HomeMy WebLinkAboutWest Exec Sum VEUEM 2010
West Region
2008 – 2010
FINAL REPORT
AEA Grant # 2195234
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
August 2010
2
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West 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 Nightmute
Harry Morgan, HM Home Repair and Consulting, Field Manager for Nightmute, Kipnuk, Kwethluk
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 West Region
Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program 2008 – 2010
AEA Grant # 2195234 Administered by Alaska Building Science Network
Final Report - Executive Summary: West
- By ABSN Project Manager Geoff Butler, August, 2010
From February 2008 – February 2010 the following 3 rural Alaska villages received energy
efficiency upgrades to community buildings:
Kipnuk, Kwethluk, Nightmute
Total program grant funds: $112,500 Grant funds averaged per village: $37,500 ($112,500/3)
________________________________________________________________________
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. The first section of this report details results of our lighting
program in all three villages region-wide. Following this section and the reports for Kipnuk and Kwethluk is
our Nightmute final report which details energy efficiency lighting and weatherization upgrades in 13 community
buildings and 4 teacher-housing units in Nightmute, Alaska. These energy retrofits took place as part of a “Whole
Village” energy efficiency retrofit project spearheaded by The Alaska Energy Authority, with the Alaska Building
Science Network (ABSN) completing community building upgrades from Feb. ’08 through Feb. 2010. This project
was an effort to maximize energy savings to Nightmute in the wake of the highest oil price spike in world history -
with a barrel of oil topping $150 during the summer of 2008.
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 16 rural village entities region-wide and provided
lighting and weatherization retrofit training to approximately 31 local maintenance staff who completed lighting
and other energy upgrades in their buildings. Region-wide, 50 community buildings and 18 teacher-housing
units operated by rural school districts received energy efficiency improvements.
Concerning the lighting portion of these projects, 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 670 linear fluorescent light fixtures retrofitted region-wide, alone, would have cost $237,850 to
complete. With ABSN’s methods, when we deduct materials costs of T5/HO lighting (~$2,500) and CFLs
(~$2,000) lighting materials grant-wide, our cost for linear fluorescent retrofits is ~$160 per fixture. During
phases 1 and 2 of these projects: ’05 – ’08 our average number of light fixtures per village in all regions was
185. During Phase 3 for the West region with Kipnuk and Kwethluk having large lighting scopes, our fixture
average went to 223 fixtures /village.
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 larger lighting scope than our previous averages. 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 lighting budget of $112,500:
670 linear fluorescent lighting retrofits
522 Compact fluorescent light bulb installations
2, T5 light fixture upgrades in school gym facilities
Installed two programmable thermostats for added fuel savings
Acquired $ 20,939 matching grant resources associated with lighting projects – extending the capacity
of AEA grant funding for lighting by ~ 19%
4
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West Region
Grant funds payback and fuel saving measures
Savings from heating measures and corresponding grant expenditures are not included in
payback calculations for the lighting section of this report. Our region-wide payback estimate of
1.60 years reflects the total lighting grant funds of $112,500.
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: 122.29 kW
Post-retrofit energy use for all lighting: 51.62 kW
Energy savings from all lighting upgrades: 70.67 kW
Pre-retrofit to post retrofit energy reduction: 58 %
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 $ 33,523 6,021 $ 18,188 3.36
7 Hours $ 70,444 10,964 $ 37,456 1.60
10 Hours $ 83,807 15,052 $ 45,469 1.34
Total grant funds for all energy efficiency measures: $ 112,500
Simple mean payback (All grant funds, but accounting for lighting savings only) 1.60 Years
Additional Energy Efficiency Measures: See Nightmute final report weatherization
measures
5
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’07-‘08 Final Reports West Region
$0.0000
$0.1000
$0.2000
$0.3000
$0.4000
$0.5000
$0.6000
$0.7000
Cost/kWAEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Progam '08-'10
Full Cost of Electricity '08-'10 West Grant
Legend:
---------Village-wide average full cost of electricity = $0.48
---------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 West Region
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Kilowatts
AEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Program '08-'10
Lighting Retrofit Energy Savings -West
Pre-Retrofit Energy Use
Post-Retrofit Energy Use
7
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West Region
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
KilowattsAEA Village End Use Energy Efficiency Program West Grant '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 West Region
AEA Lighting Retrofit Project – Summary of Savings For ’08-’10 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)
Kipnuk 43,995 44.00 18,413 18.41 58% 25,582 25.58 7 250
Kwethluk 61,239 61.24 26,194 26.19 57% 35,045 35.05 7 250
Nightmute 17,054 17.05 7,009 7.01 59% 10,045 10.05 7 250
West Totals/Ave 122,288 122.29 51,616 51.62 58% 70,672 71 7 250
VILLAGES
Annual
Savings
(kWh)
(By Grant
=Total)
Electricity
Cost per
kWh
(w/out
PCE)
(By Grant
=Ave)
Annual
Village-
wide
savings
(dollars)
(By Grant
=Total)
KW
Generated
W/ Diesel
Per
Gallon(kW
h/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
Payback
(yrs)
# of
Rural
Entities
Worked
With
# of
Buildings
Worked
In
# of
Teacher
Housing
Units
Worked
In
Est. # of
Maint.
Staff
Worked
With
Kipnuk 44,769 $0.6527 $29,220 11.35 3,944 $4.74 $18,696 $46,000 1.57 3 17 6 5
Kwethluk 61,329 $0.5200 $31,891 10.82 5,668 $2.69 $15,247 $46,500 1.46 8 21 8 10
Nightmute 17,579 $0.5309 $9,333 13.01 1,351 $2.60 $3,513 $20,000 2.14 5 12 4 16
West Totals/Ave 123,676 $0.5679 $70,444 11.73 10,964 $3.34 $37,456 $112,500 1.60 16 50 18 31
9
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 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 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 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
West village average electricity cost for Phase 1, ’05-’06 was .48/ kWh. For Phase 2, ’07-’08,
during the oil price spike, the average electricity cost was $ .66 / kWh. For Phase 3, over
lapping early 2008 through January of 2010, the average cost of electricity for the current 3
villages in the West region was $ .57/ kWh.
10
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West 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.
11
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West Region
Savings and Payback Projections ’08 – ‘10
Community
Annual
Electrical
Savings
Projections
Total Project
Costs
Simple
Payback (yrs)
Kipnuk $ 29,220 $ 46,000 1.57
Kwethluk $ 31,891 $ 46,500 1.46
Nightmute $ 9,333 $ 20,000 2.14
West Sub Totals $ 70,444 $ 112,500 1.60
Based on hours of operation: 7 hrs/day for 250 days/year
Community
Annual
Electrical
Savings
Projections
Total Project
Costs
Simple
Payback (yrs)
Kipnuk $ 13,039 $ 46,000 3.53
Kwethluk $ 15,420 $ 46,500 3.02
Nightmute $ 5,064 $ 20,000 3.95
West Sub Totals $ 33,523 $ 112,500 3.36
Based on hours of operation: 4 hrs/day for 250 days/year
Community
Annual
Electrical
Savings
Projections
Total Project
Costs
Simple
Payback (yrs)
Kipnuk $ 32,598 $ 46,000 1.41
Kwethluk $ 38,550 $ 46,500 1.21
Nightmute $ 12,659 $ 20,000 1.58
West Sub Totals $ 83,807 $ 112,500 1.34
Based on hours of operation: 10 hrs/day for 250 days/year
12
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West 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 $112,500 is divided by the 3 villages in proportion to the amount of
lighting scope of work in each village. Weatherization measures in Nightmute are selected
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.
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.
13
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West Region
Village maintenance staff packing
used lamps for recycling
A village shipment of used lamps
and ballasts
Bringing used lamps to the air strip
Total Reclaim Inc. Estimates over all of the regions for the VEUEM grant projects from 2006 to
2010 We have Recycled:
Lamps Ballasts
Year Amounts
Weights
in Lbs Amounts
Weights
in Lbs
2006 2,351 1,461 1,694 5,083
2007 2,232 1,348 1,215 3,644
2008 1,593 962 1,688 5,065
2009 6,030 3,642 5,341 16,024
2010 6,280 3,793 2,056 6,169
Totals 18,486 11,206 11,994 35,985
8ft, T-12 lamps prepared for
recycling.
8ft lamp recycling container 8ft lamps prepared for shipping.
14
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West 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 147 pounds of PCB ballasts in Kipnuk, Kwethluk and Nightmute 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
Kipnuk 20
Kwethluk 67
Nightmute 60
TOTAL 147
Village maintenance staff double checking
ballasts for PCBs
DOT approved shipping manifests and haz-mat
container of PCB ballasts ready for shipment
15
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West Region
The following 3 village reports detail lighting
and additional measures undertaken in each of our 2008 – 2010
West region villages:
16
Alaska Building Science Network - Village End Use Energy Efficiency Measures Program – ’08-‘10 Final Reports West 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_West_FinalReport_08-10.doc)
Regional final reporting summary data, charts and calculations spreadsheets:
(West_SummaryReportChartData_FinalReport_08-10.doc)
Final reports for each village in a folder titled:
(West_FinalReportsVEUEEM_08-10)
Pre-Post retrofit spreadsheets for each village, in a folder titled:
(West_FinalTalleySheets_08-10)
Contact information for all village contacts, file name:
(West_Contacts _VEUEEM_08-10.xls)
VEUEEM ’08 –’10 ACCESS Database