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 savings 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 Construction 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). Under 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 cost 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 the cost for the energy 

conservation measures. 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 actual cost of energy 

conservation measures. For accounting 

purposes under the Quality Growth Act, 

it is important to note that corresponding 

reductions to an agency’s utility budget 

may not occur during the fiscal year if 

that agency experiences cost per unit 

increases for gas and electricity used. 

Total

projects 

completed 

through 

FY02 

FY03 

Results 

Totals from

June 23,

1999 

through 

FY03 

Number of

State 

Buildings 

98 35 

(with 

another 140 

buildings 

currently inprogress to 

be 

completed 

in FY04)

133 

Gross 

Energy 

Efficiency 

Measure 

Savings 

$2,739,113 5,605,398 $8,344,511 

Estimated 

Net Energy 

Efficiency 

Measure 

Cost 

Savings 

$81,431 $923,539 $1,004,970 Due to the extreme 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 performance 

contracts with energy service companies 

(ESCOs) who will help fund and 

guarantee energy project savings for 

state buildings (see section below 

entitled, “Private 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 represents 88 percent 

of total gross savings achieved. 

Three ESCO-based projects are currently 

in final contract negotiation for a 

minimum of $409,832 in additional 

annual gross energy savings. Because 

ESCO-based projects have a 6-10 month 

delay between project initiation and 

accrual of energy savings, any savings 

from these new projects will not appear 

until FY04. 

 Table I - SBEEP Energy Cost Savings1

 

1

 For building retrofit projects funded from the DNR Public 

Building Loan Program loans or lease purchases with energy 

service companies, net savings only occur after the term of

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

additional loans have been tendered from the DNR Public 

Building Loan Program. For the New Building Low Energy

Design Program, incentive payouts are made to the 

architectural and engineering design teams that exceed 

ASHRAE 90.1 (1989) by 25%. Projects include: State 

Library, WSU Browning Hall, Wasatch State Park

Clubhouse, UDOT Traffic Control Center, and Davis County

Court Addition. Energy efficient new buildings require

fewer long term O&M appropriations compared to inefficient 

counterpart buildings. Data for total SBEEP savings through 

June 30, 2002 (the corrected FY02 reported savings) include: 

New Building Design Program (5 buildings at $71,073),

University of Utah (88 buildings at $2,657,682), and the 

DNR complex (5 buildings at $10,358). For FY03, savings 

are derived from: the new Soldier Hollow Clubhouse 

($7,599), Matheson Courthouse retrocommissioning 

($75,000), Salt Lake Community College S. City Campus 

retrocommissioning ($38,600), DFCM energy retrofits 

completed in FY03 (33 projects with $498,961) in savings 

funded in FY02), New Building Low Energy Design 

Program (7 buildings at $282,093 in continuing savings),

DNR Buildings (5 buildings at $5,245), Utah National Guard 

Camp Williams wind unit ($16,041 total to 12/31/02), and 

University of Utah ($4,681,859). Total building projects 

begun in FY03 but not to be completed until FY04 include 

the Ogden Regional Center (1 bldgs.), UVSC (12 bldgs.), the 

Utah State Prison (112 bldgs.), and DFCM funded projects in 

FY03 (14 buildings). The savings for the University of Utah 

provides a cumulative total project savings through April 30,

2003, of $7,339,541 using non-weather adjusted data and 

current utility rates. The entire UPL rate refund for 2000 

($311,760) was deposited to the LeRay McAllister Fund in 

FY00 as required by the Quality Growth Act. (63-38-18), but 

is not "net savings" as defined by the Act. 63-9-67(1)(d). 

The Quality Growth Act requires that 50% of net savings be 

reported to the legislature per 63-9-67(2)(b)(i) and deposited 

to the LeRay Fund, subject to legislative appropriation. [63-

9-67(2)(c)]. 

 

2
Outlook to the Future: Program 

Work Plan for FY04 

With due consideration to SBEEP’s 

overall purpose as outlined in the 

Executive Order, the FY03 SBEEP 

Work Plan has been updated for FY04 

including appropriate performance goals, 

milestones, and delineation of 

responsibilities for SBEEP staff (see 

Attachment 1). The following describes 

major SBEEP accomplishments for 

fiscal year ending June 30, 2003. 

 

Needs Assessment Surveys The FY03 

SBEEP Work Plan included the 

development of an energy needs 

assessment survey to be completed by 

each state agency including higher 

education. The purpose of the 

assessment survey is to identify those 

agencies most needing assistance from

SBEEP and those agencies with the 

greatest potential for leveraged energy 

saving. The needs assessment survey 

was distributed to all state agencies on 

May 14, 2002. 

Because of limited funding and staffing, 

SBEEP concentrated field assessments 

on a limited subset of all state buildings, 

completing 26 site assessments for 

FY03. SBEEP will complete additional 

on-site needs assessments beginning in 

FY04 in order to identify and prioritize 

best candidates for performance 

contracting. 

Internally Funded Building Retrofit 

Projects

Limited capital improvement 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 attachments 2a 

through 2d). 

Generally, projects are selected for 

funding based upon several factors 

including energy cost saving potential. 

However, projects are also selected for 

funding based upon the need to replace 

aging and failed equipment, life and 

safety or air quality issues. With a lag 

time of up to twelve months between the 

availability of legislatively appropriated 

funds, design, procurement and bidding, 

equipment installation, closeout, and 

accrual of the first month’s energy cost 

savings; the only internally funded 

projects with reportable savings for this 

report come from the FY02 funded 

projects. For FY02 funded projects 

completed by June 30, 2002, the 

calculated net value of energy units 

saved is $498,961. 

Private Sector Financing Between $85 

million and $ 90 million is needed to

upgrade the energy efficiency of 

remaining state buildings. Bonding is 

one option to meet this capital need. But 

on a more immediate basis and with the 

current state budget situation, the 

SBEEP has developed a strategy for 

procuring the technical services and 

financial resources of private sector 

energy service companies (ESCOs) 

using performance contracts. 

Structured similar to an equipment or 

capital lease, the private sector ESCOs 

complete retrofit work, arrange 

financing with a third-party partner, and 

provide an annual savings guarantee. 

The financing is structured to allow a 

cash flow of annual energy savings 

sufficient to pay off the project costs 

over the life or term of the financing 

agreement. The ESCO approach allows 

3
projects to proceed with very limited 

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 performance contract with an 

ESCO can range up to 25 years 

depending upon the energy economics of 

a particular upgrade. Typically, a 

performance contract-based state 

building project does not accrue net 

savings until after the performance 

contract term has ended and the 

financing fully retired. 

In a model project completed in 2001 at 

the University of Utah, the private sector 

financing approach generated $44 

million in energy efficiency 

improvements for 81 campus buildings 

with no upfront capital expense to the 

University or State of Utah. The ESCO 

approach allowed the University of Utah 

to upgrade campus-wide energy 

efficiency while resolving issues with 

deferred maintenance issues and 

occupant comfort. It should be noted 

that net savings will not be realized until 

the term of the University of Utah’s 

performance contract has expired in 

FY23. 

Experience gained from the University 

of Utah project has allowed SBEEP to 

streamline standard procurement 

documents and procedures, accelerating 

procurement and construction for three 

new projects. In FY03, a procurement 

resulted in three ESCO selections that 

total 112 buildings for the Department of 

Corrections Utah State Prison at 

Bluffdale (1.13 million square feet), the 

Odgen Regional Center (108,702 square 

feet), and 12 buildings for Utah Valley 

State College (1.18 million square feet). 

Engineering and construction for these 

projects is currently underway with 

completion in FY04. 

A 112 building upgrade began for the Utah State Prison at 

Bluffdale in 2003 

Energy Upgrades for 112 Buildings at the Utah 

State Prison 

The State of Utah’s use of performance 

contracting for the University of Utah 

and the Utah State Prison have both 

received national recognition from the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s Rebuild 

America Program.

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 performance for 

new state buildings. Under this 

standard, an integrated design team of 

architects and engineers is expected to 

design new state buildings that perform

25 percent more efficiently than the new 

commercial energy code adopted in 

January 2001. This performance level 

significantly lowers life cycle costs for 

 

3

 “University Saves Millions with Massive

Performance Contract”, Rebuild America Partner 

Update, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington

D.C., May-June 2003 issue, pp. 1 & 8. Rebuild

America and its strategic partners serve as

valuable technical resources to SBEEP. 

 

2

 Per an unpublished study by Julio Rovi P.E., with the 

Cadmus Group, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, lost opportunity

costs when using the more time-consuming bonding 

approach for financing state building retrofits exceed the

increase in cost of money for ESCO-based financing. 

4
new buildings with little or no increases 

in project budgets. For FY04, the 

SBEEP energy engineer from the Utah 

Energy Office will work with DFCM 

reviewers to complete plan reviews, 

evaluate energy performance building 

models, complete value engineering, 

participate in commissioning, and assist 

with final inspections. The SBEEP 

engineer will train architects and 

engineers in meeting the new 

performance standard. The exact 

number 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 – received SBEEP design 

assistance and funding (dedicated February 2003) 

Another energy efficient new design 

project completed in FY03 is the Soldier 

Hollow Clubhouse. An energy analysis 

by SBEEP engineers suggests a saving 

of 33.9% compared to similarly-sized 

buildings constructed only to the current 

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 main office and visitor’s center for 

the new USU Botanical Center of the 

Davis County Extension, received direct 

technical and financial assistance 

through the Utah Energy Office SBEEP 

and State Energy Program (SEP). As an 

Energy Star Building, the Utah House 

demonstrates 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 electricity, water conserving 

appliances and landscaping, daylighting 

from light tubes and clearstory windows, 

state-of-the-art temperature and lighting 

controls, and recycled materials. The 

building is exemplary with features 

replicable for other state buildings. The 

USU Utah House will use approximately 

70% less energy than typically 

constructed buildings. 

Retrocommissioning Projects

Retrocommissioning optimizes the 

performance of a building’s heating, 

ventilation and air conditioning systems. 

Cost studies prepared by SBEEP 

engineers indicate the best return for 

energy savings in state buildings can be 

achieved through retro-commissioning.4

 

The retrocommissioning process 

involves the analysis of an existing 

building’s energy using systems and the 

follow-on improvement measures to 

reduce energy consumption while 

maintaining or restoring the building 

environment to meet the occupants’ 

needs. The process assures that existing 

building controls, heating and ventilation 

equipment, chillers, boilers, and pumps 

operate at peak levels of energy 

efficiency. Retrocommissioning agents 

evaluate and revise settings and 

 

4

 For reference, see analysis prepared by James Hood P.E.,

Utah Department of Natural Resources dated April 12, 2002.

5
schedules while revisiting the general Energy Procurement 

condition and maintenance of energy 

using equipment. 

SBEEP worked with the Division of 

State Purchasing in FY03 to promote 

Energy Star products as the products of 

choice when agencies purchase under 

state contracts (such as computers, 

lighting products, and refrigerators). 

The Division of State Purchasing is 

developing specifications that require 

Energy Star products to be more easily 

identifiable at vendor product websites 

and in state contracts. The new state

contract for copiers is the first 

specification to specifically identify 

units that are Energy Star. A matrix of 

various energy saving products was also 

developed and distributed to purchasing 

agents across the state. Purchasing 

agents are authorized to make selections 

from this matrix using a life cycle cost 

approach to optimize 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 

retrocommisioning on the 420,000 

square foot Matheson Courthouse and 

began the process for the 350,000 square 

foot South City Campus of the Salt Lake 

Community College. In April 2003, the 

state’s Division of Facilities 

Construction and Management and the 

Utah Energy Office announced a savings 

of $75,000 in the Matheson 

Courthouse’s annual utilities costs. 

The annual utility savings for the 

Matheson Courthouse represents an 18% 

reduction in the $400,000 annual utilities 

costs. Since this first year savings was 

achieved during the same period that 

other energy efficiency measures were 

implemented, savings for subsequent 

years is forecast to be greater. 

The Matheson Courthouse saves $75,000 through 

retrocommissionning. 

Although the South City Campus 

retocommissioning is not fully complete, 

the portion of work completed during 

FY03 has already saved $38,600. 

Energy Star Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Under 

State Contract 

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 months of 

FY03, Duke Energy served as the State 

of Utah’s natural gas supplier under state 

Because of funding limitations, SBEEP 

will include retrocommissioning as a 

central component within the scope of 

work for each future performance 

contract with ESCOs. 

 

6
contract, resulting in $1,514,208 in 

savings compared the standard Questar 

I2 rates (see Table II). Although the 

margin available under the new FY04 

state contract with Wasatch Energy is 

more favorable to the State of Utah, the 

volatile nature of national and regional 

natural gas markets may result in natural 

gas cost increases for state facilities. 

Table II – Natural Gas Commodity Saving5

s 

Fiscal Year Annual Cost Savings 

FY02 $794,804

FY03 $1,514,208

225 KW Camp Williams Wind Unit - $16,041 in

Electrical Production to Date 

A wind site northeast of Camp Williams

is also being tested for installation of

additional wind units to be owned by the 

Department of Corrections, Utah State 

Prison. In FY03, the Utah Energy 

Office helped procure a 50 meter wind 

anemometer to collect twelve months of 

wind data near the Fred House Academy 

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 for Camp Williams at Point of

the Mountain, Utah. This second unit 

with a capacity approaching 1 MW will 

supplement the 225 KW unit installed at 

Camp Williams in May 2000. Funded 

with almost $800,000 from the National 

Guard Bureau in Washington D.C. and 

$50,000 from the Utah Energy Office, 

this second wind unit will be operational 

by fall 2003. 

Geothermal water nearing 185 degrees 

Fahrenheit lies under the Utah State 

Prison at Bluffdale. SBEEP is working 

with DFCM and an energy service 

company, Johnson Controls, to tap the 

resource. Phase I construction of the 

geothermal heating system begins in 

July 2003 and will utilize the geothermal 

resource to heat Prison Oquirrh Units 1-

4. Funding is arranged by the ESCO for 

a guaranteed annual energy saving of 

$67,875. 

Camp Williams’ highly visible 225 KW

wind unit, produced 224,312 KWH or 

4% of the camp’s electrical needs during 

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 commissioned 

on May 20, 2000. 

Energy Information Management 

System Improvements 

In order to assess SBEEP’s effectiveness 

in meeting the goal of $20 million in 

energy savings by 2010, the Utah 

Energy Office in conjunction with 

DFCM is implementing a web-based 

utility information management 

 

5

 The savings for FY03 does not include savings or losses for

natural gas purchases made during June 03 – that information 

was not available as this report was compiled. 

7
During FY03, SBEEP also cosponsored 

four seminars and workshops targeted 

for state facility managers 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 managers from across the state 

can monitor facility energy use over 

time, identify utility-related problems, 

and verify energy efficiency 

improvements. Utility data is 

automatically downloaded each month 

from Utah Power and Questar. For 

Phase I a total of 75 state buildings were 

included in the database. Phase II was 

completed as part of SBEEP’s FY03 

Work Plan bringing the total number of 

participating buildings to 1100. 

Table III – SBEEP Cosponsored Seminars and 

Workshops in FY03 

Seminar & 

workshop topics

Cosponsors

Nov. 14, 2002 -

Geoexchange 

Technology

Engineering Experiment Station 

Sound Geothermal 

March 7, 2003 – 

Designing High 

Performance 

Buildings 

ASHRAE 

May 9, 2003 -

Energy Codes for

Buildings 

ASHRAE 

June 20, 2003 - 

Boiler Operation & 

Maintenance 

Workshop 

Engineering Experiment Station 

Labor Commission Safety Division 

Energy Services Coalition 

Assoc. Professional Energy Mngrs.

Recognition of exemplary performance 

by facility managers is an important 

aspect of SBEEP. The database helps 

SBEEP to recognize the best-performing 

state buildings including those that 

qualify for EPA/DOE Energy Star 

recognition. On May 21, 2003, SBEEP 

engineers qualified the Matheson 

Courthouse as the third state building to 

meet EPA Energy Star Building criteria, 

entitling the building to special national 

recognition and a plaque. This building 

joins the two Energy Star buildings 

qualified in FY02, Department of 

Environmental Quality Building and the 

Utah Tax Commission Building. 

Although the actual metered savings 

attributable to an education and 

information campaigns is difficult to 

quantify, the U.S. Department of Energy 

reports that each dollar invested in 

activities such as energy education, 

information dissemination, energy 

seminars, and workshops generate up to 

$7 in energy savings.6

 

FY04 Issues and Opportunities Education and Information Campaign 

for FY03 The following issues and opportunities 

have arisen since the Executive Order 

was issued. All of these affect the 

success of SBEEP: 

SBEEP released three energy awareness 

news briefs to state higher education 

facility managers suitable for internal

routing and printing in campus 

newspapers. In conjunction with the 

Governor’s Power Forward initiative,

two energy alerts were issued to state 

employees to encourage energy 

conservation during the 2002 summer 

months. For the Department of Natural 

Resources Complex alone, the savings 

from August 2001 to May 31, 2003 

totals $25,081. 

1. LeRay McCallister Fund - State 

agencies continue to express concern 

over the energy provisions of the 

Quality Growth Act. Because state 

agencies have traditionally used any 

excess energy savings to fund 

 

6

 Schweitzer, Martin, Donald W. Jones, Linda G. Berry, and 

Bruce E. Tonn, “Estimating Energy Cost Savings and 

Emissions Reductions for the State Energy Program Based 

on Enumeration Indicators Data”, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, January 2003, page 18.

8
deferred maintenance of state 

facilities and to fund additional 

energy saving equipment upgrades, 

there is concern about losing half of 

any net savings to the LeRay 

McCallister Fund. For them, the 

LeRay McCallister Fund provision 

becomes a disincentive to pursuing 

or identifying energy projects. On 

April 21, 2003 at the request of the 

Critical Lands Subcommittee of the 

Quality Growth Commission, the 

SBEEP manager briefed members of 

the subcommittee on this issue. 

Responsibility to acquire any portion 

of net savings under the Quality 

Growth Act resides with state budget 

offices including the Governor’s 

Office of Planning and Budget and 

the Legislative Fiscal Analyst’s 

Office. 

2. Energy Price Uncertainties – 

Following the energy market 

uncertainties and crisis of 1999, 

the average utility rates for state 

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 

some agencies may receive 

supplemental appropriations 

from time to time, the net effect 

is increased energy cost per 

square foot as compared with the 

pre-increase baseline. This 

makes the calculation of actual 

energy savings more difficult for 

SBEEP and creates an 

impression 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 may 

be rising. As an opportunity 

arising from the energy crisis, 

state agencies are now more 

concerned with long-term rate 

stability and reliability of utility 

services, raising inherent interest 

in SBEEP. 

Tables IV and V – Utility Rate Increases 

Natural 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

Decatherms

Power and Demand Rates

$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

$/k

W

kWh

kW

Changes in Natural Gas and Electric Prices for 

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 complete turnover of SBEEP 

support staff since the June 23, 1999, 

issuance of the Governor’s Executive 

Order. Some program momentum

was lost in the transition to new staff

as well as in coordination between 

DNR and DFCM. 

The Department of Natural 

Resources and the Department of 

Administrative Services have 

9
discussed moving staff and 

responsibility for the State Buildings 

Energy Efficiency Program from the 

Utah Energy Office to the Division 

of Facilities Construction and 

Management (DFCM). With the 

degree of coordination necessary 

between UEO and DFCM to 

effectively achieve program goals, 

such a move makes sense. The two 

agencies have agreed to revisit this 

issue in FY04. 

It should also be noted that although 

the current staff commitment can 

meet the Governor’s minimum $20 

million goal for energy savings, an 

in-house pro-forma 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. With

only a combined FTE count of 3.0 

currently available, staff will 

continue to focus on the most cost 

effective SBEEP program elements 

including the outsourcing of retrofit 

and retrocommissioning projects via 

performance contracts with privatesector energy service company 

partners and energy efficiency in 

new building design. 

 

4. Water Savings – During FY03, 

SBEEP has explored other utility 

cost saving opportunities for state 

buildings including retrofits to lower 

waste removal 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, 

performance contracts can be 

developed that capture the additional 

savings for the State of Utah. For 

the Utah State Prison alone, waterconserving retrofits can save the 

Department of Corrections and State 

of Utah an estimated $156,026 per 

year, and waste management 

measures can save an additional 

$19,189. 

5. Air Quality Connection – State, 

regional, and national consideration

is being given to the environmental 

benefits from energy efficiency. 

These benefits include: improved 

visibility, air quality improvements 

through reductions in pollutants, and 

secondary economic benefits such as 

reduced health care costs, trading of 

pollution credits, etc. The Division 

of Air Quality and the Utah Energy 

Office are promulgating policies and 

procedures to better identify and 

quantify the air quality benefits 

arising from energy efficiency. With 

the Governor’s aggressive goal for 

upgrading the energy efficiency of 

state buildings, the contribution to 

regional and state air quality 

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 Western Regional 

Air Partnership. 

6. Utility-based Incentives – Under 

tariffs 115, 116, and 125, Utah 

Power offers rebates for qualified 

energy conservation projects with 

electrical savings. For the 

Department of Corrections’ ESCObased project, the FY04 rebate will 

total over $120,000. State facilities 

are eligible to receive a rebate only if

they prefile a letter of intent with 

Utah Power. SBEEP forwarded 

copies of the Utah Power Letter of 

10
Intent and instructions to all state 

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 

miscellaneous variables impact the 

calculations. In a typical year, 

weather is not consistent, utility costs 

can change up and down, building 

occupant schedules are revised, 

utility billing errors occur, and there

is more energy consuming 

equipment added building loads 

(such as more computers). In order 

to best quantify savings for a 

particular project and adequately 

account for significant variables, 

SBEEP has adopted the approach of 

the International Performance 

Measurement and Verification 

Protocol (IPMVP) in FY03. In the 

case of performance contracts with 

ESCOs, the IPMVP is stipulated for 

energy cost savings calculations. 

SBEEP Contact Information: 

Michael Glenn (UEO) – 538-5436 

James Hood, P.E. (UEO) – 538-5251 

Matt Bruce (UEO) – 538-5419 

Kent Beers (DFCM) – 538-3418 

Reed Taylor (Purchasing) – 538-3709 

11
ATTACHMENT 1 

Draft FY04 Work Plan 

State 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 buildin• Contribute to better air quality through energy savings in state buildings with wise use of Utah’s energy resources. 

SBEEP FY04 Goals, Action Items, and Milestones 

DNR - Mike Glenn (team leader) – related responsibilities 

DNR - Jim Hood (PE) – related responsibilities 

DNR - VACANT (EIT) – related responsibilities 

DFCM – related responsibilities 

Goal #1 - Exemplify state buildings as models for energy efficiency. 1. Develop at least 2-3 public news releases per year highlighting energy projects for state government buildings (by June 30, 2004). 

Work with DNR and Adm. Services Public Affairs to draft and release news releases 

Provide information for releases 

Provide information for releases Provide 

Provide information for releases and review drafts 

2. Compile the energy savings achieved for state buildings from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2004 and prepare an annual SBEEP report to the Governor and GOPB (by June 30, 2004). 

Prepare report to the Governor. 

Provide necessary information and data. 

Provide necessary information and data. 

Provide necessary information and data - review the report draft before finalization. 

3. Identify and qualify 2-3 state government buildings as Energy Star Buildings for special recognition (by June 30, 2004). 

Oversight Provide technical

assistance 

Gather the relevant information and process the candidate buildings to EPA 

NA 

4. Organize an annual recognition event for state facility managers including Energy Star recognition (by May 31, 2004). 

Work with DNR and Admin. Services and Public Affairs and DFCM management to organize and hold event. 

Provide nominees for recognition 

Provide nominees for recognition 

Provide nominees for recognition 
SBEEP FY04 Goals, Action

Items, and Milestones

DNR - MikeGlenn (teamleader) – related responsibilities 

DNR - Jim Hood (PE) – relatedresponsibilities 

DNR - VACANT(EIT) – related responsibilities 

DFCM – relatedresponsibilities 

Goal #2 - Reduce the energy cost ofgovernment operations to meet theGovernor’s goal of $20 million in energy saving for state buildings by 2010 – energy information component.. 1. Maintain/update the database of state facility energy contacts for distribution of energy information and workshop schedules (ongoing to June 30,2004).

Oversight – workwith data specialists to maintain and update database.

NA Provide technical

assistance as necessary 

NA 

2. In conjunction with Power Forward,issue at least 2-3 energy conservation alerts to general state employees thatencourage energy conservation (by March 31, 2004)

Primeresponsibility for drafting and issuing the alerts using the database

NA NA Provide review

and comments asnecessary 

3. For the SBEEP web page, complete a general review and update of all pages and the bulletin board(complete by December 31, 2004)

Oversight – review relevant pages and submit updates to webmaster 

Review relevant pages and submit updates to webmaster 

Review relevant pages and submit updates to webmaster 

Provide review and comments to SBEEP 

4. To raise the energy expertise of state facility managers, provide 3 workshops or seminars for state facility managers (by June 30, 2004)

Oversight – develop topics,issues notices, and contact the SEPProgram Manager for funding.

Work with ASHRAE to provide support for one workshop or seminar.

Work with APEMto provide support for one workshop or seminar.

Provide input and comments to SBEEP 

5. To disseminate SBEEP successes and information to facility managers,participate in regular meetings of UAPPA (attend quarterly UAPPA meetings)

Attend 3-4 UAPPA meetings as scheduled forFY04 

Attend 3-4 UAPPA meetings as scheduled forFY04 

Attend 3-4 UAPPA meetings as scheduled forFY04 

(already participating in UAPPA) 

Goal #3 - Reduce the energy cost ofgovernment operations to meet theGovernor’s goal of $20 million in energy saving for state buildings by 2010 – existing buildings component. 1. Redistribute the needs assessment tool to state facility managers and utilize the results to prioritize candidates for ESCO and DFCM funding(by November 1, 2004 and March 1, 2004).

Insure that SBEEPteam utilizes the SBEEP tool for on-site visits with 1-2 scheduled permonth 

Conduct assessments as scheduled 

Conduct assessments as scheduled 

Help SBEEP evaluate and rank assessments 

13
SBEEP FY04 Goals, Action

Items, and Milestones

DNR - MikeGlenn (teamleader) – related responsibilities 

DNR - Jim Hood (PE) – relatedresponsibilities 

DNR - VACANT(EIT) – related responsibilities 

DFCM – relatedresponsibilities 

2. Clear release of a subsequent RFP (forcompleting additional ESCO-based projects) with the State Building Board, DFCM (by Nov. 1, 2004).

Submitnominations to DFCM for subsequent projects 

NA NA Clear projects with

Building Board 

3. For long term tracking of energy usage and savings, maintain a web-based database with direct data transfer capabilities from Utah utilities. Provide on-line access to participating facility managers by October 1, 2003.

Provide support asnecessary 

NA Oversight

responsibility in conjunction with IT staff – train local facility managers to assessdatabase 

Provide support asnecessary 

4. Participate in weekly project meetings for the ESCO-based projects at the Utah State Prison, UVSC, and the Ogden Regional Center and any other projects begun in FY04. – provide leadership and technical assistance to the projects (ongoing through June 30, 2004).

Participate weekly Participate weekly Participate weekly Participate weekly 

as necessary. 

5. Issue a new cycle (Cycle II) of theRFPs to ESCOs serving Utah (by March 1,2004).

Primeresponsibility for drafting RFP 

Assist in RFP review as necessary 

Assist in RFP review as necessary 

Complete final review and submittal of RFP to Building Board for approval &release of RFPs 

6. For Cycle II procurement, participate in selection meetings with DFCM and participating facilities, review proposals, and select top qualifying ESCOs for oral interviews. (by June 30, 2004).

Attend all selection meetings

Attend selection meetings as necessary 

Attend selection meetings as necessary 

Attend selection meetings unless otherwise delegated 

7. Review Cycle I technical energy audits completed by ESCOs and establish scope of work for each facility by September 30, 2003.

Review TA’s and compile commentsby deadlines 

Review TA’s and compile commentsby deadlines 

Review TA’s and compile commentsby deadlines 

Receive and review comments 

8. Develop and finalize Cycle I contracts with ESCOs including finalizing financing portion of contracts by September 30, 2003.

Draft contracts for DFCM 

Participate in contract negotiations as necessary 

Participate in contract negotiations as necessary 

Prepare final contracts for ESCO work

14
SBEEP FY04 Goals, Action

Items, and Milestones

DNR - MikeGlenn (teamleader) – related responsibilities 

DNR - Jim Hood (PE) – relatedresponsibilities 

DNR - VACANT(EIT) – related responsibilities 

DFCM – relatedresponsibilities 

9. Help secure Utah Power rebates for ESCO and DFCM funded projects byreleasing information to state facility managers and ESCOs (initial release by July 15, 2003 & ongoing thereafter).

Oversight Provide

information and support as necessary 

Primeresponsibility

Provide information and support as necessary 

10. Inspect ESCO work as work proceeds and follow-up on problems (ongoing throughout FY04).

Oversight Complete

inspections as requested and as new buildings work allows 

Completeinspections as requested 

Participate to supervise SBEEPinvolvement.

11. Complete final inspection of ESCOfunded retrofits and issue letters of acceptance for 3 model projects. 

Insure that inspections are completed bySBEEP engineers 

Completeinspections as requested and as new buildings work allows 

Completeinspections as requested 

Accept SBEEP recommendations for “punch lists” and closeout – issue letters of acceptance 

12. Collect savings reports from ESCObased model projects (Cycle I) and include in FY04 SBEEP annual report.

Oversight and reporting perSBEEP annual report 

Review/check data Review/check data Receive and 

review results 

13. Monitor retrocommissioning savings for the Matheson Courthouse and SLCC South Campus and submit results for the FY04 annual SBEEP report.

Oversight Prime

responsibility for monitoring energysavings 

NA NA

Goal #4 - Reduce the energy cost ofgovernment operations to meet theGovernor’s goal of $20 million in energy saving for state buildings by 2010 – newbuildings component. 1. Identify new buildings for SBEEPengineer participation in design development, design review, value engineering, energy model review, and code review (ongoing to June 30, 2004).

Oversight Complete all tasks 

as requested byDFCM on-time

Assist the lead SBEEP engineeras requested 

Facilitate theinvolvement of SBEEP for newbuildings 

2. Insure that contractors adequatelycommission new state buildings byreviewing the commissioning plan new buildings, participate in commissioning, and develop commissioning recommendations for each project (ongoing through June 30, 2004).

Oversight Complete all tasks 

as requested ontime and complete quality control review of contractor-based commissioning 

Assist the lead SBEEP engineeras requested 

Facilitate theinvolvement of SBEEP for newbuildings 

15
SBEEP FY04 Goals, Action

Items, and Milestones

DNR - MikeGlenn (teamleader) – related responsibilities 

DNR - Jim Hood (PE) – relatedresponsibilities 

DNR - VACANT(EIT) – related responsibilities 

DFCM – relatedresponsibilities 

3. Provide reports to DFCM and AE firmsfollowing design reviews (ongoing action item through FY04)

Oversight Prime

responsibility for reviews and reports (2-3buildings for FY04)

NA Receive SBEEP

reports.

4. Apply of a SEP special project grant to fund SBEEP activities for new buildings by April 30, 2004.

Primeresponsibility for preparing/writing grant for submittalthrough the DOESEP Program

Assist as necessary 

Assist as necessary 

Review grant proposal forconsistency with DFCM initiatives 

5. Complete and closeout the two SEP Special Projects grants for 1.) NewBuilding Low Energy Design Program, 2.)SBEEP Program Development, and 3.)Codes Training by the DOE due dates.

Oversight Prime

responsibility for completing and submitting the programmatic and financial final reports 

Provide necessaryinformation 

NA 

Goal #5 – Communicate the contributions of SBEEP energy efficiency projects to better air quality 1. Distribute a copy of the annual SBEEPReport and savings to GOPB, DNRAdmin., members of the Governor’s State Office of Energy Advisory Council, DEQ, etc. by July 15, 2003.

Primeresponsibility to insure distribution of the SBEEP Annual Report 

NA NA NA

2. (see goal above for Energy Star ratings of state buildings) Goal #6 - Provide for general administration of SBEEP 1. Develop a schedule and management fee structure to provide SBEEP with ongoing revenue by March 15, 2004.

Primeresponsibility for developing fee structure 

Provide input to proposed fee structure 

Provide input to proposed fee structure 

Provide input to proposed fee structure - direct SBEEP’s implementation.

2. Hire 1-2 additional staff as allowed byfunding with approval of DNR and UEO management to expedite strategic energysaving goals.

Upon approval,work with the personnel office to undertake the hiring process 

NA NA NA

16
SBEEP FY04 Goals, Action

Items, and Milestones

DNR - MikeGlenn (teamleader) – related responsibilities 

DNR - Jim Hood (PE) – relatedresponsibilities 

DNR - VACANT(EIT) – related responsibilities 

DFCM – relatedresponsibilities 

3. Hold biweekly SBEEP teamcoordinating meetings 

Schedule and conduct teammeetings 

Attend and participate 

Attend and participate 

Participate as necessary 

4. As requested, prepare and make a presentation to the Quality Growth Commission regarding the Quality Growth Act’s energy component (complete asrequested by the QGC in FY04).

Prepare and make presentation to the QGC as requested 

Provide necessarydata 

Provide necessarydata 

NA 

17
ATTACHMENT 2a

FY 2002 Energy Projects 

July 11, 2001 

Estimated

Estimated Annual Est.

Facility Name System Cost Savings PaybacDFCM Managed Buildings Install Occ.Sensors w/Switchpacks in 400 Conference/Restrooms $ 82,400 $ 42,000 2 Courts700 West Juvenile Courts Control System Replacement $ 26,166 $ 3,621 7.2 Sandy Courts Bldg. Mechanical Controls Replacement $ 62,000 $ 7,800 8 HealthCannon Health Exit Signs Std. $ 2,803 $ 649 4.3 Fraiser Lab Lighting Std. 2-3-4-L Wraps, Exit Signs, Variable Frequency Drives $ 132,289 $ 18,090 7.3 Police Academy Exit Signs $ 2,063 $ 427 4.8 Tax Commission Parking Lot Std. 1000 MY $ 5,180 $ 2,889 1.8 UDOT Admin Bldg. (Rampton) Exit Signs $ 5,900 $ 1,365 4.3 UDOT Maint./Testing Facility 2 Tube, 3 Tube, 4 Tube and 8 Foot Fixtures; Exit Signs $ 77,900 $ 16,981 4.6 Drivers License (W. Valley) General Lighting Std. 4-L T-12, Exit Signs $ 5,532 $ 1,446 3.8 Workforce ServicesAdministration North Bldg. VAV Controls $ 100,000 $ 17,500 5.7 Administration Bldg. General Lighting Std. 4-L T-12; Exit Signs Std. $ 102,194 $ 26,739 3.8 

18
South Valley Office Replace Lighting and Add Switches & Relays $ 48,500 $ 4,900 9.9 

Provo Office General Lighting Std. 4-L T-12, Exit Signs $ 16,892 $ 4,426 3.8 ABC Provo and Price Stores Lighting Upgrades $ 5,800 $ 1,750 3.3 Utah State UniversityClassrooms and Offices Install Sensor Equipment in Classrooms/Offices Various Bldgs. $ 100,000 $ 51,750 1.9 Utah Water Research Lab Convert T-as Tubes to T-8; Install Occupancy Controls $ 112,000 $ 40,000 2.8 Total $ 887,619 

19
ATTACHMENT 2b

FY 2002 Energy Projects – Continued

September 13, 2001 

Estimated

Estimated Annual Est.

Facility Name Project Cost Savings PaybacDFCM Energy Data Base Management System $ 30,000 $ - - DHS Install Occ. Sensors w/Switchpacks in 245 Conference/Restrooms $ 49,000 $ 25,790 1.9 Public Safety Design for Capital Imp.- Energy space planning/code issues 3rd Floor $ 40,000 $ - -Bridgerland ATC Lighting Retrofit $ 155,000 $ 35,000 4.4 Dixie College Boiler Replacement---North Instructional Bldg. $ 19,000 $ 3,266 5.8 Dixie College System Retrofit to Heat the Fitness Center Swimming Pool $ 18,500 $ 5,500 3.4 Ogden/Weber ATC Install Controls & Flow Sensors to Pressurized Irrigation System $ 8,000 $ 2,169 3.7 SLCC Thermal Blankets for Pool and Diving Well $ 5,107 $ 8,353 0.61 Snow College Lighting Fixture Conversion and Occupancy Sensors---9 Buildings $ 89,602 $ 39,237 2.3 SUU Lighting Replacement $ 40,000 $ 10,000 4.0 U of U Install Flow Limiters on Water Cooled Lasers $ 67,500 $ 28,583 2.4 USU Chiller Replacement---Veterinary Diagnostics Bldg. $ 100,000 $ 22,500 4.4 UVSC Install Occupancy Sensors 124 Classrooms $ 105,000 $ 22,335 4.7 WSU Install T-8 Lighting---Building #3 $ 35,000 $ 10,606 3.3 WSU Install T-8 Lighting---E.O. Wattis Business Bldg. $ 79,000 $ 20,789 3.8 WSU Install T-8 Lighting---Allied Health Bldg. Phase I $ 81,000 $ 22,500 3.6 Total $ 921,709 

20
ATTACHMENT 2c

FY 2003 Energy & Water Conservation Projects 

Salt Lake Community College Energy & Water Conservation: Secondary Irrigation Connection $ 108,000 Salt Lake Community College Energy & Water Conservation: VFD's Jordan Cooling Tower Pumps $ 26,900 Snow College Energy & Water Conservation: Library Bldg Chiller Replacement $ 225,000 Southern Utah University Energy & Water Conservation: Irrigation Water Cost Reduction $ 200,000 Utah State University Energy & Water Conservation: NFS Chiller Replacement $ 300,000 Utah State University Energy & Water Conservation: Insulate Condensate Lines $ 200,000 Utah Valley State College Energy & Water Conservation: Sprinkler Clock/Irrigation Valve $ 125,000 Weber State University Energy & Water Conservation: Bldg #2- Lighting Upgrade $ 42,000 Alcoholic Beverage Control Energy & Water Conservation #18 - Upgrade Interior Lighting $ 7,300 Alcoholic Beverage Control Energy & Water Conservation: #6- Emer. Egress Lighting/Exit Signs $ 6,000 Alcoholic Beverage Control Energy & Water Conservation #21- Lighting Fixture Upgrade $ 8,900 DFCM Energy & Water Conservation: Consultant for Water Standards $ 25,000 Human Services Energy & Water Conservation: USH Rampton Bldg. Chiller Staging $ 25,800 Human Services Energy & Water Conservation: Developmental Ctr Sprinkler Automation $ 25,000 

 $ 1,324,900 

21
22

ATTACHMENT 2d

FY 2004 Capital Improvement Energy Projects

Agency/Institution Project description Capital

Improvement Funding 

Utah Valley Community College Improvements identified by ESCO 242,700 Corrections ESCO-based energy improvements 200,000 DFCM Lighting Upgrade - Cedar Youth Corrections 35,000 Workforce Services Upgrade Exterior Lighting – Vernal Employment Center 6,500 

484,200