NOTE: Audio and visual may be out of sync if you use a browser other than Google Chrome. Download Chrome for optimum viewing. This webinar provides tools and tips for using data, analytics, and modeling to inform the design and management of a green revolving fund. The presentation is based on Green Revolving Funds: A Guide to Implementation & Management, a co-publication of AASHE and the Sustainable Endowments Institute released in August 2013.

1. Advanced Strategies and Analytics
for campus green revolving funds
Part 2 of an AASHE/SEI webinar series on green revolving fund implementation October 2, 2013
Rob Foley, SEI
Joe Indvik, ICF International
John Onderdonk, Caltech
Matthew Berbee, Caltech

2. Rob Foley
Consultant
Sustainable
Endowments
Institute
Speakers
Joe Indvik
Consultant
ICF
International
John Onderdonk
Director of
Sustainability
Programs
Caltech
2
Insert picture
Matthew
Berbee
Energy
Manager
Caltech

3. Implementation Series
Introductory Guide to
Implementation and Management
January 2013
“Implementation Strategies for Campus
Green Revolving Funds” Webinar
April 2013
Green Revolving Funds: A Guide to
Implementation & Management
August 2013

4. History of the BDGC
Billion Dollar Green Challenge

5. History of the BDGC
The Green Revolving Fund Model
1. The fund must finance
measures that reduce resource
use, save energy, or mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions.
2. The fund must have a
formalized revolving
component, so that at least
some of the savings from
projects are repaid to the fund.

6. Introduction
Implementation Guide Research Process
Facility Managers
Energy Managers
Presidents
Students
Trustees
CFOs
Sustainability Directors
Interviews
Research
and Data
Greening the
Bottom Line 2012
School Case
Studies
Experience
GRF Charters
Billion Dollar
Green Challenge
Consulting
Conferences
Partner
Organizations
Second Nature
AASHE
ACUPCC
ICF

7. 7
Employing M&V
Focus of today’s
presentations
Available at
GreenBillion.org/guide

8. 8
Employing M&V
Upcoming Opportunities
To learn more about Green Revolving Funds
and sustainability in higher education
AASHE 2013, next week in Nashville, TN!
Green revolving fund events
at AASHE include:
•A plenary presentation on investing
in energy efficiency
•A panel on the benefits and
varieties of green revolving funds
across institutions
•A student workshop on pitching a
GRF on your campus

9. Effective M&V
Fund Analytics
Introduction
Using smart data to track,
design, and manage a GRF
9
A Tale of Two Funds
Caltech Case Study

10. 10
Fund Analyticsto evaluate, select, and track projects

11. 11
Fund Analytics
Payback period =
Return on Investment (ROI)
Upfront cost ($)
Annual savings ($/yr)
Annual savings ($/yr)
Upfront cost ($)i.e. rate of return, annual yield
Quick, easy, understandable, and commonly used
Does not account for cost of capital or volume of savings
Can be expressed as annual (here) or lifetime
Same disadvantages as payback period
Allows comparison with investment returns (with caveats)
=

12. 12
Fund Analytics
Net Present Value (NPV)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Incorporates cost of capital and risk into discount rate
Unintuitive
Incorporates the time-value of money (i.e. discounting)
Unintuitive
Allows for use of a “hurdle rate”
=
= �
𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒 𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒𝐒 𝐢𝐢𝐢𝐢 𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲 𝐭𝐭 $ − 𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 𝐢𝐢𝐢𝐢 𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲𝐲 𝐭𝐭 $
𝟏𝟏 + 𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝𝐝 𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫 𝐭𝐭
N
t=0
Captures total volume of savings
Hinges on discount rate
Discount rate that sets
NPV equal to 0
Does not account for volume of savings

13. 13
Fund Analytics
Net present what?Telling a good story that everyone can understand

14. 14
Fund Analytics
Sample GRF Portfolio Performance Analysis

15. 15
Employing
Effective M&V
Measurement and verification in a GRF context

16. 16
Employing M&V
The IPMVP is a good place to start
Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement
Retrofit Isolation: All Parameter Measurement
Whole Facility Measurement
Calibrated Simulation

17. 17
Employing M&V

18. 18
Employing M&V
Pros
Cons
Considerations
• Increased confidence
• Protection against cost overruns
• Problem detection
• Performance improvement over time
• Cost
• Staff time
• Advance planning
• To measure or not to measure
 Institutional politics
 Budgeting process
 Project size
 Technology type
• Phase out
• Payment ceiling
• Rolling metering plan
• M&V as investment

19. 19
Two Funds
How modeling can inform fund design
A Tale of

20. 20
Fund #1 Fund #2
Projects repay 100%
of annual savings
Start with $1M
Total repayment
obligation of 120%
Projects repay 90% of
annual savings
Total repayment
obligation of 100%
Slightly more aggressive Slightly less aggressive
Finance projects
that cost $600k
with 3-yr payback
A Tale of Two Funds

21. 21
How do these funds perform
over a 10-year period?
A Tale of Two Funds

22. 22
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
F1 Projects
F2 Projects
F1 Savings
F2 Savings
Fund #1 Projects Complete
Fund #2 Projects Complete
Year
Projects
Savings
Modeling Results
A Tale of Two Funds

23. 23
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
F1 Projects
F2 Projects
F1 Savings
F2 Savings
Fund #1 Projects Complete
Fund #2 Projects Complete
Year
Projects
Savings
Modeling Results
A Tale of Two Funds
R R R R R R R RR
R R RRRRRR
RRRRRR
RRR
R R R R
R R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R

24. 24
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
F1 Projects
F2 Projects
F1 Savings
F2 Savings
Fund #1 Projects Complete
Fund #2 Projects Complete
Fund #1 Cumulative Savings
Fund #2 Cumulative Savings
Year
Projects
Savings
Modeling Results
A Tale of Two Funds

25. California Institute of
Technology
AASHE Webinar
Advanced Strategies and Analytics
for Campus Green Revolving Funds

26. 26
caltech overview
quick facts:
private research university in Pasadena, CA
• 4.4 Million SF of buildings
• 125 acres in urban setting
• $2.4B replacement value
campus population: ~7,000
• 300 faculty; 600 research scholars; 2,200 students; 3,900 employees
• Caltech named top university in the world (Times Higher Education)
• 31 Nobel Laureates
• founders of Intel, DirecTV, Beckman Instruments, MATLAB
energy use
• 120+ GWH electricity annually
− energy Intensity ~285 MBTU/SF
− average UC Campus ~ 180 MBTU/SF
• $15M+ annual utility bill
challenge: facilitate development of the newest technology and
entrepreneurial spirit of Caltech while minimizing energy consumption

27. caltech energy conservation investment program (CECIP)
Energy projects are financed from a capital
revolving fund, the Caltech Energy Conservation
Investment Program (CECIP).
27
“The cost to the utility budget during a CECIP
project does not change (vs. budget). What
does change is that a portion goes to utility
bills, and a portion to debt service”
‐‐ Brewer, M. Caltech, Controller, 2012
Guiding Financial Mantra
Capital
Revolving
Fund
Implement
ECM
Utility
Savings

28. Electricity
Gas
Water
CECIP
AB32
utility budget mix
28
37%
59%
4%
2009: $19.7M

29. Electricity
Gas
Water
CECIP
AB32
utility budget mix
29
2014: $15.6M
34%
36%
6%
18%
6%

30. 0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
MWh
fiscal year
1990‐2013
historical power consumption
30
CECIP Program Inception
2009

31. 0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
MWh
fiscal year
1990‐2013
historical power consumption
31
CECIP Program Inception
2009
‐
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
kWh
2008‐2013
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

32. historical power consumption
non‐CECIP energy drivers
32
110,000
111,000
112,000
113,000
114,000
115,000
116,000
117,000
118,000
119,000
120,000
MWH
FISCAL YEAR
100,000 sqft added
5 fume hoods added
64,000 sqft added
102 fume hoods added
47,000 sqft added
45,000 sqft renovated
13 fume hoods added
30,000 sqft renovated
24 fume hoods added
campus energy drivers since CECIP inception
211,000 sqft added
192,000 sqft renovated
144 fume hoods added

33. $0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
$4.5
$5.0
millions
program performance (2009 to present)
33

34. ($9)
($8)
($7)
($6)
($5)
($4)
($3)
($2)
($1)
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Millions
Paybacks PWP Incentives Original CECIP Model (2009)
CECIP projection
34

35. CECIP projection
35
CECIP Outflows
($9)
($8)
($7)
($6)
($5)
($4)
($3)
($2)
($1)
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Millions
Paybacks PWP Incentives Original CECIP Model (2009)

36. CECIP projection
36
CECIP Outflows
($9)
($8)
($7)
($6)
($5)
($4)
($3)
($2)
($1)
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Millions
Paybacks PWP Incentives Original CECIP Model (2009)
CECIP CASHFLOW

37. FY13 total budgeted vs actual (kWh)
37
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
CDD
kWh
Actual kWh Budgeted kWh 2011 CDD 2012 CDD 2013 CDD

38. how to make this happen
38

39. • establish program criteria early
• communicate the go/no‐go factors to the team
• overview of ground‐rules for evaluating retrofit
opportunities in laboratory and other critical facilities
• energy retrofit training requirements
• detail project closeout requirements beyond traditional
punch/O&M/warranty
• requirements to “prove the efficiency benefit”
Projects Must:
Exhibit verifiable savings
♦
Contain a plan for periodic
measurement &
verification
♦
Return on Investment
greater than 15%
standard operating procedures
SOP is an energy retrofit “play‐book” that outlines data
acquisition requirements per energy retrofit type

40. what has been done, where is it going
what has been done:
• low hanging fruit has been
picked up
• campus wide lighting retrofit
• premium efficiency fan motors
• free cooling, rCx economizers
where are we going:
• building air handling
optimization
• laboratory HVAC energy
retrofits
($8/SQFT to $3/SQFT)
Constant to Variable Volume with
Demand Control (6 ACH/4 ACH)
• chilled water distribution
optimization
40

41. BTU/Hr represents the energy required to heat or cool water
BTU/Hr = 500 x gpm x ΔT
500,000
engineering for a minute
=500 x 500 x 2 (LOW ΔT )
=500 x 200 x 5 (LOW ΔT )
=500 x 100 x 10 (Moderate ΔT )
=500 x 50 x 20 (Good ΔT )
=500 x 33 x 30 (Excellent ΔT )
Increase ΔT, reduce flow, same heat transfer

42. BTU/Hr represents the energy required to heat or cool water
BTU/Hr = 500 x gpm x ΔT
500,000
engineering for a minute
=500 x 500 x 2 (LOW ΔT )
=500 x 200 x 5 (LOW ΔT )
=500 x 100 x 10 (Moderate ΔT )
=500 x 50 x 20 (Good ΔT )
=500 x 33 x 30 (Excellent ΔT )
Increase ΔT, reduce flow, same heat transfer
Take away: What am I doing to maximize
Delta‐T at my facility?

43. now the important part:
proving it works
43

44. measure and prove the performance
• CECIP takes measurement and
verification to another level
• In‐house business processes to
sustain savings
44

45. one of the ways projects wont payback
45

46. one of the ways projects wont payback
46
‐$
‐$
‐$
‐$

47. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
the adjustments accumulate quickly
N = 132

48. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
the adjustments accumulate quickly
N = 132
Take away: How does operations currently
track BMS configuration changes?

49. active energy management (AEM)
Visualizations for efficiency
Y= mx + B
Optimal Operating Line

50. energy management
integrated with maintenance
key areas
• building automation warranty
management
• operating mode validation
• system configuration
50

51. Questions?
Questions?
Rob Foley, Sustainable Endowments Institute
rob@endowmentinstitute.org
Joe Indvik, ICF International
joe.indvik@icfi.com
John Onderdonk, Caltech
john.onderdonk@caltech.edu
Matt Berbee, Caltech
matthew.berbee@caltech.edu
Submit questions in the
“Questions” pane of the
toolbar on the right side
of your screen.
51

52. 52
Thank
You!