Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAHTNA-Z93-CAEC CRSD Copper Center School K-12 2012-EE Copper Center School Silver Springs Loop Copper Center, Alaska 99573 AkWarm ID No. AHTNA-Z93-CAEC-01 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net May 21, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute CRSD .......................................................................................................................... Copper River School District DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium HVAC ................................................................................................. Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE iv OF iv REPORT DISCLAIMER This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, or any other party involved in preparation of this report, accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 1 OF 27  This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Copper River School District Contact: Ryan Radford PO Box 108 Glennallen, AK 99588 Email: rradford@crsd.us Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The January 2009 – December 2011 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: School Electricity $ 13,638 Portables Electricity $ 3,410 School Fuel Oil $ 19,511 Portables Fuel Oil $ 6,147 Total $ 33,149 $ 9,557 School EUI: 125.9 kBtu/sf Portables EUI: 142.8 kBtu/sf School ECI: 4.03 $/sf Portables ECI: 4.27 $/sf The estimated energy cost comes out to $910 per building occupant based on $42,706 total energy cost and 47 occupants for the school and portables combined. The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Tables 1.1 and 1.3 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for the Copper Center School and the portable buildings respectively. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 2 OF 27  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Refrigeration: Combined Refrigeration Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $374 $100 54.70 0.3 2 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $2,890 $1,000 39.24 0.3 3 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: School Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $318 $1,155 6.53 3.6 4 Lighting: Yard Lights Replace with 4 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Motion Sensors $440 $5,000 3.42 11.4 5 Lighting: Mezzanine Incandescent Lamps Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $375 $1,200 3.36 3.2 6 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $192 $2,026 2.25 10.5 7 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $343 $3,977 2.05 11.6 8 Lighting: Exterior HPS Replace with 4 LED (3) 20W Module StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch $614 $7,500 1.76 12.2 9 Ventilation Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on SA-1 and EF-1. $2,285 $20,000 1.45 8.8 10 Lighting: Gym MH Replace with 12 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $1,549 $25,200 1.20 16.3 TOTAL, cost- effective measures $9,380 $67,158 2.36 7.2 11 HVAC And DHW Install premium efficiency motors (2 @ $3,000 each = $6,000). Install variable speed controllers on boiler pumps (2 @ $5,000 = $10,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($5,000). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut-off during non-occupied times ($3,000). $49 $24,000 0.75 489.4 12 Window: NSFW Replace existing window with U-0.22 vinyl window $413 $10,471 0.69 25.3 TOTAL, all measures $9,842 $101,628 1.81 10.3 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 3 OF 27  Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $9,842 per year, or 28.7% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $101,628, for an overall simple payback period of 10.3 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $9,380 per year, or 27.3% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $67,158, for an overall simple payback period of 7.2 years. Tables 1.2 and 1.4 following provide a breakdown of the annual energy costs across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $19,00 $1,484 $6,107 $1,248 $451 $0 $6,056 $34,350 With All Proposed Retrofits $14,946 $304 $2,928 $874 $451 $0 $5,005 $24,508 SAVINGS $4,058 $1,180 $3,179 $374 $0 $0 $1,051 $9,842 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 4 OF 27  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Setback Thermostat: Portables Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 65.0 deg F for the Portable Classroom space. $617 $500 16.74 0.8 2 HVAC And DHW Install new modern efficient oil fired furnace in each portable unit. $1,260 $24,000 1.82 19.1 TOTAL, cost- effective measures $1,876 $24,500 2.12 13.1 3 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $40 $500 0.75 12.4 4 Ceiling w/ Attic: CWA Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to attic with Standard Truss. $170 $8,960 0.45 52.6 5 Lighting: Interior Lights Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program LowLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $302 $26,000 0.38 86.1 6 Exposed Floor: AGF Install R-10 rigid board insulation $134 $9,582 0.33 71.7 7 Exterior Door: ED Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $51 $5,065 0.24 99.5 TOTAL, all measures $2,573 $74,607 0.95 29.0 Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $6,580 $0 $601 $0 $2,553 $0 $0 $9,734 With All Proposed Retrofits $4,472 $0 $136 $0 $2,553 $0 $0 $7,160 SAVINGS $2,109 $0 $465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,573 With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $2,573 per year, or 26.4% of the portable buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $74,607, for an overall simple payback period of 29.0 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $1,876 per year, or 19.3% of the portable buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $24,500, for an overall simple payback period of 13.1 years. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 5 OF 27  While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles. Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically. These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection. Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification, however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy saving operational profiles and EEMs. Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy consumption. Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun. Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods. Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings. Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program, implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the quantity of equipment involved. Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health, safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by excess and sub-optimum usage. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 6 OF 27  This comprehensive energy audit covers the 8,234 square foot Copper Center School with detached two (2) portable buildings of 1,120 square feet each, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, administrative offices and gymnasium. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report for the School and Appendix G for the Benchmark Report for the portable buildings). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 7 OF 27  After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on May 11, 2011 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. Thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken during the audit. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the school and the portable buildings. Several of the thermal images are included in this report as Appendix E. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 8 OF 27  Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, gymnasium, and classrooms. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. The Geographic Area Cost Factor dated April 2011 for Copper River School District has an index of 113.9 compared to Anchorage and was used in this report. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for school renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR) are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Tables 1.1 and 1.3 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings.  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 9 OF 27  The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 10 OF 27  All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, Copper Center School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Copper Center, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for Copper Center, Alaska. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the fuel oil and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 11 OF 27  The structure of Copper Center School is a single story facility with a mezzanine housing the mechanical equipment and storage area. The school was built in 1981 and received a boiler, DHW maker and DDC upgrade in the year 2000. This building has had no additions made to it but there have been to portable outbuildings added to the campus. The school typically opens at 7AM by staff with faculty and student occupancy from 9AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional rental occupancy time keeping the school open includes occasional after school programs and community events. There are an estimated 47 full time students, faculty, and staff occupants using the school and portable building. As architectural drawings were provided for the energy audit, shell insulation values were assumed using the provided information. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned, metal framed windows in place which have an estimated U-factor of 0.56 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of these windows appear to be weather worn but are in acceptable condition given their age. The below grade exterior walls of the high school consist of 2-core concrete block walls furred out with 4-inch studs and insulated with 2-inches of rigid foam board insulation providing an estimated R-25 composite value. The above grade wall sections of the block wall are made similar to the bottom section, though are furred out with 2-inch studs and insulated with 2-inches of rigid foam board insulation providing an estimated R-13 composite value. Finally, certain wall sections are built 6-inch studs filled with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation providing an estimated R-17 composite value. Upper wall sections are covered in wood siding while lower wall sections are covered in a brick veneer. Wall height varies from 25 feet to 40 feet, depending on location. The different wall constructions can be noted in the IR images provided in Appendix E of this report. The roof system of the school is a sloped cathedral ceiling insulated with fiberglass batt for an insulating estimated R-40 composite value. The entirety of the roof is covered in wooden shingles which is unusual for school construction in the KPBSD. The floor/foundation of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge does not appear to be insulated on the outside and there is no indication insulation is installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are half-windowed or solid. There are also four (4) overhead doors installed on each of the shop classrooms. The doors appear to be in adequate condition, but could use additional weather stripping installed. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 12 OF 27  Heat is provided to the main school building by two (2) fuel oil-fired cast iron boilers which were installed in 2000. The boilers are located in the building’s mechanical room which is small and cramped. Heat is provided to the heating coils on the supply air ducts routed to the various zones in the building. The boilers do not appear to utilize a temperature reset schedule to adjust the boiler output temperature based on outside temperature. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler’s 1-2 Fuel Type: Fuel Oil Input Rating: 303,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 85 % Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic (Glycol) Boiler Operation: All Year Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied by a side-arm hot water maker off the boiler hydronic loop. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the restrooms, kitchen and janitor sinks in the building. The hot water maker is located in the mechanical room and requires the boiler to fire to supply heat to the unit. Storage Water Heater Fuel Type: Side-arm, shell and tube exchanger Input Rating: 303,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 70 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Circulation 24/7 DHW Maker Operation: All Year There is one 7.5 HP supply air fan and one 5 HP exhaust fan compromising the H&V system for the school. These units are crammed into a mechanical room making maintenance cumbersome at best. At 10% outside air, the unit can bring in an estimated 1,050 CFM, or 22 CFM per occupant indicating the school is being over ventilated with the current occupant load using the building. This is where installation of variable speed controllers on the major ventilation fans and only operate while the school is occupied can provide significant energy savings. The outdoor air should never be provided at less than 10 CFM/occupant to be code compliant, but at even half capacity and at current occupancy level, the system can provide two times the required amount. The ventilation system uses electronically controlled end devices, controlled by a Honeywell DDC system. Building maintenance personnel did not have a clear understanding on how the DDC was functioning and how to access the controls. This DDC system is considered a good candidate for re- commissioning to get the HVAC system operating at peak performance for today’s operational environment. Running times, set-back temperature operation and variable speed controllers can provide significant energy savings. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 13 OF 27  There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building uses modern T8 lights. The gym lighting system outdated 400-Watt Metal Halide (MH) ligths which are excellent candidates for upgrades. The T8 lighting systems remaining in the building were evaluated for replacement to new Energy-Saver T8, programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls. The HPS lights mounted on the outside of the building and yard lights are good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace these systems. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade recommendations. There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment, computers with monitors, copy machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.1 watts/sf for the school and 0.5 watt/sf for the portable buildings. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 14 OF 27  The two (2) onsite portable outbuildings have an area of 1120 square feet each and consist of 2x6 wood stud wall construction 16 inches on center with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in between the studs. The exterior face of the wall is T-111 plywood siding with drywall on the interior side of the wall. Interior and exterior wall height is nine feet at the eaves to twelve feet at the roof peak in the center of the end walls. The above grade floor rests on piling. Plywood skirting protects the sleepers and floor construction from the weather. The floor construction is plywood resting on 2x8 wood floor joists and has R-19 fiberglass batt insulation in place. The roof has non-energy heel wood trusses with R-30 fiberglass batt in place. The windows are double pane wood framed with an estimated R-1.5 value. The doors are insulated metal framed with an estimated R-1.7 value. The portable buildings are heated with a fuel oil fired furnace. The furnaces are inefficient and appear worn out. The two furnaces are good candidates for replacement as they appear to be at the end of their useful life. There are no programmable thermostats in place to provide temperature set-back capability when unoccupied. The lighting in the portables is typically 2 lamp, 4 foot long, T-8 light fixtures with electronic ballasts. Retrofitting the lighting system to modern T-8 lamps with programmable start electronic ballast controlled by occupancy sensors is analyzed in this report and appears to have a poor payout. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 15 OF 27  Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil energy usage for the surveyed facility from July 2008 to June 2010. Copper Valley Electric Association Inc. provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedules. Fuel Oil was being provided by Fischer Fuel under their commercial rate schedules. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 16 OF 27  The fuel oil usage profile shows the predicted fuel oil energy usage for the building. As actual fuel oil usage records were available for both the school and portable buildings, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Fuel oil is sold to the customer in units of gallons (GAL), which contains approximately 140,000 BTUs of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and fuel oil utility data provided, the 2010 through 2011 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Tables 6.1 below. 2010 2011 Average School Electric 0.25 $/kWh 0.28$/kWh 0.27 $/kWh School Fuel Oil 2.59 $/GAL 3.44 $/GAL 3.02 $/GAL School Total Cost $31,339 $34,957 $33,148 School ECI 3.81 $/sf 4.25 $/sf 4.03 $/sf School Electric EUI 23.1 kBtu/sf 20.0 kBtu/sf 21.6 kBtu/sf School Fuel Oil EUI 108.3 kBtu/sf 100.3 kBtu/sf 104.3 kBtu/sf School Building EUI 131.3 kBtu/sf 120.4 kBtu/sf 125.9 kBtu/sf 2010 2011 Average Portables Electric 0.25 $/kWh 0.28$/kWh 0.27 $/kWh Portables Fuel Oil 2.60 $/GAL 3.26 $/GAL 2.93 $/GAL Portables Total Cost $8,662 $10,451 $9,557 Portables ECI 3.87 $/sf 4.67 $/sf 4.27 $/sf Portables Electric EUI 21.2 kBtu/sf 18.4 kBtu/sf 19.8 kBtu/sf Portables Oil EUI 117.8 kBtu/sf 128.2 kBtu/sf 123.0 kBtu/sf Portables EUI 139.0 kBtu/sf 146.6 kBtu/sf 142.8 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average EUI of 125.9 kBtu/sf for the school and 142.8 for the portable buildings. This means the school uses a total of 51.7% more energy than the US average and the portable buildings use a total of 72.1% more energy than the US average. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 17 OF 27  At current utility rates, the Copper River School District is modeled to pay approximately $34,350 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Copper Center School and $9,734 for the portable buildings. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Existing Retrofit Space Heating Other Electrical Lighting Annual Energy Costs by End Use $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 Existing Retrofit #2 Oil Electricity Annual Energy Costs by Fuel CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 18 OF 27  Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. The tables below show AkWarm-C ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. School Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 2385 2174 2385 2308 2018 734 758 1336 2308 2385 2308 2385 Refrigeration 407 371 407 394 407 394 407 407 394 407 394 407 Other Electrical 186 169 186 180 150 25 26 82 180 186 180 186 Ventilation Fans 2569 2341 2569 2486 2014 107 111 983 2486 2569 2486 2569 DHW 63 58 63 61 63 61 63 63 61 63 61 63 Space Heating 186 170 186 180 186 180 186 186 180 186 180 186 Space Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School Fuel Oil #2 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 34 31 34 34 37 39 44 41 35 35 33 34 Space Heating 1069 796 695 430 256 125 88 128 260 500 781 1017 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 19 OF 27  Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 56,251 kWh 191,986 3.340 641,232 #2 Oil 6,575 gallons 907,336 1.010 916,409 Total 1,099,321 1,557,641 BUILDING AREA 8,234 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 134 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 189 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 20 OF 27  The Energy Efficiency Measures for the school building are summarized below:  Electrical & Appliance Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. School Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs and Lighting Controls Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Yard Lights 4 MV 250 Watt Magnetic with On/Off Photoswitch Replace with 4 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Motion Sensor Installation Cost $5,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $440 Breakeven Cost $17,110 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: All of the high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. This recommendation assumes a Dark Campus environment where the lights are turned off during the late evening and early morning hours and are turned on under motion sensor activation, security alarm activation, or when controlled by the Building Automation System, when available. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Mezzanine Incandescent Lamps 16 INCAN A Lamp, Std 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $375 Breakeven Cost $4,034 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 3 Auditors Notes: This EEM analysis replacement of the incandescent lamps in the Mezzanine with new compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL’s) Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 Exterior HPS 4 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 LED (3) 20W Module StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch Installation Cost $7,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $614 Breakeven Cost $13,178 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 12 Auditors Notes: See EEM #4 for similar notes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 21 OF 27  School Refrigeration Measures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Gym MH 12 MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $25,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,549 Breakeven Cost $30,136 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 16 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Assumes $24,000 total for relamping gym. Includes 4 occupancy sensors @ $400 each and 2 multi-level switches @ $400 each. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 1 Combined Refrigeration 2 Refrigeration Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $374 Breakeven Cost $5,470 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 54.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes:  This EEM evaluates the practice of beginning seasonal shutdown procedures of the various refrigeration systems throughout the building, including the kitchen and break room refrigerators.   CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 22 OF 27  School Night Setback Thermostat Measures School Ventilation System Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 2 School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,890 Breakeven Cost $39,239 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 39.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 0 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below, then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. Rank Description Recommendation 9 Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on SA-1 and EF-1. Installation Cost $20,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,285 Breakeven Cost $29,095 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 9 Auditors Notes: * The cost of upgrading the ventilation system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the building ventilation system. A. The programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save a portion of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. B. Installation of high efficiency premium motors and variable speed controllers on SA-1 and EF-1 will allow the motors to be operated more efficiently to match the load output requirements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 23 OF 27  School Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure School Insulation Measures Rank Recommendation 11 Install premium efficiency motors (2 @ $3,000 each = $6,000). Install variable speed controllers on boiler pumps (2 @ $5,000 = $10,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($5,000). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut-off during non-occupied times ($3,000). Installation Cost $24,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)25 Energy Savings ($/yr) $49 Breakeven Cost $17,928 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 489 Auditors Notes: * The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm-C program calculations. The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the heating system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. Because of this, the savings of individual upgrades do not directly compare to the predicted overall savings of a complete upgrade of the heating system. A. Install premium efficiency motors with variable speed controllers on main building heating circulation pumps. B. Implementing a reduced operating time scheme for the pumps throughout the heating water distribution system will reduce the amount of power used by motors during non-critical times of the day. This upgrade would include programming the DDC system to better manage the existing heating and ventilation equipment in the school. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 7 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Wall Type: All Weather Wood Insul. Sheathing: None Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 16" on center R-19 Batt:FG or RW, 5.5 inches Insulation Quality: Damaged Modeled R-Value: 18 Add R-19 fiberglass batts to below grade wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. Installation Cost $3,977 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $343 Breakeven Cost $8,133 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 12 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending installation of fiberglass batt insulation to the below grade wall which was found to be poorly insulated. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 3 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: School Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 14.6 Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $1,155 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $318 Breakeven Cost $7,543 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 4 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending installation of fiberglass batt insulation to the crawlspace floor to reduce heat loss through the concrete footings. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 24 OF 27  School Window Measures School Door Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 12 Window: NSFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.67 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.22 vinyl window Installation Cost $10,471 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $413 Breakeven Cost $7,202 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 25 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending replacement of the existing windows in the school with modern triple pane vinyl windows. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 6 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors Door Type: Entrance, Metal, fiberglass core; metal edge Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $2,026 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $192 Breakeven Cost $4,559 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending replacement of the existing exterior doors in the school with new commercial grade doors. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 25 OF 27  The Energy Efficiency Measures for the portable buildings are summarized below:  Portable Buildings Night Setback Thermostat Measures Portable Buildings Heating System Measure Portable Buildings Air Sealing Measures Portable Buildings Ceiling Insulation Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 1 PB Portable Classroom Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 65.0 deg F for the Portable Classroom space. Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $617 Breakeven Cost $8,372 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 16.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 1 Auditors Notes: See EEM #2 for the school for similar notes. Rank Recommendation 2 PB Install new modern efficient oil fired furnace in each portable unit. Installation Cost $24,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,260 Breakeven Cost $43,625 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 19 Auditors Notes: This EEM reviews the replacement of the existing worn out oil fired furnaces in the portable buildings with new modern efficient oil fired furnaces. Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) 3 PB Portable Buildings Air Tightness estimated as: 0.50 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $40 Breakeven Cost $375 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 12 Auditors Notes: This EEM can be realized as a result of adding new weather stripping, caulking around leaky areas, etc… Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 4 PB Ceiling w/ Attic: CWA Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R-38 Batt:FG or RW, 12 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 36.9 Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to attic with Standard Truss. Installation Cost $8,960 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $170 Breakeven Cost $4,042 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 53   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the ceiling to an R-58 insulation value. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 26 OF 27  Portable Buildings Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Portable Buildings Floor Insulation Measures Portable Buildings Door Measures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 PB Interior Lights 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program LowLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $26,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $302 Breakeven Cost $9,816 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 86   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to upgrade the lighting system and controls to reduce electric use. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 6PB Exposed Floor: AGF Framing Type: 2 x Lumber Insulating Sheathing: None Top Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt:FG or RW, 9.5 inches Bottom Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 34.6 Install R-10 rigid board insulation Installation Cost $9,582 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $134 Breakeven Cost $3,168 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 72   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to increase the floor to an R-30 insulation value. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 7 PB Exterior Door: ED Door Type: Entrance, Metal, polyurethane core, quarter lite Modeled R-Value: 4 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $5,065 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $51 Breakeven Cost $1,208 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 99   Auditors Notes: This EEM is intended to replace the door assemblies with modern energy efficient doors to reduce heat loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐01  PAGE 27 OF 27  Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX A  Appendix A Benchmark Report CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Loreen Kramer 822‐3234 State Zip AK 99588 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 24‐724‐724‐724‐7       Average # of  Occupants  During  47 30 0 0       Renovations/Notes Date 08/22/2000 PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas   Propane  Wood  Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF  $ / gal  $ / cord  $ / ton Other energy  sources?  1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below.  If known, please enter the base rate you  pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period  for each energy source  you use.       Contact Person Email lkramer@crsd.k12.ak.us Mailing Address City P.O. Box 108 Glenallen Primary  Operating  Hours Details Boiler, DHW and DDC Upgrade Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip Silver Springs Loop Copper Center 99573 Building Type Community Population Year Built Wood Frame 335 1981 Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Copper Center School Education ‐ K ‐ 12 8,234 Copper River School District Regional Education Attendance 05/17/12 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Copper Center School  Buiding Size Input (sf) =8,234 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)55,648 2009 Electric Cost ($)13,824 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)8,913.96 2009 Oil Cost ($)17,515 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($)0.00 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Coal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Wood Cost ($)0.00 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)1,081,323 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)31,339 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)23.1 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 108.3 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)131.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.68 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)2.13 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)3.81 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)48,352 2010 Electric Cost ($)13,451 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)8,260.56 2010 Oil Cost ($)21,506 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($)0 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Coal Cost ($)0 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Wood Cost ($)0 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost ($)0 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Steam Cost ($)0 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)991,081 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)34,957 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)20.0 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)100.3 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)120.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.63 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)2.61 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)4.25 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTCopper Center School ElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)CVEA Jan‐10 5,856 200 $1,664 $0.28CVEA Feb‐10 6,656 227 $1,824 $0.27CVEA Mar‐10 5,888 201 $1,553 $0.26CVEA Apr‐10 5,824 199 $1,513 $0.26CVEA May‐10 5,952 203 $1,459 $0.25CVEA Jun‐10 4,512 154 $733 $0.16CVEA Jul‐101,568 54 $265 $0.17CVEA Aug‐10 1,408 48 $264 $0.19CVEA Sep‐10 2,592 88 $486 $0.19CVEA Oct‐10 4,448 152 $1,032 $0.23CVEA Nov‐10 5,408 185 $1,458 $0.27CVEA Dec‐10 5,536 189 $1,573 $0.28CVEA Jan‐11 5,152 176 $1,568 $0.30CVEA Feb‐11 5,664 193 $1,584 $0.28CVEA Mar‐11 5,696 194 $1,674 $0.29CVEA Apr‐11 4,192 143 $1,318 $0.31CVEA May‐11 4,768 163 $1,336 $0.28CVEA Jun‐11 3,552 121 $829 $0.23CVEA Jul‐11608 21 $155 $0.26CVEA Aug‐11768 26 $192 $0.25CVEA Sep‐11 2,912 99 $682 $0.23CVEA Oct‐11 3,808 130 $887 $0.23CVEA Nov‐11 5,504 188 $1,494 $0.27CVEA Dec‐11 5,728 195 $1,731 $0.30Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:55,648 1,899 $13,824Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 total:48,352 1,650 $13,451$0.25$0.28Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$200$400$600$800$1,000$1,200$1,400$1,600$1,800$2,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Copper Center School ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTCopper Center School OilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Fisher FuelJan‐10965 1,274 $2,387 1.87Fisher FuelFeb‐10857 1,131 $2,168 1.92Fisher FuelMar‐10730 964 $1,900 1.97Fisher FuelApr‐10228 301 $627 2.08Fisher FuelMay‐10243 321 $669 2.09Jun‐100 0 $0 0.00Jul‐100 0 $0 0.00Aug‐100 0 $0 0.00Sep‐100 0 $0 0.00Fisher FuelOct‐10223 294 $599 2.03Fisher FuelNov‐10 1,841 2,430 $4,685 1.93Fisher FuelDec‐10 1,666 2,199 $4,480 2.04Fisher FuelJan‐11 1,072 1,415 $3,143 2.22Fisher FuelFeb‐11359 474 $1,145 2.42Fisher FuelMar‐11 1,074 1,418 $3,760 2.65Fisher FuelApr‐11573 756 $2,150 2.84May‐110 0 $0 0.00Jun‐110 0 $0 0.00Jul‐110 0 $0 0.00Aug‐110 0 $0 0.00Sep‐110 0 $0 0.00Oct‐110 0 $0 0.00Fisher Fuel Nov‐11 1,184 1,563 $4,184 2.68Fisher Fuel Dec‐11 1,996 2,635 $7,124 2.70Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:6,753 8,914 $17,515Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 total:6,258 8,261 $21,506Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:1.96Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 avg:2.60APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0.00$1,000.00$2,000.00$3,000.00$4,000.00$5,000.00$6,000.00$7,000.00$8,000.0005001,0001,5002,0002,5003,000Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Copper Center School ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX B  Appendix B AkWarm Short Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL Page 1  APPENDIX B   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 5/18/2012 1:07 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Copper Center School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: Silver Springs Loop Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Copper Center Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Dr. Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Ryan Radford Client Address: PO Box 108 Glennallen, AK 99588 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: ( ) - Client Phone: (907) 822-3234 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: ( ) - Design Data Building Area: 8,234 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 209,541 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 220,570 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 336,234 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 47 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Copper Center Design Outdoor Temperature: -40.6 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Copper Center Heating Degree Days: 14,101 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Copper Valley Electric Assn, Commercial - Lg Fuel Oil Provider: Various Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.260/kWh Average Annual Cost/gallon: $3.00/gallon Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electri cal Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $19,004 $0 $1,484 $6,107 $1,248 $451 $0 $0 $6,056 $0 $34,350 With Proposed Retrofits $14,946 $0 $304 $2,928 $874 $451 $0 $0 $5,005 $0 $24,508 SAVINGS $4,058 $0 $1,180 $3,179 $374 $0 $0 $0 $1,051 $0 $9,842 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL Page 2  APPENDIX B   $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL Page 3  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Refrigeration: Combined Refrigeration Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $374 $100 54.70 0.3 2 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $2,890 $1,000 39.24 0.3 3 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: School Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $318 $1,155 6.53 3.6 4 Lighting: Yard Lights Replace with 4 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $440 $5,000 3.42 11.4 5 Lighting: Mezzanine Incandescent Lamps Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $375 $1,200 3.36 3.2 6 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $192 $2,026 2.25 10.5 7 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $343 $3,977 2.05 11.6 8 Lighting: Exterior HPS Replace with 4 LED (3) 20W Module StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch $614 $7,500 1.76 12.2 9 Ventilation Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on SA-1 and EF-1. $2,285 $20,000 1.45 8.8 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL Page 4  APPENDIX B   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 10 Lighting: Gym MH Replace with 12 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $1,549 $25,200 1.20 16.3 11 HVAC And DHW Install premium efficiency motors (2 @ $3,000 each = $6,000). Install varibale speed controllers on boiler pumps (2 @ $5,000 = $10,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($5,000). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut- off during non-occupied times ($3,000). $49 $24,000 0.75 489.4 12 Window/Skylight: NSFW Replace existing window with U-0.22 vinyl window $413 $10,471 0.69 25.3 TOTAL $9,842 $101,628 1.81 10.3 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL Page 5  APPENDIX B   3 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: School Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 14.6 Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $1,155 $318 7 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Wall Type: All Weather Wood Insul. Sheathing: None Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 16" on center R-19 Batt:FG or RW, 5.5 inches Insulation Quality: Damaged Modeled R-Value: 18 Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $3,977 $343 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 6 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors Door Type: Entrance, Metal, fiberglass core; metal edge Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $2,026 $192 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 12 Window/Skylight : NSFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.67 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.22 vinyl window $10,471 $413 Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2. Mechanical Equipment Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL Page 6  APPENDIX B   Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 11 Install premium efficiency motors (2 @ $3,000 each = $6,000). Install varibale speed controllers on boiler pumps (2 @ $5,000 = $10,000). Implement a reduced run time scheme through DDC controls for motors and DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours ($5,000). Install timer controls with DDC system on DWH circulation pump to shut-off during non- occupied times ($3,000). $24,000 $49 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 School Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $1,000 $2,890 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 9 Install premium motors and variable speed controllers on SA-1 and EF-1. $20,000 $2,285 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 4 Yard Lights 4 MV 250 Watt Magnetic with On/Off Photoswitch Replace with 4 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $5,000 $440 5 Mezzanine Incandescent Lamps 16 INCAN A Lamp, Std 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,200 $375 8 Exterior HPS 4 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 LED (3) 20W Module StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, On/Off Photoswitch $7,500 $614 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL Page 7  APPENDIX B   10 Gym MH 12 MH 400 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 12 FLUOR (6) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Lumen (3050 L) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $25,200 $1,549 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Combined Refrigeration 2 Refrigeration Replace with 2 Refrigeration and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $100 $374 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX C  Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATION FUNCTION MAKE MODEL TYPE CAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB-1 MECH ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN WGO-9 OIL / CAST IRON 303 MBH 80% 0.14 HP 30 18B-2 MECH ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN WGO-10 OIL / CAST IRON 304 MBH 80% 0.14 HP 30 18DWH-1 MECH ROOM DOMESTIC HOT WATER AMTROL WH-7L-DW SIDE-ARM 71 GALLONS 76% - 20 8CP-1 MECH ROOM BUILDING HEAT TACO 1800 INLINE 12 GPM @24' - 0.25 HP 10 0CP-2 MECH ROOM BUILDING HEAT TACO 1801 INLINE 12 GPM @ 24' - 0.25 HP 10 0CP-3 MECH ROOM DHW CIRCULATION GRUNDOS UPS 15-58 INLINE 2 GPM @ 5' - 0.08 HP 10 0SA-1 MECH ROOM SUPPLY AIR PACE A-12-SI HORIZONTAL 11,600 CFM @ 1.5" NEMA STANDARD 7.5 HP 25 0EF-1 MECH ROOM EXHAUST AIR TRANE MODEL 22 CENTRIFUGAL 7,500 CFM @ 1.25" NEMA STANDARD 5 HP 25 0EF-2 MECH ROOM EXHAUST AIR TRANE MODEL 10 BI CENTRIFUGAL 950 CFM @ 0.75" NEMA STANDARD 0.33 HP 25 0MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   1. Side-view of the school. 2. Back-view of the school and gym. 3. View of the portable admin and workroom building. The portable buildings are equipped with restrooms and inefficient oil fired furnaces. 4. View of the portable classroom. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   5. Fuel oil tank (500 gallons) for the school’s portable buildings. 6. Fuel oil tank (3000 gallons) for the school building. 7. Example of metal framed double pane windows installed on the school. The windows were found to be in poor condition. 8. View of the window gap between glass panes. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   9. View of the boiler glycol circulation pumps. 10. View of the Amtrol domestic hot water maker. 11. View of the Weil McLain WGO-9 boilers. Not how they are crammed into the mechanical room making maintenance difficult. 12. View of the Honeywell DDC system in place to control the HVAC equipment. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   13. View of the heating coil on one of the building’s supply air duct. 14. View of the supply air fan installed in the mechanical room. 15. View of the pole mounted yard light. This is a good candidate for replacement with LED yard light. 16. View of inside T-8 fluorescent lights in the admin portable building. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   17. View of the atomic powered exit light. 18. View of the schools hallway T-8 fluorescent lights. 19. View of the crawlspace area showing ducts pinched off. Condition of the vapor barrier can be seen. 20. View of the crawlspace area. The below grade walls were found to not be insulated. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  1. Typical school wall heat loss. Note high loss around windows, footing and H&V intake. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  2. IR view of the back storage room off of the gym. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  3. IR view of the gym wall showing interesting heat loss at the building joints and slab edge. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  4. IR view of the slab edge showing high heat loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  5. Portable admin and work room building IR view showing heat loss around foundation, doors, windows and at the roof eaves. The modular constructed portables are high energy users on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  6. IR view of the end of the portable classroom. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  7. IR view of the heat pouring out of the utilidor keeping the water and sewer lines for the portable building’s restrooms from freezing. Having restrooms in the portable buildings is unusual and expensive to maintain. A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  8. Heat loss shown from the portable building foundation, joint and eaves. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX F  Appendix F AkWarm Short Report School Portable Buildings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES Page 1  APPENDIX H   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 5/18/2012 2:29 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Copper Center School Portables Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: Silver Springs Loop Portables Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Copper Center Auditor Address: 322615 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Ryan Radford Client Address: PO Box 108 Glennallen, AK 99588 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 822-3234 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 2,240 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 42,700 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 50,235 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 76,578 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 10 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Copper Center Design Outdoor Temperature: -40.6 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Copper Center Heating Degree Days: 14,101 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Copper Valley Electric Assn - Commercial - Lg Fuel Oil Provider: Various Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.260/kWh Average Annual Cost/gal: $2.94 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electri cal Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $6,580 $0 $0 $601 $0 $2,553 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,734 With Proposed Retrofits $4,472 $0 $0 $136 $0 $2,553 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,160 SAVING S $2,109 $0 $0 $465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,573 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES Page 2  APPENDIX H   $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 Floor Wall/Door Window Ceiling Air Existing Retrofit Annual Space Heating Cost by Component Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES Page 3  APPENDIX H   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Setback Thermostat: Portable Classroom Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 65.0 deg F for the Portable Classroom space. $617 $500 16.74 0.8 2 HVAC And DHW Install new modern efficient oil fired furnace in each portable unit. $1,260 $24,000 1.82 19.1 3 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $40 $500 0.75 12.4 4 Ceiling w/ Attic: CWA Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to attic with Standard Truss. $170 $8,960 0.45 52.6 5 Lighting: Interior Lights Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program LowLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi- Level Switch $302 $26,000 0.38 86.1 6 Exposed Floor: AGF Install R-10 rigid board insulation $134 $9,582 0.33 71.7 7 Exterior Door: ED Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $51 $5,065 0.24 99.5 TOTAL $2,573 $74,607 0.95 29 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES Page 4  APPENDIX H   Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 4 Ceiling w/ Attic: CWA Framing Type: Standard Framing Spacing: 24 inches Insulated Sheathing: None Bottom Insulation Layer: R- 38 Batt:FG or RW, 12 inches Top Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 36.9 Add R-21 blown cellulose insulation to attic with Standard Truss. $8,960 $170 6 Exposed Floor: AGF Framing Type: 2 x Lumber Insulating Sheathing: None Top Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt:FG or RW, 9.5 inches Bottom Insulation Layer: None Modeled R-Value: 34.6 Install R-10 rigid board insulation $9,582 $134 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 7 Exterior Door: ED Door Type: Entrance, Metal, polyurethane core, quarter lite Modeled R-Value: 4 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $5,065 $51 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 3 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.50 cfm/ft2 of above-grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 3%. $500 $40 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 Install new modern efficient oil fired furnace in each portable unit. $24,000 $1,260 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES Page 5  APPENDIX H   Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Portable Classroom Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 65.0 deg F for the Portable Classroom space. $500 $617 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 5 Interior Lights 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program LowLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi- Level Switch $26,000 $302 ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  APPENDIX G  Appendix G Benchmark Report School Portable Buildings CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Loreen Kramer 822‐3234 State Zip AK 99588 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 24‐724‐724‐724‐7       Average # of  Occupants  During  10 0 0 0       Renovations/Notes Date PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas   Propane  Wood  Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF  $ / gal  $ / cord  $ / ton Other energy  sources?  1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below.  If known, please enter the base rate you  pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period  for each energy source  you use.       Contact Person Email lkramer@crsd.k12.ak.us Mailing Address City P.O. Box 108 Glenallen Primary  Operating  Hours Details Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip Silver Springs Loop Portables Copper Center 99573 Building Type Community Population Year Built Wood Frame 335 1981 Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Copper Center School Portables Education ‐ K ‐ 12 2,240 Copper River School District Regional Education Attendance 05/17/12 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date APPENDIX G CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Copper Center School Portables Buiding Size Input (sf) =2,240 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)13,912 2009 Electric Cost ($)3,456 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)2,638.68 2009 Oil Cost ($)5,206 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($)0.00 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Coal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Wood Cost ($)0.00 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)311,350 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)8,662 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)21.2 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 117.8 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)139.0 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.54 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)2.32 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)3.87 APPENDIX G CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY COPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)12,088 2010 Electric Cost ($)3,363 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)2,872.32 2010 Oil Cost ($)7,088 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($)0 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Coal Cost ($)0 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Wood Cost ($)0 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost ($)0 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Steam Cost ($)0 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)328,488 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)10,451 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)18.4 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)128.2 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)146.6 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.50 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)3.16 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)4.67 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX G CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORTCopper Center School PortablesElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)CVEA Jan‐10 1,464 50 $416 $0.28CVEA Feb‐10 1,664 57 $456 $0.27CVEA Mar‐10 1,472 50 $388 $0.26CVEA Apr‐10 1,456 50 $378 $0.26CVEA May‐10 1,488 51 $365 $0.25CVEA Jun‐10 1,128 38 $183 $0.16CVEA Jul‐10392 13 $66 $0.17CVEA Aug‐10352 12 $66 $0.19CVEA Sep‐10648 22 $121 $0.19CVEA Oct‐10 1,112 38 $258 $0.23CVEA Nov‐10 1,352 46 $365 $0.27CVEA Dec‐10 1,384 47 $393 $0.28CVEA Jan‐11 1,288 44 $392 $0.30CVEA Feb‐11 1,416 48 $396 $0.28CVEA Mar‐11 1,424 49 $419 $0.29CVEA Apr‐11 1,048 36 $330 $0.31CVEA May‐11 1,192 41 $334 $0.28CVEA Jun‐11888 30 $207 $0.23CVEA Jul‐11152 5 $39 $0.26CVEA Aug‐11192 7 $48 $0.25CVEA Sep‐11728 25 $171 $0.23CVEA Oct‐11952 32 $222 $0.23CVEA Nov‐11 1,376 47 $373 $0.27CVEA Dec‐11 1,432 49 $433 $0.30Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:13,912 475 $3,456Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 total:12,088 413 $3,363$0.25$0.28Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:APPENDIX G CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$50$100$150$200$250$300$350$400$450$50002004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Copper Center School Portables ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX G CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORTCopper Center School PortablesOilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Fisher FuelJan‐10322 425 $781 1.84Fisher FuelFeb‐10457 603 $1,155 1.91Fisher FuelMar‐10181 239 $467 1.95Fisher FuelApr‐10140 185 $384 2.08Fisher FuelMay‐1019 25 $52 2.07Jun‐100 0 $0 0.00Jul‐100 0 $0 0.00Aug‐100 0 $0 0.00Sep‐100 0 $0 0.00Oct‐100 0 $0 0.00Fisher FuelNov‐10231 305 $623 2.04Fisher FuelDec‐10649 857 $1,744 2.04Fisher FuelJan‐11510 673 $1,474 2.19Fisher FuelFeb‐11303 400 $963 2.41Fisher FuelMar‐11377 498 $1,328 2.67Fisher FuelApr‐11340 449 $1,018 2.27Fisher FuelMay‐1170 92 $279 0.00Jun‐110 0 $0 0.00Jul‐110 0 $0 0.00Aug‐110 0 $0 0.00Sep‐110 0 $0 0.00Oct‐110 0 $0 0.00Fisher Fuel Nov‐11300 396 $1,056 2.67Fisher Fuel Dec‐11276 364 $970 2.66Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:1,999 2,639 $5,206Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 total:2,176 2,872 $7,088Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:1.97Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 avg:2.47APPENDIX G CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCOPPER CENTER SCHOOL PORTABLES ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0.00$200.00$400.00$600.00$800.00$1,000.00$1,200.00$1,400.00$1,600.00$1,800.00$2,000.000100200300400500600700800900Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Copper Center School Portables ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($)APPENDIX G