UC Los Angeles Campus & Medical Center Strategic Energy Plan ...

The projected MBCx energy savings for the SEP buildings are determined relative to the 2006-
2008 Partnership Program applications. There is a 70% multiplier applied to all savings
projections because the buildings already in the MBCx program were selected specifically for
their potential, while the proposed SEP buildings are only selected based on size.
Basic building applications average electricity savings of 10% or 1.1 kWh/sf-yr, and gas savings
of 15% or 0.15 th/sf-yr. Energy savings are projected to SEP buildings according to historical
energy use of the building, if it is known. If historical energy use is not known, savings are
projected on the basis of the building area. In both cases a 70% savings scaling factor is
applied.
Complex building applications average electricity savings of 9% or 2.7 kWh/sf-yr, and gas
savings of 21% or 0.29 th/sf-yr. Energy savings are projected to SEP buildings according to
historical energy use of the building, if it is known. If historical energy use is not known, savings
are projected on the basis of the building area. In both cases a 70% savings scaling factor is
applied.
In addition, MBCx was recommended for all central plants which have not previously been
commissioned through the Partnership program.
8.4 Capital Program Projects
8.4.1 New Construction and Renovation from Capital Program
There is a significant opportunity to integrate energy efficiency with new construction and
renovation of campus facilities. This is currently implemented through the Savings By Design
process administered by the statewide investor owned utilities, as well as SMUD. It is
anticipated that this program will be continued in the 2009-2014 utility portfolio. It is hoped that
it can be integrated with the UC CSU IOU Partnership Program to become more effective.
The anticipated program modifications include the following: encourage energy savings of
greater than 25% relative to Title 24 to earn the maximum incentive levels of $0.25 per kWh and
$1.00 per therm; use the Partnership minimum required campus contribution of 20% rather than
the Savings By Design requirement of 50%; remove the $150,000 or $450,000 cap per project;
consider some up front engineering funding.
On the UC side the current process is hampered by severe competition for construction funds to
implement the efficiency measures. Even when funds are set aside in the design budgets to
meet the current UC goal of 20% below Title 24, efficiency measures are sometimes lost in
“value engineering” during the construction process. There are typically not enough funds
available to allow construction of buildings with the energy efficiency measures justified by life
cycle costing.
The opportunity to use the energy efficiency bond money in new construction and renovation
projects would create significantly more opportunities for the installation of energy efficiency in
these projects. The potential cost and savings is projected for this analysis, assuming each
project could reduce energy use by approximately 30% below Title 24 and assuming that the
total investment to achieve this performance would result in a simple payback period of 7 years.
It is possible that this performance level can be achieved with a shorter payback, or that higher
percentage savings can be achieved with this payback period.
2413.01/Reports/UC SEP Final Report – UCLA.doc 8-13 December 31, 2008
Newcomb | Anderson | McCormick