CC SR 20151201 E - Status Report and Research on Regional MattersCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: MAYOR JIM KNIGHT
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2015
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT AND RESEARCH ON REGIONAL MATTERS
REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGERµ-
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file. If acceptable to Council, have staff follow through with the described
programs and concepts in this report.
DISCUSSION
Introduction
For the last four years I have been involved in some regional programs and
organizations that have the potential to benefit our City. In addition, I have some of my
own ideas that I was planning to bring to fruition in the next four years. Since I will not
be returning to the Council after Dec. 1, 2015, I wanted to hand over my research, plans
and contacts to my fellow Council members for their perusal and potential follow-
throug h.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
The Public Works Director has sent each of you a copy of the Stormwater Funding
Options report of which I was took part in formulating through the auspices of the
League of California Cities. This is good primer on the MS4 permitting challenges
coming down the pike for our city. It is a long report and the topic is very complicated
with an ever changing backdrop. Here is a brief summary on the background and
issues surrounding our MS4 requirements.
Background
Congress passed the Water Pollution Control Act in 1948 but it was updated and
enhanced in 1972 to become the Clean Water Act (CWA) that is used today. The
purpose of the Act was to assure the public that watersheds, lakes and oceans were
1
free of pollutants. The EPA is in charge of implementing the CWA through pollution
control programs and setting wastewater standards. The mechanism for enforcement is
a permitting process called the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
For years the EPA, through the NPDES permit, allowed municipalities to be in
compliance with their permit by implementing discharge plans that used Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater pollution to the maximum extent
practicable. As long as a municipality was trying to prevent pollution to the waterways
through their BMPs, they had a "safe harbor" from any non-compliance penalties.
The CWA allows any individual or group to sue permittees for non-compliance of the
CWA. Over the years there were many attempts by environmental groups to have the
courts more vigorously enforce the Act as they had evidence of pollutants still entering
the waterways. The courts continued to support the BMP plans that municipalities were
using as a "safe harbor" from enforcement penalties.
Then more recently the Natural Resource Defense Council filed suit and convinced the
courts that the BMPs alone were not achieving the goals of the CWA. As a result of
court rulings, the NPDES permits now mandated a performance metric be implemented
that referenced an exact measurement of the outfall of storm drains to receiving waters.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Numeric Effluent Levels (NELs) became the
compliance standard for the NPDES permits and this mechanism for municipally owned
storm drains became known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Permit. These new permits require pollutant reduction below measurable limits and
BMPs alone are no longer a "safe harbor".
Compliance monitoring of the CWA takes place largely at the state level. The EPA
oversees authorized state programs which in California are formulated by the State
Water Resources Control Board. The State is organized into nine Regional Water
Quality Control Boards and in our case it is the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board (LARWQB) which is Region 4 covering L.A. and Ventura counties.
Current Status of the MS4 -Regulations, costs and funding options
Regulations
Currently, the standards set by the LARWQB are very stringent. Drinking water would
not comply as it contains nitrogen and chloramines. One gum wrapper on the beach
could cause non-compliance. RPV, along with several other cities, have filed a petition
to the LARWQB asking to change their standards. As of yet, the final outcome of this
petition has not been determined.
Municipalities are asking the LARWQB to follow the State Water Quality Board's
recommendation to allow an iterative process whereby a municipality can go back and
adapt the plan if TMDL exceedance is detected. This is different than a "safe harbor" as
the municipality is still considered not in compliance. But, by using adaptive
management principles with a reasonable, defensible approach to implement an
2
enforceable compliance schedule, the LARWQB will allow some time to come into
compliance.
The MS4 permit allows Watershed Management Plans (WMPs) and Enhanced WMPs
(EWMPs) as an appropriate pathway for compliance because these management plans
require the implementation of enforceable schedules with monitoring and adaptive
management to verify compliance with all provisions of the Permit. The WMP/EWMP
must present a reasonable, defensible approach to the LARWQB in attempting to come
into compliance. This process is called a Reasonable Assurance Analysis.
Costs
Because standards set by the LARWQB are so strict and are still in flux, there is a wide
range of estimated costs for municipalities to comply with their MS4 permits. If the
current standards apply, it would be very costly; in the tens of millions per city. If there
is some other relaxed set of parameters for compliance that figure could go down but
there is no doubt that it will still have a serious impact to municipal budgets.
Funding options
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) has taxing authority and in
2013 the County proposed a Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure using a parcel fee
structure to help cities fund compliance programs for their MS4 permits.
But the Measure was flawed from the beginning and was eventually dropped. In
addition to questions of how the parcel tax would be applied to various entities such as
schools, I pointed out that it would not be compliant with Prop. 218. The Measure was
going to use a Watershed Area Group (WAG) as the boundary for the permit and water
control projects. These WAGs were formed by someone drawing a line on a map and
did not follow natural watersheds. In our case, we were to be grouped in a WAG with
several communities up the coast that drain into the Santa Monica Bay. The water
quality of RPV's runoff into the Santa Monica Bay has no comparison to Torrance or
Redondo Beach's runoff. Right out of the gate our residents were going to be taxed for
stormwater projects that would solely be implemented in these other communities. This
flies in the face of the principles of Prop. 218.
To date the municipalities are left to fund their own projects to comply with their MS4
permits. The Stormwater Funding Options report referenced earlier is an attempt to find
alternatives for funding of MS4 compliance. I had suggested an Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) as a possible solution as the new
WMPs/EWMPs have definite watershed boundaries and water quality projects would be
specific to those boundaries making it compliant with Prop. 218.
RPV and the M54 permit
Andy Winje is our staff person in charge of following our MS4 requirements and we
have hired John Hunter and Associates to be our MS4 consultant. Both have done an
3
excellent job in using the available tools to meet our MS4 compliance and have helped
the public understand this complex process with outreach workshops.
RPV has an EWMP with Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates, L.A. Dept. of
Public Works and the L.A. County Flood Control District under a Memorandum of
Understanding with RPV taking the administrative lead. Rolling Hills has decided to
implement their own WMP. But, as with all WMPs, there needs to be a monitoring
program that collects data to verify the performance of the WMP/EWMP. It is called a
Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program or GIMP. Rolling Hills is part of our GIMP
even though they are not part of our EWMP.
By forming an EWMP, RPV, RHE and PVE were allowed some additional time by the
LARWQB to form a plan and still be in compliance of our MS4 permit. Early action items
that help RPV are adoption of a Low Impact Development ordinance, the San Ramon
Project, Landscape Ordinance, storm drain inlet screens and other green streets
policies. Commercial projects such as Terranea's landscaping plan and RPV park
plans, like Lower Point Vicente, can include bioswales, stormwater retention areas or
catch basins and pervious surfaces to help with our water quality compliance.
Possible Council action:
-Make sure that future projects, on both municipal and private land, have a water quality
mitigation component that help us comply with our MS4 requirements.
-Have Andy Winje and John Hunter update the entire Council on the current status of
our EWMP, MS4 compliance and potential future costs of compliance.
-Have staff explain how the MS4 requirements fit into our overall infrastructure picture
and specifically any potential future Storm Water fee structure.
-Have the City Attorney update the Council on the status of our petition to the LARWQB.
-Apply for competitive State bond funds, like Prop. 84, to implement water quality
projects. The next Prop. 84 round of call for projects is coming up soon.
Community Choice Aggregate (CCA)
Los Angeles County has undertaken the effort to put forth a feasibility study to form a
CCA. I have been invited to be part of a CCA Task Force for this study and Attachment
A is the roster of that Task Force.
Background
The electrical power that is supplied to our homes by SCE has three fundamental
components: purchase of that power from a source; distribution of that power; and a
billing system to pay for that power. A CCA places the decision as to the source of
electrical power in the hands of the consumer rather than the utility company. A non-
profit CCA Board offers several choices to the consumer for renewable portfolios. The
4
rest of the components described above remain the same with SCE transmitting that
power and billing for that power.
A CCA has several advantages over SCE: Consumers can determine the amount of
renewable energy they will receive; a non-profit does not have to charge more to
account for stockholders and can redistribute more funds for conservation measures
with more flexible and innovative rebate programs; and, as demonstrated by other
Counties that have implemented a CCA, the potential to reduce the consumer's
electrical bill.
Marin County, Sonoma County, Lancaster and some other municipalities have already
implemented a CCA and have shown positive results to the consumers.
Current Status in L.A. County
The County of Los Angeles under their Office of Sustainability is putting forth a
feasibility study to see how a CCA could be formed in Los Angeles County. I have
asked the City Manager to submit RPV as a city interested in being part of the feasibility
study. The study is currently being formulated. I have a lot of information and case
studies on CCAs that I can make available to the City Manager to share with Council if
you wish.
Possible Council action:
-Have staff follow the progress of the County's CCA feasibility study and periodically
report back to Council with recommendations.
-If the CCA comes to a point where a city needs to make a decision, have an expert on
the topic consult with city staff as to what this would mean for our residents.
-Help our residents understand a CCA with public outreach education either through an
agendized public hearing and/or workshop
Energy Efficiency in Municipal Buildings
I have always believed there was a third arm to the tax and spend formula cities
commonly follow. That additional arm is efficiency. I think it is incumbent upon cities to
constantly be kicking the tires on municipal operations to see if there isn't a more
efficient way to use taxpayers' dollars. One area of low hanging fruit is finding ways to
conserve electrical and water consumption.
Municipal Buildings
My involvement with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) and the
South Bay Energy Services Center (SBESC) has enabled me to share some innovative
programs for electrical and water conservation programs with our city. Working with the
COG staff and our own Leza Mikhail, we have achieved an annual savings of over
51 ,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) and cash incentive programs of over $41 ,000 into our
5
general fund. And by achieving Gold Status with SCE, we have an additional savings
on the kWh rate we are charged on that reduced electrical consumption.
There are an additional 898,000 kWh of savings and $160,000 cash to the General
Fund that has been identified with a total of $244,000 annual savings. Attachment Bis a
GSE report on an RPV Energy Audit. It is a good summary of our potential cost savings
with future energy programs. GSE is a consultant with SBESC and the services were
provided for free to our city through the COG. The report was done in 2013 and should
be updated.
Possible Council action:
-Follow through with energy saving programs in coordination with the SBESC
-Update the Energy Audit with GSE
-Utilize SCE's On-Bill financing program wherein SCE loans money for qualified projects
with no interest or fees. Repayment is in monthly installments which would be added as
a line item on the City's electric bill allowing for municipal improvements to be funded
over a long period of time and leaving CIP funds intact to remain in our internal budgets
for other immediate infrastructure needs.
Solar on Facilities
One project I was hoping to bring forward for the City was an installation of solar panels
on our municipal buildings. There are many companies that specialize in municipal
installations and offer a wide choice of design, costs and funding options. Competitive
RFP bidding is a must to end up with the best possible scenario. For municipalities,
solar leasing with a power purchase agreement many times makes a lot of sense.
Companies will pay to install the system with no funding needed from the city, maintain
the system and the lease rate can be offset by the city's energy savings from the
system. The private companies can find private investors to put up the money as they
can take advantage of the Federal and State tax credits that a non-profit, like a city,
cannot use.
About a year ago, I chaired a Municipal Solar Workshop for the SBCCOG that included
the U.S. Department of Energy's Sunshot Solar Outreach Partnership's technical
assistance team, representatives and experts from ICLEI Local Governments for
Sustainability, The Solar Foundation, Meister Consultants Group and the Center for
Sustainable Energy. It was a one stop shop for municipal/commercial solar installations
and free feasibility studies were offered. If Council is interested, I can pass on my
research and some of the information/contacts I have accumulated over the years.
Possible Council action:
-Ask staff to come back to Council with a feasibility study of photovoltaic installation on
Municipal buildings including design, costs, payback estimates and, in the case of a
solar lease, analysis of a well vetted power purchase agreement. Based upon the
6
study, set the parameters for putting out an RFP to potential contractors for direct
installation or solar leasing firms.
Street Lights
As you know, I put forth an agenda item in May of 2013 asking the City to look into the
efficiency regarding operation of our street lights. The first phase of that
recommendation was to conduct an inventory which ultimately resulted in discovering
that the City was paying SCE for 49 street lights that didn't exist. The City received an
immediate credit to our account in the amount of $44,667 as well as on-going annual
cost savings as a result of the corrected, reduced street light inventory.
The balance of the recommendation was to move forward with retrofitting our own LS-2
lights with LED and to look into the feasibility of acquisition of the SCE LS-1 street
lights. Attachment B includes some information on the numbers associated with these
recommendations. Nicole Jules is moving forward with the remainder of the street light
project.
Possible Council action:
-Have staff give Council an update on the progress of our street light improvements.
-Get an update on the policy of SCE with regard to light acquisition. I understand that
SCE is changing some of the requirements for acquisition of LS-1 lights. Lena Luna at
the SBESC has more recent information on this.
Local Businesses
Quite often cities look at businesses merely as a source of revenue. I think it is more
productive for a City to take a leadership role in helping businesses be as successful as
possible. With this approach, everybody wins. Existing businesses flourish; new
businesses want to come to a friendly city; more local jobs are created; and, yes,
successful businesses can contribute more in licensing fees to the city.
I was going to implement a two prong approach to help our local businesses:
1) Improve RPV's business license process by implementing more business friendly
online information and applications.
2) Organize a Business Forum in which our local businesses could come to learn about
the regional resources available to help them be more successful. I have attended
several of these forums in other cities and have seen how they can be very useful to
businesses.
The Forum could include:
-The Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) will actually help
organize and put on the forum. They can bring a long list of helpful staff and information
7
with presentations from business advocates showing how to get through the red tape of
the Franchise Tax Board and other regulations
-RPV Staff present information and helpful resources for applications
-LABizFed and our local PV Chamber with their membership information
-SBCCOG and SBESC have information for their energy and water saving audits and
rebates
-The South Bay Workforce Investment Board has a pool of workers and information on
employer needs
-L.A. Economic Development Corp. has speakers on topics like how to improve the
business climate, legal challenges of businesses, economic forecasts, etc.
-Local colleges could share what courses are available for business owners. For
example, El Camino College has contracting classes and a Small Business
Development Center.
-EDCO could help businesses understand the new upcoming commercial Organic
Waste requirements.
-Local Banks could help with loan information
Possible Council Action:
-Direct staff to go forward with putting together a Local Business Forum in cooperation
with GO-Biz organizing it. Possible locations could be RHE or Peck Park with a more
regional session that includes Joe Buscaino representing L.A. businesses along
Western Ave.
Additional ideas for Council to consider:
-Airplane noise. Petra is no longer on the LAX roundtable. We need representation
here for our residents. Helicopter noise is an increasing problem for the south side of
the hill and a line of communication with Torrance airport should be established to
handle those concerns.
-We need to establish a better line of communication with Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified School District (PVPUSD) regarding potential impacts of their activities or the
activities of organizations in which they lease their properties. The AYSO situation at
Ladera Linda has brought up many issues, and if we can, we should help facilitate
better cooperation with the PVPUSD.
-Put together a training session workshop for new Planning Commissioners so they
have a better understanding of their role for the city. Include enactments of meetings
exemplifying some of the real challenges they will be facing and how to handle them.
8
-Improve the Neighborhood Compatibility review process for our Planning
Commissioners. The current method does not give the PC the tools to understand why
one or two homes in the closest 20 might be larger than the mean square footage.
Many times these larger homes were deemed compatible and approved because some
square footage is below street level either with topography or a basement addition. In
these instances, the PC needs to have an explanation in the text and on the
compatibility chart so they can put these larger home comparisons in perspective with
the application they are reviewing which might have excess bulk and mass above street
level.
-Revisit a Media Communication Workshop. If Brad Ritter is still available, he puts on an
excellent program to help Council members handle media, especially during a crisis.
-Our taxi ordinance needs to be expanded to include all private vehicles that are using
our city logo. I have a picture of a landscaping truck that has the city logo but our
current ordinance can do nothing about it.
-We need to understand what the County plans to do about appointment to our local
districts. I am concerned that the County will appoint Board members to the Abalone
Cove Landslide Abatement District for political reasons and the appointments will not be
local residents nor have any understanding of the dynamics of the landslide and/or
mitigation measures.
-We should look into the use of the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District as a
substitute for the RDA we used for our landslide areas.
I could go on but these are the topics that come to mind at this time. I hope this report
will be helpful for the Council members. I am sorry I can't be there with you to lead this
great city forward in the years to come.
Attachments
Attachment A -Roster of CCA Task Force (page 10)
Attachment B -GSE report on an RPV Energy Audit (page 11)
9
Attachment A
Community Choice Aggregation
Task Force
Meeting Notes
MEETING: CCA TASK FORCE MEETING
Chaired by Howard Choy, ISD
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Steve Culbertson, BKi
Diana Mahmud, City of South Pasadena
Casey Connerton, BKi
Lindsey Horvath, City of West Hollywood
Caitlin Sims, City of Beverly Hills
Matt Skolnik, County of Los Angeles, Fourth District
John Bingham, City of Calabasas
Howard Choy, County Office of Sustainability
Joe Susca, City of Culver City
Ana E. Rosales, County Office of Sustainability
Dennis Burke, City of Long Beach Gas and Oil
John Phan, County Office of Sustainability
Tony Foster, City of Long Beach Gas and Oil
Walker Foley, Food and Water Watch
Benjamin Lucha, City of Palmdale
Kim Fuentes, SBCCOG
Michael Mischel, City of Palmdale
Marisa Creter, SGVCOG
Jim Knight, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Joe Galliani, South Bay Clean Power
Christian Horvath, City of Redondo Beach
Ken Smokoska, South Bay Clean Power
Angela Hacker, City of Santa Barbara
Tulsi Patel, WSCCOG
Dean Ku bani, City of Santa Monica
NUMBER:
CCA-LC 15-01
DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2015
TIME: 1:00-3:00 PM
LOCATION: 523 w 6TH ST, Los ANGELES, CA 90019,
PACIFIC CLUB ROOM
Dial-in Number: (712) 432-1212; Meeting ID: 391-607-
484
10
September 25, 2013
Leza Mikhail
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd .
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Att achm e nt B
SUBJECT: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Energy Study Report
Dear Leza:
_ .... ,
••••• ~se ~o utm~~ ·
On behalf of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), GSE Solutions (GSE) is pleased to
submit to you the results of the comprehensive energy study we conducted for the following ten (11)
facilities to identify and quantify potential energy cost savings opportunities:
• Civic Center (30940 Hawthorne Blvd)
• Ladera Linda Community Center (32201 Forrestal Dr)
• Point Vicente Interpretive Center (31501 Palos Verdes Dr West)
• Hesse Park (29301 Hawthorne Blvd)
• Ryan Park (30359 Hawthorne Blvd)
• Abalone Park (5970 Palos Verdes Dr South)
• Pump lift stations (12 Sweetbay Rd, 13 Sweetbay Rd, 22 1/2 Sweetbay Rd, 5 1/2 Thyme Pl)
• Street lights (Utility-owned and City-owned)
Five (5) general areas were investigated for potential energy cost savings opportunities: Building and
Park Lighting, Street Lighting, Pump Lift Stations, Domestic Hot Water and Loading Order Opportunity.
Additionally, a cost -benefit analysis was conducted for installing a new HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and
Air Conditioning) system at City Hall and the Community Development building. In Table 1 on the
following page, the identified savings opportunities are listed in order of cost -effectiveness. Due to
minimal or no savings, results for Domestic Hot Water and Pump Lift Stations are not listed in Tablel,
but are addressed later in the body of the report.
GSE Solutions LLC 800 Grand Avenue, Suite 888, Carlsbad CA 92008 760.214.6805 11
_ .......... ,
, .••
Table 1. Summary of Energy Audit Results I se so1u tmns · ·
Annual Annual Annual % Annual
Cash Project Annual GHG Cost Savings Baseline Proposed Cost Energy Energy Incentives Costs Savings Opportunity Energy Energy Savings Savings Savings ($) ($) (Tons C02e) Usage Usage ($)
Street Lights (LS -2)1
51,994 14,126 37,868 73% $8,282 $6,438 $24,342 29 .2 (Electric, kWh)
Building & Park Lighting 202,334 96,094 106,241 53% $16,415 $17,717 $147,581 82.0 (Electric, kWh)
Street Lights ( LS-1 )2
1,072,889 261,646 811,243 75% $167,250 $162,249 $2,301,078 626.0 (Electric, kWh)
Civic Center "Loading
Order Opportunity"3 --(11,382) 11,382 --$1,411 $7,910 $28,044 8.8
(Electric, kWh)
Civic Center Proposed
HVAC4 --32,670 (32,670) --($4,051) TBD $392,000 (25.2)
(Electric, kWh)
Overall 5 1,327,217 393,154 934,063 70% $189,307 $194,314 $2,893,045 720.8
1. LS-2 (un-metered) street lights are City-owned. Includes cost of upgrading to LED lighting and converting to LS-3 (metered) rate. Calculated Annual
Baseline Energy Usage in Table 1 differs slightly from stipulated SCE billing baseline energy usage.
2. LS-1 (un-metered) street lights are SCE-owned. Includes cost of purchasing light poles from SCE, upgrading to LED lighting and converting to LS -3
(metered) rate . Calculated Annual Baseline Energy Usage in Table 1 differs slightly from stipulated SCE billing baseline energy usage.
Simple
Payback
(Yrs)
2.2
7 .4
12.8
14.3
N/A
14.2
3. Solar electric generation potential was evaluated to offset the estimated net increase in electricity consumption of the proposed HVAC system, minus the
expected energy reduction of the recommended lighting upgrades throughout the campus .
4. HVAC system electricity consumption and energy costs were estimated assuming the interior lighting upgrades in City Hall and Community Development
will be implemented. Numbers in parenthesis indicate added electricity consumption and energy costs; therefore, simple payback is N/A. HVAC system may
be eligible for an incentive through SCE's Savings By Design program, which will be further investigated if the City decides to proceed with the project.
5 . Net result of implementing city-wide lighting upgrades, proposed HVAC system and solar electric generation, including aggregated simple payback.
2
12
. ··~ ~se so utians ·
Utility Billing Data
Annual energy consumption and costs for each facility audited are contained in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Annual Energy Usage and Cost for Audited Facilities 1
Annual Annual Annual Annual
Facility Address Electricity Electricity Natural Gas Natural Gas
kWh $ therms $
Civic Center 30940 Hawthorne Blvd 400,649 $49,597 0 $0
Ladera Linda 1 32201 Forrestal Dr 47,692 $9,708 1,311 $1,419
PVIC 31501 Palos Verdes Dr 112,711 $18,831 0 $0 West
Hesse Park 29301 Hawthorne Blvd 74,600 $13,518 0 $0
Ryan Park 2 30359 Hawthorne Blvd 16,240 $2,641 219 $333
Abalone Park 5970 Palos Verdes Dr 7,058 $1,295 0 $0 South
Street lights LS-1 Multiple 1,166,306 $349,844 0 $0
Street lights LS-2 Multiple 55,272 $5,235 0 $0
Pump Lift Multiple 14,679 $3,221 0 $0 Stations3
Total 1,895,207 $453,890 1,530 $1,753
1. Based on 2011 SCE and 2010 SCG billing data.
2. Minimal gas usage at both sites indicates very low hot water consumption. Therefore, upgrading water heaters
is not economically justified.
3. Pump motors appear to be efficient and are equipped with variable frequency drives. Therefore, cost savings
opportunities likely do not exist at this time.
Building and Park Lighting
Existing interior lighting in most facilities consists mainly of linear fluorescent tubes, with a blend of
compact fluorescent, incandescent and halogen lamps . Current exterior lighting is a mixture of metal
halide, high pressure sodium and halogen fixtures. The interior lighting should be upgraded to more
efficient linear fluorescent tubes and LED lamps . A majority of the exterior lighting should be replaced
with LED fixtures. Table 3 on the following page summarizes the economic benefits of upgrading
interior and exterior lighting for the identified facilities. See Appendix A for manufacturer's cut sheets.
See Appendix B for itemized energy savings calculations for each facility.
3
13
. ••1 ~se sa utians ·
Table 3. Economic Benefits of Lighting Upgrades per Facility
Annual Annual Annual % Project Annual Annual Incentives Facility Baseline Proposed Savings
Energy Costs ($) Energy Cost
kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr Savings ($) Savings($)
PV Net Annex 7,235 3,086 4,149 57% $1,710 $514 $2,336
Ryan Park 7,031 3,593 3,438 49% $559 $656 $2,584
Abalone Park 887 591 296 33% $40 $54 $243
Ladera Linda 28,567 12,768 15,799 55% $2,600 $3,067 $16,717
Channel33 2,779 1,583 1,196 43% $177 $148 $919
Hesse Park 58,209 24,382 33,827 58% $4,090 $6,025 $35,674
Community 16,115 10,711 5,404 34% $921 $669 $6,881 Development
PV Net 6,279 4,712 1,568 25% $245 $194 $2,367
PVIC 50,520 18,861 31,659 63% $4,496 $5,289 $65,084
City Hall 24,712 15,806 8,906 36% $1,576 $1,103 $14,776
Total 202,334 96,094 106,241 53% $16,415 $17,717 $147,581
Street Lights
The City's existing street lamp inventory per SCE's account summary is listed below in Table 4.
Table 4. Rancho Palos Verdes Street Lamp Inventory (Concrete Poles)
Fixture #of Poles #of Poles #of Poles #of Poles
Wattages 1 LS-1 2 LS-2 3 LS-3 4 Total
sow 0 0 0 0
70W 256 0 0 256
lOOW 1,947 8 0 1,955
lSOW 24 0 0 24
200W 118 8 0 126
250W 24 20 0 44
400W 7 7 0 14
Total 2,376 43 0 2,419
1. All fixtures are assumed to be High Pressure Sodium fixtures.
2. Utility-owned poles, unmetered.
3. City-owned poles, unmetered.
4. City-owned poles, metered.
A cost-benefit analysis of upgrading the City's high pressure sodium street lights to a more efficient LED
technology is summarized in Table 5 below. Results are included for both City-owned (LS -2 ) and SCE-
Simple
Payback
(Yrs)
1.2
3.1
3.8
4.6
5.0
5.2
8.9
10.9
11.5
12.0
7.4
4
14
. ••1 ~se sa utians ·
owned (LS -1) poles. In the case of SCE-owned poles, 2,096 are "concrete" and do not house power
infrastructure, while the other 280 are "wood" and are not currently eligible for purchase by the city.
Therefore, only "concrete" streetlight poles are included in this evaluation. Additionally, the financial
benefits of converting unmetered accounts (LS-1 and LS-2) to a meter account (LS-3) were evaluated.
Table 5. Economic Benefits of Upgrading Street Lights
Annual Annual Annual Annual Cash Project Simple Cost Savings Baseline Proposed Cost
Opportunity Energy Energy Energy Savings Incentives Costs Payback
Usage Usage Savings ($) ($) ($)
Street Lights (LS-2) 51,994 14,126 37,868 $8,282 $6,438 $24,342
Street Lights (LS-1) 1,072,889 261,646 811,243 $167,250 $162,249 $2,301,078
Overall 1,124,883 275,772 849,111 $175,532 $168,687 $2,325,420
Proposed HVAC System
Currently the City Hall and Community Development buildings are not equipped with mechanical space
conditioning systems. Both buildings are naturally ventilated and heating is supplied by resistive
baseboard heaters. As part of this cost feasibility study, a preliminary design of a new mechanical HVAC
system was developed for each building. The preliminary designs took into account various building
parameters: building size, building envelope construction, interior lighting specifications, plug loads,
operating scheduling and geographic location. The conceptual HVAC system configuration for each
building is as follows:
• City Hall ground floor will require (4) premium efficient 5-ton split system heat pump units with
condensing units on the roof and vertical fan coil units to be installed in newly constructed
closets. See Appendix B for manufacturer's cut sheets.
• City Hall top floor will require (4) premium efficient 5-ton rooftop heat pump units.
Refrigeration tubing to be installed in wall cavities extending from each fan coil unit to the
condensing units on the roof.
• Community Development will require (2) premium efficient 5-ton rooftop heat pump units.
• Heat pumps provide both cooling and heating through mechanical vapor compression.
• Rooftop units on both buildings will be equipped with enthalpy controlled economizers.
• Electronic set back thermostats will be provided in each building.
• In both buildings newly constructed soffits below each ceiling will be required to house air
distribution ductwork.
• A detailed study of the main electric panels determined that no additional cost will be incurred
to interconnect the new HVAC systems.
The estimated cost of labor and materials to install both systems is $392,000. A further cost breakdown
is as follows:
5
(Yrs)
2.2
12.8
12.3
15
. ••1 ~se sa utians ·
• Equipment, installation, engineering costs= $252,000
• Construction costs (closets, soffit, roof work)= $140,000
In order to determine the true cost of operating the new HVAC systems, an eQUEST energy simulation
model was constructed for both buildings. Applying the same building and system design parameters
mentioned above, the eQUEST model was used to estimate the annual electricity consumption of each
building and its various energy components: HVAC, lighting, office equipment and plug loads .
Specifically for HVAC systems, performance and energy consumption are based on various thermal loads
in each building: solar gain, occupants, lighting and office equipment.
Four modeling scenarios were developed for each building:
1. Baseline: building as is with no HVAC system.
2. Baseline+ HVAC system: Scenario 1 with new HVAC system.
3. Baseline+ HVAC system+ Interior Lighting Upgrades: Scenarios 1 and 2 plus implemented
interior lighting upgrades. More efficient interior lighting reduces cooling load and subsequently
HVAC system energy use.
4. Baseline+ HVAC system+ Interior Lighting Upgrades+ R-15 Wall Insulation: Scenarios 1, 2 and
3 plus furred walls with R-15 insulation. The total estimated cost to fur out the walls in both
buildings is $82,000
The results of each modeling scenario are captured below in Table 6.
Table 6. eQuest Modeling Results
Cooling+
Ventilation Heating HVAC
Electric Electric Cost
Modeling Scenarios (kWh/yr} (kWh/yr} ($/yr}
1. City Hall Baseline 0 310 $38
2. City Hall HVAC 25,150 600 $3,193
3. City Hall HVAC+Lighting Upgrade 23,120 920 $2,981
4. City Hall HVAC+Lighting Upgrade+Wall Insulation 27,510 170 $3,388
la. Community Development Baseline 0 70 $9
2a. Community Development HVAC 9,970 170 $1,257
3a. Community Development HVAC+Lighting Upgrade 8,950 380 $1,157
4a. Community Development HVAC+Lighting Upgrade+Wall 10,140 140 $1,275 Insulation
Scenarios 3 and 3a, respectively, result in the lowest annual operating cost of each HVAC system. The
results for Scenarios 4 and 4a indicate that adding wall insulation will actually have a negative impact
due to the fact that the overall operating cost of each HVAC system is estimated to increase as a result
of the insulation. This may seem counter intuitive; however, the effect of the insulation appears to be
trapping the internal heat of the building, which under current conditions appears to be transferring at a
6
16
. ·~ ~se sa utians ·
higher rate through the existing concrete masonry unit walls without in su lation to the outside resulting
in a lower internal cooling load . As evident in both modeling scenarios, the annual heating electricity
consumption decreases while the cooling electricity usage increases by a greater amount, thereby
creating an overall net increase. This occurrence is most likely due to the relatively cool climate
encountered near the coast. Detailed model results of each scenario can be found in Appendix C of this
report.
Loading Order Opportunity
A Loading Order Opportunity analysis was conducted to determine the cost feasibility of offsetting any
net increase in electricity consumption resulting from the proposed HVAC system, minus the expected
energy reduction of the recommended lighting upgrades throughout the campus. The net increase is
estimated to be 11,382 kWh per year. For the purposes of this study, only solar electric generation
potential was evaluated. The results of our analysis indicate a solar panel array rated at 8 kWSTC oc will
be sufficient to meet the additional electric load 1. The expected installed cost, annual generation and
cost savings, maximum output (kWAc ), SCE incentive and cost effectiveness are summarized below:
• Insta lled Cost -$28,044 ($3,500 I kWsrc ocl
• Annual Generation -11,382 kWh (1,423 kWh I kWsrc oc)
• Annual Cost Savings -$1,411 ($176 I kWsrc ocl
• Max Output -7 .57 kW AC (0 .95 kW Ac/ kWsrc ocl
• SCE Incentive -$7,910 ($989 /kWsrc oc)
• Cost-effectiveness -14.3 years simpl e payback
The approach taken was to examine the existing electrical configuration at the site and investigate
possible locations where PV panels could be installed and connected with relative ease to the existing
electrical circuitry. The proposed locations were selected primarily for favorable so lar exposure and
minimal shade. Each location's area was estimated and then a corresponding number of PV panels were
assigned to that area. The panels were given reasonable orientation parameters (tilt and azimuth) in
order to estimate the amount of energy that could be produced .
The location selection process comprised evaluating existing roof areas, existing locations for proposed
carports and existing locations for proposed ground mount arrays. The se lected locations and
designations are shown in Table 7 below and the following two figures:
Table 7. Selected Locations and Array Designators
Building
Multi Media Studio
Annex
Maintenance Shop
Car Port 1
Car Port 2
Car Port 3
1 Direct Current (DC) rating at Standard Test Conditions.
Array
Designator
MMS 1
ANX
MS 1
CP 1
CP2
CP 3
7
17
. ··~ ~se so utmns ·
Car Port 4 CP4
Car Port 5 CP 5
Car Port 6 CP6
Car Port 7 CP 7
Car Port 8 CP 8
City Hal l 1 CH 1
Community Development 1 CD 1
PV Net PVN
Figure 1. Selected Locations for PV Panels (Upper Campus).
8
18
. ••1 ~se so utians ·
Figure 2. Selected Locations for PV Panels (Lower Campus).
Each location's dimensions, length and width were estimated using Google earth. Once the area was
estimated, the number of PV panels that could be installed was also determined. Additionally, locations
were selected where shading was not an issue. This is the major reason why the array located on the
City Hall Building roof (CH 1) is located on the north east section, since the cellular tower is a shading
source.
With the established panel quantity, designated tilt and azimuth and a corresponding capacity inverter,
each location's estimated generation, as well as the potential incentive payment offered by the SCE CSI
program, was determined using the CSI EPBB calculator. This calculator uses the PV Watts simulation
program and provides a very reasonable energy production estimate based on the geographical location
of the array. See Appendix D for more model results . The results are summarized in Table 8 below.
Table 8. Solar Panel Array Results for Selected Locations
Proposed Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
PBI
Array Panel Qty kWdc kWh/yr Incentive Location
MMS1 36 10.080 14,319 $9,952
ANX 24 6.7 20 9,702 $6,743
MS1 12 3.360 4,825 $3 ,3 53
CP 1 110 30 .800 41,732 $29,004
CP2 55 15.400 20,866 $14,502
CP 3 144 40 .320 55,519 $38,586
9
19
. ••1
ijse so ut1ons ·
CP4 50 14.000 19,888 $13,822
CP 5 132 36 .960 53,227 $36,993
CP6 50 14.000 19,888 $13,822
CP 7 100 28 .000 39,661 $27,564
CP 8 132 36.960 53,010 $36,842
GM 1 231 64 .680 58,402 $40,589
GM2 108 30.240 43,331 $30,115
CH 1 60 16.800 23,866 $16,587
CD 1 44 12.320 17,502 $12,164
PVN 60 16.800 23,866 $16,587
Total 1,009 282.520 397,871 $276,521
Utility Incentives and Project Funding
As a member of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, which is also an SCE Energy Leader
Partnership (ELP), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes can benefit from enhanced utility incentive rates for
implementing energy efficiency projects. The City is currently at the Gold tier level in SCE's ELP Program
and as a result can receive an additional $0.09/kWh on top of the core commercial incentive rate for
eligible energy savings. For instance, by installing qualified LED fixtures, which carry a core incentive of
$0.08/kWh, the total incentive rate for the City, including the ELP kicker, is $0.17 /kWh.
In addition to CIP funds, the City can also fund qualified energy efficiency projects through SCE's On-Bill
Financing (OBF) program, which offers loans with zero interest and no fees. For qualified projects, the
City will repay the loan from SCE in monthly installments which would be added as a line item on the
City's electric bill. To qualify for this program, a project must be eligible for incentives and meet the
required 10-year simple payback. The City is allowed to borrow up to $250,000 per service account,
with a $1 million city-wide cap.
If additional funds beyond CIP and OBF are ultimately required, then another funding option would be
the Southern California Regional Energy Network's (SoCalREN) Public Agency Master Lease Initiative. It
is a financing mechanism designed specifically for local governments and other public agencies to
address the roadblock caused by the lack of funding available to implement many legitimate municipal
energy efficiency improvement projects. Public agencies can take advantage of low interest rates to
finance both energy efficiency and other sustainability projects using a simple standardized process that
can be tailored to meet individual needs.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this energy study, it is recommended that the City take the following steps:
1. Begin immediately the process of implementing the Building and Park Lighting projects. The
estimated energy savings resulting from these projects (106,241 kWh) should be enough for the
City to reach the highest ELP tier level of PLATINUM (79,613 kWh). Once PLATINUM level is
reached, the City will receive an enhanced incentive of $0.12/kWh on top of the core
commercial incentive rate for the other qualified energy efficiency projects identified in this
10
20
. ··~ ~se sa utians ·
study-i.e., upgrading streetlights. The remaining projects can be carried out as additional
funding becomes available.
2. To accomplish Step 1 in the most cost-effective way, the City should consider taking advantage
of SCE's On -Bill Financing {OBF) program to the fullest extent possible. Through OBF, the City
can fund qualified energy efficiency projects at zero interest and with no fees . For qualified
projects, the City will repay the loan from SCE in monthly installments which would be added as
a line item on the City's electric bill. To qualify for this program, a project must be eligible for
incentives and meet the required 10-year simple payback. The City is allowed to borrow up to
$250,000 per service account, with a $1 million city-wide cap . OBF funds are reserved on a first-
come first-served basis so applying as soon as possible is strongly recommended.
Based on GSE's analysis, the Building and Park Lighting projects appear to be eligible for OBF.
Once the Building and Park Lighting projects are installed and final approval is granted by SCE,
the City would be reimbursed the out-of-pocket costs for these projects, estimated to be
$147,581. This money could then be used to fund other projects identified in this study -i.e.,
upgrading streetlights.
3. The overall estimated payback for upgrading all 2,419 streetlight fixtures to LED lighting, along
with purchasing the LS -1 poles from SCE, is 12.8 years. The expected useful life of the new LEDs
is 22 years and therefore should payback well before they need to be replaced. Consequently, it
is recommended that the City begin discussions with SCE regarding the purchase of the LS-1
streetlights. At the end of this process, the City will know exactly the purchase price of each
pole and a final decision can be made as to whether or not pursue further the project based on
a cleared economic outlook. It is also recommended that the City investigate the possibility of
using the Southern California Regional Energy Network's {SoCalREN) Public Agency Master Lease
Initiative to fund this project.
4. If the City chooses to pursue the implementation of the Loading Order Opportunity at the Civic
Center, then it is recommended that the City reserve CSI incentive funds and develop contractor
bid packages for engineering design and installation.
5. If the City decides to investigate further the installation of a new HVAC system at City Hall and
Community Development building, then it is recommended that City staff engage the SCE's
Savings By Design program to receive additional design engineering support and financial
incentives . The SoCalREN Public Agency Master Lease Initiative is another funding option for
this project, as well as the Loading Order Opportunity.
6. In 2014 and 2015, SCE will begin a mandatory transition of all non -residential General Service
accounts to Time-of-Use {TOU) rates. Non -residential accounts with 12 months of interval
meter data as of July 31, 2013 will be transitioned to mandatory TOU in 2014. All remaining
accounts will make this transition in 2015. It is recommended that the City request SCE to
perform a rate analysis on all General Service accounts to determine future cost impacts.
11
21
. ··~ ~se sa utians ,
Limitations and Disclaimer
The intent of this energy study report is to estimate energy and cost savings associated with the
recommended equipment upgrades for lighting, HVAC and domestic hot water. Appropriate detail is
included in this report to facilitate making a decision about implementing any of these measures at this
facility. However, this report is not intended as a detailed engineering design document. While the
recommendations in this report have been reviewed for technical accuracy and are believed to be
reasonably accurate, the findings are estimates and actual results may vary.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Greg W. Stevens, Principal
GSE So lution s, LLC
760.214.6805
gstevens@gse -solutions.com
12
22