Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AHTNA-Z93-CAEC CRSD Glennallen District Office 2012-EE
CRSD District Office 1976 Aurora Drive Glennallen, Alaska 99588 AkWarm ID No. AHTNA-Z93-CAEC-03 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 June 12, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 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 H&V ................................................................................................................................... Heating and Ventilation 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 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, nor 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 1 OF 21 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 2010 – December 2011 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: Electricity $ 31,577 Fuel Oil $ 20,605 Total $ 52,182 Energy Utilization Index: 77.8 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 3.14 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 107.7 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $4,349 per Occupant The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for the CRSD District Office. 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 2 OF 21 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (Years)3 1 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $2,730 $1,000 37.07 0.4 2 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Various Incandescent Lamps Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $725 + $500 Maint. Savings $2,000 7.24 2.8 3 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Office BGW Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $572 $4,488 3.03 7.9 4 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Shop Lights Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $1,734 + $5,500 Maint. Savings $28,800 2.94 16.6 5 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Office BGFPA Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $185 $1,548 2.84 8.4 6 Exterior Door: Exterior Door Assemblies Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $1,494 $20,635 1.71 13.8 7 Ventilation Install DDC system, premium motor and variable speed controller on AHU-1. $1,062 + $1,000 Maint. Savings $26,500 1.19 25.0 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $8,501 + $7,000 Maint. Savings $84,971 2.60 10.0 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 8 Windows Wood Framed: Office NSFW Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window $1,343 $36,964 0.63 27.5 TOTAL, all measures $9,844 + $7,000 Maint. Savings $121,935 2.01 12.4 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 3 OF 21 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 $9,844 per year, or 16.5% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $121,935 for an overall simple payback period of 12.4 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $8,501 per year, or 14.3% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $84,971 for an overall simple payback period of 10 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost 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 Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refriger ation Other Electrical Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $26,520 $3,235 $617 $10,291 $1,392 $13,446 $4,134 $59,634 With All Proposed Retrofits $20,408 $2,961 $664 $7,366 $1,392 $13,446 $3,553 $49,790 SAVINGS $6,112 $274 -$47 $2,924 $0 $0 $581 $9,844 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 4 OF 21 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 5 OF 21 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 13,770 sf CRSD District Office, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including offices, program library and school board chambers. There is also a 2,838 sf detached maintenance shop behind the office building. These two buildings together use one electric meter and one fuel oil tank and total an estimated 16,608 sf. 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). 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 measurements were taken during the field audit to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 6 OF 21 After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating and ventilation (H&V), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, 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 7, 2012 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. Additionally during the site visit completed, thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the school. 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 visit, 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 7 OF 21 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 the offices, work and break rooms. 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 the Copper River area has an index of 113.9 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 Table 1.1 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 8 OF 21 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 9 OF 21 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, the District Office was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Glennallen, 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 Glennallen, 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 10 OF 21 The structure of the District Office is a one story facility that was originally built in 1961 as an elementary school. The elementary school was relocated to the Glennallen K-12 campus in 2009. At that time, part of the old elementary school was demolished and the remaining 13,770 SF were converted into the District Office building. There is also a detached 2,838 sf maintenance shop which uses electric and heat from the office building. The District Office typically opens at 7AM with occupancy normally to 5PM during the weekdays. There is an estimated 12 occupants using this office/shop complex. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the observed conditions during the site visit. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned, new vinyl framed and old wood framed windows in place which have an estimated U-factor ranging from 0.33 to 0.59 Btu/hr-sf-F. Most of the old wood framed windows appear to be weather worn, operate poorly and are good candidates for replacement. All doors are commercial grade but were found to be in poor condition, under insulated, lacking quality weather stripping and have single pane glass. The assemblies around the doors are also poorly insulated and constructed. The double doors at the shop entrance are non-standard handmade wood doors that are in poor condition as can be seen in the IR images. Generally, all of the door assemblies are excellent candidates for replacement to reduce the high rate of heat loss from these wall sections. The below grade walls of the office are poured concrete with exterior foam insulation sheathing in place. These crawlspace walls are good candidates for additional insulation to cover the concrete from within the crawlspace. The above grade wall sections are made up of wood studs filled with fiberglass batt insulation, providing an estimated R-23 composite value. The different wall constructions can be noted in the IR images provided in Appendix E of this report. The roof system of the office has an attic section with blown in cellulose insulation in place for an estimated R-43 composite value. The shop rafter construction was not inspected and was modeled to provide an estimated R-38 composite value. Heat is provided to the office/shop complex by two fuel oil fired sectional boilers. These boilers were calculated to be oversized by a factor of 3 for the current application and should be evaluated for a burner nozzle modification to reduce the rate of combustion. One boiler was installed in 2009 when the office complex was reduced in size, and the secondary boiler is the same size which was in place to serve the old elementary school. Perhaps the boiler should have been reduced in capacity to account for the reduction in the building size. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 11 OF 21 About 1/4 of the building heat is provided by hydronic loops through baseboard heating units. The remainder of the building is heated by to the Air Handling Unit (AHU-1) and cabinet heaters in the entry ways. This requires the AHU to be in operation in order to deliver the heat to the individual zones through the VAV heating coils. It is recommended the AHU be decommissioned and hydronic heat be delivered to all of the zones served by the AHU through the use of baseboards. Ventilation requirements can be provided to these areas through operable windows and doors. The workroom was found to not have any hydronic heat and is being heated with electric resistance heaters which should be highly discouraged as electric heat is 33% more expensive than the fuel oil heat on a per therm of energy basis of delivered heat. Electric heaters were found to be needed in several locations for occupant comfort because the AHU forced air system is in such poor condition. This building has a modern DDC control system in place with end devices using electronic controls for the boilers and circulating pumps installed as part of the 2009 boiler upgrade project. However, the AHU uses an antiquated Honeywell pneumatic control system in place using pneumatic end devices controlling the hydronic flow through the heating coils to maintain temperature set-point. This was one of the only locations where pneumatic controls were found to still be in use in the CRSD. This is very old technology and a good candidate for replacement. The shop also has an AHU which appears to not be functioning and would not be worth fixing as it is well beyond its useful life. Part of the shop is heated with a simple hydronic unit heater. It is recommended the shop AHU be removed from service and two new unit heaters be installed in its place to serve the shop area. Ventilation requirements can be provided to this area through operable windows and doors. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler’s 1 & 2 Fuel Type: Fuel Oil Input Rating: 1,620,000 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 85 % (measured) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic, Glycol Boiler Operation: All year Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied by a Weil McLane side-arm hot water maker. The DHW maker supplies hot water to the restrooms, break room, and the various sinks in the building. The hot water maker is located in the mechanical room. The Grundfos UMC 50-40 circulation pump supplying heat to the DHW maker is was oversized for this application and is recommended to be replaced with a Grundfos UPS 15-58 or equivalent. Storage Water Heater Fuel Type: Side-Arm Input Rating: 199,990 Btu/hr Rated Efficiency: 70 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: None DHW Maker Operation: All Year CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 12 OF 21 There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The office mainly uses T8 lights which appear to be in good shape. However, the shop uses older T12 lights, all of which are good candidates for replacement. The T12 lighting systems in the shop were evaluated for replacement to new Energy- Saver T8 system with programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls. The High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lights mounted on the outside of the building are new and appear in good condition. 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 computers with monitors, copy machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens, coffee pots and shop equipment loads. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 1.3 watts/sf. 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 13 OF 21 Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil energy usage for the surveyed facility from January 2010 to December 2011. Copper Valley Electric Association and provides the electricity under their large commercial rate schedules. Fuel Oil was being provided by Fisher Fuels 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 14 OF 21 The fuel oil usage profile shows the predicted fuel oil energy usage for the building. As actual oil usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Fuel oil is sold to the customer in units of gallon (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 Table 6.1 below. 2010 2011 Average Electric 0.27 $/kWh 0.30 $/kWh 0.29 $/kWh Fuel Oil 2.60 $/GAL 3.33 $/GAL 2.97 $/GAL Total Cost $47,558 $56,806 $52,182 ECI 1.78 $/sf 2.02 $/sf 1.90 $/sf Electric EUI 22.3 kBtu/sf 22.8 kBtu/sf 22.6 kBtu/sf Fuel Oil EUI 55.1 kBtu/sf 55.4 kBtu/sf 55.3 kBtu/sf Building EUI 77.4 kBtu/sf 78.2 kBtu/sf 77.8 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 Office building activity is shown to be 93.0 kBtu/sf. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an estimated EUI of 77.8 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 16% less energy than the US average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 15 OF 21 At current utility rates, the Copper River School District is modeled to pay approximately $59,634 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the District Office. 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 16 OF 21 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. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 3487 3177 3487 3374 3042 1466 1515 2215 3374 3487 3374 3487 Refrigeration 407 371 407 394 407 394 407 407 394 407 394 407 Other Electrical 4972 4531 4972 4812 4000 648 669 2196 4812 4972 4812 4972 Ventilation Fans 1576 1436 1576 1525 1233 56 57 596 1525 1576 1525 1576 DHW 123 112 123 119 123 119 123 123 119 123 119 123 Space Heating 1094 993 1085 860 797 778 793 792 778 1081 1053 1093 Space Cooling 0 0 0 781 2915 1492 1488 2056 2423 0 0 0 Fuel Oil #2 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 4 4 5 5 6 7 9 8 5 5 4 4 Space Heating 1292 968 829 516 344 235 185 231 362 646 980 1249 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 17 OF 21 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 124,706 kWh 425,622 3.340 1,421,579 #2 Oil 7,902 gallons 1,090,485 1.010 1,101,390 Total 1,516,107 2,522,969 BUILDING AREA 16,608 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 81 kBtu/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 152 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 GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 18 OF 21 The Energy Efficiency Measures 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. Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs and Lighting Controls Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 Various 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 $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $725 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $500 Breakeven Cost $14,483 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.2 Simple Payback yrs 3 Auditors Notes: This EEM analysis replacement of the incandescent bulbs in various locations with new compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL’s). Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Shop Lights 24 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $28,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,734 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $5,500 Breakeven Cost $84,802 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.9 Simple Payback yrs 17 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 96-Watt T12 lights in the shop be replaced with 28-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors, multi-level switching, and controls for daylight harvesting. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 19 OF 21 Building Shell Measures Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 3 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Office BGW Wall Type: Strapped Masonry Insul. Sheathing: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Masonry Wall: 8" Poured Concrete Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 16" on center Modeled R-Value: 15.3 Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or furring strips. Installation Cost $4,488 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $572 Breakeven Cost $13,605 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.0 Simple Payback yrs 8 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending installation of more fiberglass batt insulation to cover the concrete below grade walls to reduce heat loss from these walls. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 5 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Office BGFPA Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Modeled R-Value: 25.3 Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $1,548 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $185 Breakeven Cost $4,398 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback yrs 8 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending installation of fiberglass batt insulation (or equivalent R-value foam insulation) to cover the floor perimeter around the below grade wall footer. This insulation would be installed over the existing foam board insulation in place. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 6 Exterior Door: Exterior Door Assemblies Door Type: Entrance, R-1 Door (Poor Condition) Modeled R-Value: 1 Remove existing door assemblies and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $20,635 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,494 Breakeven Cost $35,296 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback yrs 14 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending replacing the entrance door assemblies and the various individual doors around the shop and office. The door assemblies include the windows, walls and doors at the three main entrances which are under insulated and single pane windows. This will reduce the heat loss through these walls/windows/doors and require the cabinet heaters to operate less thereby saving in electric and fuel costs. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 8 Window/Skylight: Office NSFW Glass: Double, glass, wood framed Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.60 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.22 vinyl window Installation Cost $36,964 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,343 Breakeven Cost $23,267 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback yrs 28 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending replacing the old wood framed windows in the office and shop buildings with new modern triple pane windows with a value of U-0.22 or less. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 20 OF 21 Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 1 Office and Shop Buildings 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) $2,730 Breakeven Cost $37,071 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 37.1 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 building DDC temperature 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 7 District Office and Shop Building Install DDC system, premium motor and variable speed controller on AHU-1 (as an option). Install new unit heater in shop. Installation Cost $26,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs)20 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,062 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $1,000 Breakeven Cost $31,644 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback yrs 25 Auditors Notes: The recommendations of this EEM include several retrofit options. Individual retrofit considerations are discussed below in detail. AkWarm-C considers all upgrades to the ventilation system as one item and therefore predicts a combined savings. A. This EEM assumes the AHU-1 will be kept in service. Installation of a DDC system to replace existing pneumatic controls, install a new premium motor with VFD drive. This option allows the existing system to remain in place but have improved controls to reduce energy consumption. As an alternative, it is recommended that demolishing the existing AHU-1 system and convert to hydronic baseboard heat where not already installed. Operable openings in the building shell can be used to provide natural ventilation to the occupied spaces. B. This EEM also assumes the shop AHU-2 is removed from service and two new unit heaters be installed in the shop area using the hydronic loop already in place. Operable openings in the shop can be used to provide natural ventilation to the shop space. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. AHTNA‐Z93‐CAEC‐03 PAGE 21 OF 21 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 CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX A Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE 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 12 0 0 0 Renovations Date PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? 554 Part of building removed and boiler upgrade completed at same time. Office 16,608 Facility Address Building Type Wood Frame 1976‐1 Aurora Drive Glennallen District Office Building REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Owned By Date 06/10/12Regional Education Attendance Copper River School District Primary Operating Hours 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 City GlennallenP.O. Box 108 Mailing Address Community Population Facility City Year Built 1961 Facility Zip 99588 Email lkramer@crsd.k12.ak.us Details Changed to district office in 2009 when elem school moved to K-12 building Old elemtary school was built in 1961 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE CRSD District Office Building Buiding Size Input (sf) =16,608 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)108,360 2010 Electric Cost ($)29,540 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)9,158.16 2010 Oil Cost ($)18,018 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2010 Propane Cost ($) 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Coal Cost ($) 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2010 Wood Cost ($) 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Thermal Cost ($) 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2010 Steam Cost ($) 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)1,285,649 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)47,558 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)22.3 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 55.1 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)77.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.78 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.08 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.86 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE 2011 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2011 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2011 Electric Consumption (kWh)110,840 2011 Electric Cost ($)33,614 2011 Oil Consumption (Therms)9,205.68 2011 Oil Cost ($)23,192 2011 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2011 Propane Cost ($) 2011 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2011 Coal Cost ($) 2011 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2011 Wood Cost ($) 2011 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2011 Thermal Cost ($) 2011 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2011 Steam Cost ($) 2011 Total Energy Use (kBtu)1,298,865 2011 Total Energy Cost ($)56,806 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2011 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2011 Electricity (kBtu/sf)22.8 2011 Oil (kBtu/sf)55.4 2011 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2011 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2011 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2011 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2011 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2011 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)78.2 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2011 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2011 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.02 2011 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.40 2011 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2011 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2011 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2011 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2011 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2011 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)3.42 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICECRSD District Office BuildingElectricityBtus/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‐109,800334$3,063$0.31CVEA Feb‐1010,560360$3,192$0.30CVEA Mar‐109,440322$2,793$0.30CVEA Apr‐109,880337$2,871$0.29CVEA May‐1010,000341$2,714$0.27CVEA Jun‐107,840268$1,538$0.20CVEA Jul‐106,400218$1,359$0.21CVEA Aug‐107,040240$1,542$0.22CVEA Sep‐107,680262$1,722$0.22CVEA Oct‐109,040309$2,382$0.26CVEA Nov‐1010,520359$3,128$0.30CVEA Dec‐1010,160347$3,236$0.32CVEA Jan‐1111,280385$3,721$0.33CVEA Feb‐1111,920407$3,626$0.30CVEA Mar‐119,760333$3,221$0.33CVEA Apr‐1110,200348$3,482$0.34CVEA May‐118,800300$2,732$0.31CVEA Jun‐118,120277$2,177$0.27CVEA Jul‐116,880235$1,871$0.27CVEA Aug‐116,840233$1,871$0.27CVEA Sep‐117,000239$1,949$0.28CVEA Oct‐119,680330$2,525$0.26CVEA Nov‐1110,040343$3,016$0.30CVEA Dec‐1110,320352$3,423$0.33Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:108,360 3,698 $29,540 $0Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 total:110,840 3,783 $33,614 $0$0.27$0.30Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 ave:Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 avg:APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE$0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,00002,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)CRSD District Office ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICECRSD District Office BuildingOilBtus/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 Fuel Jan‐101,150 1,518 $2,837 1.87Fisher Fuel Feb‐101,091 1,440 $2,738 1.90Fisher Fuel Mar‐101,167 1,540 $2,992 1.94Fisher Fuel Apr‐10430 568 $1,174 2.07Fisher Fuel May‐100 0 $0 0.00Jun‐100 0 $0 0.00Jul‐100 0 $0 0.00Aug‐100 0 $0 0.00Sep‐100 0 $0 0.00Fisher Fuel Oct‐100 0 $0 0.00Fisher Fuel Nov‐101,390 1,835 $3,711 2.02Fisher Fuel Dec‐101,710 2,257 $4,566 2.02Fisher Fuel Jan‐111,756 2,318 $5,114 2.21Fisher Fuel Feb‐111,167 1,540 $3,703 2.40Fisher Fuel Mar‐111,198 1,581 $4,228 2.67Fisher Fuel Apr‐11230 304 $861 2.84Fisher Fuel May‐110 0 $0 0.00Jun‐11 0 0 $0 0.00Jul‐110 0 $0 0.00Aug‐11 0 0 $0 0.00Fisher Fuel Sep‐11 0 0 $0 0.00Fisher Fuel Oct‐11 0 0 $0 0.00Fisher Fuel Nov‐11 500 660 $1,751 2.65Fisher Fuel Dec‐11 2,123 2,802 $7,535 2.69Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:6,938 9,158 0 $18,018 $0Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 total:6,974 9,206 0 $23,192 $0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:0.99Jan ‐ 11 to Dec ‐ 11 avg:1.29$2.60$3.33APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE$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)CRSD District Office ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B AkWarm Short Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE Page 1 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 6/11/2012 2:19 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: CRSD District Office Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 1976-1 Aurora Drive Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Glennallen 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: 16,608 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 176,309 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 179,907 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 274,249 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 12 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Glennallen Design Outdoor Temperature: -40.6 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Glennallen Heating Degree Days: 14,067 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Copper Valley Electric Assn 1 - Commercial - Lg Fuel Oil Provider: Fischer Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.290/kWh Average Annual Cost/gallon: $2.97/gallon Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refriger ation Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $26,520 $3,235 $617 $10,291 $1,392 $13,446 $0 $0 $4,134 $0 $59,634 With Proposed Retrofits $20,408 $2,961 $664 $7,366 $1,392 $13,446 $0 $0 $3,553 $0 $49,790 SAVINGS $6,112 $274 -$47 $2,924 $0 $0 $0 $0 $581 $0 $9,844 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE Page 2 APPENDIX B Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE Page 3 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $2,730 $1,000 37.07 0.4 2 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Various Incandescent Lamps Replace with 16 FLUOR CFL, Spiral 23 W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $725 + $500 Maint. Savings $2,000 7.24 2.8 3 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Office BGW Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $572 $4,488 3.03 7.9 4 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Shop Lights Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi- Level Switch $1,734 + $5,500 Maint. Savings $28,800 2.94 16.6 5 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Office BGFPA Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $185 $1,548 2.84 8.4 6 Exterior Door: Exterior Door Assemblies Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $1,494 $20,635 1.71 13.8 7 Ventilation Install DDC system, premium motor and variable speed controller on AHU-1. $1,062 + $1,000 Maint. Savings $26,500 1.19 25 8 Window/Skylight: Office NSFW Replace existing window with U-0.22 vinyl window $1,343 $36,964 0.63 27.5 TOTAL $9,844 + $7,000 Maint. Savings $121,935 2.01 12.4 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE Page 4 APPENDIX B 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 3 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Office BGW Wall Type: Strapped Masonry Insul. Sheathing: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Masonry Wall: 8" Poured Concrete Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 16" on center None Modeled R-Value: 15.3 Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $4,488 $572 5 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Office BGFPA Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Modeled R-Value: 25.3 Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $1,548 $185 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 6 Exterior Door: Exterior Door Assemblies Door Type: Entrance, R-1 Door (non-standard - not exterior) Modeled R-Value: 1 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $20,635 $1,494 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE Page 5 APPENDIX B 8 Window/Skylight : Office NSFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Reinforced Vinyl/Alum-Clad Wood Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.60 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.22 vinyl window $36,964 $1,343 Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 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 $2,730 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 7 Install DDC system, premium motor and variable speed controller on AHU-1. $26,500 $1,062 + $1,000 Maint. Savings 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CRSD GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE Page 6 APPENDIX B 2 Various 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 $2,000 $725 + $500 Maint. Savings 4 Shop Lights 48 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 48 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor, Multi- Level Switch $28,800 $1,734 + $5,500 Maint. Savings ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.2.0.3, Energy Lib 5/18/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRIC OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYGLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATION FUNCTION MAKE MODEL TYPE CAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB-1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL-MCLAIN 1280 OIL/SECTIONAL 1.628 MMBH 80% - 35 33 2010 InstallationB-2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL-MCLAIN 1280 OIL/SECTIONAL 1.628 MMBH 80% - 35 19 1996 InstallationWH-1 BOILER ROOM DHW MAKER WEIL-MCLAIN PLUS 40 SHELL&TUBE 36 GAL 70% - 20 18 2010 InstallationCP-1 BOILER ROOM BOILER PRIMARY PUMP TACO 1400-70 INLINE ? GPM @ ?' 82% 0.25 HP 10 8CP-2 BOILER ROOM BOILER PRIMARY PUMP TACO 1400-71 INLINE ? GPM @ ?' 82% 0.25 HP 10 8CP-3 BOILER ROOM DHW MAKER CIRC PUMP GRUNDFOS UMC 50-40 INLINE ? GPM @ ?' 70% 250 W 10 0 Oversized and Poor ConditionCP-4 BOILER ROOM BLDG HEAT CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UMC 65-40 INLINE ? GPM @ ?' 70% 440 W 10 0 Poor ConditionCP-5 BOILER ROOM BLDG HEAT CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UMC 65-40 INLINE ? GPM @ ?' 80% 440 W 10 5CP-6 BOILER ROOM BLDG HEAT CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UMC 65-40 INLINE ? GPM @ ?' 82% 440 W 10 5CP-7 BOILER ROOM BLDG HEAT CIRCULATION GRUNDFOS UMC 50-80 INLINE ? GPM @ ?' 85% 520 W 10 7 Replaced 2/3/2010CUH-1 NW ENTRY ENTRY HEATCUH-2 NE ENTRY ENTRY HEATCUH-3 SE ENTRY ENTRY HEATAHU-1 FAN ROOM VENTILATION/HEAT BAYLEY FC-270 HORIZONTAL 11,000 CFM @ 1.0" 70% 3.0 HP 25 0 OS AIR DAMPER CLOSEDEF-1 FAN ROOM EXHAUST UNKNOWN UNKNOWN CENTRIFIGUL 500 CFM @ 0.75" 70% 0.5 HP 20 0EF-2 - 5 TOILET ROOMS EXHAUST UNKNOWN UNKNOWN CENTRIFIGUL 50 CFM @ 0.25" 70% 0.1875 HP 20 0AHU-2 MAINT SHOP VENTILATION/HEAT BAYLEY FC-270 HORIZONTAL 11,000 CFM @ 1.0" 70% 1.0 HP 25 0 UNIT IS BEYOND REPAIRUH-1 MAINT SHOP ADDITION HEAT UNKNOWN UNKNOWN CENTRIFIGUL3,000 CFM @ 1.0" 50% 3.0 HP 25 15 OS AIR DAMPER CLOSEDMAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. Front-view of the office. 2. Back-view of the office. 3. Doors and window typical of office. Note entry door and walls are poorly insulated and window assemblies are single pane. Entry are areas of high heat loss. 4. Doors to maintenance facility. These doors are poorly constructed and have a high rate of heat loss. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 5. View of the maintenance facility main entrance. 6. Side-view of maintenance facility. The addition can be seen. The maintenance facility is poorly constructed resulting in high rate of heat loss. 7. Fuel oil tank for both the office and the maintenance facility. 8. Electric meter for both the office and the maintenance facility. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 9. Exterior light fixture typical for the office building. 10. Boiler room overall. Note electronic end devices controlled by the DDC system upgraded with the new boiler installation. 11. Boiler burner assembly. 12. Weil McLane side-arm hot water maker. A lot of DHW for a few building sinks. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 13. Honeywell DDC system in place to control the boiler equipment. The AHU does not appear to be on a timer and controlled manually. 14. Air compressor for the pneumatically controlled end devices in the variable heat boxes for the various office zones. The pneumatic control system is antiquated and good candidate for upgrade to modern DDC system. 15. View of a pneumatically controlled end in the crawlspace. This type of control technology is over 50 years old. 16. View of the building circulation pumps. The DHW maker pump CP-5 is oversized and needs to be on a timer control. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. NE entrance showing heat loss around door frame. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 2. Front of office showing heat loss around the foundation. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 3. South side of the office, slight heat loss around windows. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 4. Close up of office’s foundation insulation showing heat loss hot spot. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. Close-Up of back entrance showing heat loss surrounding door. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 6. View of the back wall CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 7. NW entrance, expected heat loss because door is slightly open. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 8. North side of office heat loss showing from foundation insulation. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 9. East side overall view of maintenance facility. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 10. South side view of maintenance facility. Double doors are in poor condition. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 11. West side view of maintenance facility, expected heat loss because door is slightly open. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY GLENNALLEN DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 12. North side of maintenance facility, random spot of unexpected heat loss.