1 Project Summary 2
1.1
Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.2
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.3
Client Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
1.4
Student Resumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
2 Energy Use Analysis 10
2.1
Energy Use Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.2
Recommendations for Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.2.1
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.2.2
Electric Vehicle Charging Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.2.3
Onsite Renewable Energy Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
2.3
Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
3 Lighting Retrofit 12
3.1
Assessments and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
3.1.1
Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
3.1.2
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
3.2
Design Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.2.1
Ceiling Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.2.2
Wall Pack Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
3.2.3
Perimeter Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
3.2.4
Rooftop Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
3.2.5
Elevator Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
3.2.6
Lighting Controls System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
3.2.7
Recycling of Old Bulbs and Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
3.2.8
Codes Met by New Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
3.2.9
Computer Renderings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
3.3
Cost Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
4 Electrical Vehicle Charging 17
4.1
Electrical Vehicle Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
4.2
Power Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
4.3
Charging Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
4.4
Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
4.4.1
Proposal 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
4.4.2
Proposal 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
4.4.3
Proposal 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
5 Renewable Energy Assessment 22
5.1
Opportunity Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
5.1.1
Wind Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
5.1.2
Solar Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
5.1.3
Speculated Utility Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
5.2
Design Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
5.2.1
Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
5.2.2
Photovoltaic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
5.2.3
Racking System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
5.2.4
Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
5.2.5
Inverter and Wiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24

5.3
Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
5.4
Additional Client Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
6 Schematic Estimate and Schedule 26
6.1
Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.1.1
Solar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.1.2
Electric Vehicle Charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.1.3
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.1.4
Total Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.2
Installation Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.2.1
Mobilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
6.2.2
PV Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
6.2.3
Lighting Retrofit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
6.2.4
Electric Vehicle Charging Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
6.2.5
Demobilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
7 Financing Plan 28
7.1
Grants, Rebates, & Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
7.1.1
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
7.1.2
Photovoltaics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
7.1.3
Electric Vehicle Charging Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
7.2
Payback Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
7.3
Energy Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
8 Outreach Appendix 30
8.1
Community Energy Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
8.2
Client Feed Back Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
8.3
University Recognition & Publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
8.4
Local NECA Chapter Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
A Lighting
B Electric Vehicle Chargers
35
41
C Renewable Energy
D Schematic Estimate and Schedule
44
47
1

The Pennsylvania State University
0 s NECA Student Chapter formed the Green Energy Challenge team with the goal of increasing the knowledge and application of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies on campus and in the community. Our team, comprised of 25 dedicated multidisciplinary students, reached this goal through professionalism in engineering, communication, and business. Our client, the State College, Pennsylvania Borough, serves the municipality within the limits of a set budget, so it is our mission to meet and exceed their expectations while operating within their budget constraints.
Representatives of the Borough recommended the Fraser Street Parking Garage to be targeted for retrofit because of its high energy usage due to the use of inefficient technologies. Built in 1986, the Fraser Street Garage is a 6 story, 28,000 square foot facility with 315 parking spaces. After an initial site evaluation, it was determined that an analysis would need to be done to evaluate the potential savings of implementing a lighting retrofit, as well as integrating renewable energy and electric vehicle charging stations into the structure.
Lighting, which currently consumes 80% of the buildings annual energy usage, is the first target of our energy retrofit proposal. We are proposing a lighting retrofit which will replace the existing HPS bulbs with direct LED luminaries, which will reduce energy consumed by lighting by 74%. The LEDs provide significant energy savings, while maintaining or exceeding current light levels. Additionally, a lighting control system, consisting of occupancy and daylight sensors, will further increase annual energy savings by limiting the use of lighting when it is not needed.
Also, since LEDs have a projected lifespan 10 times that of HPS, further savings will be recognized in the Boroughs maintenance expenses. This portion of the energy retrofit has an initial cost of $140,000, which results in payback period of 2.6 years and a net present value of $866,700 over a 30 year life span.
Our proposal also aims to integrate onsite renewable energy generation into the buildings existing structure in the form of a 61.25 kW photovoltaic array on the top level of the parking garage. The design includes 240 SunTech modules rated at 255 W each, 1 Solectria 60 kW grid-tied inverter and 3 of Triple Crown carport racking structures.
Factoring in the materials and installation cost of the array, the total cost is just over $290,000. Inputting the orientation of the array and the solar resource of State College, Pennsylvania into NRELs System Advisor Model (SAM), results in a projected annual electricity generation of 74,442 kWh. The projected electricity generation, valued at $0.25/kWh, results in a payback period of 4.4 years and a net present value of $305,000 after a 30 year life span.
Also included in our energy retrofit proposal is the installation of a Level 2 electric vehicle charging station with two connectors provided by U-Go Stations. The purpose of the charging station installation is twofold. The first is to attract owners of electric vehicles to the Fraser Street Parking garage, therefore increasing revenue. The second is to create a revenue stream from the sale of electricity through the charging stations. The company ChargePoint will be utilized to track customer usage and charge appropriate fees. Based on our assumptions, which have been justified through thorough research and investigation, the total installed cost of $13,500 and payback period of 20 years that will be covered by U-GO. This charging station will have a net present value of $0 over the its 20 year life span.
The total cost of the energy retrofit is $540,000. These values were calculated based on an assumed discount rate of 3.50%, an cost of electricity equal to $0.25 per kWh increasing at 3.50% annually.
We would like to utilize the weight factor adjustment and give the 1.4 multiplier to the lighting retrofit and the 0.6
multiplier to the electric vehicle charging station proposal.
State College and Penn State are blessed with just about a dozen parking garages that were eligible for this proposal.
However, the garages owned and operated by Penn State were in the process of retrofit when the guidelines for this competition came out, and therefore were not in need of a retrofit proposal. Of the garages owned by State College, one was built within the last 10 years and therefore did not need significant improvements and other was planned for demolition in the next 10 years and therefore would not reap the full benefits of an energy retrofit.
The final parking garage remaining was the Fraser Street parking garage, which was constructed in 1986. Since its construction, no significant improvements had been made, which meant there was a lot of potential for energy savings
2

projects. Since the Fraser Street parking garage was owned and operated by the Borough of State College, the parking manager Charles Debow, was our client.
During our initial meeting with the Mr. Debow, a few important factors were identified. The first was a budget of $250,000 set aside to improve the Fraser Street parking deck. The second was a payback period of 6 years, which was the limit of the Boroughs comfort zone. Finally, other priorities were identified, such as a very well lit entrance, and well lit levels to create a safe environment for customers. Charley made it clear that our recommendations would be taken seriously and that our guidance was appreciated. Throughout the proposal writing process, Charley played a key role in collecting specific data for us on the buildings energy usage and occupancy schedule.
3

A
P. T
III
214 Knapp Road
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania 18411 apt5051@psu.edu
(570) 687-0304
E DUCATION
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Bachelor of Science in Energy Engineering
Energy Business and Finance Minor
Environmental Engineering Minor
A CTIVITES
Major GPA: 3.43/4.0
Graduation May 2014
National Electrical Contractors Association
- President
• Demonstrated strong written and oral communication through weekly club meetings and emails
• Created project timeline for organization
• Managed multiple teams to meet set deadlines
- Green Energy Challenge - Project Manager
• Wrote a formal energy retrofit proposal of a 250+ car parking garage to meet client’s needs
• Delegated tasks to a team of multidisciplinary engineers
• Supervised a group of technical writers to assemble final proposal
• Analyzed solar/wind utility for a rooftop renewable energy source
• Organized conference calls with professionals for project guidance
American Solar Energy Society
- Solar on State Project Manager
• Crafted proposal for installing a rooftop solar array on campus
• Calculated the cost of materials and labor based on size of array
- Communications Chair
• Commuicatied with other organizations about potential projects and collaboration
• Responsible for organization emails and social media
C
OMPUTER
S
KILLS
December 2012 - Present
November 2012 - Present
January 2013 - Present
April 2013 - Present
Advanced Excel and PowerPoint, MATLAB, Scilab, Mathematica, AutoCAD, CHEMKIN, System Advisor Model, and L TEX
W ORK E XPERIENCE
May 2013 - Present Penn State’s Office of the Physical Plant
- Intern
• Utilized data visualization program
• Found potential energy savings
• Helped a proposal for the installation of hyrdroelectric generators in local dam
4

J
C
222 West Beaver Avenue Unit 307
State College, Pennsylvania 16801 jjc388@psu.edu
(724) 777-4694
E DUCATION
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Bachelor of Science in Energy Engineering
Graduation May 2014
W ORK E XPERIENCE
Cumulative GPA: 3.7/4.0
InnoGreen USA, State College, PA
- Lighting Engineer Intern
January 2013 - Present
• Developed a project reutrn on investment calculator in Excel
• Conducted lighting audits for commercial and residenetial clients
• Drafted proposals for lighting retrofit projects
Center for Academic Achievement, Penn State Beaver
- Peer Tutor
January 2011 - May 2012
• Communicated ideas in several different ways to ensure the student understood the concept
• Tutored peers in Electromagnetism and Mechanics, Calculus 1, 2, 3, and Differential Equations, and Chemistry 1, 2, and
Organic Chemistry
A CTIVITES
National Electrical Contractors Association
- Project Manager
• Led an on-campus energy conservation competition between freshman halls
• Analyze energy consumption from all sources of a campus building
• Manage a multidisciplinary team of engineers to construct an energy retrofit proposal
Society of Energy Engineers
- Social Chair
• Plan and organized social events
• Strengthen camaraderie between Energy Engineering students
Fall 2012 - Present
Fall 2012 - Present
5

B
R
901 S. Allen Street
State College, Pennsylvania 16801 bradrobertson@psu.edu
(717) 413-1096
E DUCATION
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering - Lighting/Electrical Option
Graduation May 2014
W ORK E XPERIENCE
Cumulative GPA: 3.02/4.0
Hempfield School District, Lancaster, PA Summer 2012
• Worked with construction management agency representing the school district during construction of one intermediate school and teo elementary schools
Beiler’s Framing, Lancaster, PA Summer 2011
• Residential framing as well as door and window installation
• Completed townhomes and single family homes
H ONORS AND O RGANIZATIONS
• Vice President of Nation Electrical Contractors Association - Penn State Student Chapter
• Illuminating Engineering Society - Penn State Student Chapter
• Student Society of Architectural Engineers
• United States Green Building Council - Penn State Student Chapter
• ELECTRI Internatiional/NECA Scholarship Award - Fall 2012
• Passed Fundamentald of Engineerings Exam - Spring 2012
• Dean’s List - Spring 2011
• Eagle Scout Recipient - 2007
C OMPUTER S KILLS
AutoCAD 2013, Revit 2013 + Elum Tools, Autodesk 3ds Max 2013, AGi32, Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop CS6, Google
SkethUp
6

R
W. K
J
.
499 Nelson Road
South Fork, Pennsylvania 15956 rwk5159@psu.edu
(814) 495-9937
E DUCATION
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering
Graduation May 2014
O RGANIZATIONS
Cumulative GPA: 3.02/4.0
• Nation Electrical Contractors Association - Penn State Student Chapter
• American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association - Penn State Altoona Chapter
C OMPUTER S KILLS
Microsoft Office, MATLAB, C++, LABView, PicBASIC Pro, MultiSim, UtiliBoard
W ORK E XPERIENCE
The EADS Groups Inc., Somerset, PA
- Survey Techniciam/Intern
• Locate below-ground natural gas pipeline with RF equipment
• Stake-out construction working limits on site
• Opertate TOPCON GR-3 and GR-5G GPS surbey equipment
• Perform tasks as rod-man on survey crew
May 2012 - August 2012
7

K
J. C
28 Periwinkle Drive
Fairport, New York 14450 kic5220@psu.edu
(585) 208-5896
E DUCATION
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering
Graduation May 2016
O RGANIZATIONS
Cumulative GPA: 3.09/4.0
• Nation Electrical Contractors Association Construction Team Leader - Penn State Student Chapter
• Student Society of Architectural Engineers
• The Student Chapter of the Partnership for Achieveing Construction Excellence
• Boulevard Community Service and THON Group
• Club Golf
C OMPUTER S KILLS
AutoCAD, Revit, Advanced Excel, Google SketchUp
W ORK E XPERIENCE
O’Connell Electric, Rochester, NY
- Warehouse Assistant
• Organized materials
• Completed trips to scrapyard for materials
• Delievered materials to job sites
May 2011 - August 2012
8

K
C
D
720 Stratford Drive
State College, Pennsylvania 16801 chanler.dorgan@gmail.com
(610) 597-5505
E DUCATION
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Bachelor of Science in Energy Engineering
Graduation May 2014
L EADERSHIP
Cumulative GPA: 3.66/4.0
Green Energy Challenge
- Electric Vehicle Charging Station Team Leader
• Developed proposal for EV charging to retrofit a 300+ capacity parking garage
• Proposal consists of a design schematic, and energy retrofit analysis, and a financial analysis
United States Army - 82nd Airborne division
- Team Leader and Company Medic
January 2013 - Present
January 2009 - August 2010
• Supervised four platoon medics
– Provided monthly mentoring for the medics’ professional growth
– Delegated assignments and tasks to allo for seamless operations
• Managed health and well-being of 120+ infantry soilders
– Organized immunizations, dental exams, yearly physicals, etc. in order to sustain combat readiness
– Taught medical skills annually
C OMPUTER S KILLS
C++, MATLAB, Mathematica, ChemKin, Advanced Excel
W ORK E XPERIENCE
United States Army Reserve
- Instructor
• Responsible for teaching new soldiers the skills necessary to be an Army Medic
United States Army - Active Duty
- Combat Medic
• Deployed twice in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
– July 2009 - August 2010 as company medic
– March 2007 - March 2008 as platoon medic
A CTIVITIES
• SAE International Student Member
• Penn Stae Racing - Formula SAE Member
• Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society Member
• Society of Energy Engineers
• Meals on Wheels Volunteer
9
January 2011 - September 2012
January 2006 - January 2011
January 2013 - Present
August 2012 - Present
January 2013 - Present
August 2012 - Present
Feburary 2012 - May 2012

The energy usage data from June 2011 to January 2013 for the Fraser Street parking garage is shown in Figure 1. It is important to note that this energy consumption does not include the businesses attached to the parking garage, because they are metered separately and are therefore not part of this analysis.As seen in Figure 2, the lighting of the
Fraser Street parking structure consumes approximately 80% of the total energy consumption. The remaining 20% is composed of the elevators, bathrooms, attendants office, gates, pay stations and other small mechanical equipment.
2.2.1
Lighting
Currently the majority of the lighting fixtures contain 70 Watt High Pressure Sodium
(HPS) bulbs. After taking the ballast into account, each fixture consumes 90 Watts, which results in a consumption of 258,000 kWh per year. The plan is to retrofit the parking garage with Lithonia LEDs, which along with lower energy consumption, will also have decreased labor and maintenance costs. With these renovations, the lighting will now only consume 56,000 kWh per year, which is a 78.3% reduction in energy consumption.
Currently, there are no lighting controls systems within the garage which means the
Figure 1: Energy usage data collected from local
HPS fixtures are on 24 hours and day, 7 days a week. The proposal includes controls utility company.
which monitor the light levels and occupancy at all times. They control the light output accordingly via various light sensors, which allow for greater energy savings.
2.2.2
Electric Vehicle Charging Station
Based on research of the State College area, an assumed 261 customers per year, with 21.5 kWh batteries, will stay in the garage for 3.5 hours per day resulting in the consumption of roughly 5,600 kWh per year.
Additionally, electric fleet vehicles could also be utilized by the Borough, with an assumed 24 kWh battery, will require about 2,500 kWh per year. Therefore the energy consumption through the charging station is projected to be approximately 8000-10,500 kWh per year, depending on whether the borough wants to invest in 1 or 2 fleet vehicles.
Figure 2: Annual energy consumption of the Fraser Street garage.
Lighting con-
2.2.3
Onsite Renewable Energy Generation sumes the majority of the energy in the garage.
Both solar and wind energy generation were considered equally in this proposal. However, solar was deemed to be the superior technology in terms of dollars spent to kWh generated, so wind was removed from the scope of this proposal. By designing around shading constraints and utilizing the existing structure, while aiming to keep the array
0 s energy production within the projected energy loads after retrofit, resulted in an array with a rated peak power production of 61.25 kW. This system will provide approximately 85% of the annual energy needs for the retrofitted structure.
After performing a lighting audit, a feasibility study was conducted to determine if a lighting retrofit would be a wise investment. The variables required to perform the study were the total number of bulbs, the power consumption of each bulb, schedule of use, the projected lifetime of each bulb, the cost of each bulb, and the replacement labor cost for
10

each bulb. Once these variables were determined, they were compared to the specifications of an alternative lighting solution, such as LEDs.
Next, the cash flows were compared for each scenario to determine which had the best net present value. The following assumptions had to be made to compare the cash flows of the existing to the proposed retrofit.
Electricity Cost ($/kWh)
HPS Labor Replacement Cost ($)
LED Labor Replacement Cost ($)
0.25
3,000
3,000
HPS Material Replacement Cost ($) 3,125
LED Material Replacement Cost ($) 34,820
Discount Rate 3.50%
Table 1: Assumptions
Power Consumption (W)
Lifetime (Hours)
90
24,000
Table 2: HPS Specifications
Power Consumption (W)
Lifetime (Hours)
25
100,000
Table 3: LED Specifications
Creating a cash flow diagram for each scenario allowed for a side by side comparison to be made. Since each scenario only has expenses without any sources of revenue, the scenario with the least negative net present value is desired. Subtracting the NPV of the existing scenario from the proposed scenario shows the potential savings. The point in time at which the difference between NPVs switches from negative to positive is the payback period. If the payback period occurs within the clients desired timeframe of 6 years while keeping the initial costs within the clients budget, then the investment is recommended. The 30 year NPV reported is the difference in NPVs for both scenarios, where a positive number indicates a favorable investment.
After constructing the cash flow diagrams for each scenario using the previously stated assumptions and specifications, it was clear that switching to LEDs was a wise investment. From analysis of the cash flow diagram it can be seen that the payback period occurs before year three, indicating a payback period of 2.5 years. Examining the cash flow into the future as a result of implementing the lighting retrofit shows a NPV of $332,054 in year 10, $644,569 in year
20, and $866,701 in year 30, which is the end of the analysis period. All NPV calculations were performed under the assumed 3.5% discount rate, and electricity escalation rates were ignored in order to keep the analysis conservative.
The results of the feasibility study concluded that the investment was within the clients desired budget and payback period, therefore a more in depth and precise calculation was needed in order to move forward with the project. More detailed calculations of the lighting retrofit can be been in the Section 3 of this proposal. Proposals for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and a solar photovoltaic array can be seen in sections 4 and 5, respectively.
11

3.1.1
Assessments
The existing lighting system consists of several different types of fixtures and bulbs, mainly 70W HPS. The primary consideration of this proposal is the replacement of the following fixtures:
• (214) Ceiling Flush Mounted 70W HPS Luminaires
• (67) Wall Mounted 70W HPS Luminaires
• (17) Decorative 70W HPS Perimeter Luminaires
• (16) Pole-Mounted 400W Metal Halides
• (16) 13W CFL Recessed Elevator Luminaires
There is no existing control system which reduces the lighting when the facility is not occupied.
After meeting with the client and performing an analysis of the existing lighting system, several areas in need of improvement were identified. The yellow light made the overall appearance inside the garage very unpleasant, while a whiter, more vibrant light was desired for the entire facility, which will allow for better vision and an overall safer environment for the customer. The client emphasized that they wanted the entrance to be bright to display to the customer the garage was a safe, well lit facility. The client also emphasized the desire for reduced maintenance and labor costs for the facility. The clients satisfaction will be the driving force behind the proposed lighting system.
3.1.2
Recommendations
In order to fulfill the requests of the client, two new system options will be proposed. The first are a complete fixture replacement of the ceiling flush mounted 70W HPS fixtures, wall mounted 70W HPS fixtures, decorative 70W HPS perimeter fixtures, and pole-mounted 400W metal halide rooftop lighting. These fixtures will be replaced with long lasting, energy efficient LED fixtures. The light produced by the LED luminaires will have a color temperature of
4000K, a significant improvement from the existing color temperature of 2000K. Light levels will be improved from the existing levels and will meet or exceed IES recommendations. The switch to LED fixtures eliminates the need for ballasts which further reduces the energy needed to power the lighting system. The maintenance and labor costs of the
LED system will be a fourth of the existing system, with LED luminaires having four times the lifespan as the HPS bulbs.
The second system proposed is a lighting control system which will utilize both occupancy sensors and daylight sensors to take advantage of the natural light entering the garage and dim unoccupied areas. An analysis was performed comparing using the occupancy sensors on every fixture to using occupancy sensors to control larger zones, and the pros and cons of each scenario were evaluated. This purpose of using the control systems is to decrease the energy consumption of the parking garage by only using the appropriate level of lighting.
A LED retrofit kit was analyzed for the lighting system proposal, however the team decided against this option for several reasons. The main reason was the overall cost of the LED retrofit kit. Although the LED retrofit kit would be cheaper to purchase than an all new fixture, the installation cost would greatly increase the overall price of the retrofit kit. The crew would have to take down the fixture, install the retrofit kit, clean the lenses of the fixture, and fix any problems before reinstalling the fixture. This extensive labor would add to the overall cost of construction, increasing the lost revenue from the longer construction process. The second reason was the overall appearance of the fixtures.
With the retrofit kit, the existing fixtures would remain which are very plain, old metal boxes. By replacing these fixtures with a new, clean, streamlined LED product, the garage will have an innovative appearance that will greatly improve the customers experience.
The team decided to choose Lithonia products for the proposed lighting system. Lithonia is a well-known and highly recommended company in the lighting industry that delivers reliable, top of the line products. Blair Malcom, a
Professional Engineer at the Office of Physical Plant at Penn State, highly recommends and installs Lithonia products for all lighting projects at the University. Mr. Malcoms recommendations made the team confident in proposing
Lithonia products for the Fraser Street Parking Garage.
12

The luminaires were analyzed in AGi32 to ensure that the lumen output met the IES recommended illuminance values. Existing light levels in the garage were taken using a light meter and were compared to the new levels produced by the proposed fixtures.
3.2.1
Ceiling Fixtures
The D-Series LED Parking Garage luminaire from Lithonia was chosen to replace the ceiling mounted HPS fixtures.
These will replace the existing fixtures one for one. They were chosen because of their better light quality, reduced power consumption, and the ability to be controlled. To ensure the D-Series LED Parking Garage luminaire will provide sufficient levels of light, the fixture was analyzed in AGi32. This fixture provides an average illuminance of
3.64 fc, with a maximum of 5.7 fc across a typical level of the garage. A calculation grid for a typical level is shown in the lighting appendix in Figure 12. The red lines surrounding the center columns mark the IES recommendation of 1.25 fc, showing illuminance values throughout the garage exceed the recommendation. Through controls, the light level can be reduced to become closer to the recommended value and therefore consume less energy. As the
LED lumen output reduces over time, the controls can increase the power supplied to the luminaire to maintain the light output at the desired level. With the replacement of the existing fixtures to the D-Series LED luminaire, energy consumption will be cut by 72%. The before and after specification comparison is shown in Table 4.
Type Brand Model Number Power Consumption
(W)
Plusrite PR-2002 90
Life Hours Lumen
Output
Color Temperature (K)
70 W HPS
Ceiling and
Wall Fixture
D-Series Size
1 LED Wall
Luminaire
WSQ LED
Architectural
Wall Scone
D-Series
LED Parking Garage
Luminaire
Lithonia
Lithonia
Lithonia
DSXW1
W SQ-LED
DSXPG
20
24
25
24,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
6,300
1,753
2,005
2,339
2,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
Table 4: Before and after specifications of ceiling, wall pack, and perimeter fixtures
To ensure the concrete support beams will not interfere with the light emitted from the ceiling fixture, the team calculated the angle from the luminaire, to the bottom of the concrete support beam. The concrete beam is 9ft from the fixture and the concrete beam extends 2ft downward. The angle was calculated to be 12.5
◦
. To find the maximum allowed beam angle of the luminaire, we subtracted 12.5
◦ from 90
◦ to obtain 77.5
◦
. With a beam angle of 70
◦
, the proposed D-Series luminaire will not be hindered by the concrete support.
Therefore, there are twice as many luminaires in the garage entrance than there are in the other parking levels. A one for one fixture replacement will provide the garage with the bright entrance the client is looking for.
The team analyzed the option of reducing the total number of fixtures. This option was decided against because the fixtures would need to be relocated to ensure an even light distribution. The existing wiring is within the concrete structure and a new layout would require costly drilling. This process would cause the labor to be too expensive and therefore not a feasible option. Therefore, it was concluded a one for one fixture replacement with dimming capabilities would be the most cost effective option.
3.2.2
Wall Pack Fixtures
The team recommends the D-Series LED Wall Luminaire. This luminaire will provide better light quality, dimming capabilities, and reduced energy consumption. The illuminance values were calculated and analyzed to ensure the
13

luminaire would provide sufficient lighting. The photometrics can be seen in Figure 13, which shows the illuminance levels in the stairwell. The proposed luminaires exceed the recommended illuminance values at an average of 18 fc in the stairwells. Controls will reduce this value to half of the lumen output when not occupied. This fixture will reduce the energy consumption by 22% from the existing fixture consumption. The before and after specification comparison is shown in Table 4.
3.2.3
Perimeter Fixtures
The existing decorative fixtures and the remaining wall mounted 70W HPS fixtures located on the perimeter will be replaced by Lithonias WSQ LED Architectural Wall Scone. This will be done to give the outside of the garage a clean, uniform look rather than having two different styles of fixtures on the perimeter of the structure. These fixtures will provide an improved quality of light, compared to the yellow light that the existing perimeter luminaires provide.
Energy consumption for the perimeter will be cut by 73% with the installation of these LED fixtures. The before and after specification comparison is shown in Table 4.
3.2.4
Rooftop Fixtures
The existing 400W metal halide lamps on the roof will be replaced with three different types of luminaires. The poles that the existing luminaires are mounted on are located where the supports for the solar arrays will be placed. The solar arrays will require the removal of these mounting poles because of the shading they will impose on the array.
New poles of 9.5 ft will be installed along the perimeter to mount the Lithonia D-Series LED Area luminaires. These mounting poles will be strategically placed so that they will not hinder the sunlight from striking the solar arrays while still achieving the goal of lighting the parking level. Lithonia D-Series LED parking garage luminaires will be placed underneath the solar array to illuminate the parking spots below the arrays. A flood light will be placed on the south most elevator shaft to illuminate the parking deck without blocking the sunlight from striking the panels. See Figure
14 in the lighting appendix for lighting levels. The thin black lines are the aiming locations of the pole mounted luminaires. The blue luminaires are the ones which will be under the solar array. The average illuminance across the top level is 2.62 fc. This rooftop lighting will consume 29% of the energy of the existing rooftop lighting. See Figure
15 in the lighting appendix for the proposed luminaire layout. The before and after specification comparison is shown in Table 5.
Color Temperature (K) Type
400 W Metal
Halide
LED Flood
Luminaire
LED Pole-
Mounted
Fixture
LED Ceiling
Fixture
Brand Model Number Power Consumption
(W)
Sylvania 64819 400
Lithonia
Lithonia
Lithonia
DSXF2 LED
DSX1 LED
DSXPG
115
115
25
Life Hours
20,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
Lumen
Output
36,000
10,230
10,230
2,339
Table 5: Rooftop Luminaire Comparison Chart
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
3.2.5
Elevator Lighting
The elevator lighting will be replaced with the Utilitech 7.5W A19 Warm White Luminaire, which is in a recessed fixture. This replacement will provide the equivalent amount of light as the existing 13W CFL, using 58% of the energy. The LED bulb will provide a more precise light pattern than the CFL, eliminating wasted light. The extended life hours of the LED will also reduce the maintenance cost associated with the elevator lighting, with the LED lasting almost twice as long as the CFL. The before and after specification comparison is shown in Figure 3.2.5A .
14

Type
13 W CFL
LED Bulb
Brand Model Number Power Consumption
(W)
Utilitech
Utilitech
L13T6/27K
LA19DM/LED
13
7.5
Life Hours
15,000
25,000
Lumen
Output
900
450
Table 6: Elevator Luminaire Comparison Chart
Color Temperature (K)
3,000
3,000
3.2.6
Lighting Controls System
The lighting team decided to propose two separate options for the lighting control system. The two options proposed are the nLight Control System and the sensor per fixture option. Both systems will be explained below in depth along with the pros and cons of each. The team will make their recommendation but the client can delineate between choices.
The nLight Control System from Acuity Brands Controls allows for complete zone control of all lighting in the garage. This system will allow for an entire level to turn on when an occupancy sensor on that level is tripped. This will allow for great customer satisfaction and security. This system is composed of a gateway, bridges, cat5 cable, occupancy sensors, and dual sensors being capable of detecting both occupancy and daylight. The garage will be broken up into 13 zones, each zone being a complete length of parking spaces. Each zone will be controlled by connecting the fixtures with cat5 cable as well as connecting the sensors that will control that zone. The sensors will be placed at the doorway of each stairwell, each turn of the garage, and in the center of the garage. The cat5 cable from each zone will run to a bridge which can accept up to 8 zones. Since there will be 13 zones, two bridges will be used. The bridges will be connected to the gateway which will be located in the utility room. The garage tenant can access and control the entire system using the Sensor View Software. This is convenient for the facility because if the light output is unsatisfactory, it can be changed using this software. The team is conservatively estimating a 40% energy savings from the proposed lighting system with this control system based on the schedule of use provided by the client.
The sensor per fixture option uses the SBOR 10 ODP as a motion and daylight sensor for each of the ceiling and wall mounted luminaires located in the parking levels and stairwells. These sensors will come installed on the fixtures from the factory with the desired settings our team has chosen for each fixture type for an additional $56 per fixture, which can be found in Table 15 in the lighting appendix for programming function settings. These settings can be changed on site if the light output needs any modifications. The SBOR 10 is meant for 8-15 ft mounts and the radius can cover over twice the mounting area in a 360
◦ formation. In the main garage, the luminaires will be mounted at
9.5 ft, meaning that the attached sensors will cover up to approximately 57 ft of walking motion (See Figure 16). In the stairwells, the sensors will be mounted at 8 ft, covering about 24 ft in a 180
◦ fashion. With these controls, we are conservatively estimating 50% energy savings in our energy and financial analysis based on the schedule of use provided by the client.
The nLight Control System will offer a better experience for the customer. The areas occupied by the customer will illuminate all at once, making the customer feel safe when they enter any part of the garage. The negative side of this system is it is more labor intensive to install and the energy savings are not as great. The sensor per fixture option will have a greater impact on energy savings and it will have no added labor costs because the sensors will come pre-installed. This bi-level control system has been used in the Eisenhower Parking Garage on Penn States campus and has performed very well with much customer satisfaction. The unoccupied light levels will provide enough light to maintain a safe environment in the garage so the customer still feels safe for both systems. Overall the sensor per fixture option is more expensive but will decrease the construction time.
The team recommends the nLight Control System option because it will provide a better experience for the customer. This system will also be very easy for the attendant to adjust lighting levels in all areas of the garage using the Sensor View Software. The extended construction process for this system will be worth the improved customer experience and overall control of the system.
3.2.7
Recycling of Old Bulbs and Fixtures
The old fixtures and bulbs will be recycled in order to comply with environmental standards and minimize the impact of the construction process. The bulbs will be recycled at a price of $1.70 per bulb through Energy Stewards, an energy retrofit company local to State College. The fixtures will be stripped apart in order to properly recycle the remaining metal and the plastic components. The plastic lenses can be collected and taken to one of the two Centre County
15

miscellaneous plastics drop-off locations. The metal scrap from the light fixtures will be collected and transported to
Dannys Metals in Altoona, Pennsylvania. A rough estimate for the savings earned by scrapping the metal was done using listed scrap metal prices and the assumption that the metal material used for the lighting fixtures is steel, seen in
Table 7).
Fixture Material Weight (lbs) # of Units Total Weight (lbs) Price Per Weight Total Price
Ceiling Steel 7.3
214 1562.2
$0.13
$203.09
Wall
Plastic
Steel
7.3
3.65
214
67
214
244.55
$0.13
$31.79
Perimeter
Rooftop
Plastic
Steel
Glass
Steel
Glass
0.5
15
5
15
1
67
17
17
4
16
33.50
255
85
60
16
$0.13
$33.15
$7.80
Total Savings $275.83
Table 7: Savings from recycled fixtures
3.2.8
Codes Met by New Fixtures
As shown in Table 8, the proposed LED replacements will provide lighting levels that exceed the recommended lighting levels. These levels can be adjusted using the Sensor View Software as needed.
Location
Parking Level
Entrance
Stairwell
IES Recommendations (fc) Pre-existing Levels (fc) LED Replacements (fc)
1.25
50
2.25
9.57
12.08
8.92
3.64
56
18
Table 8: Recommended, Pre-existing, and Proposed Lighting Levels
3.2.9
Computer Renderings
Refer to Figures 17 and 18 in the lighting appendix.
The installation of the proposed system will have a large impact on energy use with an estimated overall reduction of
85%. The overall cost of the luminaires and control system will be $138,000 (See Tables 9 and 16 for system costs).
Tables 17 and 18 are of the existing and proposed systems’ energy consumption can be found in the lighting appendix.
Fixture
Lithonia D-Series LED Parking Garage
Lithonia D-Series LED Wall Luminaire
Lithonia WSQ LED Architectural Wall Scone
Lithonia Pole-Mounted LED D-Series LED Area Luminaire
Lithonia D-Series LED Flood Luminaire
5 W LED Bulb
Total
Total with Control System
# of Fixtures Unit Price
220 $432.00
60
24
$380.50
$406.25
5
1
16
326
Cost
$95,040.00
$22,830.00
$9,750.00
$1,000.00
$5,000.00
$458.90
$458.90
$9.85
$157.60
$133,236.50
$139,451.50
Table 9: LED Luminaire Costs. Control System Costs are shown in Table 16.
16

In State College, the closest electric vehicle charging station is located at a Nissan dealership outside of town. The dealership has three Level 2 chargers, but since it lies 3.5 miles from downtown, it does not provide easy access to restaurants and shopping destinations. With the downtown area bordering the university, the close proximity of the garage provides benefits to those involved in activities on campus as well.
From data provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), there are 1,904 electric vehicles in Pennsylvania and approximately 217 electric vehicles within one hour of State College. The average length of time a car stays at the Fraser Street Parking Garage is 3.5 hours with 1,500 cars per day during fall, winter and spring decreasing to 1,000 cars per day during the summer. The structure presently contains the necessary three phase transformer for both Level 1 and 2 chargers, and the borough has the ability to charge for the electricity used, which will be discussed in more detail in the financial analysis section.
The electric vehicle market suffers from the chicken and egg predicament. Businesses are hesitant to invest in electric vehicle charging stations due to the uncertainty of future sales of electric vehicles. Consumers are also cautious about purchasing an electric vehicle because of limited availability of charging stations. As word spreads the charging station in the Fraser Street Parking Deck, commerce will increase as more electric vehicle owners will be able to travel to State College with the ability to charge their vehicles for the return trip.
Utilizing an outside firm to install the charging stations provides benefits to both parties. The borough benefits from the image of being progressive and environmentally friendly, while increasing traffic and therefore sales through their local stores and restaurants. The firm benefits from exposure by becoming a well known leader in the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. Once consumers and business owners are familiar with the company installing the charger for the borough, they are likely to contact the same company for their own projects.
Forecasts constructed by Pike Research, part of Navigant Research, indicate a steady rise in the sales of all hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles. The study uses the following assumptions to assess annual sales:
Key Topics
Vehicle Availability
North America Economics
Assumptions
Current Steady Growth
Petroleum
Prices
Government tives
Fuel
Incen-
Slow economic rebound in the US expected to persist through 2014, after which growth will increase 4%.
Based of petrolum fuel pricing rates, diesel prices forecasted to grow about 4.5% annually across the world; gasoline is expected to grow at 5.7% annually.
Assumes current PEV and HEV incentives remain in place throughout the forecast period or price decreases for reduced incentives.
Government Emissions/Fuel Economy
Regulations
Current and planned regulations in place in the US will continue and will be enacted within the state timeframe.
Total Vehicle Market Growth of overall vehicle market will also effect EV market.
Table 10: Assumptions for Annual Electric Sales, World Markets: 2010-2020 (Pike Research)
Under these assumptions, the following projection assumes a 39% compound annual growth rate of the global plug-in electric vehicle market. Projections specific to the United States show a growth rate of about 30% annually.
Consumers continue to cite insufficient driving range as a reason they are not interested in plug-in electric vehicles
(PEVs). To assess consumer demand, preferences, and price sensitivity for PEVs and electric vehicle charging equipment (EVCE), Pike Research conducted a web-based survey of 1,001 consumers in the United States in the fall of
2012. Unfortunately, the 40% of people interested dropped to 35% from 2011, mostly due to the insufficient driving range. However, overall interest still holds a majority over those not at all interested. This research can be seen in the electric vehicle appendix as Figure 19.
17

Figure 3: Annual Electric Vehicle Sales by Vehicle Type, World Markets: 2012-2020 (Pike Research)
Electric vehicles provide a greener alternative to personal transportation. However, cleanliness of electric vehicles relies heavily on the origin of the energy consumed. If electricity solely comes from a coal-powered plant, the electricity associated with charging an EV is not much cleaner than driving a fuel efficient gasoline powered vehicle. Analysis of the boroughs method of purchasing power addresses this issue.
Currently, the borough has a 3-year contract negotiated that expires on June 30, 2013. The process to obtain a new multi-year contract is currently underway. A benefit of the multi-year contract relates to peak usage. The borough pays the same rate no matter the time of day, which means there will be no additional cost if demand for EV charging is during peak hours. The annual consumption for the borough is approximately 3 million kWh; additionally, the borough purchases RECs (Renewable Energy Credits) for every kWh consumed.
Purchasing RECs is quite significant in many regards. First and foremost, it shows the commitment of the borough, and the influence of the community, for a clean, sustainable future. Second of all, it makes the argument for EV chargers more enticing. As a consumer, one can be happy knowing their EV is using clean energy to charge while enjoying downtown State college. As a community, incorporating electric vehicles into the existing fleet for the borough reduces fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. Combined with the fact that the borough purchases RECs for every kWh consumed, and there is essentially no environmental impact for charging any EV.
Due to the current electric vehicle environment and the preceding criteria, Level 3 charging becomes an infeasible option. This levels technology is the newest and most efficient but therefore the most expensive. Since there are presently only 12 electric vehicles within Centre County (PennDOT), the most expensive option is not recommended at this time. With growing demand for EVs, investment in a Level 3 charger will become more attractive and community interest will catalyze future consideration.
Electric vehicles include a Level 1 charging cord with their purchase and can simply run off a household wall outlet.
Commercially, these are the least expensive and provide the slowest charge with a complete recharge time of a battery of eight hours. Individuals with a full-time job near the parking garage may benefit from Level 1 charging, as well as fleet vehicles which would likely be charging overnight. The borough does not currently have any electric vehicles in its fleet but have considered switching some internal combustion vehicles to electric. The following proposals suggest a few reserved parking spots during certain hours for borough vehicles to charge, presumably during night hours when the garage has more capacity.
Level 2 chargers provide a good ratio of charge time to cost. The pricing range is anywhere from $1,500 to over
$10,000 depending on options and a typical full charge needs about 3-4 hours. The parking garage is located in downtown State College, which offers restaurants, shopping, nightlife, and community activities such as live theatre, all of which is merely a few blocks away. This levels faster charge time has potential to draw EV owners in from farther away, which benefits State College as a whole. Also, as technology improves, batteries will inherently have a higher capacity, which means that Level 2 chargers will provide a good value for future batteries. Although a higher
18

Figure 4: Advantages and disadvantages of level 1, 2, and 3 electric vehicle chargers.
capacity battery will require additional time for a full charge, this time amplifies with installation of only Level 1 chargers.
The following three proposals analyze the profitability of the boroughs installation an EV charging station and replacing an existing fleet vehicle with an electric vehicle. A statistical analysis of the amount of EVs per year parking in the garage produces an assumption of 261 customer vehicles. The ratio of electric vehicles with respect to all registered passenger vehicles within one hour of Centre County generates the statistical analysis postulating the assumed amount of electric vehicles per year, provided that 1,000 vehicles park per day during the summer and 1,500 per day during the school year. An average of the battery sizes for EVs currently in the market approximates an appropriate cost of the electricity per full charge. Information requested from the borough describes an average of 3.5 hours stay per customer. This length of stay supplies a full charge for an EV customer, which each proposal assumes. 261 full charges per year may be too liberal of an assumption, so more conservative numbers were also used to produce a range of possible results.
Net present values span over the course of twenty years and incorporate the installment of charging stations along with new electric fleet vehicles. The Nissan Leaf has one of the lowest lease rates per month and was selected as the optimal choice for the new fleet vehicle. Financial calculations take into account the Leafs 24 kWh battery.
Each proposals value compares to the continued usage of leased and purchased internal combustion vehicles. Fully purchased vehicles have a lifetime of ten years in the proposals. Maintenance costs applicable to both electric and IC vehicles add into the operational costs. Some costs, such as oil changes and battery changes, only apply to IC vehicles.
Along with those costs, the operational costs take into account fuel and electricity charges to gauge the amount of savings over a twenty-year period. Capital costs described within each proposal include purchases of electric vehicles, unless leased and variable charging station costs. Tables 19, 20, 21, and 22 show the assumptions made for the given proposals and can be found in the electric vehicle appendix
19

4.4.1
Proposal 1
After surveying existing examples of EV charging in municipal parking garages, many cities do not generate revenue from EV owners. In this case, the borough funds the installment of Level 1 and 2 chargers as well as electricity usage by customers and fleet vehicles. During the evening hours, when the garage has minimal capacity, fleet vehicles recharge using the designated spots with Level 1 charging. For these spots, outlets will need to be installed but customers and fleet vehicles will supply the charging cord included in their vehicles purchase.
Customers have access to the installed Level 2 charger at all times. This proposal selects the Schneider Electric
EV230PDR Level 2 charger for the following reasons:
• Comes with 2 cords to charge 2 cars simultaneously
• One of the most inexpensive Level 2 chargers with 2 cords
• No type of interface is needed to track usage, since there will be no additional monetary charge for electricity
• SAE J1772 fitting most compatible/universal fitting
• 18 ft. cord should accommodate all vehicles
• Supplied by National Car Charging at $2,499
4.4.2
Proposal 2
Charging customers for their electricity usage creates a revenue stream which aids in the recovery of the costs of installing charging stations. This route requires a different approach in selecting the types of chargers. Tracking usage is necessary to recover the cost of electricity and make a profit. The previously selected Level 2 charger has no interface to facilitate this.
The most important additional feature required for this charger is the capability to accept payments. Currently, consumers must pay for the duration of the stay before returning to their car. Although it adds an extra step for the consumer, paying separately at the charging station is the fairest way to accurately charge for the amount of electricity consumed.
The Leviton CTHCN-S Level 2 charger fits these criteria. A mounting system and cable assembly must also be purchased along with the CTHCN-S Gateway head unit for a fully functioning product. First, the gateway head unit comes with CDMA, which allows multiple users, or local charging units, to be multiplexed over one physical channel.
Additionally, the head unit includes a contactless Credit Card RFID reader, creating a convenient and accessible payment system for vehicle owners to pay for their electricity usage. The contactless Credit Card is known as Chargepass and allows drivers to access and energize the station. Chargepass is part of the overall Chargepoint network. The
CTHCN-S charger is also dual port, which is practical for the commercial location and gives maximum access to the station. The cost of the head unit alone is $3,715, which is reasonable and affordable for its use in the garage. The cable assembly is the Leviton CTCL1-30; due to the dual port nature of the charger, two of these products would need to be purchased. These cables are 25 feet long, which is fitting for the garage where cars are variable in size, model and distance from the charging station. The cables have SAE J1772 fitting, which is the most compatible and universal for different types of electric vehicles. The 2 cables would cost $4443.48 together.
Finally, the mounting system is the Leviton CTMB2 Bollard system for dual port stations. The mount is 55.5
inches tall and 8.5 inches wide, which would not take up too much space in the garage. The CTMB2 system is
$1,236.96. In total, this charging station, cable assembly and mounting system would cost $9,395.44.
PEP Stations also gave a price estimate for a Level 2 commercial charger. The PS2000 charging unit is $7,100, along with $565 for the station installation kit. The PS2000 is also subject to a $180/year service fee, so the price difference between the chargers would not be too significant after the first year. This charging station is fitting, yet it does not come with Chargepoint, like the Leviton product. Chargepoint is part of Coulomb Technologies and includes public charging stations, a consumer subscription plan, and utility management technology for electric companies.
The Chargepoint network includes 24/7 driver assistance, station location finder, station availability, trip mapping, driver billing and driver notification services. This customer service is extremely useful and helpful for not only the electric vehicle owners, but also for the garage itself.
Generating revenue from charging customers for electricity usage saves the borough over $20,000 after twenty years with the caveat that 261 EVs park per year and fully charge their battery. Under a more cautious condition of only fifty full charges per year, the borough loses between $2,000 and $8,000 over the next twenty years.
20

4.4.3
Proposal 3
Enabling a company to cover all costs of installation, and incur a large portion of the revenue generated, eases the effort made by the boroughs constrained budget with little to no upfront costs. U-Go Stations partners with NECA and provides these services. Once this company conducts a site analysis and concludes that a project is viable, they cover the costs of installation. U-Go participates in a revenue sharing model, which means that part of the revenue will be given to the borough.
After discussing the proposal with U-Go executive, Mickey McLaughlin, their company voiced interest in our parking garage. This endeavor provides their company with exposure and public access to their charging stations, while the borough frees itself of all installation and customer electricity costs. The revenue incurred from U-Gos financial model works on an hourly basis that pales in comparison to the second proposal provided. However, 5% of their generated revenue goes to the borough and after five to ten years that portion of the shared revenue increases sometimes up to 12%.
An estimate of $3.50 per hour grants the borough with almost $140 revenue per year. With increasing demand of electric vehicles, which expects to grow by 30% by 2020, an increase in revenue sharing boosts the yearly profit to about $430. This value is a fraction of the profit made by the second proposal, but responsibility of future needs plays an important role when deciding on the best choice.
Since U-Go is a specialized contractor, consistently adapting and even paving the way for the future, the business model will not only be subject to more profitable change, but will be in the hands of those with more experience.
Instead of leaving all responsibility within the borough, who may implement but then fail to build upon this plan, the long term feasibility of installing a charging station and adapting to larger battery capacities will fall under U-Go jurisdiction. Also, compared to continued use of internal combustion vehicles, U-Go generates the largest amount of saving considering a more cautious amount of EVs parking per year. With the assumption of 261 electric vehicles per year, the third proposal increases in savings but does not exceed the second proposal.
21

Figure 5: This graph from windographer demonstrates that from the obtained data, the wind speed is below the cut-in wind speed of 5 mph for over half of the year.
Parking garages can generate renewable energy because of their unobstructed rooftops and can feature as key sustainable design elements. For the power generation aspect of the project, both wind and solar power were possible energy resources that were considered. The specific technologies considered were wind turbines and photovoltaic modules. Wind and solar resource, structural loads, and zoning issues were considered in determining which of these technologies would be implemented in this retrofit.
In State College there is a relatively good solar resource and a weak wind resource, as will be described below.
Also photovoltaic modules are by definition, modular, meaning more can be added with little cost and construction, while wind turbines do not have that characteristic. Wind turbines also have a higher structural load relative to solar panels. In communication with the State College Borough, it was revealed that wind turbines are not permitted in the area and are not desired by the client, but a feasibility study will be conducted nonetheless.
5.1.1
Wind Energy
The central Pennsylvania area has a relatively low wind resource, as will be demonstrated below. An analysis was completed to determine the feasibility of a small turbine in downtown State College.
The wind data analyzed was collected from a meteorological tower and was taken over a two-year period in onehour intervals on the Walker Building at Penn States University Park campus. This data was used to assess the wind resource of the parking garage. The analysis can be used to accurately predict the wind resource at the Fraser Street parking deck because the Walker building is less than 1000 feet away, approximately the same height, and has similar geographic surroundings.
The wind energy analysis program, Windographer, was used to create Figure 5, which indicates that for more than half of the year the wind speed is below 10 mph. Figure 20 shows the frequency of the direction of the power in the wind. It can be seen that the majority of the wind power is due west. This plot provides the information needed to design the most practical wind energy conversion system.
A single turbine system that utilizes the interior columns of the structure was considered to be the best option because other designs that have multiple turbines across the top deck of the structure increase zoning requirements, which could create issues when getting the project approved. The three turbines considered for the single turbine system were:
22

Wind Turbine Rated Power (kW) Projected Annual Energy Production (kWh) ITAC Certified
Bergey Excel-S 10 7281 Yes
Gaia 133
Jacobs 31-20
11
20
8534
9850
Yes
No
Table 11: Comparison of the three speculated wind turbines.
Price
$31,700.00
$65,810.00
$77,775.00
The Bergey Excel-S is a certified wind energy conversion turbine rated at 10 kW with a cut-in wind speed of 5 mph, and costs $31,770. This model is designed for high reliability, requires very little maintenance, operates efficiently at low wind speeds, and is easy to install. The cumulation of these factors makes this model the most ideal for the
Fraser Street parking deck. Even though this turbine yields the lowest energy production of the three options, the low investment needed to implement this turbine outweighs the difference in energy production compared to the other turbines.
After conducting a fiscal analysis of the wind conversion system for the Bergey Excel-S, the data proves the turbine not feasible for implementation under the clients budget and expected payback period. At optimal conditions, the data from the Windographer calculates a payback period of 17 years. This payback period is for turbine cost alone and does not include any installation costs. If installation, engineering, and other costs are considered, the payback period will be over 25 years.
5.1.2
Solar Energy
Photovoltaics were also considered as an onsite source of electricity generation. Solar was favored for the structure because of many factors including lower maintenance, easier installation, and less zoning requirements when compared to a wind turbine. Electricity generation is the major benefit that solar can provide to the customer, but the modules can also provide shade for the cars on the top level of the parking garage. Shaded parking is desired by customers and employees because it helps to keep automobiles cooler and as a result enhances the quality of the parking area. This shading not only provides a more comfortable environment for the customers, but it also reduces the energy use for the automobiles during the summer months from air conditioners.
5.1.3
Speculated Utility Usage
After the proposed lighting retrofit, energy consumption for the garage will be reduced by nearly 65%. Original estimates before the retrofit show usage at approximately 320,000 kWh per year. After the retrofit, usage is estimated at approximately 110,000 kWh per year.
The proposed photovoltaic array will provide a 85% of the annual energy, be ascetically pleasing, and economically feasible. Based on shading constraints, existing infrastructure, and the maximum energy load of the building, the array was designed to be roughly 61.25 kW.
5.2.1
Placement
The location for the solar array was chosen based on a detailed site assessment.
In Figure 6, the blue rectangles are the areas considered for the solar installation. The suggested placement for the panels would let the array function as an awning for the cars while preserving the aesthetics of the roof, a requisite of the client. The orientation of the rooftop array from south is approximately 45
◦ west with the four corners facing the cardinal directions as reference.
While facing the modules directly south is ideal for maximum power output,
Figure 7 shows that this is not of the utmost importance. This graph is specific for the State College, Pennsylvania region, and shows percentage of annual electricity production lost at a given azimuth and an altitude angle of a module. For an azimuth angle of 45
◦
W of S and an altitude angle of 10
◦
, the array will still produce over 90% of the total maximum energy, which is acceptable especially considering peak loads.
Figure 6: View of the intial design with all 4 sub-arrays. The red arrow indicates south.
23

Figure 8: A computer rendering example of Triple Crown Solar Structures.
During summer afternoons, people constantly run air conditioners, which coincide with maximum power output from a low altitude angle and western oriented array.
5.2.2
Photovoltaic Design
Figure 7: This graph is for the the
Pennsylvania area. It shows the loss of energy production in 10% increments as the photovoltaic deviates from the optimal collector azimuth and tilt.
A CAD model was done in Google SketchUp to perform a shading analysis on the array. Figure 6 shows our proposed site with shading during the winter equinox at 3 p.m., the time of the year when there would be the most shading.
Due to shading constraints, an excess of energy production, and increased installation costs, only sub-array 4 was eliminated from the original design. Our original design from figure was adjusted, and a tilt of 10 c irc for each module was determined to be optimal for the array. With the proposed array locations, there is no shading from any of the other buildings, other structures on the roof, or the array itself. Currently, the only other existing sources of shading are light poles, but these poles will be taken down and replaced with LED lighting under the arrays.
The exterior support beams for each sub-array will be constructed on top of the interior and exterior columns of the garage and the interior support beams will be constructed on top of the joists connecting the columns.
5.2.3
Racking System
Triple Crown Solar Structures was chosen as the supplier of the solar carport structure. An example of their design can be see in Figure 8. This company was chosen because they are based out of Mars, Pennsylvania and have a low price point relative to other companies. Through communication with Triple Crown Solar Structures, a design was designed based on our specifications. For the three sub-arrays totaling 61.25 kW, here are the materials and their respective cost estimates from Triple Crown Solar Structures:
5.2.4
Modules
The proposed photovoltaic array incorporates the use of SunTech 255 watt monocrystalline photovoltaic modules.
These modules were chosen due to the low cost per Watt, reliability and quality. While other panels could have been used, these were determined to have a high quality to price ratio. To meet our desired power output within the area of
1, 2, and 3, from Figure 6 there will be a total of 240 modules. Within this array, there will be 16 strings in parallel; each string will contain 15 panels wired in series. This wiring design was chosen to satisfy a single inverter.
5.2.5
Inverter and Wiring
The array will incorporate the use of a single, 60kW Solectria Grid-Tie Inverter. The inverter operates on a 480
V, three-phase system with integrated fuse sub-combiner boxes, disconnects and web-based monitoring. This meets
24

the service specifications of the garage of 277 RMS. With the option of web-based monitoring, anyone interested or curious will be able to view the power production in real-time. This exemplifies the mission, vision, and values of the
University and township as it allows people to see and learn about the real impacts of renewable energy The inverter will be placed under the sub-array 1, from Figure 6, with a concrete barrier protecting it.
All wire sizes were determined using article 690.8 of the Nation Electrical Code for photovoltaic installation. 12
AWG wire will be used to connect the strings to the combiner box and 4 AWG wire will be used to connect the combiner box to the inverter and the inverter to the main panel. The wire diagrams for the array and inverter can be found in the renewables appendix as Figures 23 and 22.
Many financial models were considered for this photovoltaic project and two were deemed feasible. The first model analyzed was if the State College Borough completely funded this project. The second model was if the Borough found outside investors.
For the Borough to finance this project, the total cost must be under $250,000 with a payback period of 6 years.
As a government entity, the Borough cannot take advantage of tax incentive programs like the PA Sunshine Program, the 30% federal production tax credit, but can take advantage of solar renewable energy credits (SREC). However, in
Pennsylvania, SRECs are $40-120 for every MWh of energy produced. If the Borough completely funds this project, it will take 10.12 years to make a return on investment. This is based on a total investment cost of $290,632.23, which is $4.74/Wdc. This payback period significantly is out of the clients comfort zone.
Since the client is a local government entity, it seems most appropriate to reach out to community investors in the
State College area. Many potential investors are available for a project like this between Penn State faculty, alumni, and the community members. Based on verbal commitments and community excitement surrounding this project, there would be no trouble in raising the $290,000 initial investment. Multiple examples of similar successful projects can be found at solargardens.org, including a venture with a comparable size to the proposed project, a 50 kW system located in Delaware. The major reason that this would be the best financing option is that we could take advantage of the government tax incentives. With the 30% PTC, the payback period would be 4.39 years, which is a significant improvement. Since the Borough would no longer be financing it, the 6-year return on investment is still a factor, but not one that the community members are necessarily concerned with. Figure below is a graph of the after tax cash flow of the proposed system.
As another third party financing option, the project can be funded on solar-specific capital raising web-platform
Mosaic, https://joinmosaic.com/. While the website is relatively new and emerging, over 1.1 million dollars have been raised, with a 100% on time payment rate to investors since the first investment in January 2013. With the first financing option estimated payback of 18.5 years, and a projection of generating $18,605 in revenue each year, the project is appropriate for Mosaic. While we recommend keeping the project community invested, it is certainly an option to consider. Community investment is recommended to build and show support for renewable energy projects and to secure the possibility of future green development.
The client will benefit from the installation of a solar array on the Fraser Street parking deck in many ways. Aside from the energy savings, the installation of a renewable energy project onto a Borough owned and operated building aligns directly with their desire to become a more sustainable community. The desire to become more sustainable is evident from their implementation of a Community Environmental Bill of Rights. The law passed by a 72% vote during the fall of 2011 and specifically claims the right to a sustainable energy future, as well as the right to clean air and water. Furthermore, allowing community members the opportunity to invest in the project not only engages them, but empowers them to make positive change in their community.
25

6.1.1
Solar
The photovoltaic array has an installed cost of $290,632.23 with a cost per watt of $4.74. Tables 23, 25, and 26 show the cost break down of the system.
6.1.2
Electric Vehicle Charging
The EV charging station has an installed cost of $14,442.87. Table 27 shows the cost breakdown of the system.
6.1.3
Lighting
The proposed lighting system has an installed cost of $222,929.09. Table 28 shows the cost breakdown of the system.
6.1.4
Total Estimate
PV Installation $290,632.23
Lighting Retrofit $222,929.02
EV Installation $14,441.87
General Conditions $12,000.00
Grand Total $540,004.12
Table 12: Total Cost of Total Proposal
There solar portion of this proposal will not be possible without outside investors since it is not within the Boroughs budget or payback period, but more importantly outside investors are eligible for the government incentives included in this analysis. The total cost of the project without the solar installation is $249,371.89, which is under the client’s budget.
The 2013 version of RS Means Interior Cost Data was the primary source for construction labor hours and rates. The retrofit of the Fraser Street parking garage will begin on Monday May 6, 2013 and will be completed on Wednesday
July 31, 2013. These dates were picked to coincide with Penn States summer break in order to minimize lost parking revenue and take advantage of ideal weather conditions.
6.2.1
Mobilization
The renovation and construction schedule will start with a safety and site orientation. Afterwards, the crew will be bringing the necessary equipment to the job site from the warehouse. Everything will be stored on the roof level, which will be closed off to the public. Once all the equipment is brought up, the material will be shipped directly to the Fraser Street garage. This will include solar panels and the steel framing used in the rooftop solar installation.
The shipments will be dropped off outside of the garage and then brought to the top of the garage. This will be accomplished either by pickup truck operated by the on-site contractors or by crane. Our cost comparisons show that using the crane would be less expensive than using the pick-up truck to deliver materials. Also, the crane would take half the time to deliver the materials than the trucks. This comparison is shown in Table 29.
Prior to installation, the lighting fixtures are to be stored at the warehouse and brought to job site as needed. It is expected that 14 fixtures will be installed daily. These will be delivered to the various levels of the garage by truck.
The Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station will be delivered from the warehouse to the site, again by truck, delivery and installation of which should take no more than a week.
26

Figure 9: This is an in-depth look at the construction timeline.
6.2.2
PV Installation
The solar installation will be the first entity completed in the construction process. This will be done first so the crew is able to get the materials to the roof at the beginning without interfering with the installation of the new lighting fixtures and EV chargers. The solar installation is estimated to take 41 days.
6.2.3
Lighting Retrofit
The lighting removal and installation will start a week after the solar PV install begins. A 4 man crew will be working on the ceiling mounted fixtures. Each floor of the parking garage is estimate to be retrofitted in 8 days, resulting in a total of 48 days for all 6 floors.
The lights at the entrance and on the ends of the garage have cars directly pass under them. The garage may need to be shut down during this period until this part of the install is completed. The State College Borough provided 2012 statistics on summer traffic flow through the garage. June 23rd -29th were particularly slow and give us the option of shutting down the garage for a couple of days, if needed. An alternative would be to close one lane down at a time to avoid complete closure of the garage. The entire process for installing and taking out the current light fixtures should take about 60 days.
6.2.4
Electric Vehicle Charging Station
There are three different installation options for electric vehicle charging stations. The first option is hiring the company U-GO Installations, which will deliver and install the stations at zero cost to the Borough. The second option is to buy the stations and have the construction crew install them. While the public wouldnt be charged for using these stations, the budget would have to include the costs of installing the stations. The stations themselves are at least
$4000 each, but after including installation, wiring and labor, the cost per station increase to about $10,000. The EV stations are estimated take 4 days for installation.
6.2.5
Demobilization
General clean-up period, which includes breakdown and removal of all equipment, is estimated take no more than 3 days.
27

7.1.1
Lighting
Through the local utility company West Penn Power, the client can apply for the High-Efficiency Lighting Incentive
Program. This non-standard lighting program qualifies both new construction and retrofit projects that install energy saving luminaires and controls. The program incentives are offered on a per unit basis and performance basis for installments that meet the required codes. The per unit basis incentives that our proposed system will qualify for are as follows:
• Occupancy sensors - $35/sensor
• Daylighting photosensors - $35/sensor
The performance based incentive that our proposed system qualifies for is as follows:
• $0.05/kWh saved
Based on the above incentive information and the proposed lighting system, the following rebates can be achieved:
Incentive Per Unit Incentive ($/Unit) # of Sensors Rebate
Occupancy/Photo sensor kWh Saved Incentive
35.00
33
Performance Incentive ($/kWh Saved) Annual kWh Saved
0.05
190,926.83
Total
$1,155.00
Rebate
$9,546.34
$10,701.34
Table 13: Rebates from proposed lighting system.
7.1.2
Photovoltaics
This project is eligible for several incentive programs. Solar Renewable Energy Credits(SREC) of $120 can obtained after every megawatt hour of production. In Pennsylvania during 2013 these credits ranged from $40-120/MWh depending on market conditions. SRECs were assumed to be $120/MWh to aid fiscal calculations and to accommodate a growing renewable portfolio in Pennsylvania. The client is also eligible to apply for the Pennsylvania Sunshine
Solar Rebate Program where they can receive a rebate of $52,000. This is a first come first serve program that ends on December 31, 2013. The only federal incentive is a 30% tax credit but the client is not eligible for this incentive because they are tax exempt. This led to the search of a third party investor.
Incentive
Federal Tax Credit
Renewable Energy Credits
30% of installed cost
$120/MWh
PA Sunshine Rebate Program $52,500 or 35% of installed cost
Total
Amount
$87,189.60
$8.930.64
$52,500
$148,620.24
Table 14: Rebates from proposed lighting system.
7.1.3
Electric Vehicle Charging Station
The EV infrastructure tax credit on an EV charge station is 30% up to $1000 for consumers and 30% up to $30,000 for businesses
In order to determine the payback period and NPV for each portion of the project, several variables needed to be incorporated into a cash flow diagram. First, the total installed cost, which occurs in year zero, must be determined.
Next the annual savings, both in terms of energy, materials and maintenance, must be included from year 1 until the
28

projected end of the projects life, adjusted accordingly based on degradation or increased performance. Finally, all incentives must be included in the cash flow at their appropriate times, some occurring only in the first few years and others occurring annually.
The installed cost of the lighting retrofit is $222,929, which occurs in year 0. In year 1, incentives for materials purchases, results in a revenue of $1,155. In year 1 and every subsequent year until the end of the analysis period, which occurs in year 30, the lighting retrofit results in an annual energy savings of $45,100 from avoided energy costs and another $9,020 from performance based incentives. Although an additional $4,300 is spent every year on average through increased maintenance costs, which also occurs every year until year 30, due to more expensive materials.
The cash flow described results in a payback period of 2.6 years and a NPV of $866,700 at the end of the 30 year analysis period. The installed cost of the solar array is $290,000, which occurs in year 0. In year 1, incentives such as the Federal Tax Credit and the PA Sunshine Rebate Program, result in revenue of $140,000. In year 1 and every subsequent year until the end of the analysis period, which occurs in year 30, the solar array results in an annual energy savings of $18,610 plus an additional $9,000 from the sale of SRECs. The cash flow described results in a payback period of 4.4 years and a NPV of $305,000 at the end of the 30 year analysis period. The installed cost of the electric vehicle charging station is $13,500, which occurs in year 0. In year 1, incentives such as the EV infrastructure tax credit, results in a revenue of $4,050. In year 1 the electric vehicle charging station results in a projected annual income of $1,600. In every subsequent year, the projected annual income is predicted to increase by 3%. The cash flow described results in a payback period of 5 years and a NPV of $27,628 at the end of the 30 year analysis period.
The projected energy bill after retrofit is the accumulation of multiple factors. Simply put, the annual energy bill before retrofit, $109,500, minus the energy saved from lighting, $54,000, minus the energy produced from solar, $18,610, plus the energy used to charge vehicles $1,400, will be equal to the new annual energy bill $38,290. Although the energy saved by the lighting retrofit and the energy produced by the solar array will diminish slightly over time, and the energy consumed by the charging station is likely to increase overtime, the energy bill during the first few years after retrofit can be accurately predicted. Additionally, the additional cost of energy consumed by electric vehicle charging will be fully compensated, plus interest, to the Borough by U-Go Stations.
Each of the three major pieces of the proposal will be financed differently. The lighting portion will be paid for by the State College Borough using money which they have budgeted for energy savings projects within their buildings. The solar portion will be financed through third party investors using a community solar model. The electric vehicle charging stations will be paid for by U-Go Stations. Using various financing sources allows the Borough to operate within its budget, while simultaneously building community support and developing corporate relationships with companies such as U-Go Stations. The financing plan for the lighting portion is the simplest of the three models, because the revenues and expenses are all incurred by the Borough directly. The Borough will pay for the $140,000 upfront cost of the lighting project, which includes materials and labor costs. The Borough will then save $54,000 per year on their energy bill, but spend another $4,300 per year on average from their operations and maintenance costs. The solar portion of the project will be financed by third party investors using a community based solar model.
This model pools together community members investments to pay for the upfront cost of the project, which includes materials and labor costs. The community members then set up a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the Borough.
The PPA includes the price at which the Borough will pay the community members for every kWh produced, which in this case will be equal to what the Borough would otherwise pay, $0.25 per kWh. The community members will then lease the roof space from the Borough at the cost of $1 per year. This financing model allows the solar project to realize the full benefits of tax incentives and government rebates, which the Borough would not be eligible for since it is a government entity. The financing plan for the electric vehicle charging station portion of this proposal uses a third party investor to pay for the materials and labor costs. The investor, U-Go Stations, then reaps the full benefits of the charging station by being able to charge customers for every kWh their electric vehicle draws from the grid. This is the best financing option for the Borough for several reasons. The most obvious benefit is that the Borough does not have to accept any of the risk associated with the aforementioned chicken and egg predicament. The second benefit is that the Borough can invest in electric vehicles as a replacement for some of their internal combustion fleet vehicles, which results in a lower operating cost. Another benefit is that it creates a revenue stream for the Borough through a lease agreement made between U-Go Stations and Borough which requires a percentage of the revenue from the charging stations be given to the Borough as a form of lease payment for the parking spaces. Although U-Go stations is incurring the largest risk here, they are also creating the potential to reap massive rewards through using this project
29

as a business development strategy.
The Penn State NECA team worked with the Sustainability Institute and the Penn State Eco Reps in a competition called Campus Conservatoin Nationals. This is a three week, nationwide competition between college residence halls to see who can have the greatest percent reduction of energy use. Rob Andrejewski, the man in charge of organizing
Penn States involvement in the competition, worked closely with the project design and proposal. After a few meetings with Dr. Rob Andrejewski, a plan that would improve the outcome of this competition was proposed. The main goal was to engage and educate the students on energy efficiency.
The team determined the best way to teach the students in East Halls about energy conservation was to perform energy audits. A team of auditors were needed to assist in educating the students of East Halls. This was an opportunity to educate energy engineering freshmen. An email was sent to freshmen energy engineering majors to volunteer for this opportunity. It was highly recommended they attend due to the opportunities in gaining great leadership skills and begin their involvement in the sustainability community. During the first meeting, the team taught these freshmen energy engineers how to do basic energy calculations. These calculations were then used in a practical application such as the energy used in their dorm rooms. This gave the freshmen an idea of their energy consumption and the financial and environmental cost associated with this.
Once the auditing team was ready to go, the team began to audit the dorm rooms in East Halls. An audit form was constructed that was standard for all the rooms in East Halls (Does this include utility room and alternate usage rooms or only dorm rooms?). Using this form, the tenants answered questions that were used to evaluate their energy consumption. A grading scale ranging from A to E was created, A being very energy conscience and E being very energy ignorant. The average energy consumed for each grade was calculated, along with the financial and environmental costs corresponding to the received grade. After auditing the rooms and showing the tenants their financial and environmental impacts, several energy saving tips were recommended. These tips emphasized on how just a few behavioral changes could conserve large amounts of energy. The team also mentioned how developing a habit of conserving energy is a great habit to get into because it will not only reduce the energy consumed as well as your carbon footprint, but also reduce their personal electric bills when they are no longer living in the dorms.
Overall, the team made a very significant impact on the energy awareness of the residents living in East Halls and the freshman auditors. Each learned many valuable skills and habits that will allow them to live in a more sustainable, energy conscience way. The outcome of the 3 week competition was a success as East Halls was able to save 13,298 kWh which translates to $1,196 and 16,171 pounds of CO
2
.
30

Re: NECA Green Energy Challenge
First I would like to say that the professionalism of this group has been uncanny for student lead groups. The team was always prepared and conducted themselves as professionals during all of the meetings and communications.
Secondly, the knowledge this team has far surpassed my expectations. I am not a lighting expert, it just so happens that my buildings consume a large amount of electricity. When first contacted about this project I was hesitant to devote staff time to this endeavor. Thankfully I decided to participate. Not only was the team knowledgeable they knew how to explain the intricacies of their study to a non-technical person.
Lastly, the actual deliverables were consultant grade materials. The layout was well thought out and the information was clear and concise. The Borough of State College will use these materials when considering our lighting needs.
The Borough is extremely pleased with the results and the value of the report was worth the staff time needed to help them.
Charles J DeBow
Parking Manager, The Borough of State College
31

Figure 10: An aerial view of the proposed solar array on the roof of the Frasier Street Garage in State College.
Undergraduate students write plan to retrofit Fraser Street Garage with energy efficient technologies - Jon
Blauvelt
A group of Penn State undergraduate students are striving to reduce energy consumption of the University and community by participating in the 5th Annual Green Energy Challenge, a national competition that promotes energy efficiency by engaging National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) student chapters.
The challenge this year write an energy retrofit proposal for a parking garage in the campus community. Penn
State NECA student chapter co-president Anthony Talarico said they met with borough officials and decided upon the
Fraser Street Garage. The last time the garage was retrofitted was in the 1960s.
Retrofitting a garage required extensive research on many current methods of minimizing energy usage while maximizing profit, explained Rosie Cianni, NECA chapter member.
The technical scope of the challenge includes a lighting fixture and controls retrofit. Teams are challenged to integrate renewable energy and/or electric vehicle charging that has been approved by the team and facility owner, as well as additional electrical or mechanical improvements. Another important piece to the proposal is the construction planning and management of the project.
One key component the team is proposing is to replace the existing lights of the garage with LEDs. Two driving factors for the switch are energy and replacement cost savings.
Another component is the construction of 60 kW solar photovoltaic panels on the roof of the garage.
The third focuses on the implementation of a charging station to promote the use of electric vehicles. It would also provide the community with a convenient downtown location to park and charge.
We tried to keep materials and labor costs low and energy savings high, said team project manager Jordan Crolly.
The balance of those two things is really what makes the project make sense.
A requirement for the team is to receive external input and feedback on its proposal from NECA contractors, vendors, material suppliers and Penn State faculty members. We were able to connect with borough officials, PV racking companies, panel distributors, lighting experts, and electric vehicle experts, explained NECA chapter member
Nick Pratt. The Penn State chapter is working closely with the Penn-Del-Jersey NECA Chapter.
The board is committed to the success of the Penn State student chapter, said Ken MacDougall, Director of Business Development for the Penn-Del-Jersey NECA Chapter. We focus on the student chapters to develop good talent for the electrical industry. We want to see these students develop into great engineers.
Another energy efficiency effort that the student chapter engaged in this year was the Fight the Power: The East
Halls Energy Challenge, part of a nationwide competition to reduce electricity use on campus. The team trained 15 students on how to conduct energy assessments of dorm rooms in East Halls. They reviewed appliances, plug loads,
32

Figure 11: Undergraduates Jordan Crolly, Jonathon Graterol, Kyle Haab, Anthony Talarico, Ari Mcguirk, Nick Pratt,
Josh Carey, Kelsey Yates, and Steve Schmidt are all part of Penn States NECA Student Chapter proposal team for the
Green Energy Challenge.
and behaviors to evaluate the energy usage of approximately 80 rooms and taught nearly 200 first-year students how to decrease energy consumption in their personal lives.
The audits allowed residents in east halls to get firsthand knowledge of how their behaviors could have a positive impact on helping Penn State achieve their energy reduction goals, said Rob Andrejewski, program coordinator at
Penn States Sustainability Institute.
The opportunity to increase awareness of energy consumption has had a defining impact on me, said Talarico. This has been the most meaningful part of the project to me.
The Penn State NECA chapter is approximately 30 undergraduate students in engineering and energy-related studies. Penn State joins 18 other universities in this nationwide competition that enables students to develop technical skills vital to careers in electrical construction.
About the Green Energy Challenge
In 2009, ELECTRI International (EI) and The National Electrical Contracting Association (NECA) launched a new initiative called the Green Energy Challenge to attract the best and brightest students to electrical construction.
The first Green Energy Challenge invited NECA student chapters studying electrical construction, engineering, design and management were to conduct an ”energy audit” of a local K-12 school. Based on their findings, students developed customized proposals for energy retrofits that would improve the schools’ energy efficiency. Teams also designed a new solar PV and/or wind energy system for the facility. Each year, the competition has seen a considerable increase in registrations and stimulated the formation of new Student Chapters.
33

Interaction with the local NECA chapter, NECA Penn-Del-Jersey, began in the fall semester on Friday, November 16,
2012 when a select group of the 2013 Green Energy Challenge team met with NECA Penn-Del-Jersey President Luke
Cunningham and Director of Business Development Kenneth MacDougall at the Penn Stater Hotel and Conference
Center. The students were acquainted with the executives and discussed the competition briefly, leading into a discussion on energy sustainability and the potential of competitions such as the Green Energy Challenge to develop quality, up and coming engineers. Their willingness to assist in any way that they could was reiterated which gave confidence and assurance to the students that what they were involved in what was an important and worth putting forth the time and effort. Contact information was exchanged after the meeting and future dates were scheduled to meet again to present our progress to the Board of Directors of the Penn-Del-Jersey Chapter.
The next meeting with the Penn-Del-Jersey Chapter was on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 when the officers of the
NECA Green Energy Challenge team met with the Board of Directors in King of Prussia, PA. At the meeting, the students presented their progress and discussed the direction of the team in regards to the proposal. The overall reception of the presentation was well received and the students were congratulated on their accomplishments. Contact information was exchanged with electrical contractors interested in assisting the students. One electrical contractor in particular Vice President of Special Projects for J.W. Carrigan LLC, Donald K. Rees, expressed great interest in our proposal as it was very similar to a project his company completed recently. He proved to be a useful contact as blue prints of the site of the project, as well as documents detailing what and how renovations were made, were given access to the team which assisted in improving our proposal accordingly.
Since the meeting in King of Prussia, PA, the Penn-Del-Jersey Chapter has connected us with professionals to assist in the proposal of lighting, EV, construction, and renewable energy conversion systems. After evaluating suggestions from professional contractors, decisions were made in regards to what renovations were going to be proposed for the parking structure. A rough draft proposal was sent to the Penn-Del-Jersey Chapter for review. Once the necessary corrections are made and the final draft of our proposal is completed and submitted, the team will perform a presentation of the proposal to the Board of Directors.
34

Programming Functions
Motion Time Delay
Test and Blink-Back Mode
Ten’s Difit of Set-Point (fc)
One’s Digit of Set-Point (fc)
Sunlight Discount Factor
Incremental Set-Point Adjustment
Restore Factory Defaults
Photocell Opertation
Ramp Up Rate
Fade Down Rate
Max Level (High Trim)
Min Level (Low Trim)
Photocell Transition Off Time
Photocell Transition On Time
Parking Level Entrance Stairwell
15 min 20 min 5 min
Blink Set-Point Blink Set-Point Blink Set-Point
10
1
1 increase 1 fc
Keep Current
High/Off
Instant
Instant
4V
2V
5 min
45 sec
50
1
1 increase 1 fc
Keep Current
High/Off
Instant
Instant
3V
3V
6 min
46 sec
10
7
1 increase 1 fc
Keep Current
High/Off
Instant
Instant
4V
2V
5 min
45 sec
Table 15: Recommended, Pre-existing, and Proposed Lighting Levels nLight Control System
Occupancy Sensor
Gateway
Model Number # of Components Unit Price nCM-10-LT 18 $105.00
Cost
$1890.00
Occupancy/Daylight Sensor nCM-10-P-LT
Bridge nBRG-*-KIT
NGWY2-KIT
15
2
1
$115.00
$200.00
$1,000.00
$1,725.00
$400.00
$1,000.00
Cat5 Wire
Total
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$6,215.00
Table 16: nLight Control System Costs
35

Figure 12: Calculation grid for a typical level. The red lines surrounding the center columns mark the IES recommendation of 1.25 fc
36

Figure 13: Photo metrics – shows the illuminance levels in the stairwell
Figure 14: Lighting levels in garage
37

Figure 15: The proposed luminaire layout
Figure 16: Sensor activation range.
38

Figure 17: Computer rendering of existing lighting system.
Figure 18: Computer rendering of proposed lighting system.
39

Fixture
Ceiling Flush
Mounted 70
W HPS
Wall Mounted
70 W HPS
Decorative 70
W HPS
Rooftop 400
W Metal
Halide
Elevator 13 W
CFL
Total
# of Fixtures Power Consumption Annual Schedule (hours) Annual
Energy Con-
214 90 8760 sumpion
(kWh)
168717.6
Annual Cost
$42,179.40
67
17
16
16
330
90
90
400
13
8760
4380
4380
8760
52822.8
6701.4
28032
1822.06
258095.88
Table 17: Existing System Energy Consumption and Cost
$13,205.70
$1,675.35
$7,008.00
$455.52
$64,523.97
Fixture
Lithonia
D-Series
LED Parking
Garage
Lithonia
D-Series
LED Wall
Luminaire
Lithonia
WSQ LED
Architectural
Wall Scone
Lithonia
D-Series
LED Flood
Luminaire
Lithonia Pole-
Mounted
LED D-Series
LED Area
Luminaire
5 W LED
Bulb
Total
Savings
# of Fixtures Power Consumption Annual Schedule (hours) Annual
Energy Consumpion with
40% Savings
220 25 8760 from Controls
(kWh)
28908
Annual Cost with Savings from Controls
$7,227.00
60
24
1
5
16
326
20
24
115
115
5
8760
4380
4380
8760
8760
6307.2
1513.728
302.22
1511.1
420.48
38962.728
219133.152
Table 18: Existing System Energy Consumption and Cost
$1,576.80
$378.43
$75.56
$377.78
$105.12
$9,740.68
$54,783.29
40

Estimated Travel
Miles/Day
Days/Week
Week/Year
Miles/Year
Tire Expense
Mile/Tire
$/Tire
Labor
Tire/Year
Cost/Year
Misc. Costs
30
5
50
7,500
60,000
85
100
0.125
55
100
Table 19: Dual Assumptions
Fuel Expense
$/Gallon
Miles/Gallon
Gallon/Year
Gas Cost/Year
Battery Expense
Years/Battery
$/Battery
3.5
30
250
875
4
120
Labor
Cost/Year
100
30
Oil Change Expense
Miles/Oil Change 3000
$/Oil Change
Cost/Year
50
125
Table 20: Fleet Assmuptions
41

Figure 19: Overall United States Consumer Interest (Pike Research)
42

Fleet Electricity Expense
$/kWh
Miles/kWh
Miles/Battery
Full Charge Cost ($)
Charges/Year
Cost ($)/Year
Battery Expense
Miles/Battery
Years/Battery
Coustomer Electricity Expense
Average Battery Size (kWh)
$/Average Customer Stay (hour)
** Customers get full battery charge
EV/Year
Projected EV/Year
Cost ($)/Year
Projected Cost ($)/Year
0.25
3
72
1.44
104.17
625
** Will not need to be replaced
100,000
13.33
21.5
3.5
261
287
1,402.88
1,543.16
Table 21: EV Assumptions
Type
Level 1 (Outlet)
Level 2 (Schneider)
Level 2 (Leviton)
Level 3 (Tesla)
Quantity Labor ($) Capital Cost($) Opertional Cost/year
2
1
200
0
200
2499
0
0
1
0
1000
0
Totals
9395.44
18,000
13,494.44
230
0
230
Table 22: Charging Station Pricings
43

Figure 20: The wind rose plot was obtained with the given data and shows that the majority of the power in the wind is due west.
44

Figure 21: A Google SkecthUp of the final proposed design with shading of the winter equinox.
Figure 22: Wire diagram of the array feeding to combiner box.
45

Figure 23: Wire diagram of the inverter.
46

Material
Carport primed & color coated
SFR Rail
Erection
Foundations
Shipping
Quantity
5661
5661
5661
9
0.72
Unit Price
$5.25
$1.90
Total Price
$29,791.81
$10,755.38
$2.25
$1,250.00
$12,763.63
$11,250.00
$4,200 (with a full truck) $3,040.99
Total $67,601.81
Table 23: Material cost breakdown for the carport racking system.
Labor
# of Workers
Hourly Wage
Duration
5
$52.40
41 Days
Total Labor Cost $85,936.00
Table 24: Solar Labor Costs
Modules
Material
Suntech 255 Watt
Quantity Unit Price Total Price
240 $320.00
$76,800.00
Table 25: Solar Module Costs
47

Breakdown of Cost/Watt
Racking System
Solar Modules
Inverter
Labor
Overhead & Profit
Total
Cost $/Watt
$67,487.40
$1.10
$76,800.00
$1.25
$28,277.47
$0.46
$85,936.00
$1.40
$32,181.36
$0.53
$290,632.23
$4.74
Table 26: Solar Module Costs
Material $9,395.44
Labor $3,446.00
Overhead & Profit $1,601.43
Total $14,442.87
Table 27: Electric Vehicle Charging Station Cost
Installation
# of Units
Cost per Unit
Material Cost
Labor Cost
Ceiling
Mounted
Fixtures
220
$432.00
$95,040.00
$37,858.77
Demolition Labor $4,088.23
Overhead & Profit $17,089.25
Total Cost $153,803.25
Wall Pack Fixtures Roof Fixtures Exterior Fixtures Elevators Total Cost
60
$380.50
$22,830.00
$6,816.19
$1,114.97
$3,845.15
$34,606.31
5
$1,000.00
$5,000.00
$419.20
$520.32
$742.44
$6,681.96
24
$406.25
$9,750.00
$13,422.66
$891.98
$ 3,008.08
$27,072.72
16
$9.85
$52.40
$54.65
325
$2,228.60
$157.00
$132,777.60
$227.21
$58,744.02
$6,667.90
$24,739.57
$491.86
$222,929.09
Table 28: Lighting Installation Costs
Time (Hours, days)
Truck 16, 2
Crane 8, 1
Labor Rates
($/hour)
35.65
48.80
Total Labor
Cost ($)
2852.00
1,171.20
Operation
Rates ($/day)
0.00
1,000.00
Table 29: Cost comparison of trucks versus a crane.
Total Operation Costs ($)
0.00
1,000.00
Total Costs ($)
2852.00
2,171.20
48

A special thanks to the following for their help and cooperations with this project: Charley Debow and the Borough of State College, Sylvia Selwood, Dr. Jeffrey Brownson, Dr. Susan Stewart, Dr. Dave Riley, Whitney Bennett, Jon
Blauvelt, Andy Mackey, Chad Horne, Ken MacDougall, Luke Cunningham, and the entire Penn-Del-Jersey NECA
Chapter, Keith Bush, Ron Ashcroft, Thomas Taylor, Jim Brech, Mickey McLaughlin, Dr. Tim Robinson, Jason
Grottini and Envinity, Triple Crown Solar Structures, all of the Penn State Student Chapter members, and anybody else that helped us along the way!
49

[1] http://www.energysavepa-business.com/nslighting.html
[2] http://www.gelighting.com/apo/resources/onlinetools/footcandleestimator.html
[3] www.dsireusa.org
[4] http://www.navigantresearch.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/EVMF-12-Executive-Summary.pdf
[5] http://www.navigantresearch.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/EVCS-12-Executive-Summary.pdf
50