HomeMy WebLinkAboutInterior Exec Sum Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program Final Report 2010
Interior Region
2008 – 2010
FINAL REPORT
AEA Grant # 2195294
Prepared for:
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Phone (907) 269-3000
Fax (907) 269-3044
Prepared By:
Alaska Building Science Network
5401 Cordova St. Suite 303
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Phone (907) 562-9927
Fax (907) 770-5412
June 2010
2
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
ABSN’s Mission Is:
To provide building science information, comprehensive public education, advocacy, and hands on
training in building and maintaining safe, healthy, energy efficient, durable, and sustainable homes and
buildings in rural and urban Alaska
ABSN Board of Directors:
Sasha Zemanek, President
Craig Moore, Secretary
William Harry Bruu, Treasurer
Chris Dugay
Chuck Dearden
Jess Dilts
ABSN Executive Director:
Scott Anaya
ABSN Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program Staff:
Project Manager, Field Manager:
Geoff Butler, Energy Conservation Alaska Inc., President
Project Coordinator and Assistant Field Manager:
Anna Hilbruner
Field Managers:
Geoff Butler, Energy Conservation Alaska Inc., Field Manager for Fort Yukon, Chitina, Allakaket,
Dan Lung, D.L. Consulting Services, Field Manager for Huslia, Alatna, Allakaket, Arctic Village, Hughes,
Steven’s Village, Takotna
Garrison Collette, Happy Energy Services, Field Manager for Fort Yukon
PO Box 111097
Anchorage, AK 99511
Telephone: (907) 562-9927
E-mail: absn@alaska.net
Website: www.absn.com
3
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program 2008 – 2010
AEA Grant # 2195294 Administered by Alaska Building Science Network
Final Report - Executive Summary: Interior / South Central Region
- By ABSN Project Managers Geoff Butler and Anna Hilbruner, June, 2010
From April 2008 – April 2010 the following 9 rural Alaska villages received energy efficiency
upgrades to community buildings:
Alatna, Allakaket, Arctic Village, Chitina, Fort Yukon, Hughes, Huslia, Steven’s Village, Takotna
Total program grant funds: $332,500
________________________________________________________________________
The goal of these grant projects is to facilitate energy efficiency upgrades to community buildings that deliver
the greatest energy savings with the most rapid payback rate on grant funds. Energy efficient lighting
upgrades are the first measures undertaken. ABSN provides project development, coordination, training,
technical assistance, materials and logistical support to facilitate these projects. For this grant cycle, to
advance technology transfer and provide rural employment and skills training, we partnered directly with 33
rural village entities region-wide and provided lighting retrofit training to approximately 57 local maintenance
staff who completed lighting and other energy upgrades in their buildings. Region-wide, 116 community
buildings and 14 teacher-housing units operated by rural school districts received energy efficiency
improvements.
At the inception of these grants in 2002, original energy audits for these projects estimated light fixture
(replacement) at a cost of $355 per fixture. Within this scenario, the 2,120 linear fluorescent light fixtures
retrofitted region-wide, alone, would have cost $752,600 to complete. With ABSN’s methods, when we
deduct materials costs of heating measures (~ $4,000), T5/HO lighting ($14,275) and CFL ($1,680) lighting
materials grant-wide, our cost for linear fluorescent retrofits is ~$148 per fixture. During the previous Phase 2
grant period: ’07 – ’08, ABSN’s per fixture retrofit cost was $176. During phases 1 and 2 of these projects:
’05 – ’08 the average number of fixtures we retrofitted per village in all regions was 185. During Phase 3 for
all regions with several villages having a much larger lighting scope, our fixture average went to 341 fixtures
/village. With a larger lighting scope per village, and far less budget for other measures, each village’s start-
up, admin, coordination, and other delivery costs are spread-out through many more fixtures and the per
fixture delivery cost was effectively reduced.
ABSN’s approach of partnering with local city, tribal governments, village corporations and rural school
districts, coupled with the substantial in-kind contributions arising from these partnerships – also facilitated the
completion of a much larger lighting scope and allowed us to pursue some additional energy savings
measures. ABSN’s approach provides skills training and employment for rural maintenance staff at greatly
reduced costs compared with original audit estimates for these projects.
Primary Accomplishments of this Grant Region-wide for total budget of $332,500:
2,120 linear fluorescent lighting retrofits
560 Compact fluorescent light bulb installations
6 T5 & HO T8 light fixture upgrades in school gym, multi-purpose and maintenance facilities
~ $ 4,000 grant funds spent on additional energy efficiency measures beyond lighting including:
- Chitina: consultation on heating plant selection and purchase of an EK2 low-mass boiler for the
Chitina Village Council.
- 8 programmable thermostats installed through-out the region
Acquired $55,351 matching grant resources – extending the capacity of AEA grant funding by 17%
4
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
Budget breakdown by village:
The final phase of VEUEEM for the Interior / South Central region had a different budget
allocation compared with other grant phases and regions. Previous grants had village budgets
figured by averaging total grant funds between the number of villages in a given region. Phase
III Interior started with several villages allocated with approximately half of traditional VEUE EM
budget amounts with the idea that lighting only would be pursued for scope of work.
Additionally, Beaver and Venetie budgets were absorbed into the region -wide Interior / South
Central budget because those two villages already had very similar on-going energy efficiency
grants from other funding sources. After audits were completed we discovered the villages of
Fort Yukon and Allakaket had much larger lighting scopes than a typical village. Fort Yukon
being an Interior region hub village had a very large lighting scope of 688 linear fluorescent
fixtures to retrofit. To accomplish this and other village expanded lighting scopes, AEA provided
additional funds to add to this region’s overall budget. For final reporting, to achieve a
representative comparison on scope of work accomplished compared with available budgets,
we are reporting per village budget allocation proportional to lighting scope in each village. This
reporting method provides a close approximation of how budgets were spent by village t o
achieve more representative savings and payback figures.
Grant funds payback and fuel saving measures
Savings from heating measures and corresponding grant expenditures are not included in
payback calculations. Our region-wide payback estimate of 1.80 years on total grant funds
includes spending for all lighting and heating measures, but it does not account for any savings
from the heating measures. In other words, our payback figures absorb the full cost of fuel
savings measures, but do not reflect any savings resulting from them. The heating measures
will result in measurable fuel savings, which we currently do not have data to calculate.
Region-Wide Lighting Retrofit Summary
For all linear fluorescent, compact fluorescent bulb and T5 lighting retrofits and
installations:
Pre-retrofit energy use for all lighting: 298 kW
Post-retrofit energy use for all lighting: 154 kW
Energy savings from all lighting upgrades: 144 kW
Pre-retrofit to post retrofit energy reduction: 48 %
Estimated Annual Savings Range:
Hours Per Day /
250 Days Per Year
Electrical
Savings
Avoided Diesel
Use (gallons)
Avoided
Diesel Costs
Payback
Est. (yrs)
4 Hours $ 90,013 10,527 $ 42,509 3.69
7 Hours $ 184,955 19,654 $ 10,909 1.80
10 Hours $ 225,033 26,317 $ 106,272 1.48
Total grant funds for all energy efficiency measures: $ 332,500
Simple mean payback (All grant funds, but accounting for lighting savings only) 1.80 Years
5
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
Additional Energy Efficiency Measures (Region-wide grant funding: ~$4,000
After completing lighting measures with good payback, we dedicated remaining grant funds to
fuel saving measures and heating system energy efficiency. Our organizational focus in energy
efficiency and northern building science places us in the unique position of being able to dovetail
similar objectives from different projects providing a win-win benefit to the VEUEEM grants.
These and many other in-kind resources enabled us to go beyond the originally conceived
scope of work to expand the capacity of these energy efficiency projects. With the larger
lighting scope for some villages in this grant phase, and greatly reduced budgets in several
villages it follows that available budgets for measures beyond lighting were reduced in
comparison with the first four years of the VEUEEM grants.
6
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
$0.0000
$0.2000
$0.4000
$0.6000
$0.8000
$1.0000
$1.2000
$1.4000
Cost/kWAEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Progam '08 -'10
Full Cost of Electricity '08-'10 Interior Villages
Legend:
---------Village-wide average full cost of electricity = $0.76
---------Nation-wide average full cost of electricity = $0.10
7
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Kilowatts
AEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Program '08-'10
Lighting Retrofit Energy Savings -Interior Grant
Pre-Retrofit Energy Use
Post-Retrofit Energy Use
8
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
KilowattsAEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Program Phase III '08-'10
T5 & T8 HO Gym & Common Area Lighting
Upgrades
Pre-Retrofit Energy Use
Post Retrofit Energy Use
9
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
AEA Village End-Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – Final Reporting Data For '08 - '10 Interior Grant Activities
With Building Use Estimates of 7 hrs / day, 250 days/year:
VILLAGES
Pre-retrofit
Energy Use
(watts) (By
Grant =Total)
Pre-retrofit
Energy
Use (KW)
(By Grant
=Total)
Post-retrofit
Energy Use
(watts) (By
Grant =Total)
Post-
retrofit
Energy
Use (KW)
(By Grant
=Total)
Percent
Wattage
Reduction
Pre to Post
retrofit (By
Grant =Total)
Energy Use
Savings
(watts) (By
Grant =Total)
Energy
Use
Savings
(kW) (By
Grant =Total)
Lighting /
Building
Use
(hrs/day) (By
Grant =Ave)
Lighting /
Building
Use
(days/yr)
(By Grant
=Ave)
Alatna 10,548 10.55 6,204 6.20 41% 4,344 4.34 7 250
Allakaket 49,647 49.65 24,637 24.64 50% 25,010 25.01 7 250
Arctic Village 11,686 11.69 5,353 5.35 54% 6,333 6.33 7 250
Chitina 5,516 5.52 3,104 3.10 44% 2,412 2.41 7 250
Fort Yukon 95,696 95.70 49,881 49.88 48% 45,815 45.82 7 250
Hughes 20,144 20.14 10,971 10.97 46% 9,173 9.17 7 250
Huslia 44,597 44.60 23,378 23.38 48% 21,219 21.22 7 250
Stevens Village 27,527 27.53 15,037 15.04 45% 12,490 12.49 7 250
Takotna 32,934 32.93 15,414 15.41 53% 17,520 17.52 7 250
Interior Totals/Ave 298,295 298.30 153,979 153.98 48% 144,316 144.32 7 250
10
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
AEA Village End-Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – Final Reporting Data For '08 - '10 Interior Grant Activities $
37,775 Total Project Cost for NW/SW Villages
With Building Use Estimates of 7 hrs / day, 250 days/year:
PHASE III - Electric rates are full electrical rates published in the Alaska Energy Authority FY 2009 (July 2008 – June 2009) PCE Statistical Report. Average
bulk fuel price data is also from the AEA FY09 PCE report.
$
37,775 Total Project Cost for West Villages
VILLAGES
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
(By
Grant
=Total)
Electricit
y Cost
per kWh
(w/out
PCE)
(By
Grant
=Ave)
Annual
Village-
wide
savings
(dollars)
(By Grant
=Total)
KW
Generate
d W/
Diesel
Per
Gallon
(kWh/gal)
(By Grant
=Ave)
Annual
Avoided
Fuel Oil
(gallons
) (By
Grant
=Total)
Diesel
Cost
per
gallon
(By
Grant
=Ave)
Annual
Avoided
Fuel Costs
(dollars)
(By Grant
=Total)
Total
Project
Costs: All
grant
delivery,
labor,
materials,
shipping
and,
disposal
costs
Simple
Pay-
back
(yrs)
# of
Rural
Entities
Worked
With
# of
Buildings
Worked
In
# of
Teacher
Housing
Units
Worked
In
Est. # of
Maint.
Staff
Worked
With
PHASE III - Electric Rates are full rates excluding fuel surcharges and excluding PCE deductions. Rates are from the FY 2009 PCE Report. July 1st 2008 - June
30th 2009
Alatna 7,602 $0.6671 $5,071 13.36 569 $4.98 $2,834 $12,000 2.37 1 3 0 2
Allakaket 43,768 $0.6671 $29,197 13.36 3,276 $4.98 $16,315 $52,000 1.78 3 11 6 11
Arctic
Village 11,083 $0.7500 $8,312 12.76 868 $10.00 $8,683 $20,000 2.41 3 9 0 3
Chitina 4,221 $0.5300 $2,237 12.90 327 $3.14 $1,027 $8,000 3.58 2 8 0 2
Fort Yukon 80,176 $0.5363 $42,999 13.63 5,882 $4.45 $26,176 $102,000 2.37 8 40 2 12
Hughes 16,053 $0.7100 $11,397 13.43 1,195 $5.25 $6,275 $20,000 1.75 5 8 0 6
Huslia 37,133 $0.6471 $24,029 13.48 2,755 $4.43 $12,203 $48,000 2.00 5 14 5 10
Stevens
Village 21,858 $1.0700 $23,388 10.92 2,002 $5.16 $10,328 $34,500 1.48 2 8 0 5
Takotna 30,660 $1.2500 $38,325 11.03 2,780 $6.14 $17,067 $36,000 0.94 4 15 1 6
Interior
Totals/Ave 252,553 $0.76 $184,955 12.76 19,654 $5.39 $100,909 $332,500 1.80 33 116 14 57
AVE: $0.76
$184,955 Projected Annual Savings (dollars) for 9, '08-'10 - Villages
$332,550 Total Grant Funds For All 6, '07-'08 Villages
Simple Payback: 1.80 years to payback entire grant @ 7 hrs/day & 250 hrs/yr
11
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
AEA Village End-Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – Final Reporting Data For '08 - '10 Interior Grant Activities
With Building Use Estimates of 7 hrs / day, 250 days/year:
VILLAGES
# of 4'
Fluorescent
light Fixtures
Retrofitted
# of CFLS
Installed
# of Gym /
Multi-
purpose
Bldgs
Upgraded
with T5s
T5 & HO
(Materials
and
shipping
Cost)
Additional
Measures
Beyond
Lighting
(Materials
and Labor
Cost)
#
Programmable
T-Stats
installed
Total In
Kind
Contribution
from all
Village
Entities
%
Inkind
From
Total
Budget
Alatna 59 3 0 $924 $1,001.44 8%
Allakaket 379 73 0 $2,225 2 $8,029 15%
Arctic Village 88 34 0 $0 $1,485.50 7%
Chitina 37 31 0 $0 $4,000 $568 7%
Fort Yukon 688 231 4 $6,101 $500 2 $20,646 20%
Hughes 134 38 1 $1,051 3 $1,703.00 9%
Huslia 296 71 1 $2,196 1 $5,798 12%
Stevens Village 213 40 1 $1,778 $10,609.78 31%
Takotna 226 39 0 $0 $5,511 15%
NW/SW Totals/Ave. 2120 560 7 $14,275 $4,500 8 $55,351 17%
12
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
Lighting Strategy and Savings Estimates
During initial site visits we completed lighting assessments including quantity, locations, and
wattage of existing fixtures. From initial assessments and site visits we designed lighting plans
and applied various lamp and ballast combinations along with de-lamping strategies to achieve
a balance of optimal energy efficiency and ample light levels. From initial assessments and our
lighting retrofit plans we determined pre and post energy use by building, village entity, village -
wide and region-wide. With a known energy use, we estimated energy and cost savings based
on a predicted building and lighting use pattern. Since this information is variable and would
require separate grant funds to determine individual building use for these projects, we are
reporting our saving estimates based on 250 days / year use and a 3-tier range of 4, 7, and 10
hours/day. (See savings ranges in tables below).
For the purposes of these final reports we focus on a mean lighting use of 7 hours/day. This
mid-range use time is selected to average the use pattern of all buildings in our projects.
Individual buildings and individual room spaces have a wide range of use patterns. We are
confident the actual savings and payback resulting from these projects will fall somewhere
within our range of 4 to 10 hours a day. To ground truth our 7 -hour/day average run time we
sampled run time on lighting with building owners and occupants. These estimates varied
largely even for the same building, but local run time estimates generally ca me in close (on one
side or the other) to our 7-hour/day average. For the purposes of these reports we used full
electricity rates including fuel surcharges and PCE amounts paid by the State of Alaska. Rates
are full electrical rates published in the Alaska Energy Authority FY 2009 (July 2008 – June
2009) PCE Statistical Report. We also used the average bulk fuel price data from the AEA
FY09 PCE report.
The Oil Price Factor
With most village power generated through burning diesel fuel, the global price of oil has a
profound effect on rural Alaska electricity costs. The VEUEEM grant projects covered in these
final reports occurred just after the highest global oil price spike in history. As a result, many
villages had to endure the highest fuel and electric costs in their history. In the summer of 2008
the global price of oil spiked at over $150/barrel during the time window when most village
entities had to order their bulk fuel for the winter of ’08 -‘09. This resulted in extremely high local
village fuel costs. With most village power generated through burning diesel fuel, the oil price
spike caused a corresponding spike in rural electricity costs through large increases in fuel
surcharges. These extreme costs of fuel and electricity in most of rural Alaska lasted through
the winter of ’08 –’09, well past when the price of gas and oil related commodities dropped in the
rest of road-connected America.
With the price of oil gradually decreasing from the oil price spike in late 2008, and maintaining
somewhat lower through the spring and into the summer of 2009, rural utilities were able to
purchase their bulk fuel at lower prices compared with 2008. With this, rural costs of electricity
for many villages dropped off and stabilized at somewhat lower levels. For comparison, the
NW/SW village average electricity cost for Phase 1, ’05-’06 was .39/ kWh. For Phase 2, ’07-’08,
NW/SW region during the oil price spike, the average electricity cost was $ . 73 / kWh. For
Phase 3, over lapping early 2008 through January of 2010, the average cost of electricity for the
current nine villages in the Interior / South Central region was $ .76/ kWh.
13
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
In this discussion, it should be noted that long-term savings and payback patterns from
VEUEEM lighting and other energy efficiency measures will correspond directly with fluctuations
in the price of oil, with more rapid payback corresponding with higher oil prices.
Also of note on this topic, the price of village electricity and fuel are not the only elements
affected by the global price of oil. The price of many materials and supplies associated with
these projects rose considerably with the price of oil. Nearly all grant expenses in purchasing,
shipping and travel increased in cost – thereby raising the cost of lighting measures and
decreasing the number of measures beyond lighting that could be accomplished within grant
budgets when compared to Phase I work completed in 2006.
More on Savings Estimates
When considering savings estimates, it should be noted that for all practical purposes the only
thing we can determine accurately is pre and post energy use. When it comes to savings, there
are other questions that arise including: The volatile, global price of oil, and who actually sees
the savings? If the energy use is reduced in a village, the required operating costs of a village
utility must still be met. Utility rates will continue to increase to meet operating costs. Where
savings occur, some will be to the State of Alaska in reduced PCE payments, and so me will be
to the electricity rate-payer. There is also the question of load verses capacity of a given
generation system. In some cases where a generation system’s capacity is over-extended,
dropping the electrical load will be favorable for that utilit y as they may be spared the costs of
generator replacement or overhaul. In other cases, if a system is somewhat oversized for the
load already, an additional drop in electrical use may not be favorable to the utility or school.
The optimal operating cycle of a given generator will consume a set amount of fuel over time.
Reduction in electrical load may not translate directly to how much fuel is burned in a given
generator.
Although these factors should be understood, the pressures of high fuel costs, coupled with
facts of life in rural Alaska, necessitate the pursuit of energy efficiency programs wherever
possible. Also, the trend of improved diesel generation technology, and the ability to tailor
power generation levels to match load cycles, means th at projects dedicated to overall load
reduction are critical. This trend is another practical reason to pursue energy efficiency as an
important principle.
We at ABSN continue to be pleased with the results of our work in association with these
projects and are happy to be contributing toward energy efficiency cost savings for rural Alaska.
14
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
Savings and Payback Projections
Community
Annual
Electrical
Savings
Projections
Total Project
Costs
Simple
Payback (yrs)
Alatna $ 5,071 $ 12,000 2.37
Allakaket $ 29,197 $ 52,000 1.78
Arctic Village $ 8,312 $ 20,000 2.41
Chitina $ 2,237 $ 8,000 3.58
Fort Yukon $ 42,999 $ 102,000 2.37
Hughes $ 11,397 $ 20,000 1.75
Huslia $ 24,029 $ 48,000 2.00
Stevens Village $ 23,388 $ 34,500 1.48
Takotna $ 38,325 $ 36,000 0.94
Interior Sub Totals $ 184,955 $ 332,500 1.80
Based on hours of operation: 7 hrs/day for 250 days/year
15
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
Savings and Payback Projections
Community Annual Electrical
Savings Projections
Total Project
Costs
Simple
Payback (yrs)
Alatna $ 3,390 $ 12,000 3.54
Allakaket $ 19,518 $ 52,000 2.66
Arctic Village $ 4,750 $ 20,000 4.21
Chitina $ 1,411 $ 8,000 5.67
Fort Yukon $ 20,644 $ 102,000 4.94
Hughes $ 5,596 $ 20,000 3.57
Huslia $ 11,161 $ 48,000 4.30
Stevens Village $ 13,364 $ 34,500 2.58
Takotna $ 10,179 $ 36,000 3.54
Interior Sub Totals $ 90,013 $ 332,500 3.69
Based on hours of operation: 4 hrs/day for 250 days/year
Savings and Payback Projections
Community Annual Electrical
Savings Projections Total Project Costs Simple
Payback (yrs)
Alatna $ 8,475 $ 12,000 1.42
Allakaket $ 48,795 $ 52,000 1.07
Arctic Village $ 11,874 $ 20,000 1.68
Chitina $ 3,528 $ 8,000 2.27
Fort Yukon $ 51,611 $ 102,000 1.98
Hughes $ 13,989 $ 20,000 1.43
Huslia $ 27,903 $ 48,000 1.72
Stevens Village $ 33,411 $ 34,500 1.03
Takotna $ 25,448 $ 36,000 1.41
Interior Sub Totals $ 225,033 $ 332,500 1.48
Based on hours of operation: 10 hrs/day for 250 days/year
16
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
Notes on Budget and Grant Spending
Our objective is to spend grant funds proportionately with scope of work, between villages to the
greatest extent possible. To simplify accounting and purchasing large lighting orders are evenly
split among villages and among VEUEEM grants. In financial reporting, grant expenditures are
noted by village, and by the following budget categories: Field Management, Project
Management, Travel Expenses, Materials, and Village Labor.
The total grant amount of $332,500 is divided by the nine villages in proportion to the amount of
lighting scope of work in each village. As we get into spending for measures beyond lighting we
select projects based on cost-benefit of the least project expense verses the most favorable
savings and payback. Additionally projects are selected for measures beyond lighting according
to local participation and initiative on the part of village entities to accomplish and enable
projects through matching funds for labor or materials. To the degree necessary, village budgets
for measures beyond lighting within the region were pooled to cover these measures.
Disposing and Recycling Old Lamps and Ballasts
ABSN’s goal is to ensure that all old and unused lamps and ballasts are shipped out of the
villages to Anchorage and points in the lower-48 for proper disposal and recycling. In cases
where the existing 34-watt T-12 lamps were fairly new, village building owners sometimes prefer
to keep the materials and pass them along for continued use. In most cases, lamps are at or
near the end of their useful lifespan and are no longer putting out optimum light. All fluorescent
lamps contain mercury and as such should not be disposed of in landfills. . As part of ’05 – ’06
projects, ABSN developed a system of packing and shipping used lamps and old magnetic
ballasts from the villages to Total Reclaim Inc. of Anchorage - the largest recycler of fluorescent
lamps in the state. From Anchorage the lamps and ballasts travel by container ship to lower 48
recycling facilities. The mercury from lamps is reclaimed, and the ballasts are recycled for their
materials.
For shipping used lamps and ballasts from most villages to regional hubs we arranged free
back-haul service - generously provided by Ryan Air, formerly: Alaska Transportation Service
(ATS). From the hub communities back to Anchorage, Northern Air Cargo provides backhaul at
slightly reduced rates as a grant to this program. Used lamps and non-PCB ballasts travel as
general freight in properly sealed containers. Used lamps are categorized as non -hazardous
universal waste.
17
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
Village maintenance staff packing
used lamps for recycling
A village shipment of used lamps
and ballasts
Bringing used lamps to the air strip
8ft, T-12 lamps prepared for
recycling.
8ft lamp recycling container 8ft lamps prepared for shipping.
18
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
PCB Ballast Disposal
Ballasts manufactured during or before 1979 are considered to contain PCBs, and are classified
hazardous waste. In villages where PCB ballasts are found, they must be dealt with under OSHA, EPA,
and DOT regulations for proper removal, transportation and disposalAs part of ’05 – ’06 projects, project
manager Geoff Butler developed a PCB ballast removal and disposal method for village maintenance
staff within EPA and DOT compliance and approved by the Alaska State OSHA office. In cases where
PCB ballasts were found, proper removal procedures were facilitated by ABSN. Village building owners
and their maintenance staff take responsibility for proper removal - as the generator of the hazardous
waste.
Village maintenance staff double checking
ballasts for PCBs
DOT approved shipping manifests and haz-mat
container of PCB ballasts ready for shipment
19
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
The following 9 village reports detail lighting
and additional measures undertaken in each of our 2008 – 2010
Interior region villages:
20
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports Interior Region
ELECTRONIC APPENDICES
Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program ’08 – ‘10
Interior Region Final Reports
_______________________________________________________________
Electronic appendixes associated with these projects are provided as part of our
final reports including:
Cover page and Final Report Executive Summary, file name:
(ExecSummary_Cover_Interior_FinalReport_08-10.doc)
Regional final reporting summary data, charts and calculations spreadsheets:
(Interior_SummaryReportChartData_FinalReport_08-10.doc)
Final reports for each village in a folder titled:
(Interior_FinalReportsVEUEEM_08-10)
Pre-Post retrofit spreadsheets for each village, in a folder titled:
(Interior_FinalTalleySheets_08-10)
VEUEEM ’08 –’10 ACCESS Database