UCSB ENERGY FY 2003

1
UCSB ENERGYFY 2003

• Annual Report

Jim Dewey Campus Energy Manager July,
2003
2
Summary

• Fiscal year 2003 presented many challenges for
  UCSBs energy program. Our vigorous building
  program and ambitious research are demanding more
  power and better reliability, while electricity
  prices continue to rise. This year the cost of
  electricity increased by 50 over FY 2001.
• Even with a growing demand for power, we
  continued to reduce consumption in all areas of
  Instructional, Research, Public Service and
  Institutional (Core) purchased utilities.

3
ELECTRICITY

• The BIG Player

4
Electrical Supply

• The Direct Access energy market has continued
  to benefit UCSB this year. We renewed our
  electrical commodity contract with Arizona Public
  Service Energy Services (APSES), providing a
  cheaper choice than bundled electrical service
  with the utility. Although some members of the
  CPUC opposed Direct Access, the opportunity for
  us to buy energy on the open market remains for
  now.

5
Electrical Supply History

• April, 1998- Enron electricity contract begins
• Electricity cost At 6.4 Cents/kWh (Total Average)

6
Electrical Supply History

• Enron contract ends 4/1/2002
• APSES contract begins, serving electrical
  commodity (kWh) to UCSB through June 2005
• SCE collects Demand Charges (kW)

7
Electrical Supply History

• Summer 2002 Department of Water Resources (DWR)
  starts assessing fees to pay for expensive
  long-term power contracts. Fees collected by
  SCE.
• DWR bond payments and SCE Historic Procurement
  Charges increase our electrical costs by 2.7
  cents per kWh
• Fees will continue for at least 10 years

8
Electrical Supply Timeline

• Future - CPUC may eliminate Direct Access energy
  contracts or Direct Access may become
  uneconomical
• UCSB would then have to return to bundled
  electrical service with Southern California
  Edison (SCE)

9
Electrical Cost Increase

• Average Cost of Electricity from FY 1996 to 2001
  was 6.4 cents/kWh
• 2003 Electricity Cost was an average of 9.6
  cents/kWh, a 50 increase over 1996-2001
• Even though this rate increase was substantial,
  UCSBs contract with APSES was much less
  expensive than if we had been a bundled
  customer with SCE - 9.6 cents/kWh vs. an
  estimated 13 cents/kWh with SCE.

10
Electrical Conservation

• To Help Mitigate the High Cost of Electricity in
  FY 2003, UCSBs Energy Team Redoubled its Efforts
  to Reduce Electrical Load
• Since 1998, we have Reduced UCSBs Core
  Electrical Usage by 26 even with campus growth

11
UCSB Core Electrical Usage
26 Reduction
Annual Electrical Usage for All State Supported
Campus Programs
12
Core Electrical Costs
The Energy Conservation Program reductions have
done much to minimize the effect of the 50
increase in electrical costs this year.
13
Natural Gas

• A Volatile Commodity

14
Natural Gas

• On June 10, Alan Greenspan testified before the
  House Committee on Energy and Commerce about the
  Natural Gas market in North America. He stated
  that due to depleting reserves and poor drilling
  yields, we can expect only higher prices.
• During January, 2001 Southern California Natural
  Gas Prices shot up from .20 to .30 to 1.60 per
  therm.

15
Natural Gas

• We expect that Natural Gas prices will continue
  to escalate due to uncertain supply and
  increasing dependence on Gas for Electrical
  Generation.
• UCSBs high cost of gas motivated the Energy Team
  to reduce gas usage wherever it could.
• This years Core gas usage is the lowest its
  been since 1994.
• Next year we expect our gas price to be around
  .60 per therm.

16
Core Natural Gas Usage
An expensive 2 year Natural Gas contract obtained
during the Gas Crisis of 2001 prompted a major
effort to reduce gas consumption in 2002 and 2003.
17
Core Natural Gas Expenditures
The huge increase in natural gas expense
beginning 2000/01 is due to the extraordinary
increase in the cost of gas at the Southern
California Border during the winter of 2001.
Many believe the gas shortage that precipitated
the cost increase was the result of market
manipulation.
18
Water and Sewer

• Looming Problems

19
Potable Water

• As Goleta and Santa Barbara grow, there will be
  an increasing demand on water and waste water
  resources. Droughts are always a problem, and
  the State Water Project is a tenuous resource.
• With predictions of massive population growth in
  the future of California, water will likely be
  our greatest utility problem in the future.

20
Potable Water

• This year, UCSBs main campus used 468 acre feet
  of water, which is about 54 of our campus total
  yearly allotment. So, there is still room for
  some growth in our water consumption as long as
  we continue to conserve.

21
(No Transcript)
22
Reclaimed Water

• UCSB has been using reclaimed water for
  irrigation since 1994. Presently, the cost of
  reclaimed water is 1/5 the cost of potable water.
  The campus uses reclaimed water for the majority
  of its irrigation.

23
Reclaimed Water

• UCSBs reclaimed water contract requires that we
  use at least 140 acre-feet per year. We have
  been using reclaimed water near this minimum
  level, and with the conversion of Robertson Field
  to artificial turf, we may drop below it. It is
  critical to convert the remaining areas being
  irrigated with potable water (mostly Housing and
  Residential Services) to reclaimed so we dont
  loose this resource.

24
(No Transcript)
25
Sewer

• Sewer flows from the Main and West campuses are
  directly related to our potable water use. Water
  conservation helps lower our total sewer costs
  and the amount of raw sewage the Goleta Sanitary
  District must treat.

26
Other Core Purchased Utility Costs
The total of water, sewer, propane and other
utilities has remained relatively flat for over
the years.
27
Energy Conservation Program

• Teamwork Pays Off

28
ECON II
This year concluded our largest energy
conservation project to date. Energy
Conservation 2 was managed by Ed Marini of UCSB's
Design and Construction department, and designed
by Verle Williams of San Diego. The project
included a twenty-five building energy efficient
lighting retrofit, installation of energy
management controls in thirteen of our campus
buildings and various other energy conservation
measures. It also included installing more than
one mile of chilled water pipe that
interconnected several of our buildings chilled
water plants on the East end of campus. This
created a "virtual central chilled water plant"
and enables us to run the most efficient
equipment to meet the cooling load for these
buildings.
29
PF Energy Team Projects

• Over the last two years, the Physical Facilities
  Energy Team has developed and implemented a
  variety of energy conservation projects for Core
  buildings. Besides operational strategies, we
  have
• Retrofitted forty-five buildings with energy
  efficient lighting systems that use about one
  half the amount of energy of the previous
  systems.
• Installed several equipment cooling heat
  exchangers that use the efficient chilled water
  loop for cooling, rather than less efficient
  individual chillers.
• Installed a 180 kW microturbine cogeneration
  system which heats the "Old Gym" pool and
  provides energy to Kerr Hall.
• Installed many energy efficient boilers and
  retrofitted heating, ventilating and air
  conditioning systems with state of the art
  equipment and controls.
• Implemented de-lamping and building occupancy
  schedule changes, as well as control strategy
  changes in building systems resulting in large
  energy reductions.

30
PF Energy Team Projects

• Mark Peppers, our PF staff mechanical engineer
  and energy team member, has developed a suite of
  energy conservation projects called "Energy
  Solutions One." This project includes the
  installation of a virtual chilled water plant
  serving the West side of campus and many other
  projects that not only save energy, but provide
  better comfort to building occupants.
• We have been aggressively pursuing utility
  rebates and grants that contribute to the funding
  of these types of projects.

31
Energy Conservation Results

• UCSBs energy program has saved over 20 million
  in electrical costs since FY 1997, most of these
  savings coming in the last two years. The
  savings are a result of

• Aggressive energy conservation
• Joint UC/CSU Direct Access electrical contracts
• 66 kV high voltage electrical conversion
• Sophisticated controls (Johnson Controls
  Metatsys) and use of analytical tools

32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
Core Purchased Utilities Total Expenditures
Core Building Growth
8,326,222
35
Conclusion

• Thanks to the support of the campus
  administration and the Physical Facilities
  department, as well as the students, staff and
  faculty of UCSB, we have been able to accomplish
  great things this year.
• With the addition of several new, high energy use
  buildings coming on-line over the next few years,
  UCSBs electrical demand will increase by several
  Megawatts. Energy prices will continue to rise,
  and we will need to continue to carryon the fight
  to conserve our precious resources.
• I want to thank everyone who has contributed to
  our program and for your patience with us as we
  negotiate our way through these difficulties.
• -Jim Dewey

36
Physical Facilities Energy Team

• Barry Colwell
• Jim Dewey
• Marc Fisher
• Paul Gawronik
• David Gonzales
• Ken Hermann
• George Lewis
• David McHale
• Mark Peppers
• Doug Riedo
• Alan Williams
• Fred Ziesenhenne

37
Non State Funded Energy

• The non state-funded entities or auxiliaries,
  like Housing and Residential Services, the UCEN,
  and the Faculty Club, located on the main campus
  are recharged for their utilities, but manage
  their own energy programs.
• The following energy data is from auxiliaries and
  other non core buildings.

38
Housing Electrical Usage
Load Growth at Housing is the result of the new
Manzanita Dorms and the Remodel and Addition to
the Carrillo Dining Commons.
39
UCEN Electrical Usage
Load Reductions in 2001 through 2003 are a result
of an aggressive Conservation Program by the UCEN
Staff.
40
Misc. Campus Electrical Usage
This Chart shows the combined usage among
Garamendi funded buildings, Faculty Club, Parking
Services and other non state funded entities.
41
Natural Reserves Electrical Usage
The Natural Reserves, who have no funding of
their own for utilities, are being funded by
State Funds and have shown a steady increase in
electrical usage as well as propane.
42
Housing Natural Gas Usage
Housing and Residential Services Natural Gas
usage for Main Campus buildings.
43
UCEN Natural Gas Usage
UCEN Natural Gas usage