Using the Design-Build Approach to Meet Energy Reduction Goals March 2012

University of California, Irvine 457 Buildings comprising 5,480,000 ASF 1,478 acres main campus $16M annual utilities budget Lab buildings consume 2/3 of campus energy March 2,

Statewide Energy Partnership 3-year agreement between CPUC, IOU’s, UC, CSU Annual reduction and incentive goals $40M project cost over 3-years Year one goal – 16,097,345 kWh & 434,844 Therms Organization couldn’t meet year one goals Utilize ESCO-like best value design-build contract Performance guarantee Annual kWh and therm reduction Maximum acceptance cost (MAC) March 2,

Design – Build Contracting Design-Build performance Design-Build performance Goal Actual Goal Actual kWh11,087,62311,857,975 kWh11,087,62311,857,975 Therms 236, ,361 Therms 236, ,361 MAC$7,800,000$8,292,910 MAC$7,800,000$8,292,910 Types of projects completed Types of projects completed kWh/yr.therms/yr. Lighting5,719,306 (48%)0 Lighting5,719,306 (48%)0 MBCX2,774,175 (23%)323,449 (87%) MBCX2,774,175 (23%)323,449 (87%) AC Controls1,804,871 (15%) 47,912 (13%) AC Controls1,804,871 (15%) 47,912 (13%) ESDVR1,559,623 (13%) ESDVR1,559,623 (13%) March 2,

Design-Build Best Value Contracting Pro’s Pro’s Large quantity of projects completed quickly; achieved year-1 goals Large quantity of projects completed quickly; achieved year-1 goals Contractor managed numerous groups Contractor managed numerous groups Performance guarantee Performance guarantee Con’s Con’s Owner accepts risk that cost savings will be achieved Owner accepts risk that cost savings will be achieved Need in house expertise to verify and monitor Need in house expertise to verify and monitor Lessons Learned Lessons Learned Contractor not used to dealing with Owner technical expertise & involvement Contractor not used to dealing with Owner technical expertise & involvement Contractor not familiar with SEP approval process Contractor not familiar with SEP approval process Separate contracts by type of work Separate contracts by type of work March 2,

Energy Projects Going Forward Evaluate your organization Evaluate your organization Design-build with specialized contractors Design-build with specialized contractors Less control over design Less control over design Constant Air Volume to Variable Air Volume Constant Air Volume to Variable Air Volume Unit price contract Unit price contract Lighting Lighting Design – bid – build Design – bid – build Retain engineering and design control Retain engineering and design control Exhaust Stack Discharge Velocity Reduction / Wind Response Exhaust Stack Discharge Velocity Reduction / Wind Response Heavy interaction with end-users Heavy interaction with end-users CDCV in Vivaria CDCV in Vivaria MBCx MBCx March 2,

Statewide Energy Partnership March 2, SEP Program Year Total2012 Electric Savings (kWh/Yr.)16,741,0007,209,00010,214,00034,614,00015,500,000 Natural Gas (Therms/Yr.)469,000869,000425,0001,763,000477,000 GHG (CO2e Tones/Yr.)7,7006,8005,40019,9007,300 Incentive Received$4,284,000$2,586,000$2,835,000$9,705,000$4,355,000 Energy Cost Savings/Yr.$2,016,000$1,294,000$1,271,000$4,581,000$1,890,000 kWh % Reduction vs %5%7%24%11%

Questions? March 2,