadership andtechnical assistance to the projects(ongoingthrough June 30,2004).Participate weeklyParticipate weeklyParticipate weeklyParticipate weeklyas necessary.5.Issuea newcycle(CycleII)of theRFPs to ESCOsserving Utah (byMarch 1,2004).Primeresponsibilityfordrafting RFPAssist in RFPreview asnecessaryAssist in RFPreview asnecessaryCompletefinalreview andsubmittalof RFPto Building Boardforapproval &release ofRFPs6.For Cycle IIprocurement,participatein selectionmeetings with DFCMandparticipating facilities, reviewproposals,and select top qualifying ESCOs fororalinterviews.(byJune 30,2004).Attend allselection meetingsAttend selectionmeetings asnecessaryAttend selectionmeetings asnecessaryAttend selectionmeetings unlessotherwisedelegated7. Review CycleItechnical energyauditscompleted byESCOs and establish scopeofwork for each facility bySeptember 30,2003.Review TA’sandcompilecommentsby deadlinesReview TA’sandcompilecommentsby deadlinesReview TA’sandcompilecommentsby deadlinesReceive andreview comments8.Develop and finalize Cycle I contractswith ESCOs includingfinalizing financingportion of contracts bySeptember30,2003.Draft contracts forDFCMParticipate incontractnegotiations asnecessaryParticipate incontractnegotiations asnecessaryPrepare finalcontracts forESCO work14SBEEPFY04Goals, ActionItems, andMilestonesDNR -MikeGlenn(teamleader) – relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -JimHood(PE)– relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -VACANT(EIT) – relatedresponsibilitiesDFCM– relatedresponsibilities9. Help secureUtah Powerrebates forESCO and DFCMfunded projects byreleasing information to state facilitymanagers and ESCOs (initialreleasebyJuly15,2003 &ongoingthereafter).OversightProvideinformation andsupport asnecessaryPrimeresponsibilityProvideinformation andsupport asnecessary10. Inspect ESCOwork as work proceedsand follow-up onproblems (ongoingthroughout FY04).OversightCompleteinspections asrequested and asnew buildingswork allowsCompleteinspections asrequestedParticipate tosupervise SBEEPinvolvement.11.Complete final inspection of ESCOfunded retrofits and issue letters ofacceptance for 3model projects.Insure thatinspections arecompleted bySBEEPengineersCompleteinspections asrequested and asnew buildingswork allowsCompleteinspections asrequestedAccept SBEEPrecommendationsfor“punch lists”and closeout –issue letters ofacceptance12.Collect savings reports fromESCObasedmodel projects (CycleI)and includein FY04 SBEEPannual report.Oversight andreporting perSBEEPannualreportReview/check dataReview/check dataReceive andreview results13.Monitorretrocommissioning savingsforthe Matheson Courthouse and SLCCSouth Campus and submit results fortheFY04 annual SBEEPreport.OversightPrimeresponsibilityformonitoring energysavingsNANAGoal #4 - Reducethe energy cost ofgovernmentoperations tomeettheGovernor’s goal of $20million inenergysaving for state buildings by 2010 – newbuildings component.1.Identifynew buildings forSBEEPengineerparticipation in designdevelopment,design review,valueengineering,energymodel review,andcode review (ongoing to June 30,2004).OversightCompletealltasksas requested byDFCMon-timeAssist the leadSBEEPengineeras requestedFacilitate theinvolvement ofSBEEP for newbuildings2.Insurethatcontractors adequatelycommission new state buildings byreviewing the commissioning plan newbuildings, participate in commissioning,and develop commissioningrecommendations for each project(ongoingthrough June 30,2004).OversightCompletealltasksas requested ontimeand completequality controlreview ofcontractor-basedcommissioningAssist the leadSBEEPengineeras requestedFacilitate theinvolvement ofSBEEP for newbuildings15SBEEPFY04Goals, ActionItems, andMilestonesDNR -MikeGlenn(teamleader) – relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -JimHood(PE)– relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -VACANT(EIT) – relatedresponsibilitiesDFCM– relatedresponsibilities3.Provide reportsto DFCMand AEfirmsfollowingdesign reviews (ongoing actionitemthrough FY04)OversightPrimeresponsibilityforreviews andreports (2-3buildings forFY04)NAReceiveSBEEPreports.4.Applyof a SEP special project grant tofund SBEEP activities for new buildingsbyApril 30,2004.Primeresponsibilityforpreparing/writinggrant for submittalthrough the DOESEP ProgramAssist asnecessaryAssist asnecessaryReview grantproposal forconsistency withDFCM initiatives5.Completeand closeout the two SEPSpecial Projectsgrants for 1.) NewBuilding Low EnergyDesign Program, 2.)SBEEPProgramDevelopment, and 3.)Codes Training bythe DOEdue dates.OversightPrimeresponsibilityforcompleting andsubmitting theprogrammatic andfinancial finalreportsProvide necessaryinformationNAGoal #5 – Communicatethecontributions of SBEEP energyefficiency projectsto better airquality1.Distribute a copyof the annual SBEEPReport and savingsto GOPB, DNRAdmin.,membersof the Governor’sStateOffice of EnergyAdvisoryCouncil,DEQ,etc.by July15,2003.Primeresponsibilitytoinsuredistributionofthe SBEEPAnnual ReportNANANA2.(see goal above forEnergyStar ratingsof state buildings)Goal #6 -Provide for generaladministration ofSBEEP1.Develop a schedule andmanagementfee structure to provide SBEEPwithongoing revenue byMarch 15,2004.PrimeresponsibilityfordevelopingfeestructureProvide input toproposed feestructureProvide input toproposed feestructureProvide input toproposed feestructure -directSBEEP’simplementation.2.Hire 1-2 additional staff as allowed byfunding with approval of DNR and UEOmanagementto expedite strategic energysaving goals.Upon approval,work with thepersonnel office toundertake thehiring processNANANA16SBEEPFY04Goals, ActionItems, andMilestonesDNR -MikeGlenn(teamleader) – relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -JimHood(PE)– relatedresponsibilitiesDNR -VACANT(EIT) – relatedresponsibilitiesDFCM– relatedresponsibilities3.Hold biweeklySBEEPteamcoordinating meetingsSchedule andconduct teammeetingsAttend andparticipateAttend andparticipateParticipate asnecessary4.Asrequested,prepareandmake apresentation to the QualityGrowthCommission regarding the Quality GrowthAct’s energy component (complete asrequested bythe QGC in FY04).Prepare and makepresentation to theQGC asrequestedProvide necessarydataProvide necessarydataNA17ATTACHMENT 2aFY2002 EnergyProjectsJuly11, 2001EstimatedEstimatedAnnualEst.FacilityNameSystemCostSavingsPaybackDFCM Managed BuildingsInstall Occ.Sensorsw/Switchpacks in 400 Conference/Restrooms$82,400$42,0002Courts700 West Juvenile CourtsControl SystemReplacement$26,166$3,6217.2Sandy Courts Bldg.MechanicalControls Replacement$62,000$7,8008HealthCannon HealthExit Signs Std.$2,803$6494.3Fraiser LabLighting Std. 2-3-4-L Wraps, Exit Signs, Variable FrequencyDrives$132,289$18,0907.3Police AcademyExit Signs$2,063$4274.8Tax CommissionParking Lot Std. 1000 MY$5,180$2,8891.8UDOTAdmin Bldg. (Rampton)Exit Signs$5,900$1,3654.3UDOTMaint./Testing Facility2 Tube, 3Tube, 4Tube and 8Foot Fixtures;Exit Signs$77,900$16,9814.6Drivers License(W. Valley)GeneralLightingStd. 4-L T-12, Exit Signs$5,532$1,4463.8Workforce ServicesAdministrationNorth Bldg.VAV Controls$100,000$17,5005.7AdministrationBldg.GeneralLightingStd. 4-L T-12;Exit Signs Std.$102,194$26,7393.818South ValleyOfficeReplace Lighting and Add Switches& Relays$48,500$4,9009.9Provo OfficeGeneral Lighting Std. 4-L T-12, ExitSigns$16,892$4,4263.8ABCProvo and Price StoresLighting Upgrades$5,800$1,7503.3UtahState UniversityClassrooms and OfficesInstall Sensor Equipment in Classrooms/Offices Various Bldgs.$100,000$51,7501.9Utah Water Research LabConvertT-asTubes to T-8; Install Occupancy Controls$112,000$40,0002.8Total$887,61919ATTACHMENT 2bFY2002 EnergyProjects – ContinuedSeptember 13,2001EstimatedEstimatedAnnualEst.FacilityNameProjectCostSavingsPaybackDFCMEnergyData Base Management System$30,000$--DHSInstall Occ. Sensorsw/Switchpacks in 245 Conference/Restrooms$49,000$25,7901.9Public SafetyDesignfor Capital Imp.- Energyspace planning/codeissues3rd Floor$40,000$--Bridgerland ATCLighting Retrofit$155,000$35,0004.4Dixie CollegeBoiler Replacement---North Instructional Bldg.$19,000$3,2665.8Dixie CollegeSystem Retrofitto Heat theFitness Center SwimmingPool$18,500$5,5003.4Ogden/Weber ATCInstall Controls& FlowSensorsto Pressurized Irrigation System$8,000$2,1693.7SLCCThermal Blankets for Pool and Diving Well$5,107$8,3530.61SnowCollegeLighting Fixture Conversionand OccupancySensors---9 Buildings$89,602$39,2372.3SUULighting Replacement$40,000$10,0004.0U of UInstall FlowLimiters on Water Cooled Lasers$67,500$28,5832.4USUChiller Replacement---VeterinaryDiagnosticsBldg.$100,000$22,5004.4UVSCInstall OccupancySensors 124 Classrooms$105,000$22,3354.7WSUInstall T-8 Lighting---Building#3$35,000$10,6063.3WSUInstall T-8 Lighting---E.O. Wattis Business Bldg.$79,000$20,7893.8WSUInstall T-8 Lighting---Allied Health Bldg. Phase I$81,000$22,5003.6Total$921,70920ATTACHMENT 2cFY2003 Energy& Water ConservationProjectsSalt Lake CommunityCollegeEnergy& Water Conservation:Secondary Irrigation Connection$108,000Salt Lake CommunityCollegeEnergy& Water Conservation:VFD's Jordan Cooling TowerPumps$26,900SnowCollegeEnergy& Water Conservation:LibraryBldgChiller Replacement$225,000Southern UtahUniversityEnergy& Water Conservation:Irrigation Water Cost Reduction$200,000Utah State UniversityEnergy& Water Conservation:NFS Chiller Replacement$300,000Utah State UniversityEnergy& Water Conservation:Insulate Condensate Lines$200,000Utah ValleyState CollegeEnergy& Water Conservation:Sprinkler Clock/Irrigation Valve$125,000Weber State UniversityEnergy& Water Conservation:Bldg #2- Lighting Upgrade$42,000Alcoholic Beverage ControlEnergy& Water Conservation#18 -UpgradeInterior Lighting$7,300Alcoholic Beverage ControlEnergy& Water Conservation:#6- Emer. Egress Lighting/Exit Signs$6,000Alcoholic Beverage ControlEnergy& Water Conservation#21-Lighting Fixture Upgrade$8,900DFCMEnergy& Water Conservation:Consultant for Water Standards$25,000Human ServicesEnergy& Water Conservation:USH Rampton Bldg. Chiller Staging$25,800Human ServicesEnergy& Water Conservation:Developmental Ctr SprinklerAutomation$25,000$ 1,324,9002122ATTACHMENT 2dFY 2004 Capital Improvement Energy ProjectsAgency/InstitutionProjectdescriptionCapitalImprovementFundingUtah Valley Community CollegeImprovements identified by ESCO242,700CorrectionsESCO-based energy improvements200,000DFCMLighting Upgrade - Cedar Youth Corrections35,000Workforce ServicesUpgrade Exterior Lighting – Vernal Employment Center6,500484,200