ESPC Net-Zero Challenge
4/8/2015
1
Overview
• President’s Performance Contract
Challenge
• Background on GSA
• Energy Mandates
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• Deep Retrofits
• GSA ESPC Net Zero Renovation
Challenge
• What’s Next?
4/8/2015
2
Progress Targets & Milestone Targets
•
To track Agency progress, CEQ/FEMP has developed Milestone Targets
and Progress Targets
– Milestone Targets are major project development milestones. If an agency fails
to get 100% of its total project investment by the milestone target date, a “ ” is
earned on its Progress Report.
– Progress Targets track agency progress: if an agency’s project investment
amount is not 25, 50, or 75 percent of its Milestone Target by the prescribed
dates, it earns a “ ”.
Development Stages
Commitment Met
75 100
Agency Plans made
50 75 75 100
NOO Released
50 75 75 75 100
Service Provider Selected
25 25 50 50 50 75 75 75 100
Milestone Targets
NOITA Issued
0 25 25 25 50 50 50 75 75 75 100
IGA Submitted
0
0
0
0 25 25 25 50 50 50 75 75 75 100
Awarded
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 25 25 25 50 50 50 75 75 75 100
15-Dec
15-Nov
15-Oct
15-Sep
15-Aug
15-Jul
15-Jun
15-May
15-Apr
15-Mar
15-Feb
15-Jan
15-Dec
15-Nov
15-Oct
15-Sep
2013
15-Aug
15-Jul
15-Jun
15-May
Target Dates →
15-Apr
2012
Total agency project
investment should
equal 100% of its
commitment in the
Development Stage at
the Milestone Target
Date. To demonstrate
adequate progress,
25%, 50%, and 75% of
the agency's total
project investment
should be attained by
the prescribed dates.
Progress Targets
4/8/2015
3
Explanation of Progress Report
Agency Progress Report
As of May 15,
2012, only one
Milestone has
been reached.
The next is due
July 15, 2012
Agency:
Progress toward the investment of $2 billion by December 31, 2013
Agency A
Commitment: $95,000,000
Milestone Targets
occur when 100% of
committed project
investment is at a
milestone stage by
the due date
Source Date: May 15, 2012
Est.
Investment
% of
Value (millions Commitment
USD)
Target Milestones
Target
(As of
5/15/12)
Score
Comments
Project Initiation
Agency has identified projects with investment values equal to
or above its commitment by May 15, 2012
84.96
89%
100%
71.35
75%
75%
56.35
59%
75%
51.35
54%
25%
48.50
51%
25%
22.50
24%
0%
7.40
8%
0%
Project investment total below commitment.
An agency will earn a
red dot if they miss a
Milestone Target
Planning
Agency has developed acquisition plans and target dates by
July 15, 2012
Notice Of Opportunity
Agency has released all Notices of Opportunity by August 15,
2012
Vendor Selection
Project
Development
Milestones
Agency has selected service providers by December 15, 2012
Intent to Award
Agency has issued Notices of Intent to Award by February 15,
2013
Facility Audit
Agency has received an Investment Grade Audit
Award
Agency has awarded project
Legend:
4/8/2015
Meeting all target metrics
Below 25%, 50% or 75% Progress Targets
Missed Milestone Target
No target metric at this stage
Project Investment by Contract
Vehicle
Agency A Investment Distribution Across Stages
$30
$25
Project Investment (milions)
This chart shows the
distribution of the
agency’s current
project investment
among project
development stages as
reported in OMB Max.
“No start/no data” is
the amount of project
investment either not
started or lacking
data.
A grey dot indicates no
Milestone or Progress
Targets are due.
$20
Investment Gap
$15
DOE ESPC
$10
ACOE ESPC
UESC
$5
Other
$0
No
start/No
data
Acquisition
Plan Done
Released
NOO
ESCO
Selected
PA
developed
NOITA
Issued
IGA
Final Prop.
Submitted Submitted
Awarded
Progress Targets
measure total
committed in
progressively higher
25%, 50%, and 75%
levels as the due
date approaches
An agency will earn a
yellow dot if they miss
a Progress Target
This chart breaks
down total project
investment by
contract vehicle
used. The
“Investment Gap” is
the difference
between agency
commitment and
total current project
investment.
4
Resources
• FEMP
• GSA
• Resources available to each of your sites:
FFS, PFs, GFO contracting mentors,
contracting support from DLA, Huntsville,
private contractors. Extensive training and
technical information on the web.
• An extensive ESCO network .
4/8/2015
5
Program Options: A new option for
many small sites
• Most large and medium sites will be well served
through the standard ESPC and UESC offerings.
• Small sites should explore FEMP’s newest
program option: ESPC ENABLE.
• Pilot program designed to make projects at small
sites cost effective for agencies and ESCOs.
• Projects will be executed through GSA Schedule
84, using a new set of automated and
standardized tools and contract templates.
• FEMP has identified five agencies to partner
with to establish agency specific approaches to
4/8/2015
6
implementing ESPC ENABLE projects.
Near Term Deliverables
• May 15: $ Projects ≥ $ Commitment?
• July 15: Acquisition Plans Complete;
Projects’ Timelines Established
• August 15: Notices of Opportunities
Issued
• Federal Environmental Executive will
follow up with agencies not meeting these
milestones to identify strategies /actions to
meet the milestones.
4/8/2015
7
Background on GSA
GSA consists of:
Public Buildings Service (PBS)
Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)
Office of Governmentwide Policy
(OGP)
other staff offices
9,624 buildings in 11 regions
1,530 owned and 8,094 leased (2010)
370.2 million rentable square feet, or 34.4 million square meters
Landlord for 400 federal agencies, bureaus and
commissions with space for over 1,000,000
tenants
4/8/2015
8
GSA Energy Profile
• Currently represents
9.3% of civilian
agency energy
usage, 3.7% of
Federal total
• Has achieved ~16%
in energy reduction
from 2003 baseline
Federal Agency Percent Reduction in Btu/Sq.Ft.
2003-2010
GSA
16.1% per FY10 OMB Scorecard
(source: FY2010 OMB
Scorecard on
Sustainability/Energy)
2015
mandate
-20% -15% -10% -5%
0%
5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
GSA Office of Federal High
Performance Green Buildings
Players
Influences
Research
Adoption
Relationships
Roles
4/8/2015
10
Sustainability & Regulations
Laws
▪ National Environmental Policy Act, 1969
▪ Clean Air Act, 1970; amended 1990
▪ Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 1975
▪ Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, 1976;
amended 1994
▪ National Energy Conservation Policy Act, 1978
▪ Energy Policy Acts, 1992, 2005
▪ Energy Independence and Security Act, 2007
Executive Orders
▪ 13101 Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling & Federal Acquisition
▪ 13123 Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management
▪ 13134 Developing & Promoting Biobased Products and BioEnergy
▪ 13148 Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management
▪ 13327 Federal Real Property Asset Management
▪ 13423 Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management
▪ 13514 Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance
4/8/2015
11
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Recovery Act Portfolio
Energy Use Reduction
• The combined Recovery Act portfolio of Major Modernization
and Limited Scope projects will be 30% more energy efficient
than the CBECS2 national average.
• Recovery Act projects are expected to reduce energy
consumption by 18% across 447 buildings (for Major
Modernization, Limited Scope, and Small Projects).
• Average annual cost savings is an estimated $44.4M per
year.
2 Commercial
Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) national average energy intensity = 90 kBtu/sq. ft
PBS 2003 and 2009 baseline energy intensity on Recovery Act projects from GSA's Energy Usage Analysis System (EUAS)
13
Recovery Act Deep Retrofits
A deep retrofit is a modernization that is anticipated to achieve
an energy reduction of at least 50%.
Of the 45 Recovery Act modernization projects, six are
anticipated to reduce overall energy consumption by at least
50%.
 Five of the deep retrofits are projected to reduce overall
energy consumption from 53%-68%.
Five of the deep retrofit modernizations are utilizing
renewable energy technologies to reduce overall energy
consumption.
An additional twelve limited scope and modernization
projects anticipate achieving an energy reduction between
40% and 50%.
 All Recovery Act buildings undergoing Major
Modernization projects are expected to achieve enough
gains in energy efficiency to meet EISA 2007 requirements.
Recovery Act Case Study
•
•
•
•
Net-zero energy target
Platinum LEED rating goal
Historic Building
123 kW PV array to produce
170,000 kWh a year (greater
than 50% of the building’s
historical annual electricity use)
• Ground source heat pumps
• ECMs: lighting control and
monitoring, demand controlled CO, Grand Junction Wayne N.
Aspinall Federal Building & US
ventilation, plug load
management measures,
Courthouse
thermally improved building
envelope.
• Building physics analysis used
Approach to Net Zero
Recommended Approach
Reduce Demand
4/8/2015
On Site
Renewables
Net
Zero
Source: RMI
16
“Deep Energy” Retrofit
• Process Differentiators
– Building Owner Involvement
– Integrative Design
– Advanced Auditing, Modelling, LCCA
– Ongoing M&V
– Occupant Engagement
• Results:
– Larger Energy Savings
– Improved Project Economics
4/8/2015
17
17
SAVINGS
IN EXCESS
SERVICE
PAYMENTS
PAYMENTS
TO
FINANCING
INSTITUTION
PAYMENTS
TO
UTILITY
PROVIDERS
GUARANTEED PORTION
PAYMENTS
TO
UTILITY
PROVIDERS
AFTER PERFORMANCE CONTRACT
BEFORE PERFORMANCE CONTRACT
Energy Savings Performance Contract
(ESPC)
Zero or positive net impact on existing budgets.
4/8/2015
18
Timing is Key to Profitable Deep Retrofits
•
•
•
•
•
4/8/2015
Planned Capital Improvement
Major Occupancy Change
Major System Replacement
Upgrades to Meet Code
Fixing an “Energy Hog”
19
GSA Use of ESPCs
• $440M invested
in ESPC since
$250
1999
GSA ESPC Investment (DOE IDIQ)
($M)
1
$200
• Renewed GSA $150
$100
interest and
$50
$0
investment in
ESPC ($262M in
FY10-11)
3
0
1
5
6
7
7
0
2
2
1
1
1
GSA proposes to employ a Net Zero ESPC Challenge as a tool to
further accelerate the use of ESPC’s by the GSA regions in
addressing energy reduction goals
4/8/2015
20
ECMs in ESPCs
4/8/2015
21
Background
• October 20, 2011 Administrator Johnson’s
Announcement: GSA Challenges Private
Sector to Reduce Energy Use at Federal
Buildings
• October 27-28, 2011 ESPC Charrette
• December 2, 2012 Presidential
Memorandum
4/8/2015
– $2 billion in performance-based
contracts within 24 months
– Report planned implementation
schedule by 1/31/2012
– Issue NOO in March, 2012
22
GSA Challenge Goals
• Demonstrate best practices for maximizing overall
ESPC project energy savings;
• Advance progress toward EISA goals;
• Accelerate deployment of underutilized and
renewable technologies;
• Further expose GSA regions to DOE ESPC IDIQ
contract process and resulting improvements in
ESCO selection;
• Identify and understand processes necessary to
get to net zero energy;
• Identify structural, contractual and technical
impediments.
4/8/2015
23
GSA Challenge Framework
• Site Selection: GSA selected 30-35 buildings for
competition across multiple regions
• Award Process: Buildings to be awarded with DOE’s
streamlined competition process
• Recognition: Projects to be evaluated by a panel of
independent experts to identify and recognize
exceptional performance in a number of technical categories
1. absolute energy savings of pre-retrofit energy use
2. progress towards Federal Government goals for energy,
water, fossil fuel, renewable energy, and sustainability
3. financial and technical creativity
4. ability to extend best practices to other Federal buildings.
4/8/2015
24
ESPC Charrette
1. Analysis and Integrated Design
2. Project Economics
3. Delivery Process
4. Occupant
Behavior
5. M & V
4/8/2015
25
Analysis and Integrated Design
 Deep savings may not be cost effective
over contract term
 Lack of information on existing buildings
 Typical ESPC process looks at individual
ECMs
 High risk to
guarantee
deep savings
4/8/2015
26
1. Analysis and Integrated Design
Barriers
Solution
1. Deep savings may not be cost effective
over contract term
(No $ available from agencies)




Identify funds available through coordination between
energy managers, master planning and capital
improvement
Find solutions to channel saved space into funding for
Deep Retrofits
Bulk purchasing
Phased implementation of ECMs
2. Lack of info on existing buildings
(metered/utility data)
GSA needs to store and categorize reports/data into
centralized searchable database
3. Typical ESPC process looks at individual
ECMs
Process needs to value bundles of integrated measures
4. Laws tell you to save energy, ESPC
process demands $ savings
Disconnect must be reconciled
5. High risk to guarantee deep savings
(ability to model new technologies)


6. No way to take credit for ‘other’ savings
(O&M, increased productivity, etc.)
4/8/2015
ESCO engineers have experience and judgment
needed
Tools need to keep up with new technologies
GSA needs to develop a standard way to assign value for
these things
27
Project Economics
High financing costs
Integration with planned improvement
projects
Inclusion of avoided future costs in ESPC
including capital and maintenance
Contract duration limits longer payback
measures
4/8/2015
28
ESPC Delivery Process
Months
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
Best-Expedited Schedule
28 days
Project
planning
(28-63 days)
 Work w/FFS
 Form Acq.
Team
 Request PF
132 days
15
TO-RFP
(15-35
days)
Prelim. Assessment
—
ESCO selection
(132-246 days)
 Notice of Opp.
 Select ESCO
 Evaluate PA
 Send NOIA
12.1
mos.
14
30
45 days
days
Site/Agency
Final
Review
Reviews,
(30 days)
Negotiations,
GFO and Award
Review(45-55 days)
(14
days)
105 days
IGA & Final
Proposal
(105 – 150
days)
Longer Schedule
63 days
Project
planning
150 days
IGA & Final Proposal
1
1
3
4
Months
1
5
246 days
PA – ESCO selection
35
TO-RFP IGA & FP
19.5
30
1
55 days
mos.
Site/Agency
GFO
days
4 Final nego’s & award
Review
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
Source: DOE/FEMP
2
4
29
Occupant Behavior
Difficult to quantify energy/cost savings
Limited good examples of “Behavior ECMs”
Hard to incentivize all occupants
ESCOs have
no control over
occupants
4/8/2015
30
Measurement & Verification
• Uncertainty/variability of how building is
operated after installation
• Cost, level of effort, and complexity for
whole building M&V
• Consistency across GSA offices, agencies
and regions
• Improved baseline performance data
4/8/2015
31
Additional Improvement Opportunities
• Improve the ESPC award and M&V process
• Treat O&M as ECM and have ESCO provide
that service
• Allow avoided future replacement costs
• Share risk
• Accept occupant behavior energy use
reduction
• Support multi-building projects
• Improve building energy data base lining
• Renegotiate FEMP contract terms
4/8/2015
32
High Priority Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
4/8/2015
Reduce time to contract award
Redefine eligible savings
Share risk
Combine funding
Multi-building projects, bundling
Consider occupant behavior programs
33
ESPC Challenge Buildings
• 30-35 Buildings
• 18 million sqft
• 100,000 – 800,000
sqft
• $150-250 million
potential project
size
• $7 million annual
savings potential
And The Elephant in the Room
We Need
To Use
Less:
Square
Feet
E X A M P L E: A R R A P R O J E C T
Broad Range of Opportunities and Challenges
- 1975 Federal Building
- Never Upgraded
Plan:
- Updating Cutting Edge ‘Green’
Design
- $133 M from Recovery Act
- Full Building Modernization
- High Aims for Sustainability
and Curb Appeal
- Construction procurement
underway
Portland, OR
EGWW—Shading Reed Construction
THE EXTREME CHALLENGE
Broad Range of Opportunities and Challenges
- Historic 1917 Building
- Last Upgraded in 1935
Plan:
- Modernization with Infill
- $161 M from Recovery
Act, as Phase I
- Must Redesign for
Energy Goals
Washington, D.C.
Renderings
What’s Really Happening in the Office?
Autur and Murmane, 2003
Questions?
Kinga Porst
kinga.porst@gsa.gov
Kevin Kampschroer
kevin.kampschroer@gsa.gov
Sharon Conger
sharon.conger@gsa.gov
FEMP: Dr. Timothy Unruh
Timothy.Unruh@ee.doe.gov
4/8/2015
41
41