HomeMy WebLinkAboutNw Sw Reg Exec Sum VEUEM 2010
Northwest / Southwest Region
2008 – 2010
FINAL REPORT
AEA Grant # 2195225
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 99511
Phone (907) 562-9927
Fax (907) 770-5412
April, 2010
2
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW 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
Geoff Feiler, Treasurer and founding ABSN Board member
Craig Moore, Secretary
William Harry Bruu
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 Unalakleet
Garrison Collette, Happy Energy Services LLC, Field Manager for Saint Michael and Stebbins
Dan Lung, DL Diversified & Consulting Services Inc., Field Manager for New Stuyahok
Harry Morgan, HM Home Repair and Consulting, Field Manager for Ekwok and Levelock
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 NW/SW Region
Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program 2008 – 2010
AEA Grant # 2195225 Administered by Alaska Building Science Network
Final Report - Executive Summary: Northwest – Southwest Region
- By ABSN Project Manager Geoff Butler, April, 2010
From April 2008 – April 2010 the following 6 rural Alaska villages received energy efficiency
upgrades to community buildings:
Ekwok, Levelock, New Stuyahok, Saint Michael, Stebbins, Unalakleet
Total program grant funds: $310,000 Grant funds averaged per village: $51,667 ($310,000/7)
________________________________________________________________________
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 30
rural village entities region-wide and provided lighting retrofit training to approximately 56 local maintenance
staff who completed lighting and other energy upgrades in their buildings. Region-wide, 79 community
buildings and 64 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 3,400 linear fluorescent light fixtures
retrofitted region-wide, alone, would have cost $1,207,000 to complete. With ABSN’s methods, when we
deduct materials costs of heating measures (~ $10,000), T5/HO lighting ($25,672) and CFL ($3,416) lighting
materials grant-wide, our cost for linear fluorescent retrofits is ~$80 per fixture. During the previous Phase 2
grant period: ’07 – ’08, ABSN’s per fixture retrofit cost was $176. The far lower cost per fixture for Phase 3 is
primarily because 1,587 of the linear fluorescents were installed by working in partnership with labor funded
by the Bering Strait School District. Additionally, an economy of scale factor plays into the reduced cost per
fixture. During phases 1 and 2 of these projects: ’05 – ’08 our fixture number average 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 $310,000:
3,400 linear fluorescent lighting retrofits
1,459 Compact fluorescent light bulb installations
6 T5 light fixture upgrades in school gym, multi-purpose and maintenance facilities
~ $ 10,000 grant funds spent on additional energy efficiency measures beyond lighting
- Saint Michael: consultation on heating plant design and controls to the St. Michael IRA.
- Stebbins: Two EK3 low-mass boilers installed in Bering Straights School District Utility Building.
Consulting / energy education for various village entities.
- 2 programmable thermostats installed in New Stuyahok
Acquired $ 106,994 matching grant resources – extending the capacity of AEA grant funding by 35%
4
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
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 1.33 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 resu lting from them. The heating measures
will result in measurable fuel savings, which we currently do not have data to calculate. If it was
possible to calculate fuel savings from the heating measures we are confident it would further
reduce payback time on total grant funds.
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: 497 kW
Post-retrofit energy use for all lighting: 263 kW
Energy savings from all lighting upgrades: 234 kW
Pre-retrofit to post retrofit energy reduction: 47 %
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 $ 105,690 17,478 $ 54,472 2.93
7 Hours $ 232,485 30,866 $ 139,052 1.33
10 Hours $ 264,225 43,696 $ 136,179 1.17
Total grant funds for all energy efficiency measures: $ 310,000
Simple mean payback (All grant funds, but accounting for lighting savings only) 1.33 Years
Additional Energy Efficiency Measures (Region-wide grant funding: ~$10,000
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 much larger
lighting scope in this grant phase, it follows that available budge ts for measures beyond lighting
were reduced in comparison with the first four years of the VEUEEM grants.
5
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’07-‘08 Final Reports West Region
$0.00
$0.10
$0.20
$0.30
$0.40
$0.50
$0.60
$0.70
$0.80
Cost/kWAEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Progam '08-'10
Full Cost of Electricity NW/SW Grant
Legend:
---------Village-wide average full cost of electricity = $0.59
---------Nation-wide average full cost of electricity = $0.10
6
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
180.00
200.00
Kilowatts
AEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Program '08-'10
Lighting Retrofit Energy Savings -NW/SW Grant
Pre-Retrofit Energy Use
Post-Retrofit Energy Use
7
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
KilowattsAEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Program Phase III '08-'10
T5 Gym & Common Area Lighting Upgrades
Pre-Retrofit Energy Use
Post Retrofit Energy Use
8
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
AEA Village End-Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – Final Reporting Data For '08 - '10 NW/SW 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)
Ekwok 18,827 18.83 8,355 8.36 56% 10,472 10.47 7 250
Levelock 39,948 39.95 19,661 19.66 51% 20,287 20.29 7 250
New Stuyahok 48,838 48.84 26,218 26.22 46% 22,620 22.62 7 250
Saint Michael 52,674 52.67 26,523 26.52 50% 26,151 26.15 7 250
Stebbins 139,736 139.74 84,464 84.46 40% 55,272 55.27 7 250
Unalakleet 196,940 196.94 97,410 97.41 51% 99,530 99.53 7 250
NW/SW Totals/Ave. 496,963 496.96 262,631 262.63 47% 234,332 234 7 250
9
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
AEA Village End-Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – Final Reporting Data For '08 - '10 NW/SW 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 deduc tions. Rates are from the FY 2009 PCE Report. July 1st 2008 - June
30th 2009
Ekwok 18,326 $0.5000 $9,163 12.29 1,491 $3.66 $5,458 $20,000 2.18 4 11 0 5
Levelock 35,502 $0.7000 $24,852 10.83 3,278 $7.44 $24,389 $33,700 1.36 4 8 4 6
New
Stuyahok 39,585 $0.6297 $24,927 13.55 2,921 $4.30 $12,562 $42,000 1.68 7 15 2 8
Saint Michael 45,764 $0.6323 $28,937 14.77 3,098 $4.36 $13,509 $42,000 1.45 4 8 14 10
Stebbins 96,726 $0.6087 $58,877 13.41 7,213 $4.16 $30,006 $83,000 1.41 4 15 12 11
Unalakleet 174,178 $0.4922 $85,730 13.54 12,864 $4.13 $53,128 $89,300 1.04 7 22 32 16
NW/SW
Totals/Ave. 410,081 $232,485 13.07 30,866 $4.68 $139,052 $310,000 1.33 30 79 64 56
AVE: $0.5938
$232,485 Projected Annual Savings (dollars) for 6, '08-'10 - Villages
$310,000 Total Grant Funds For All 6, '07-'08 Villages
Simple Payback: 1.33 years to payback entire grant @ 7 hrs/day & 250 hrs/yr
10
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
AEA Village End-Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – Final Reporting Data For '08 - '10 NW/SW 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)
Low-Mass
Boiler
training
and
instalation
for SD
Staff
Energy
efficiency
boiler
training
for #
village
maint staff
#
Programmable
T-Stats
installed
Total In
Kind
Contribution
from all
Village
Entities
%
Inkind
From
Total
Budget
Ekwok 81 54 1 $3,653 0 $5,813 29%
Levelock 252 85 1 $2,978 0 $8,921 26%
New Stuyahok 425 38 1 $7,028 2 $10,955 26%
Saint Michael 393 239 0 $0 0 $10,474 25%
Stebbins 1069 226 1 $5,184 $9,804 2 0 $31,296 38%
Unalakleet 1180 817 2 $6,829 $39,535 44%
NW/SW Totals/Ave. 3386 1459 6 $25,672 $9,804 2 0 2 $106,994 35%
11
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’07-‘08 Final Reports West 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 buildin gs 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 t ruth 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 came 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 th rough 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,
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 c urrent six
villages in the NW/SW region was $ .59/ kWh.
12
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW 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 some 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 utility 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 that 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.
13
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
Savings and Payback Projections ’08 – ’10 Villages
Community
Annual
Electrical
Savings
Projections
Total Project
Costs
Simple
Payback (yrs)
Ekwok $ 9,163 $ 20,000 2.18
Levelock $ 24,852 $ 33,700 1.36
New Stuyahok $ 24,927 $ 42,000 1.68
Saint Michael $ 28,937 $ 42,000 1.45
Stebbins $ 58,877 $ 83,000 1.41
Unalakleet $ 85,730 $ 89,300 1.04
NW/SW Sub Totals $ 232,485 $ 310,000 1.33
Based on hours of operation: 7 hrs/day for 250 days/year
14
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
Savings and Payback Projections ’08 –’10 Villages
Community
Annual
Electrical
Savings
Projections
Total Project
Costs
Simple
Payback (yrs)
Ekwok $ 5,236 $ 20,000 3.82
Levelock $ 10,144 $ 33,700 3.32
New Stuyahok $ 11,638 $ 42,000 3.61
Saint Michael $ 12,218 $ 42,000 3.44
Stebbins $ 27,608 $ 83,000 3.01
Unalakleet $ 38,847 $ 89,300 2.30
NW/SW Sub Totals $ 105,690 $ 310,000 2.93
Based on hours of operation: 4 hrs/day for 250 days/year
Savings and Payback Projections '08-'10 Villages
Community
Annual
Electrical
Savings
Projections
Total Project
Costs
Simple
Payback (yrs)
Ekwok $ 13,090 $ 20,000 1.53
Levelock $ 25,359 $ 33,700 1.33
New Stuyahok $ 29,095 $ 42,000 1.44
Saint Michael $ 30,544 $ 42,000 1.38
Stebbins $ 69,021 $ 83,000 1.20
Unalakleet $ 97,116 $ 89,300 0.92
NW/SW Sub Totals $ 264,225 $ 310,000 1.17
Based on hours of operation: 10 hrs/day for 250 days/year
15
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW 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 a re 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 $310,000 is divided by the six 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.
Total Reclaim Inc. estimates in Levelock/Ekwok, New Stuyahok, Saint Michael, Stebbins and
Unalakleet we recycled 4,545 ballasts and 7,369 4 -ft linear fluorescent lamps weighing over
18,151 lbs total. Older fixtures can have more than one magnetic ballast operating lamps, so
the ballast count will be higher than the fixture count. These numbers and those shown in the
table below do not include the lamps that were recycled from New Stuyahok.
16
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
Village maintenance staff packing
used lamps for recycling
A village shipment of used lamps
and ballasts
Bringing used lamps to the air strip
Village Weight in # # of Fluorescent Tubes # of Ballasts
Levelock/Ekwok 599 265 146
New Stuayhok 796 0 265
Saint Michael 2,060 1452 394
Stebbins 5,036 1298 1417
Unalakleet 9,660 4354 2323
TOTALS 18,151 7,369 4,545
8ft, T-12 lamps prepared for
recycling.
8ft lamp recycling container 8ft lamps prepared for shipping.
17
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW 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 disposal. In the Northwest - Southwest
region, we disposed of over 1,084 pounds of PCB ballasts in New Stuyahok, Stebbins, St. Michael and
Unalakleet in order to complete lighting retrofits in all community buildings. As 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 Pounds of PCBS
New Stuyahok 121
Stebbins 439
St. Michael 145
Unalakleet 379
TOTAL 1,084
Village maintenance staff double checking
ballasts for PCBs
DOT approved shipping manifests and haz-mat
container of PCB ballasts ready for shipment
18
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
The following 6 village reports detail lighting
and additional measures undertaken in each of our 2008 – 2010
Northwest / Southwest region villages:
19
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports NW/SW Region
ELECTRONIC APPENDICES
Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program ’08 – ‘10
West 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_NW.SW_FinalReport_08-10.doc)
Regional final reporting summary data, charts and calculations spreadsheets:
(NWSW_SummaryReportChartData_FinalReport_08-10.doc)
Final reports for each village in a folder titled:
(NWSW_FinalReportsVEUEEM_08-10)
Pre-Post retrofit spreadsheets for each village, in a folder titled:
(NWSW_FinalTalleySheets_08-10)
Contact information for all village contacts, file name:
(NWSW_Contacts _VEUEEM_08-10.xls)
VEUEEM ’08 –’10 ACCESS Database