Baha sadreddin | Cost and Payback Analysis

Portland Cultural Forest Environmental and Financial Analysis for Achieving Net-Zero Site Energy Baha Sadreddin Environment, Economics, Enterprise Prof. Samuleson and Prof. Apeseche

Project Site Lloyd District (Pilot EcoDistrict) Portland, Oregon

Portland Cultural Forest - Multicultural center - Personal academic design project - Owned and operated by the same entity Mission - To become a multicultural icon for the City of Portland and to help strengthen the community by providing opportunities for cross-cultural interaction and learning.

Site is an abandoned parking lot/ waterfront.

Building program attempts to revitalize the waterfront area through cultural, educational and social components.

The building form is separated into two components, educational and office, to create a physical connection to the waterfront.

The event space, being the cultural component, physically bridges the gap between the two other components.

The form is modified to maximize exposure to the south sun.

And to respond to specific views of the surroundings.

Program: - Educational - Music - Dance - Languages - Office - Administrative - Community development - Social programs - Cultural and social - Community event space - Cultural celebrations and events

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ ϵй ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

ϰй ϭϳй

ϵй

Current Design EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2**

ϭϳй

conservation measures for the building, an initial energy analysis was performed taking into account the building program, operating schedule and current materials selection.

Annual Utilities Bill $ 83,716.2***

Because of the passive design strategies implemented up to this point including building’s solar orientation and narrow profile,

Ϯϵй

ϰϭй

the overall energy performance of the base case

ĂƐĞ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

,t

To identify the most appropriate energy

ϰй

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

Initial Energy Performance Analysis

U.S. Average EUI: 282.0 kWh/m2*

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Portland Cultural Forest Baseline Case

ϰϭй

Ϯϵй

zĞĂƌ

at 120.6 kWh/m2 was around 57% lower than

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

kWh

the national average* of 282 kWh/m2. However,

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

kWh

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

because of the reduced internal gains, the

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

kWh

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

kWh

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ kWh

building becomes mainly envelope dominated ϵй

with heating accounting for the largest portion of energy consumption.

* Source: U.S. Department of Energy ** Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation *** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

ϰй

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ ϵй ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

ϰй ϭϳй

ϵй

Current Design EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2**

ϭϳй

much improved compared to the average for this building typology, the goal became to aim for net-zero site energy through energy conservation measures and renewable. To

Annual Utilities Bill $ 83,716.2***

identify this measures, a series of energy simulations were performed to understand the highest priority components. Heating at 41% of

Ϯϵй

ϰϭй

total building energy consumption, electric

ĂƐĞ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

,t

Since the current performance of the building is

ϰй

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

Initial Energy Performance Analysis

U.S. Average EUI: 282.0 kWh/m2*

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Portland Cultural Forest Baseline Case

* Source: U.S. Department of Energy ** Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation *** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

ϰϭй

Ϯϵй

zĞĂƌ

lighting at 21%, and cooling at 9% are the major

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

kWh

design-related aspects as seen in the diagram.

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

kWh

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

The following ECMs were identified in order of

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

kWh

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

kWh

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ kWh

priority.

ϰй ϵй

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ ϵй ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

U.S. Average EUI: 282.0 kWh/m2*

ϰй

ϰй ϭϳй

ϵй

Current Design EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2** Annual Utilities Bill $ 83,716.2***

Ϯϵй

ϰϭй

ĂƐĞ

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

,t

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Portland Cultural Forest Baseline Case

* Source: U.S. Department of Energy ** Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation *** Source: Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

ϰϭй

Energy Conservation Measures based on priority: - Building envelope.

- Construction. ϭϳй - Glazing performance.

- Heating load.

- Systems.

- Energy recovery.

- Lighting.

- Lighting controls.

- Electric lighting reduction. Ϯϵй load.

- Cooling - Natural ventilation.

zĞĂƌ

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

kWh

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

kWh

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

kWh

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

kWh

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ kWh

- Whole building energy analysis.

- Coupled ECMs. - Net-zero site energy.

- Photovoltaics

ϰй ϵй

Ă ď Đ Ě

h/

ϭϮϬ͘ϲ ϭϭϳ͘ϯ ϭϭϱ ϭϭϰ͘ϯ

ŶĞƌŐLJ ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ /ZZ ϱ͘ϰϰ ϵ͘Ϯϰ ϭϬ͘ϳϵ

ϴ͘ϲ ϲ͘ϯ ϳ

ϳ͘ϯϴ ϭϯ͘ϴϰ ϭϭ͘ϱϲ Construction ECMs:

IRR

ϯ

Payback Ϯ Period % Energy ϭ Savings Ϭ

Ϯ

ϰ

Ă͘ ,ĞĂǀLJͲtĞŝŐŚƚ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ

ϲ

ϴ

ϭϬ

ď͘ ϮΗ džƚƌƵĚĞĚ WŽůLJƐƚLJƌĞŶĞ

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

ϭϮ

ϭϰ

Đ͘ ϰΗ džƚƌƵĚĞĚ WŽůLJƐƚLJƌĞŶĞ

ϭϲ

Base case.

- EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2* a. Heavy-weight concrete - EUI: 117.3 kWh/m2* - 5.44% energy saving for heating/cooling - Annual savings of $2,258** - Payback: 8.6 years - IRR: 7.38% b. Additional 2” extruded polystyrene insulation - EUI: 115.0 kWh/m2* - 9.24% energy saving for heating/cooling - Annual savings of $3,835** - Payback: 6.3 years (lowest) - IRR: 13.84% (highest) c. Additional 4” extruded polystyrene insulation - EUI: 114.3 kWh/m2* - 10.79% energy saving for heating/cooling - Annual savings of $4,481** - Payback: 7.0 years - IRR: 11.56%

Ă ď Đ Ě

h/

ϭϮϬ͘ϲ ϭϭϳ͘ϯ ϭϭϱ ϭϭϰ͘ϯ

ŶĞƌŐLJ ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ /ZZ ϱ͘ϰϰ ϵ͘Ϯϰ ϭϬ͘ϳϵ

ϴ͘ϲ ϲ͘ϯ ϳ

ϳ͘ϯϴ ϭϯ͘ϴϰ ϭϭ͘ϱϲ Construction ECMs:

Based on the analysis, an additional two inches of

IRR

polystyrene insulation resulted in the most

ϯ

optimum environmental and financial performance with an annual energy reduction of 9.24%* in terms of heating and cooling, annual savings of $3,835**,

Payback Ϯ Period

a payback period of 6.3 years, and an IRR of 13.8%.

However, since the overall energy reduction was lower than expected, additional detailed energy

% Energy ϭ Savings

simulations Ϭ

Ϯ

ϰ

Ă͘ ,ĞĂǀLJͲtĞŝŐŚƚ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ

ϲ

ϴ

ϭϬ

ď͘ ϮΗ džƚƌƵĚĞĚ WŽůLJƐƚLJƌĞŶĞ

ϭϮ

ϭϰ

Đ͘ ϰΗ džƚƌƵĚĞĚ WŽůLJƐƚLJƌĞŶĞ

ϭϲ

were

performed

to

understand

unwanted heat loss/gain through all envelope surfaces. The results showed glazing as the major contributing factor and helped drive the next set of ECMs with focus on glazing system selection.

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

1 Heavy Weight Concrete

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Heavy Weight Concrete for Heating and Cooling ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚΎ Light Weight 12" Cast in Place Labor Equipment Commissioning and Validation** Subtotal

($37,961.00) ($23,159.40) ($2,233.00) ($4,434.74) ($67,788.14)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎΎ Heavy Weight 12" Cast in Place Labor Equipment Commissioning and Validation** Subtotal

($44,341.00) ($32,538.00) ($3,126.20) ($5,600.36) ($85,605.56)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($17,817.43)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

323387 18598 5.44% $2,258.17

323387 18598 5.44% $2,371.08

323387 18598 5.44% $2,489.63

323387 18598 5.44% $2,614.11

323387 18598 5.44% $2,744.82

323387 18598 5.44% $2,882.06

323387 18598 5.44% $3,026.16

323387 18598 5.44% $3,177.47

323387 18598 5.44% $3,336.34

323387 18598 5.44% $3,503.16

SF

6380 6380 6380

Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ * Source: RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data ** Assumed based on 7.00% of Total Construction Cost *** Source: RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data **** Assumed based on 1.00% of Total Construction Cost Premium

($17,817.43)

$6.95 $5.10 $0.49

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

($178.17) $0.00

$2,079.99 5.01%

$2,192.90 5.03%

$2,311.46 5.05%

$2,435.94 5.07%

$2,566.64 5.09%

$2,703.89 5.10%

$2,847.99 5.12%

$2,999.30 5.13%

$3,158.17 5.15%

$3,324.99 5.16%

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 8.6 ($3,110.23) 7.38% 11.67% 1.49

$5.95 $3.63 $0.35

6380 6380 6380

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵΎΎΎΎ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ ,ĞĂǀLJ tĞŝŐŚƚ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling

Cost

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation+Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

2 Heavy Weight Concrete and 2" Extruded Polystyrene Insulation

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Double Glazing for Heating and Cooling ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ Light Weight 12" Cast in Place* Labor Equipment Commissioning and Validation** Subtotal

($37,961.00) ($23,159.40) ($2,233.00) ($4,434.74) ($67,788.14)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎΎ Heavy Weight 12" Cast in Place* Labor Equipment 2" Extruded Polystyrene Insulation***** Labor (Insulation) Equipment (Insulation) Commissioning and Validation** Subtotal

($44,341.00) ($32,538.00) ($3,126.20) ($3,764.20) ($1,276.00) $0.00 ($5,600.36) ($90,645.76)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($22,857.63)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

310394 31591 9.24% $3,835.78

310394 31591 9.24% $4,027.57

310394 31591 9.24% $4,228.95

310394 31591 9.24% $4,440.39

310394 31591 9.24% $4,662.41

310394 31591 9.24% $4,895.53

310394 31591 9.24% $5,140.31

310394 31591 9.24% $5,397.33

310394 31591 9.24% $5,667.19

310394 31591 9.24% $5,950.55

SF

6380 6380 6380

Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ ,ĞĂǀLJ tĞŝŐŚƚ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ ĂŶĚ ϮΗ džƚƌƵĚĞĚ WŽůLJƐƚLJƌĞŶĞ /ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ;'ĞŶĞƌĂůͿ * Source: RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data ** Assumed based on 7.00% of Total Construction Cost *** Source: RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data **** Assumed based on 1.00% of Total Construction Cost Premium ***** Source: RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data

($22,857.63)

$6.95 $5.10 $0.49 $0.59 $0.20 $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

($228.58) $0.00

$3,607.20 8.69%

$3,798.99 8.71%

$4,000.37 8.74%

$4,211.82 8.76%

$4,433.84 8.78%

$4,666.96 8.81%

$4,911.73 8.83%

$5,168.75 8.85%

$5,438.62 8.86%

$5,721.98 8.88%

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 6.3 $1,704.40 13.84% 15.78% 2.01

$5.95 $3.63 $0.35

6380 6380 6380 6380 6380 6380

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ ,ĞĂǀLJ tĞŝŐŚƚ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ ĂŶĚ ϮΗ džƚƌƵĚĞĚ WŽůLJƐƚLJƌĞŶĞ /ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽ % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling

Cost

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation+Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

3 Heavy Weight Concrete and 4" Extruded Polystyrene Insulation

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Double Glazing for Heating and Cooling ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ Light Weight 12" Cast in Place* Labor Equipment Commissioning and Validation** Subtotal

($37,961.00) ($23,159.40) ($2,233.00) ($4,434.74) ($67,788.14)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎΎ Heavy Weight 12" Cast in Place* Labor Equipment 4" Extruded Polystyrene Insulation***** Labor (Insulation) Equipment (Insulation) Commissioning and Validation** Subtotal

($44,341.00) ($32,538.00) ($3,126.20) ($9,952.80) ($1,595.00) $0.00 ($5,600.36) ($97,153.36)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($29,365.23)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

305072 36913 10.79% $4,481.98

305072 36913 10.79% $4,706.08

305072 36913 10.79% $4,941.38

305072 36913 10.79% $5,188.45

305072 36913 10.79% $5,447.87

305072 36913 10.79% $5,720.26

305072 36913 10.79% $6,006.28

305072 36913 10.79% $6,306.59

305072 36913 10.79% $6,621.92

305072 36913 10.79% $6,953.02

SF

6380 6380 6380

Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ ,ĞĂǀLJ tĞŝŐŚƚ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ ĂŶĚ ϰΗ džƚƌƵĚĞĚ WŽůLJƐƚLJƌĞŶĞ /ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ * Source: RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data ** Assumed based on 7.00% of Total Construction Cost *** Source: RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data **** Assumed based on 1.00% of Total Construction Cost Premium ***** Source: RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data

($29,365.23)

$6.95 $5.10 $0.49 $1.56 $0.25 $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

($293.65) $0.00

$4,188.32 10.09%

$4,412.42 10.12%

$4,647.73 10.15%

$4,894.80 10.18%

$5,154.22 10.21%

$5,426.61 10.24%

$5,712.62 10.27%

$6,012.94 10.29%

$6,328.27 10.32%

$6,659.36 10.34%

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 7.0 ($514.71) 11.56% 14.26% 1.82

$5.95 $3.63 $0.35

6380 6380 6380 6380 6380 6380

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ ,ĞĂǀLJ tĞŝŐŚƚ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞ ĂŶĚ ϰΗ džƚƌƵĚĞĚ WŽůLJƐƚLJƌĞŶĞ /ŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling

Cost

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

EUI

120.6 107 93.9 91.6

a b c

Energy Savings Payback Period IRR 22.5 44.5 48.4

9.9 7.8 10.4

5 9 4 Glazing Type ECMs:

IRR

3

Payback 2 Period % Energy 1 Savings 0

10 a. Double ArgonͲFilled

20

30

40

b. Double Spec.ͲSelect. Argon

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

50 c. Triple ArgonͲFilled

60

Base case.

- EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2* a. Double-Layer Glazing - EUI: 107.1 kWh/m2* - 22.5% energy saving for heating/cooling - Annual savings of $9,370** - Payback: 9.9 years - IRR: 4.6% b. Double-Layer Spectrally-Selective Argon-Filled Glazing - EUI: 93.9 kWh/m2* - 44.5% energy saving for heating/cooling - Annual savings of $18,491** - Payback: 7.8 years (lowest) - IRR: 9.3% (highest) c. Triple-Layer Argon-Filled Glazing - EUI: 91.6 kWh/m2* - 48.4% energy saving for heating/cooling - Annual savings of $20,099** - Payback: 10.4 years - IRR: 3.8%

EUI

120.6 107 93.9 91.6

a b c

Energy Savings Payback Period IRR 22.5 44.5 48.4

9.9 7.8 10.4

5 9 4 Glazing Type ECMs:

The analysis indicated that while the triple-layer

IRR

argon-filled glazing results in the highest

3

percentage of energy savings, the cost premium of the system does not evenly compete with the double-layer spectrally-selective argon-filled

Payback 2 Period

system which results in a lower payback period of 7.8 years compared to 10.4 for triple-layer and a higher IRR of 9.3% compared to 3.8% for

% Energy 1 Savings

triple-layer glazing.

0

10 a. Double ArgonͲFilled

20

30

40

b. Double Spec.ͲSelect. Argon

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

50 c. Triple ArgonͲFilled

60

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation+Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

4 Double Glazing with Spectrally Selective Film

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Double Glazing for Heating and Cooling

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

264813 77172 22.57% $9,370.22

264813 77172 22.57% $9,838.74

264813 77172 22.57% $10,330.67

264813 77172 22.57% $10,847.21

264813 77172 22.57% $11,389.57

264813 77172 22.57% $11,959.04

264813 77172 22.57% $12,557.00

264813 77172 22.57% $13,184.85

264813 77172 22.57% $13,844.09

264813 77172 22.57% $14,536.29

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ Ύ System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($103,851.00) ($31,155.30) ($7,269.57) ($142,275.87)

ϲϮϵϰ

ϭϲ͘ϱ

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎ System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($165,532.20) ($49,659.66) ($11,587.25) ($226,779.11)

ϲϮϵϰ

Ϯϲ͘ϯ

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($84,503.24) ($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

($845.03) $0.00

$8,525.19 20.53%

$8,993.70 20.63%

$9,485.64 20.72%

$10,002.17 20.81%

$10,544.53 20.89%

$11,114.01 20.97%

$11,711.96 21.05%

$12,339.81 21.12%

$12,999.06 21.19%

$13,691.26 21.25%

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ ŽƵďůĞ 'ůĂnjŝŶŐ % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ ŽƵďůĞ 'ůĂnjŝŶŐ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ;'ĞŶĞƌĂůͿ

* RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($84,503.24)

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 9.9 ($22,876.77) 4.6% 10.09% 1.29

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation+Inflation Operating Year

5 DoubleͲLayer SpectrallyͲSelective Argon Filled Glazing

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

Baseline Case Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling Proposed Case Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Double SpectͲSelect Argon Glazing for Heating and Cooling

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

189691 152294 44.53% $18,491.54

189691 152294 44.53% $19,416.11

189691 152294 44.53% $20,386.92

189691 152294 44.53% $21,406.27

189691 152294 44.53% $22,476.58

189691 152294 44.53% $23,600.41

189691 152294 44.53% $24,780.43

189691 152294 44.53% $26,019.45

189691 152294 44.53% $27,320.42

189691 152294 44.53% $28,686.44

Baseline Case Cost * System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($103,851.00) ($31,155.30) ($7,269.57) ($142,275.87)

6294

16.5

Proposed Case Cost ** System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($201,408.00) ($60,422.40) ($14,098.56) ($275,928.96)

6294

32

Proposed Case Cost Premium

($133,653.09) ($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

($1,336.53) $0.00

$17,155.01 41.31%

$18,079.58 41.47%

$19,050.39 41.61%

$20,069.74 41.75%

$21,140.05 41.88%

$22,263.88 42.01%

$23,443.90 42.13%

$24,682.92 42.24%

$25,983.89 42.35%

$27,349.91 42.46%

Proposed Case Maintenance Premium Impact on Rentable SF Cash Flow Impact from Double SpectͲSelect Argon Glazing % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate PayͲBack Period (Based on Year 1 Saving Only) Net Present Value Ͳ DoubleͲLayer SpectrallyͲSelective Glazing IRR Return on Investment Multiple on Investment Payback Period (General) * RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($133,653.09) 10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 7.8 ($13,914.26) 9.3% 12.84% 1.64

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation+Inflation Operating Year

6 TripleͲLayer Argon Filled Glazing

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

Baseline Case Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling Proposed Case Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reducation Cost Saving from Triple Layer Argon Glazing for Heating and Cooling

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

176449 165536 48.40% $20,099.38

176449 165536 48.40% $21,104.35

176449 165536 48.40% $22,159.57

176449 165536 48.40% $23,267.55

176449 165536 48.40% $24,430.92

176449 165536 48.40% $25,652.47

176449 165536 48.40% $26,935.09

176449 165536 48.40% $28,281.85

176449 165536 48.40% $29,695.94

176449 165536 48.40% $31,180.74

Baseline Case Cost * System Labour Comissioning and Validation Subtotal

($103,851.00) ($31,155.30) ($7,269.57) ($142,275.87)

6294

16.5

Proposed Case Cost ** System Labour Comissioning and Validation Subtotal

($241,689.60) ($72,506.88) ($16,918.27) ($331,114.75)

6294

38.4

Proposed Case Cost Premium

($188,838.88) ($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

($1,888.39) $0.00

$18,210.99 43.86%

$19,215.96 44.07%

$20,271.18 44.28%

$21,379.16 44.48%

$22,542.53 44.66%

$23,764.08 44.84%

$25,046.70 45.01%

$26,393.46 45.17%

$27,807.55 45.33%

$29,292.35 45.47%

Proposed Case Maintnance Premium Impact on Rentable SF Cash Flow Impact from Triple Layer Argon Glazing % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate PayͲBack Period (Based on Year 1 Saving Only) Net Present Value Ͳ TripleͲLayer Argon Filled Glazing IRR Return on Investment Multiple on Investment Payback Period (General)

* RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($188,838.88)

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 10.4 ($56,218.86) 3.8% 9.64% 1.24

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

h/

ϭϮϬ͘ϲ ϭϬϱ͘ϭ ϭϬϮ͘ϵ ϭϬϭ

Ă ď Đ

ŶĞƌŐLJ ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ /ZZ Ϯϱ͘ϵ Ϯϵ͘ϱ ϯϮ͘ϳ

ϰ ϯ͘ϵ ϯ͘ϵ

Ϯϲ͘ϰ Ϯϳ͘ϭ Ϯϲ͘ϵ Systems ECMs:

IRR

ϯ

Payback Ϯ Period % Energy ϭ Savings Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ Ă͘ ϲϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

ď͘ ϳϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

Ϯϱ Đ͘ ϴϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ

ϯϬ

ϯϱ

Base case.

- EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2* a. 60%-Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel - EUI: 105.1 kWh/m2* - 25.9 energy saving for heating/cooling - Annual savings of $10,766** - Payback: 4.0 years - IRR: 26.4% b. 70%-Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel - EUI: 102.9 kWh/m2* - 27.1 % energy saving for heating/cooling - Annual savings of $12,253** - Payback: 3.9 years (lowest) - IRR: 27.1% (highest) c. 80%-Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel - EUI: 101.0 kWh/m2* - 32.7 % energy saving for heating/cooling (highest) - Annual savings of $13,596** - Payback: 3.9 years (Lowest) - IRR: 26.9% (slightly below highest)

h/

ϭϮϬ͘ϲ ϭϬϱ͘ϭ ϭϬϮ͘ϵ ϭϬϭ

Ă ď Đ

ŶĞƌŐLJ ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ /ZZ Ϯϱ͘ϵ Ϯϵ͘ϱ ϯϮ͘ϳ

ϰ ϯ͘ϵ ϯ͘ϵ

Ϯϲ͘ϰ Ϯϳ͘ϭ Ϯϲ͘ϵ Energy Recovery ECMs:

While the 70% efficiency energy recovery system

IRR

results in a slightly higher IRR, because of the

ϯ

importance of the system and the large amount of energy required for heating the building, the 80% efficiency system was selected. The 80%

Payback Ϯ Period

efficiency energy recovery system has the same payback period of 3.9 years as the other system and results in an additional $1,240* in savings

% Energy ϭ Savings

per year, but has an IRR of 23.9% which is 0.2% Ϭ

ϱ

ϭϬ Ă͘ ϲϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ

ϭϱ

ϮϬ

ď͘ ϳϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

Ϯϱ Đ͘ ϴϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ

ϯϬ

ϯϱ

lower than the 70% efficiency system.

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for HVAC System (kWh)* Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

7 60% Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh)* Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Energy Recovery Wheel for Heating and Cooling ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

253310 88675 25.93% $10,766.92

253310 88675 25.93% $11,305.26

253310 88675 25.93% $11,870.53

253310 88675 25.93% $12,464.05

253310 88675 25.93% $13,087.26

253310 88675 25.93% $13,741.62

253310 88675 25.93% $14,428.70

253310 88675 25.93% $15,150.14

253310 88675 25.93% $15,907.64

253310 88675 25.93% $16,703.02

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

($409.50) $0.00

$10,357.42 24.94%

$10,895.76 24.99%

$11,461.03 25.04%

$12,054.55 25.08%

$12,677.76 25.12%

$13,332.12 25.16%

$14,019.20 25.19%

$14,740.64 25.23%

$15,498.14 25.26%

$16,293.52 25.29%

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ 60% Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel** Labor*** Commissioning and Validation**** Subtotal

($35,000.00) ($3,500.00) ($2,450.00) ($40,950.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($40,950.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵΎΎΎΎΎ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ ŶĞƌŐLJ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ tŚĞĞů % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ ϲϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ ŶĞƌŐLJ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ tŚĞĞů /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ

* DesignBuilder Energy Simulation ** Source: http://www.innergytech.com *** Assumed based on 10.00% of System Cost **** Assumed based on 7.00% of System Cost ***** Assumed based on 1.00% of Total Construction Cost Premium

($40,950.00)

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 4.0 $26,678.98 26.47% 25.29% 3.21

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for HVAC System (kWh)* Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation+Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

8 70% Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel*

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh)* Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Energy Recovery Wheel for Heating and Cooling ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

241070 100915 29.51% $12,253.10

241070 100915 29.51% $12,865.75

241070 100915 29.51% $13,509.04

241070 100915 29.51% $14,184.49

241070 100915 29.51% $14,893.72

241070 100915 29.51% $15,638.40

241070 100915 29.51% $16,420.32

241070 100915 29.51% $17,241.34

241070 100915 29.51% $18,103.41

241070 100915 29.51% $19,008.58

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

($456.30) $0.00

$11,796.80 28.41%

$12,409.45 28.46%

$13,052.74 28.51%

$13,728.19 28.56%

$14,437.42 28.60%

$15,182.10 28.65%

$15,964.02 28.69%

$16,785.04 28.73%

$17,647.11 28.76%

$18,552.28 28.80%

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ 70% Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel** Labor*** Commissioning and Validation**** Subtotal

($39,000.00) ($3,900.00) ($2,730.00) ($45,630.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($45,630.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵΎΎΎΎΎ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ ŶĞƌŐLJ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ tŚĞĞů % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ ϳϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ ŶĞƌŐLJ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ tŚĞĞů /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ * DesignBuilder Energy Simulation ** Source: http://www.innergytech.com *** Assumed based on 10.00% of System Cost **** Assumed based on 7.00% of System Cost ***** Assumed based on 1.00% of Total Construction Cost Premium

($45,630.00) 10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 3.9 $31,278.82 27.15% 25.85% 3.28

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for HVAC System (kWh)* Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

9 80% Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel

0 Owned 341985 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Heating and Cooling WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Heating and Cooling (kWh)* Energy Demand Reduction for Heating and Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Energy Recovery Wheel for Heating and Cooling ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

341985 ($41,523.82)

341985 ($43,600.01)

341985 ($45,780.01)

341985 ($48,069.01)

341985 ($50,472.46)

341985 ($52,996.08)

341985 ($55,645.89)

341985 ($58,428.18)

341985 ($61,349.59)

341985 ($64,417.07)

230008 111977 32.74% $13,596.25

230008 111977 32.74% $14,276.06

230008 111977 32.74% $14,989.86

230008 111977 32.74% $15,739.36

230008 111977 32.74% $16,526.32

230008 111977 32.74% $17,352.64

230008 111977 32.74% $18,220.27

230008 111977 32.74% $19,131.29

230008 111977 32.74% $20,087.85

230008 111977 32.74% $21,092.24

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

($508.95) $0.00

$13,087.30 31.52%

$13,767.11 31.58%

$14,480.91 31.63%

$15,230.41 31.68%

$16,017.37 31.73%

$16,843.69 31.78%

$17,711.32 31.83%

$18,622.34 31.87%

$19,578.90 31.91%

$20,583.29 31.95%

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ 60% Efficiency Energy Recovery Wheel** Labor*** Commissioning and Validation**** Subtotal

($43,500.00) ($4,350.00) ($3,045.00) ($50,895.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($50,895.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵΎΎΎΎΎ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ ϴϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ ŶĞƌŐLJ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ tŚĞĞů % Cost Savings on Energy for Heating and Cooling Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ ϴϬй ĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ ŶĞƌŐLJ ZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ tŚĞĞů /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ * DesignBuilder Energy Simulation ** Source: http://www.innergytech.com *** Assumed based on 10.00% of System Cost **** Assumed based on 7.00% of System Cost ***** Assumed based on 1.00% of Total Construction Cost Premium

($50,895.00) 10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 3.9 $34,459.25 26.98% 25.71% 3.26

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

h/

ϭϮϬ͘ϲ ϭϬϮ͘ϴ ϭϭϭ͘ϱ ϭϬϭ͘ϰ

Ă ď Đ

ŶĞƌŐLJ ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ /ZZ ϳϰ͘Ϯ ϰϬ ϴϰ͘ϱ

ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϯ ϯ

ϲϳ͘ϴ ϯϮ͘ϲ ϯϲ͘ϱ Lighting ECMs:

IRR

ϯ

Payback Ϯ Period % Energy ϭ Savings Ϭ

ϭϬ

ϮϬ

ϯϬ

Ă͘ ŝŵŵŝŶŐ ^ĞŶƐŽƌƐ

ϰϬ ď͘ >

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

ϱϬ

ϲϬ

ϳϬ

Đ͘ > ǁŝƚŚ ŝŵŵŝŶŐ ^ĞŶƐŽƌƐ

ϴϬ

ϵϬ

Base case.

- EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2* a. Dimming sensors - EUI: 102.8 kWh/m2* - 74.2% energy saving for electric lighting - Annual savings of $18,241** - Payback: 1.6 years (lowest) - IRR: 67.8% (highest) b. LED lighting - EUI: 111.5 kWh/m2* - 40.0% energy saving for electric lighting - Annual savings of $9,832** - Payback: 3.3 years - IRR: 32.6% c. LED lighting with daylight control sensors - EUI: 101.4 kWh/m2* - 84.5% energy saving for electric lighting - Annual savings of 20,777** - Payback: 3.0 years - IRR: 36.5%

h/

ϭϮϬ͘ϲ ϭϬϮ͘ϴ ϭϭϭ͘ϱ ϭϬϭ͘ϰ

Ă ď Đ

ŶĞƌŐLJ ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ /ZZ ϳϰ͘Ϯ ϰϬ ϴϰ͘ϱ

ϭ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϯ ϯ

ϲϳ͘ϴ ϯϮ͘ϲ ϯϲ͘ϱ Lighting ECMs: Electric lighting contributes to 29%* of the building’s overall

IRR

energy consumption. Since the building has a narrow

ϯ

profile with most of the main spaces oriented towards the south, most of the interior spaces have access to an ample amount of daylight during operating hours. Daylight and

Payback Ϯ Period

dimming sensors appeared to be the most viable solution with a payback period of 1.6 years and an IRR of 67.8% while reducing the need for electric lighting by around

% Energy ϭ Savings

75%. The addition of LED lighting appeared financially not

Ϭ

ϭϬ

ϮϬ

ϯϬ

Ă͘ ŝŵŵŝŶŐ ^ĞŶƐŽƌƐ

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation

ϰϬ ď͘ >

ϱϬ

ϲϬ

ϳϬ

Đ͘ > ǁŝƚŚ ŝŵŵŝŶŐ ^ĞŶƐŽƌƐ

ϴϬ

ϵϬ

as viable since the electric lighting load is already dramatically reduce.

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

10 Lighting Control

0 Owned 202453 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Cost of Energy for Electric Lighting WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Electric Lighting (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Lighting Controls for Electric Lighting ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ Ύ Baseline Case Lighting System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

202453 ($24,581.84)

202453 ($25,810.94)

202453 ($27,101.48)

202453 ($28,456.56)

202453 ($29,879.38)

202453 ($31,373.35)

202453 ($32,942.02)

202453 ($34,589.12)

202453 ($36,318.58)

202453 ($38,134.51)

52218 150235 74.21% $18,241.53

52218 150235 74.21% $19,153.61

52218 150235 74.21% $20,111.29

52218 150235 74.21% $21,116.86

52218 150235 74.21% $22,172.70

52218 150235 74.21% $23,281.33

52218 150235 74.21% $24,445.40

52218 150235 74.21% $25,667.67

52218 150235 74.21% $26,951.05

52218 150235 74.21% $28,298.61

150

0

150

138

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

($283.59) $0.00

$17,957.94 73.05%

$18,870.02 73.11%

$19,827.70 73.16%

$20,833.27 73.21%

$21,889.11 73.26%

$22,997.74 73.30%

$24,161.81 73.35%

$25,384.08 73.39%

$26,667.46 73.43%

$28,015.02 73.46%

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎ Proposed Case Lighting System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($20,700.00) ($6,210.00) ($1,449.00) ($28,359.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($28,359.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ >ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ ŽŶƚƌŽůƐ % Cost Savings on Energy for Electric Lighting Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ;'ĞŶĞƌĂůͿ * RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($28,359.00) 10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 1.6 $83,893.83 67.8% 63.32% 7.99

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

11 LED Lighting

0 Owned 202453 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Cost of Energy for Electric Lighting WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Electric Lighting (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from LED Lighting for Electric Lighting

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

202453 ($24,581.84)

202453 ($25,810.94)

202453 ($27,101.48)

202453 ($28,456.56)

202453 ($29,879.38)

202453 ($31,373.35)

202453 ($32,942.02)

202453 ($34,589.12)

202453 ($36,318.58)

202453 ($38,134.51)

121472 80981 40.00% $9,832.71

121472 80981 40.00% $10,324.35

121472 80981 40.00% $10,840.57

121472 80981 40.00% $11,382.59

121472 80981 40.00% $11,951.72

121472 80981 40.00% $12,549.31

121472 80981 40.00% $13,176.78

121472 80981 40.00% $13,835.61

121472 80981 40.00% $14,527.40

121472 80981 40.00% $15,253.77

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ Ύ Baseline Case Lighting System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($8,250.00) ($2,475.00) ($577.50) ($11,302.50)

150

55

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎ Proposed Case Lighting System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($31,050.00) ($9,315.00) ($2,173.50) ($42,538.50)

150

207

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($31,236.00) ($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

($312.36) $0.00

$9,520.35 38.73%

$10,011.99 38.79%

$10,528.21 38.85%

$11,070.23 38.90%

$11,639.36 38.95%

$12,236.95 39.00%

$12,864.42 39.05%

$13,523.25 39.10%

$14,215.04 39.14%

$14,941.41 39.18%

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ > >ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ % Cost Savings on Energy for Electric Lighting Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ > >ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ;'ĞŶĞƌĂůͿ

* RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($31,236.00)

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 3.3 $30,175.77 32.6% 30.48% 3.86

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

12 Lighting Control and LED Lights

0 Owned 202453 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Cost of Energy for Electric Lighting WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Electric Lighting (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Electric Lighting (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Lighting Controls and LED Lighting for Electric Lighting

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

202453 ($24,581.84)

202453 ($25,810.94)

202453 ($27,101.48)

202453 ($28,456.56)

202453 ($29,879.38)

202453 ($31,373.35)

202453 ($32,942.02)

202453 ($34,589.12)

202453 ($36,318.58)

202453 ($38,134.51)

31330 171123 84.52% $20,777.75

31330 171123 84.52% $21,816.64

31330 171123 84.52% $22,907.47

31330 171123 84.52% $24,052.85

31330 171123 84.52% $25,255.49

31330 171123 84.52% $26,518.27

31330 171123 84.52% $27,844.18

31330 171123 84.52% $29,236.39

31330 171123 84.52% $30,698.21

31330 171123 84.52% $32,233.12

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ Ύ Baseline Case Lighting System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($8,250.00) ($2,475.00) ($577.50) ($11,302.50)

150

55

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎ Proposed Case Lighting System Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($51,750.00) ($15,525.00) ($3,622.50) ($70,897.50)

150

345

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($59,595.00) ($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

($517.50) $0.00

$20,260.25 82.42%

$21,299.14 82.52%

$22,389.97 82.62%

$23,535.35 82.71%

$24,737.99 82.79%

$26,000.77 82.88%

$27,326.68 82.95%

$28,718.89 83.03%

$30,180.71 83.10%

$31,715.62 83.17%

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ ŽŶƚƌŽůƐ ĂŶĚ > % Cost Savings on Energy for Electric Lighting Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ >ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ ŽŶƚƌŽů ĂŶĚ > >ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ;'ĞŶĞƌĂůͿ * RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($59,595.00) 10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 2.9 $70,208.09 36.6% 34.00% 4.30

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

EUI

120.6 114.7 114.7

a b

Energy Savings Payback Period IRR 59 59

2 10.2

savings 53.6 4

4,159 4,159

Natural Ventilation ECMs:

IRR

3

Payback 2 Period % Energy 1 Savings 0

10

20

a. 60% Efficiency

30

40

50

b. Automated Natural Ventilation

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

60 Series1

70

Base case.

- EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2* a. Manually operable windows - EUI: 114.7 kWh/m2* - 59.0% energy saving for cooling - Annual savings of $4,159** - Payback: 2.0 years (lowest) - IRR: 53.6% (highest) - Depends on user behavior - Higher risk factor b. Automated natural ventilation system - EUI: 114.7 kWh/m2* - 59.0% energy saving for electric lighting - Annual savings of $4,159** - Payback: 10.2 years - IRR: 4.0% - Does not depend on user behavior - Lower risk factor

EUI

120.6 114.7 114.7

a b

Energy Savings Payback Period IRR 59 59

2 10.2

savings 53.6 4

4,159 4,159

Natural Ventilation ECMs: Natural ventilation potential analysis of Portland, OR

IRR

implied a 59% reduction in cooling loads even after

3

taking into account the heats gains from office equipment/occupants. The two cases analyzed were manually operable windows and an automated system.

Payback 2 Period

While the automated system has a much lower risk factor and doesn’t rely on user behavior, since only a small portion of the building’s total energy consumption is

% Energy 1 Savings

cooling related (9%), the case for an automated system

0

10

20

a. 60% Efficiency

30

40

50

b. Automated Natural Ventilation

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

60 Series1

70

becomes financially not viable. Manually operated windows result in a payback period of 2 years (compared to 10.2 years) and an IRR of 53.6% (compared to 4%).

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Cooling (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

13 Operable Windows for Natural Ventilation

0 Owned 58059 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Cooling WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Cooling (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Natural Ventilation for Cooling

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

58059 ($7,049.52)

58059 ($7,402.00)

58059 ($7,772.10)

58059 ($8,160.70)

58059 ($8,568.74)

58059 ($8,997.18)

58059 ($9,447.04)

58059 ($9,919.39)

58059 ($10,415.36)

58059 ($10,936.13)

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $4,159.22

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $4,367.18

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $4,585.54

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $4,814.82

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $5,055.56

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $5,308.33

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $5,573.75

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $5,852.44

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $6,145.06

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $6,452.31

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ Ύ Baseline Case for No Operablae Windows Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($22,800.00) ($6,840.00) ($1,596.00) ($31,236.00)

ϭϮϬ

ϭϵϬ

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚΎΎ Proposed Case for Natural Ventilation for Operable Windows Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($28,800.00) ($8,640.00) ($2,016.00) ($39,456.00)

ϭϮϬ

ϮϰϬ

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

($82.20) $0.00

$4,077.02 57.83%

$4,284.98 57.89%

$4,503.34 57.94%

$4,732.62 57.99%

$4,973.36 58.04%

$5,226.13 58.09%

$5,491.55 58.13%

$5,770.24 58.17%

$6,062.86 58.21%

$6,370.11 58.25%

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($8,220.00)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ ĨƌŽŵ EĂƚƵƌĂů sĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶ % Cost Savings on Energy for Cooling Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ; ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ zĞĂƌ ϭ ^ĂǀŝŶŐ KŶůLJͿ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ Ͳ EĂƚƵƌĂů sĞŶƚŝůĂƚŝŽŶ ^LJƐƚĞŵ ǁŝƚŚ KƉĞƌĂďůĞ tŝŶĚŽǁƐ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ WĂLJďĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ ;'ĞŶĞƌĂůͿ * RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($8,220.00) 10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 2.0 $17,474.00 53.6% 49.60% 6.26

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand for Cooling (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation Operating Year

14 Automated Windows for Natural Ventilation

0 Owned 58059 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

Baseline Case Baseline Ͳ Electrical Demand for Cooling (kWh) Cost of Energy for Cooling Proposed Case Simulated New Ͳ Electrical Demand for Cooling (kWh) Energy Demand Reduction for Cooling (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving from Natural Ventilation for Cooling

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

58059 ($7,049.52)

58059 ($7,402.00)

58059 ($7,772.10)

58059 ($8,160.70)

58059 ($8,568.74)

58059 ($8,997.18)

58059 ($9,447.04)

58059 ($9,919.39)

58059 ($10,415.36)

58059 ($10,936.13)

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $4,159.22

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $4,367.18

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $4,585.54

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $4,814.82

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $5,055.56

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $5,308.33

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $5,573.75

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $5,852.44

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $6,145.06

23804.19 34254.81 59.00% $6,452.31

Baseline Case Cost * Baseline Case for No Automated Windows Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($22,800.00) ($6,840.00) ($1,596.00) ($31,236.00)

120

190

Proposed Case Cost ** Proposed Case for Natural Ventilation for Automated Windows Automated Controls Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($28,800.00) ($22,200.00) ($15,300.00) ($3,570.00) ($69,870.00)

120 120

240 185

Proposed Case Cost Premium

($38,634.00) ($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

($386.34) $0.00

$3,772.88 53.52%

$3,980.84 53.78%

$4,199.20 54.03%

$4,428.48 54.27%

$4,669.22 54.49%

$4,921.99 54.71%

$5,187.41 54.91%

$5,466.10 55.11%

$5,758.72 55.29%

$6,065.97 55.47%

Proposed Case Maintenance Premium Impact on Rentable SF Cash Flow Impact from Natural Ventilation % Cost Savings on Energy for Cooling Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate PayͲBack Period (Based on Year 1 Saving Only) Net Present Value Ͳ Natural Ventilation System with Automated Windows IRR Return on Investment Multiple on Investment Payback Period (General)

* RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($38,634.00)

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 10.2 ($11,215.69) 4.0% 9.77% 1.25

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Nat Vent Lighting Recovery Glazing Construction

4.159 18.241 13.596 18.492 3.835

2 1.6 3.9 7.8 6.3

53.6 67.8 26.9 9.3 13.84 Selected ECMs as Isolated Measures:

Originally, the ECMs were selected based on the overall

IRR

contribution to the building’s total energy consumption

3

reduction. In each phase they were also narrowed down to the most environmentally and economically viable

Payback Period

2

1000 of $ Saved

1

solution. Here the selected ECMs are compared from each category.

- Additional 2” polystyrene insulation - Double-Layer Spectrally-Selective Argon-Filled Glazing

0

10

20

30

40

2" Extruded Polystyrene Insulation

Double Spec.ͲSelect. Argon Glazing

Dimming Sensors

Natural Ventilation

50

60

80% Eff. Energy Recovery Wheel

70

- 80% efficiency energy recovery wheel - Lighting dimming sensors - Manually operated natural ventilation

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ >ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ ϱϰϭϵϯ͘Ϯ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϵϵϲϭϵ͘Ϭϰй ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ ϭϱϬϯϵ͘ϯ ϵй

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

,t

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ ,t

ĂŶŶƵĂů

Coupling ϴй

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

ϭϳй

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱ

ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

ϰй

ϵй

ϵй

ϭϳй

ϭϳй

ϯϭϯϴϴϴ͘ϳ

ďŝůů

ϯϴϭϭϮ͘ϯϲ

h/

ϱϰ͘ϵϮϰ

Combing the different ECMs can result in

ϰй

ϱй

ϯϴй

overlapping benefits. For instance, by improving the glazing system, the total amount of energy saved through the energy recovery wheel would be reduced. In another case, the reduction of the electric lighting load, may result in a higher

ϯϮй Ϯϵй

ϰϭй

heating load. A final energy simulation with all

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ,t

ĂƐĞ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Base Case zĞĂƌ ϰϭй

,t

ECMs in place was performed in order to ϭϳй

Ϯϵй

ĂƐĞ

understand the performance of all systems

Ϯϵй

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Proposed Case zĞĂƌ ϰϭй

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

kWh

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

kWh

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

kWh

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

coupled together. Overall, the annual saving of the

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

kWh

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϱϰϭϵϯ͘Ϯ

kWh

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϵϵϲϭϵ͘Ϭ

kWh

kWh

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϭϱϬϯϵ͘ϯ

kWh

kWh

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱ

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation

ĂŶŶƵĂů

ϯϭϯϴϴϴ͘ϳ

ďŝůů

ϯϴϭϭϮ͘ϯϲ

h/

ϱϰ͘ϵϮϰ

ϵй ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ kWh

coupled systems are $45,603 with a 54 reduction in total energy consumption, a payback period of 5.7 ϰй

ϴй

years and an IRR of 16.6%. ϭϳй

ϱй

** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

ϯϮй

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ >ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ ϱϰϭϵϯ͘Ϯ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϵϵϲϭϵ͘Ϭϰй ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

,t

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ ,t

ĂŶŶƵĂů

ϭϱϬϯϵ͘ϯ

ϵй ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

ϭϳй

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱ

ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

ϰй

ϰй

ϱй

ϵй

ϵй

ϭϳй

ϭϳй

ϯϭϯϴϴϴ͘ϳ

ďŝůů

ϯϴϭϭϮ͘ϯϲ

h/

ϱϰ͘ϵϮϰ

Base case EUI: 120.6 kWh/m2*` Annual utilities bill: $83,716.2**

ϴй

ϯϴй

Annual savings: $45,603.90 Energy consumption reduction: 54.4%

ϯϮй Ϯϵй

ϰϭй ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ,t

ĂƐĞ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Base Case zĞĂƌ ϰϭй

,t

Payback period: 5.7 years ϭϳй

Ϯϵй

ĂƐĞ

IRR: 16.6% after 10 years Return on investment: 17.7% Multiple on investment: 2.25

Ϯϵй

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Proposed Case zĞĂƌ ϰϭй

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

kWh

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

kWh

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

kWh

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

kWh

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϱϰϭϵϯ͘Ϯ

kWh

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϵϵϲϭϵ͘Ϭ

kWh

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ

kWh

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϭϱϬϯϵ͘ϯ

kWh

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

kWh

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱ

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation

Selected ECMs Coupled and Simulated: EUI: 54.9 kWh/m2* Annual utilities bill: $38,112.3**

ĂŶŶƵĂů

ϯϭϯϴϴϴ͘ϳ

ďŝůů

ϯϴϭϭϮ͘ϯϲ

h/

ϱϰ͘ϵϮϰ

ϵй ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ kWh

ϰй

ϴй ϭϳй

ϱй

** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

ϯϮй

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

15 ECMs Coupled no PV

0 Owned 689476 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Energy Demand Cost of Energy WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated Coupled Energy Demand Reduction (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚΎ Baseline Case Systems Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($164,612.00) ($63,387.70) ($13,300.31) ($241,300.01)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎ Proposed Case Systems Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($342,513.20) ($116,472.60) ($26,208.92) ($485,194.72)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($243,894.71)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ % Cost Savings on Energy Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ IRR * RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

($243,894.71)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

689476 ($83,716.18)

689476 ($87,901.98)

689476 ($92,297.08)

689476 ($96,911.94)

689476 ($101,757.54)

689476 ($106,845.41)

689476 ($112,187.68)

689476 ($117,797.07)

689476 ($123,686.92)

689476 ($129,871.27)

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $45,603.87

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $47,884.06

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $50,278.27

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $52,792.18

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $55,431.79

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $58,203.38

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $61,113.55

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $64,169.22

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $67,377.69

313888.21 375587.79 54.47% $70,746.57

Construction Glazing Recovery wheel Lighting Natural ventilation ($37,961.00) ($103,851.00) $0.00 $0.00 ($22,800.00) ($25,392.40) ($31,155.30) $0.00 $0.00 ($6,840.00) ($4,434.74) ($7,269.57) $0.00 $0.00 ($1,596.00)

($48,105.20) ($36,940.20) ($5,600.36)

($201,408.00) ($60,422.40) ($14,098.56)

($43,500.00) ($4,350.00) ($3,045.00)

($20,700.00) ($6,120.00) ($1,449.00)

($28,800.00) ($8,640.00) ($2,016.00)

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

($2,438.95) $0.00

$43,164.92 51.56%

$45,445.12 51.70%

$47,839.32 51.83%

$50,353.23 51.96%

$52,992.84 52.08%

$55,764.43 52.19%

$58,674.60 52.30%

$61,730.28 52.40%

$64,938.74 52.50%

$68,307.62 52.60%

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 5.7 $46,545.55 16.6% 17.70% 2.25

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϱй ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

,t

Net-Zero Site Energy: ϴй

ϰй ϵй

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

,t

ϭϳй the

energy needed to operate the building was

offset by addition of a PV system. The building requires approximately 1,200 m2 of PV to reach

ϯϴй

net-zero. Without the implementation of the ECMs, the building’s roof surface would not allow for net-zero site energy through a PV system. The final

ϯϮй

payback period of the overall modified design is 7.5

ĂƐĞ

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

To achieve net-zero site energy, the remainder of

ϰϭй

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ϭϳй

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Proposed Case without Photovoltaics

Ϯϵй

years with an IRR of 10.1%, a return on investment

zĞĂƌ

of 13.3% and a multiple on investment of 1.71.

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϱϰϭϵϯ͘Ϯ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϵϵϲϭϵ͘Ϭ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϭϱϬϯϵ͘ϯ

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱ

ĂŶŶƵĂů

ϯϭϯϴϴϴ͘ϳ

ďŝůů

ϯϴϭϭϮ͘ϯϲ

h/

ϱϰ͘ϵϮϰ

ϴй

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ

ϱй

ϯϮй

zĞĂƌ

ĂƐĞ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϮϬϮϰϱϯ͘ϴ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϮϴϯϵϮϲ͘Ϯ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϱй ϱϴϬϱϵ͘Ϭϭ ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱϯ

,t

ϴй

ϰй ϵй

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ

,t

ϭϳй

ϯϴй

PV: Assuming PV efficiency of 18% 1, 192 m2 of PV = net-zero energy Cost of PV: $339,090.15** Payback: 9.8 years IRR for PV: 4.87 Net-Zero Site Energy: EUI: 0 kWh/m2 Annual utilities bill: $0

ϯϮй

ĂƐĞ

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

Selected ECMs Coupled: EUI: 54.9 kWh/m2* Annual energy consumption: 313888.6 kWh

ϰϭй

ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ZŽŽŵ ůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚLJ ϭϳй

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Proposed Case without Photovoltaics

* Source: DesignBuilder energy simulation ** Based on cost of PV per W from http://www.solarbuzz.com *** Based on $0.12142 per kWh for Portland General Electric customers.

Ϯϵй

zĞĂƌ

Annual savings: $83,716.2*** Energy consumption reduction: 100%

ϭϭϵϵϬϲ͘ϴ

>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ

ϱϰϭϵϯ͘Ϯ

,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ,ĞĂƚŝŶŐ

ϵϵϲϭϵ͘Ϭ

ŽŽůŝŶŐ ŽŽůŝŶŐ

ϭϱϬϯϵ͘ϯ

,t ,t

ϮϱϭϯϬ͘ϱ

ĂŶŶƵĂů

ϯϭϯϴϴϴ͘ϳ

ďŝůů

ϯϴϭϭϮ͘ϯϲ

h/

ϱϰ͘ϵϮϰ

Payback period: 7.5 years

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ

ϴй

IRR: 10.1% after 10 years Return on investment: 13.3% Multiple on investment: 1.71

ϱй

ϯϮй

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

16 PV System Isolated

0 Owned 313888.6 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Energy Demand Cost of Energy WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated Coupled Energy Demand Reduction (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚΎ Baseline Case Systems Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($289,820.64) ($28,982.06) ($20,287.44) ($339,090.15)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($339,090.15)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF

Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ IRR * RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

313888.6 ($38,112.35)

313888.6 ($40,017.97)

313888.6 ($42,018.87)

313888.6 ($44,119.81)

313888.6 ($46,325.80)

313888.6 ($48,642.09)

313888.6 ($51,074.20)

313888.6 ($53,627.91)

313888.6 ($56,309.30)

313888.6 ($59,124.77)

0 313888.6 100.00% $38,112.35

0 313888.6 100.00% $40,017.97

0 313888.6 100.00% $42,018.87

0 313888.6 100.00% $44,119.81

0 313888.6 100.00% $46,325.80

0 313888.6 100.00% $48,642.09

0 313888.6 100.00% $51,074.20

0 313888.6 100.00% $53,627.91

0 313888.6 100.00% $56,309.30

0 313888.6 100.00% $59,124.77

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

($3,390.90) $0.00

$34,721.45 91.10%

$36,627.07 91.53%

$38,627.97 91.93%

$40,728.91 92.31%

$42,934.90 92.68%

$45,251.19 93.03%

$47,683.30 93.36%

$50,237.01 93.68%

$52,918.40 93.98%

$55,733.87 94.26%

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎ Proposed Case Systems Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ % Cost Savings on Energy

1

($339,090.15) 10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 9.8 ($88,693.04) 4.87% 10.24% 1.31

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times

Exhibit Assumptions Rent Base Energy Demand (kWh) Average Electrical Utility Cost Energy Cost Escalation Inflation KƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ zĞĂƌ

17 WholeͲBuilding NetͲZero

0 Owned 689476 in kWh $0.12142 5.00% 0

ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ Baseline Ͳ Energy Demand Cost of Energy WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ Simulated Coupled Energy Demand Reduction (kWh) % Energy Demand Reduction Cost Saving ĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚΎ Baseline Case Systems Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($164,612.00) ($63,387.70) ($13,300.31) ($241,300.01)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ ΎΎ Proposed Case Systems Labor Commissioning and Validation Subtotal

($632,333.84) ($145,454.66) ($46,496.36) ($824,284.87)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ ŽƐƚ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ

($582,984.86)

WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĂƐĞ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ WƌĞŵŝƵŵ Impact on Rentable SF ĂƐŚ &ůŽǁ /ŵƉĂĐƚ % Cost Savings on Energy Discount Rate (Portland Cultural Forest's Cost of Capital) Weather and Technology Risk Effective Discount Rate WĂLJͲ ĂĐŬ WĞƌŝŽĚ EĞƚ WƌĞƐĞŶƚ sĂůƵĞ /ZZ ZĞƚƵƌŶ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ DƵůƚŝƉůĞ ŽŶ /ŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ IRR * RSMeans Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data ** RSMeans Green Building Cost Data 2014 and Manufacturer Data Explain the first cost

($582,984.86)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

689476 ($83,716.18)

689476 ($87,901.98)

689476 ($92,297.08)

689476 ($96,911.94)

689476 ($101,757.54)

689476 ($106,845.41)

689476 ($112,187.68)

689476 ($117,797.07)

689476 ($123,686.92)

689476 ($129,871.27)

0 689476 100.00% $83,716.18

0 689476 100.00% $87,901.98

0 689476 100.00% $92,297.08

0 689476 100.00% $96,911.94

0 689476 100.00% $101,757.54

0 689476 100.00% $106,845.41

0 689476 100.00% $112,187.68

0 689476 100.00% $117,797.07

0 689476 100.00% $123,686.92

0 689476 100.00% $129,871.27

Construction Glazing Recovery wheel Lighting Natural ventilatioPV ($37,961.00) ($103,851.00) $0.00 $0.00 ($22,800.00) ($25,392.40) ($31,155.30) $0.00 $0.00 ($6,840.00) ($4,434.74) ($7,269.57) $0.00 $0.00 ($1,596.00)

($48,105.20) ($36,940.20) ($5,600.36)

($201,408.00) ($60,422.40) ($14,098.56)

($43,500.00) ($4,350.00) ($3,045.00)

($20,700.00) ($6,120.00) ($1,449.00)

($28,800.00) ($8,640.00) ($2,016.00)

($289,820.64) ($28,982.06) ($20,287.44) ($339,090.15)

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

($5,829.85) $0.00

$77,886.33 93.04%

$82,072.14 93.37%

$86,467.24 93.68%

$91,082.09 93.98%

$95,927.69 94.27%

$101,015.56 94.54%

$106,357.83 94.80%

$111,967.22 95.05%

$117,857.07 95.29%

$124,041.42 95.51%

10.00% 2.00% 12.00% 7.5 ($42,147.78) 10.1% 13.36% 1.71

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Years After 10 years After 10 years Times