Optimizing Systems at District Scale Presentation

8/2/2019 Optimizing Systems at District Scale Presentation

1/137

Cole Roberts, PE, LEED AP 415.946.0287Brian Renehan, MBA 415.957.9445Bry Sarte, PE, LEED AP 415.677.7300

Clark Brockman (Moderator) - 503.445.7372

Optimizing Systems at District ScaleEcoDistrict ConferenceOctober 27, 2011


2/137

2

(feel free to use, but please remember us)Copyright 2011 | Arup, Sherwood, Sera


3/137

3

Overview of Session

Introductions & Goals for TodayEmergent Questions

Principles

Process

Tools (analytical optimization)

Business Case (financial & value optimization

Conclusion


4/137

4

Goals for Today

1. Synergy vs Efficiency (acrosssystems &scales)2. Effective Process

3. Analytical Optimization

4. Finance & Risk Optimization


5/137

5

Emergent Questions

When does it make sense to imagine systems at

District scalecreating in effect a network ofbuildings?

At what scale do select energy, water, and wastetechnologies make sense?

What are the implications of systems optimizing atdifferent scales?

What are the variables and tools that support

decisions about how and when to proceed?

What are the financial implications?

Are these the right questions?


6/137

6

10 MILES

FRACTAL SCALEREGION


7/1377

10 MILES

FRACTAL SCALEREGION + WATERSHED


8/137

8

FRACTAL SCALEREGION + WATERSHED + UGB (URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY)

10 MILES


9/137

9

FRACTAL SCALEUGB+ CITY

10 MILES


10/137

10

FRACTAL SCALECITY

1 MILE

10 MILES


11/137

11

FRACTAL SCALECITY + DOWNTOWN

1 MILE

10 MILES


12/137

12

FRACTAL SCALEDOWNTOWN

1/4 MILE

1 MILE

10 MILES


13/137

13

FRACTAL SCALEDOWNTOWN

1/4 MILE

1 MILE

10 MILES


14/137

14

FRACTAL SCALEECODISTRICT

1/4 MILE

1 MILE

10 MILES

1/8 MILE


15/137

15

FRACTAL SCALEBLOCK

1/4 MILE

1 MILE

10 MILES

1/8 MILE


16/137

16

FRACTAL SCALEBLOCK

200 FEET

1/4 MILE

1 MILE

10 MILES

1/8 MILE


17/137

17

FRACTAL SCALEBUILDING

200 FEET

1/4 MILE

1 MILE

10 MILES

1/8 MILE


18/137

18


100 FEET

200 FEET

1/4 MILE

1 MILE

10 MILES

1/8 MILE


19/137

19


100 FEET

200 FEET

1/4 MILE

1 MILE

10 MILES

1/8 MILE


20/137

20



21/137

PRINCIPLES


22/137

22

The Ecological ShedWhats the problem?


23/137

23

The Ecological ShedWhats the problem?


24/137

24

Yosemite National Park

Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias

Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias Yosemite, CA


25/137

25

The Ecological ShedWatershed


26/137

Eastshore State Park(Strawberry Creek Outfall)

Strawberry Creek Watershed

Strawberry CreekRestoration and

Bank Stabilization

UCB School of Law

UniversityBotanicalGardens

Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory

UC Berkeley Berkeley, California

UCB Student CommunityCenter/Lower Sproul Plaza

Th E l i l Sh d


27/137

27

The Ecological ShedEcological Footprint

Th E l i l Sh d


28/137

The Ecological ShedEcological Footprint

Th E l i l Sh d


29/137

29

The Ecological ShedEcological Systems

Th E l i l Sh d


30/137

Water and Energy Linkages

The Ecological Shed

The Ecological Shed


31/137

31

The Ecological ShedWater and Power

Th E l i l Sh d


32/137

FoodshedThe Ecological Shed

San Jose

Fresno

Sacramento

Oakland

Chico

Modesto

Vallejo

Santa Rosa

Napa

SanFrancisco

Vacaville

Tracy

Merced

Gilroy

Salinas

Livermore

MantecaDavis

Madera

San Rafael

Santa Cruz

Woodland

Monterey

Yuba City

King City

Stockton

5

80

5

880

205

80

1

152

4

99

4

1

99

50

101

101

F R E S N OF R E S N O

B U T T EB U T T E

L A K EL A K E

M A D E R AM A D E R A

M O N T E R E YM O N T E R E Y

G L E N NG L E NN

M E N D O C I N OM E N D O C I N O

Y O L O Y O L O

S O NO MAS O NO MA

T E H A M AT E H A M A

T U O L U M N ET U O L U M N E

P L U M A SP L U M A S

NAP ANAP A

C O L U S AC O L U S A

P L A C E RP L A C E R

M A R I P O S AM A R I P O S A

E L D O R A D OE L D O R A D O

S T ANI S L AUSS T ANI S L AUS

Y UBA Y UBA

S A N B E N I T OS A N B E N I T O

S A N J O A Q U I NS A N J O A Q U I N

S O L A N OS O L ANO

S ANT A CL ARAS ANT A CL ARA

NE V ADANE V ADA

C A L A V E R A SC A L A V E R A S

M A R I NM A R I N

S UT T E RS UT T E R

A L A M E D AA L A M E D A

S A C R A M E N T OS A C R A M E N T O

A M A D O RA M A D O R

S I E RRAS I E RRA

CO NT RA CO S T AC O N T R A C O S T A

S AN MAT E OS AN MAT E O

S ANT A CRUZS A N T A C R U Z

M E R C E DM E R C E D

100 mile radius

50 mile radius 50 mile radius

100 mile radius

MontereyBay

P a c i f i c O c e a n

Brentwood

Data Source:Farmland Mapping& Monitoring Program 2004& 2006No FMMPdata available for Calaveras,Mendocino and Tuolumne counties

Developedlands

Prime, Unique,andFarmlandofStatewide Importance

Grazing Land and Farmlandof LocalImportance

Farm and Other Land Use, 2006

The San Francisco FoodshedThe San Francisco Foodshed

www.greeninfo.orgAugust 2008

Study Area

Th E l i l Sh d


33/137

33

The Ecological ShedTransportation shed

Th E l i l Sh d


34/137

34

The Ecological ShedTransportation shed

Th E l i l Sh d


35/137

35

The Ecological ShedSewershed


36/137


37/137


38/137

O i l S l


39/137

39

Optimal Scales

O ti l S l


40/137

40

Optimal Scales

Key Variables

O ti l S l ENERGY


41/137

41

Optimal Scales - ENERGY

Key Variables

O ti l S l ENERGY


42/137

42


Key Variables

O ti l S l ENERGY


43/137

43


Key Variables

O ti l S l WASTE


44/137

44

Optimal Scales - WASTE

Key Variables

O ti l S l WATER


45/137

45

Optimal ScalesWATER

Key Variables

O ti l S l


46/137

46

Optimal Scales

E t bli h E d O ti i M i i


47/137

47

Establish, Expand, Optimize, MaximizeWATER

Establish Expand Optimize Maximize


48/137

48

Establish, Expand, Optimize, MaximizeWATER



49/137

49

Establish, Expand, Optimize, MaximizeENERGY



50/137

50

Establish, Expand, Optimize, MaximizeWASTE



51/137

51

Establish, Expand, Optimize, MaximizeCARBON

Comprehensive Prioritized STRATEGY


52/137

1. LoadReduction

2. PassiveStrategies

3. EfficientSystems

4. EnergyRecovery

5.Renewables

6. Offsets

Comprehensive Prioritized STRATEGY

St f d U i it O ti i ti


53/137

53

Stanford University Optimization


54/137

54

Changing in PhasesSource: Stanford University


55/137

Source: Stanford University

Draft Energy & Climate Plan (April 2009)

Energy and ClimateSolution Wedges


56/137

56

Acknowledge changes in the energy and economic efficiency of cogeneration; Moving towards Regeneration

via heat recovery Cost savings of $639 million over business-as-usual; Reduction in greenhouse gas

emissions of 80% below 2000 baseline levels by 2050; Total campus water savings of 15%

S Effi i


57/137

Synergy vs Efficiency

WATER

ENERGY

TRANSPORT

CARBON

SOCIETY

ECONOMY

MATERIAL

WASTE

LANDSCAPE

WEATHER

HUMAN

COMFORT

RATINGSYSTEMS


58/137


59/137

PROCESS


60/137

Land Use

Buildings

Finance &Procurement

District

Systems

Eff ti P


61/137

Effective ProcessLand Use Choices

Building Design & Retrofit

District Systems

Eff ti P


62/137

partneringmeetings

Builders

Operators

Agencies

Owners

TechnologyAnalysis

(OptionsShortlist)

B

value & contextdiscussion

Vision

Focus Areas

Value Criteriaand KPIs

ConceptModeling ofBuildings &

District

A

Plant Concept

FinancialConcept

Site Walk

City Meetings

designworkshop

Procure, Build,Operate

D

Financial/RiskAnalysis

(OptionsShortlist)

C

Effective ProcessLand Use Choices

Building Design & Retrofit

review

Review ExistingInformation(Function &Financial)

District Systems

Workshop Discussions


63/137

63 63

p

Prioritization


64/137

64 64

Prioritization

Prioritization


65/137

65 65

Prioritization


66/137

66


67/137

67

5. Central Plant + Tri-Gen | System Diagram


68/137

Electric Grid

Gas Mains Tri-GenerationPlant

Elec Eff:

35-40%

Thermal

Eff: ~40%

Gas Boilers

Eff: 80%

Absorption Chillers

COP: 1.2

Non-Cooling Elec

Space Heating

DHW

Space Cooling

Grid Block Equipment End UseDistrict

Electricity

Natural Gas

Chilled Water

Hot Water (120 + 0F )

Hot Water (90 + 0F )

Waste/Process Heat

Heat Exchanger

Electric Chillers

COP: 6


69/137

Supply

Baseline

Existing Plant

Existing Plant + CHP

Existing Plant + CCHP

Demand

Baseline

Gold +

Deep Green

Review Existing Conditions

Sustainability, Risk, Financial


70/137


71/137

TOOLS

Program


72/137

72

ProgramAssumption

Central

Plant

Central

Plant

Heating Load Profile Projections


73/137

73


2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 1



74/137

74

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 2




75/137

75

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 3




76/137

76

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 4




77/137

77

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 5




78/137

78

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 5


Reduced summer heatdemand

Peak heat demands in Winter

Reduced mid-day heatdemand

Morning heat demandpeak(Showers, washing)

Evening heat demand

peak(Space heating, showers)

Heating Load Duration Curve Projections (Without


79/137

79

Heating Load Duration Curve Projections (Withoutabsorption cooling)

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

MBH

Hours/Year

Load Duration Curve



80/137

80

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 2


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

MBH

Hours/Year

Load Duration Curve



81/137

81

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 3


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

MBH

Hours/Year

Load Duration Curve



82/137

82

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 4


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

MBH

Hours/Year

Load Duration Curve



83/137

83

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 5


Run Criteria Potential CHP size

4,500 Full Output

Hours/Year

8.3 MBH(2.5 MWth)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

MBH

Hours/Year

Load Duration Curve

Heating Load Duration Curve Projections


84/137

84

2010 2015 2020 2025

Phase 5

(With absorption cooling)

Run Criteria Potential CHP

Size

4,5000 Full Output

Hours/Year

11.8 MBH

(3.5 MWth)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

MBH

Hours/Year

Load Duration Curve

Water-Energy Nexus


85/137

Pilot, Expand, Optimize, Maximize(4 dimensions)

DistrictEnergy Pipe


86/137

Case Studies


87/137


88/137

Case Studies


89/137

Case Studies


90/137

90 Mantri Lake Agara Development

Bangalore, India

Case Studies (India)


91/137


92/137

Potable Water StrategiesCase Studies (India)


93/137


94/137

Onsite Wastewater StrategiesCase Studies (India)


95/137

All wastewater will be captured and reused on site. Additionally, a portion of thewastewater will be used to create a demonstration wetland on the edge of the sitenear Belandur lake to enhance the habitat of the lake edge and expand theecological function of the region.

Case Studies (India)


96/137

Three strategies combine to reduce the projects energy demands:passive, active and onsite generation. While each is manifested differentlydepending on use type they combine for a dramatic reduction in totalenergy use, energy costs and related carbon emissions in perpetuity.

SITE UTILITY OVERVIEWCase Studies (India)


97/137

UTILITY STRUCTURE / ROOM

NON-POTABLE STORAGE TANK

PRETREATMENT STORAGE TANK

POTABLE WATER STORAGE TANK

LEGEND

STORMWATERCase Studies (India)


98/137

STORM DRAIN LINE

PUMPED STORMWATER DISCHARGE

INLET

PERENNIAL WATER FEATURE / STORAGE

SEASONAL IRRIGATION STORAGE

LEGEND

Case Studies


99/137

99 Mantri Lake Agara Development

Bangalore, India


100/137

Integrated Resource Modeling


101/137

101

Aholistic quantitative model forimproved understanding of urbansystems and theimpact of

decisions

waste materialwatertransportationenergy carbonland use


102/137

102

s

Integrated Resource Management (IRM)

Energyconsumption

CO2

emissions

(indirect,

direct,

mobile)

Wastegenerated

& diverted

Comp

osi

tion

Genera

tion

Landuse

deman

d

Em

issionra

tes

Em

ission

factors,

trip

length,%

Wa

ter

consump

tion

rates

Des

ign

life

,ma

teria

l

consump

tion

Supply

EmbodiedCarbon in

Materials

VMTs

compare baseline

and design across

multiple indicators

compare baseline

with designcompare

alternatives

B a s l e

M i a t n

compare with comparable

everyday items (e.g. wastegeneration measured in # of

garbage bins)

Land

take

Densi

ty

Un

its

Waterconsumption/w

astewater

generation

detect hotspots

of resourceconsumption

across the plan



103/137

103

s


Energyconsumption

CO2

emissions

(indirect,

direct,

mobile)

Wastegenerated

& diverted

Comp

osi

tion

Genera

tion

Land

use

deman

d

Em

issionra

tes

Em

ission

factors,

trip

length,%

Wa

ter

consump

tion

rates

Des

ign

life

,ma

teria

l

consump

tion

Supply

EmbodiedCarbon in

Materials

VMTs

compare baseline

and design across

multiple indicators

compare baseline

with designcompare

alternatives

B a s l e

M i a t n



garbage bins)

Land

take

Densi

ty

Un

its

Waterconsumption/w

astewater

generation

detect hotspots


across the plan



104/137

104

s


Energyconsumption

CO2

emissions

(indirect,

direct,

mobile)

Wastegenerated

& diverted

Comp

osi

tion

Genera

tion

Land

use

deman

d

Em

issionra

tes

Em

ission

factors,

trip

length,%

Wa

ter

consump

tion

rates

Des

ign

life

,ma

teria

l

consump

tion

Supply

EmbodiedCarbon in

Materials

VMTs

compare baseline

and design across

multiple indicators

compare baseline

with designcompare

alternatives

B a s l e

M i a t n



garbage bins)

Land

take

Densi

ty

Un

its

Waterconsumption/w

astewater

generation

detect hotspots


across the plan



105/137

105

s


Energyconsumption

CO2

emissions

(indirect,

direct,

mobile)

Wastegenerated

& diverted

Comp

osi

tion

Genera

tion

Land

use

deman

d

Em

issionra

tes

Em

ission

factors,

trip

length,%

Wa

ter

consump

tion

rates

Des

ign

life

,ma

teria

l

consump

tion

Supply

EmbodiedCarbon in

Materials

VMTs

compare baseline

and design across

multiple indicators

compare baseline

with designcompare

alternatives

B a s l e

M i a t n



garbage bins)

Land

take

Densi

ty

Un

its

Waterconsumption/w

astewater

generation

detect hotspots


across the plan

Greenhouse Gases and Emissions


106/137

106

Optimized and Informed Planning


107/137

- Plan evolution- Performance

optimization

IRMmodel

Develop

strategies

Refine

strategies

IRM

model

Optimize

Strategies


108/137

GIS Integration


109/137

109

g


110/137

110


111/137

111

Results


112/137

112

Chose 284 KPIs.

Found all reference input (52,000 cells)

Found 1224 actual inputs

Packett-Burman Sensitivity Analysis



113/137

113

Anaerobic

Digestion

13% wastediversion

5% energyreduction

ElectricVehicles

3% carbonsavings

10%reduction in

parking

6% energydemand



114/137

114

Water EfficiencyStrategies

Fixtures andAppliances

15% waterreduction

3% energysavings

Energy EfficiencyStrategies

District Water Loop

40% water

reduction

4% energy

savings


115/137

115

40000

Total Operational Carbon


116/137

116

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Operational Carbon per Person

Scn2_Carbon_Primary

Scn2_Carbon_Primary_New

Scn2_Carbon_Primary_Existing

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Scn2_Carbon_PrimaryScn2_Carbon_Primary_New

Scn2_Carbon_Primary_Existing

Higher density enables lower

carbon per person. Existing

starting at much higher carbon perperson. Need to both retrofit and

design new build to effect low

carbon strategies.


117/137

Different

Synergy

Ownership

Scalability

Focus

Valuation

FINANCABILITY

RISK MANAGEMENT

Buildability

Entitleability


118/137

BUSINESS CASE

Business Case Process - Moving TowardImplementation


119/137

119

p

1. Initial Value Analysis- Life Cycle Cost Analysis - Does it pencil?- Qualitative Value

2. Finance & Procurement AnalysisSelf-Perform or

Third Party approach make sense?- Risk Analysis- Financing StrategyUse Project Finance?- Third Party Engagement- Final Net Present Cost Analysis

3. Launch ProcurementRFQ, RFP


120/137

Life Cycle CostingDoes the System Pencil vs.Business As Usual?


121/137

121

Takes into consideration capital costs and energy savings only

Assumes electric rate of $0.09/kWh and gas rate of $1.25/therm

Business Case Process - Moving TowardImplementation


122/137

122

p


2. Finance & Procurement AnalysisSelf-Perform or

Third Party Approach?- Risk Analysis- Financing StrategyUse Project Finance?- Third Party Engagement- Final Net Present Cost Analysis

3. Launch ProcurementRFQ, RFP

Procurement OptionsThird Party or Alt.

Procurement Options


123/137

123

Increasing degree of third party involvement& use of performance incentives

p

IncreasingRiskTransfer

DBB DB DBOM DBFOM BOO

Design

Construction

O&M

Financing

Ownership

Is a Third Party Option Right for You?

If Yes to All Three MoveIf No to any one


124/137

124

If Yes to All Three, Move

Forward with Third Party

Procurement

If No to any one

question, self

perform

Risk Management PreferencesRisk Risk Description Keep Shed Share


125/137

125

Design Risk that the design of the facility is incapable of delivering the services at the

anticipated cost or that there are errors or omissions SCOPE DEFINITIONX

Capital Cost

Overrun

Risk that the actual captial costs are higher than budgeted or anticipated X

Contract Alignment Risk that design and construction execution results in O&M challenges that result in

cost increases and poor performanceX

Time to Completion Risk that the construction schedule is longer than anticipated X

Technology Risk that (a) the design and its method of delivery do not keep pace, from a

technological perspective, with Genentech requirements or (b) the design life of thefacility proves to be shorter than anticipated, thus accelerating refurbishment expense

X

Remediation Risk that soil contamination on site will require remediation, delay project X

Pollution/Environmental

Risk that ammonia storage could result in a leak that would require SAFETY NOTJUST AMMONIA IF AN ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT

X

Seismic (Force

Majeure)

Risk that contracted service delivery (pre- or post- completion) is not met because of

a seismic eventX

Fuel Risk that fuel prices escalate faster than anticipated (what about if they escalateslower than anticipated?)

X

Performance Risk that the unit cost of production is higher than anticipated RATIONALE? X

Regulatory (changein law)

Risk that regulatory requirements increase permit fees for constructing and operatingthe facility

X

Reduction in

Occupancy

Risk that Genetech demand decreases due to unforeseen changes to Genentech's

business.X

Exit Risk that Genentech needs to exit a contract AT ITS OWN DISCRETION X

Risk Scoring


126/137

126

Weighting based on risk management priorities,(qualitative) probability of the risk occurring

Scoring on a 1-5 scale

The higher the points the more aligned the deliveryoption is with the preferred risk management

approachRisk Risk Description Weight

(1-5)DBB DBB+OM DBOM DBFOM BOO Comment/Rationale

Design Risk that the design of the facility isincapable of delivering the services at

the anticipated cost or that there are

errors or omissions

3 3 3 6 6 6 Design build most effectiveway to shed or share design

risk

Capital CostOverrun Risk that the actual captial costs arehigher than budgeted or anticipated 4 4 4 8 8 8 Design build most effectiveway to prevent change

orders for out of scopeitems (up front planning,

milestone payments,

contract enforcement,

external banks involved)

Risks Caused by Third Party Approach


127/137

127

Risks inherent in transferring project delivery to a3rd party

Negative scoring

Same weighting approach

Added to project delivery risks (to create a netreduction in the overall score)

Risk Risk Description Weight

(1-5)

DBB DBB+O

M

DBOM DBFOM BOO Comment

GMP ???????? 2 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 Risk to GMP certification; is this a

showstopper?

Long TermFlexibility

Risk that changes to the long-range campus planning

cannot be adjusted duerestrictions on a long-term

contract

4 0 -4 -4 -4 -8 3rd parties and lenders will want somecertainty regarding Genentech's ability to

meet future payment obligations, but thisdoes not mean a loss of flexibility in the

contract if obligations are being met.

Total Risk Management Score

Project risk + 3rd party risk + key market drivers =


128/137

128

Project risk + 3rd party risk + key market drivers =total risk management score

Key Driver Driver Description Weight(1-5) DBB DBB+OM DBOM DBFOM BOO Comment

Market Robustness Pool of qualified firms

that can deliver full 3rd

party service as required

is insufficient.

2 4 4 2 2 2 Acknowledge that there are fewer

firms that can own and operate

facilities than design and build

them

Contract

Burden/Oversight

Required

Similar to contract

alignment, Genentech

gains efficient of

contract oversight the

more the services arewrapped into a single

delivery.

4 4 8 12 16 20 Contract enforcement risk cannot

be avoided but question is - how

much administrative burden can

Genentech take on before it does

not pay?

Technology Innovation Genentech wants

continual improvement

on sustainability metrics

and efficiency

5 5 10 15 15 15 The more project delivery

components that are wrapped into

a single contract the more

opportunities there are to

incentivize efficiency and

performance.

Qualitative Score 13 22 29 33 37

Combined Project &

Third Party Risk Score

44 40 53 57 53

Total Qualitative Score 57 62 82 90 90

Overview of Project Finance Structure


129/137

129

Investors

Equity

Lenders

Debt

Financing

Contracts

Project

Company

Off-taker

Contract

Design BuildContractor

DB Contract

Input Supply

Contract

Off-taker

O&M

Contract

Operator

Supplier

Why use project finance?


130/137

130

Benefits Costs

Owner/Off-Taker

Perspective

Avoid large initial capital costs

Lower unit cost long-run

Leaves room for additional investment

Risk transfer

Bank due diligence

Long-term contract (20-30 yrs)

Potential higher early unit prices

More limited input on specifications

Implementation Partners - Market Overview

Utiliti


131/137

131

DB DBOM DBFOM BOO

Construction

Design

O&M

Financing

Ownership

EPC

Contractors

Technology Providers

Operators

Developers/ESCos

Utilities

Self Perform Case - Annual Cash Flow (US$)


132/137

(90)

(75)

(60)

(45)

(30)

(15)

-

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

(90)

(75)

(60)

(45)

(30)

(15)

-

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

2042

2043

2044

2045

2046

2047- - - -

Millions

Millions

Capital investment Cash outflows - Commodities Cash outflows - Maintenance Tax (-) creditor / (+) debtor Annual cash flow

(Inflows)

Outflows

Alt. Procurement Cash Flow (US$)


133/137

133

(90)

(75)

(60)

(45)

(30)

(15)

-

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

(90)

(75)

(60)

(45)

(30)

(15)

-

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

2042

2043

2044

2045

2046

2047-

-

-

-

Millions

Millions

Cash outflows - Procurement & Pre-Operations Cash outflows - Service payments Tax (-) creditor / (+) debtor Annual cash flow

(Inflows)Ou

tflows

Net Present Cost (US$)


134/137

Alt. Procurement Self-Perform

Is a Third Party Option Right for YouYES!

If Yes to All Three, MoveIf No to any one


135/137

135

Forward with Third Party

Procurement

y

question, self

perform

Business Case Process -Moving TowardImplementation


136/137

136


2. Finance & Procurement AnalysisSelf-Perform orThird Party approach make sense?

- Risk Analysis- Financing StrategyUse Project Finance?- Third Party Engagement- Final Net Present Cost Analysis

3. Launch ProcurementRFQ, RFP...let theimplementation begin!

Optimizing Systems at District Scale


137/137

Cole Roberts, PE, LEED AP 415.946.0287Brian Renehan, MBA 415.957.9445

p g yEcoDistrict ConferenceOctober 27, 2011

Documents

Optimizing Systems at District Scale Presentation