HomeMy WebLinkAboutSNP Saint Paul District Office 2012-EEManaging Office
2400 College Road 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Suite 106A 4402 Thane Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Juneau, Alaska 99801
p. 907.452.5688 p. 907.222.2445 p: 907.586.6813
f. 907.452.5694 f. 907.222.0915 f: 907.586.6819
www.nortechengr.com
ENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
PRIBILOF SCHOOL DISTRICT- DISTRICT OFFICE
930 Tolstoi
Saint Paul, Alaska
Prepared for:
Ms. Jamie Stacks
PO Box 905
Saint Paul, Alaska
Prepared by:
David C. Lanning PE, CEA
Steven Billa EIT, CEAIT
July 16, 2012
Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of
Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095”
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HEALTH & SAFETY
Anch: 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Ste 106A, 99517 907.222.2445 Fax: 222.0915
Fairbanks: 2400 College Road, 99709 907.452.5688 Fax: 452.5694
Juneau: 4402 Thane Road, 99801 907.586.6813 Fax: 586.6819
info@nortechengr.com www.nortechengr.com
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP District
Office.Docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description ......................................... 3
2.1.1 Building Use ............................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ......................................................... 3
2.1.3 Building Description .................................................................................. 3
2.2 Benchmarking ...................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ............................................................... 7
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 ................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ................................................................. 9
2.2.4 Future Energy Monitoring ....................................................................... 10
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS.............................................. 11
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 12
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the District Office ................................. 13
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .............................. 14
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm ................................. 15
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 16
4.1 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................. 16
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations .................................................................. 16
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report
SNP District Office.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures .......................................... 18
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 24
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ...................................................................... 26
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ..................................................................... 27
Appendix E Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 28
Appendix F Audit Limitations ..................................................................................... 29
Appendix G References ............................................................................................. 30
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 31
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. ................................... 32
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 33
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 34
Appendix L Building Floor Plan ................................................................................. 35
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the District Office, a 3,566.5
square foot facility. The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a calculation of the
energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on September 17, 2011
to obtain information about the lighting, heating, ventilation, cooling and other building energy
uses. The existing usage data and current systems were then used to develop a building
energy consumption model using AkWarm.
Once the model was calibrated, a number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) were
developed from review of the data and observations. EEMs were evaluated and ranked on the
basis of both energy savings and cost using a Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). While these
modeling techniques were successful in verifying that many of the EEMs would save energy,
not all of the identified EEMs were considered cost effective based on the hardware, installation,
and energy costs at the time of this audit.
While the need for a major retrofit can typically be identified by an energy audit, upgrading
specific systems often requires collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that
are beyond the scope of the Level II energy audit. The necessity and amount of design effort
and cost will vary depending on the scope of the specific EEMs planned and the sophistication
and capability of the entire design team, including the building owners and operators. During
the budgeting process for any major retrofit identified in this report, the building owner should
add administrative and supplemental design costs to cover the individual needs of their own
organization and the overall retrofit project.
The following table, from AkWarm, is a summary of the recommended EEMs for the District
Office. Additional discussion of the modeling process can be found in Section 3. Details of
each individual EEM can be found in Appendix A of this report. A summary of EEMs that were
evaluated but are not currently recommended is located in Appendix B.
PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs)
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
1 Lighting: exterior Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, A
Lamp 15W $341 $10 210 0.0
2
Lighting: night
lights- 2nd bath,
kitchen, atrium,
reception
Install LED night lights w/
occupancy sensor $100 $25 63 0.3
3 Lighting: bed 2 Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W $7 $5 8.0 0.8
4
Below- (part or
all) Grade Wall:
east basement
wall
Install R-25 rigid foam board to
interior side of east wall. $1,833 $7,262 6.0 4.0
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
2
PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs)
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
5 Lighting: 1st bath Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $94 $175 5.9 1.9
6 Lighting: bed 1, 3 Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 42 W $23 $25 5.5 1.1
7 Lighting:
reception
Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W $8 $10 4.8 1.3
8 Lighting: bed 2 Replace with FLUOR (3) CFL,
Spiral 10 W $5 $10 2.9 2.1
9 Lighting: finance
director
Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 13 W $5 $10 2.8 2.2
10 Lighting:
reception
Replace with 3 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $128 $525 2.7 4.1
11 Lighting: accts
payable
Replace with 3 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $91 $525 1.9 5.8
12 Lighting:
superintendent
Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $121 $700 1.9 5.8
13 Lighting: finance
director
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $55 $350 1.7 6.4
14 Lighting: 2nd
floor living
Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 10 W $4 $15 1.5 3.9
15 HVAC And DHW
Perform boiler re-
commissioning, install vent
damper, replace barometric
damper, replace distribution
pump with variable speed
pump, insulate heat
distribution pipes in basement
$620 $7,000 1.5 11.3
16 Lighting: atrium Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $173 $700 1.5 4.0
17 Lighting: file
room
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $74 $350 1.3 4.7
18 Refrigeration:
kitchen Replace with new refrigerator $220 $1,200 1.1 5.4
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $3,901 $18,897 3.5 4.8
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
3
2.0 INTRODUCTION
NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform ASHRAE Level
II Energy Audits for publically owned buildings in Alaska. This report presents the findings of
the utility benchmarking, modeling analysis, and the recommended building modifications, and
building use changes that are expected to save energy and money.
The report is organized into sections covering:
• description of the facility,
• the building’s historic energy usage (benchmarking),
• estimating energy use through energy use modeling,
• evaluation of potential energy efficiency or efficiency improvements, and
• recommendations for energy efficiency with estimates of the costs and savings.
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description
2.1.1 Building Use
The building provides office space for Saint Paul School staff members as well as temporary
housing for teachers and staff visiting Saint Paul. The building is composed of offices, three
bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen, two baths and a basement with a mechanical room.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
District Office has an average of three occupants Monday through Friday. The hours of
operation for this building averages 9 hours per day for most of the building, but the upstairs
occupancy varies when accommodating visiting teachers and staff.
2.1.3 Building Description
District Office is a two story Pan-Abode cedar building with a basement, constructed in 1979.
The building sits on an un-insulated concrete basement.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Double wall with 3x5 cedar logs 2” XPS foam None
Lower basement walls 8” poured concrete None
Half of east basement
wall is above grade with
no insulation
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
Basement Floor Un-insulated slab None None
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
4
Heating and Ventilation Systems
The heat in this building is provided by an oil-fired boiler located in the basement. A circulation
pump distributes heat throughout the building to:
• Baseboard heaters in the office, bedroom, kitchen, and bathrooms
• Unit heater in the basement
Baseboard heat is controlled by manual thermostats.
Electronic space heaters are used when temperature set points in the building cannot be
achieved and are used primarily in the winter months by visitors.
Air Conditioning System
No air conditioning system is installed in the building.
Energy Management
District Office does not have an energy management system. Temperature set points are
manually set at a low level to reduce fuel usage.
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
All Roofs 2” T&G cedar 2” XPS foam No signs of insulation
damage.
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window
Type Description Estimated
R-Value Notes
Exterior Door Type 1 Fiberglass: polyurethane core:
half lite 3.2 None
Exterior Door Type 2 Fiberglass: polyurethane core:
quarter lite 5.0 None
Window Type 1 Double pane glass with wood
frame 1.8 Seals around windows
are very leaky
Window Type 2 Double pane glass with
aluminum frame 1.2 Seals around windows
need to be replaced
Window Type 3 Double pane with insulated
fiberglass frame 2.3 None
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
5
Lighting Systems
Primary lighting in this building is provided by ceiling mounted fluorescent fixtures with T12
lamps (1.5-inch diameter, 4-foot long). Various sized incandescent lamps in task style fixtures
are used throughout the rest of the building.
Domestic Hot Water
Domestic hot water is provided by a 41 gallon indirect hot water heater which utilizes the main
glycol supply to heat domestic hot water.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
6
2.2 Benchmarking
Benchmarking building energy use consists of obtaining and then analyzing two years of energy
bills. The original utility bills are necessary to determine the raw usage, and charges as well as
to evaluate the utility’s rate structure. The metered usage of electrical and natural gas
consumption is measured monthly, but heating oil, propane, wood, and other energy sources
are normally billed upon delivery and provide similar information. During benchmarking,
information is compiled in a way that standardizes the units of energy and creates energy use
and billing rate information statistics for the building on a square foot basis. The objectives of
benchmarking are:
• to understand patterns of use,
• to understand building operational characteristics,
• for comparison with other similar facilities in Alaska and across the country, and
• to offer insight in to potential energy savings.
The results of the benchmarking, including the energy use statistics and comparisons to other
areas, are discussed in the following sections.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
7
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010
The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated
from the utility bills and provides a simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by
the building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use
for the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into
British Thermal Units (BTUs). This total annual usage is then divided by the number of square
feet of the building. The EUI units are BTUs per square foot per year.
The benchmark analysis found that the District Office has an EUI 83,000 BTUs per square foot
per year.
The EUI is useful in comparing this building’s energy use to that of other similar buildings in
Alaska and in the Continental United States. The EUI can be compared to average energy use
in 2003 found in a study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration of commercial buildings
(abbreviated CBECS, 2006). That report found an overall average energy use of about 90,000
BTUs per square foot per year while studying about 6,000 commercial buildings of all sizes,
types, and uses that were located all over the Continental U.S. (see Table C3 in Appendix I).
In a recent and unpublished state-wide benchmarking study sponsored by the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation, schools in Fairbanks averaged 62,000 BTUs per square foot and schools
in Anchorage averaged 123,000 BTUs per square foot annual energy use. The chart below
shows the District Office relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in
Appendix H.
83,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. Ft Annual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
District Office Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
8
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010
Another benchmarking statistic that is useful is the Cost Utilization Index (CUI), which is the cost
for energy used in the building on a square foot basis per year. The CUI is calculated from the
cost for utilities for a year period. The CUI permits comparison of buildings on total energy cost
even though they may be located in areas with differing energy costs and differing heating
and/or cooling climates. The cost of energy, including heating oil, natural gas, and electricity,
can vary greatly over time and geographic location and can be higher in Alaska than other parts
of the country.
The CUI for the District Office is about $3.34. This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the
following rates:
Electricity at $0.54 / kWh ($15.82 / Therm)
# 2 Fuel Oil at $4.13 / gallon ($2.95 / Therm)
The Department of Energy Administration study, mentioned in the previous section (CBECS,
2006) found an average cost of $2.52 per square foot in 2003 for 4,400 buildings in the
Continental U.S (Tables C4 and C13 of CBDES, 2006). Schools in Fairbanks have an average
cost for energy of $2.42 per square foot while Anchorage schools average $2.11 per square
foot. The chart below shows the District Office relative to these values. More details are
included in Appendix H.
$3.34
$2.42
$2.11
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
Annual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF)
District Office Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
9
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns
Energy consumption is often highly correlated with seasonal climate and usage variations. The
graphs below show the electric and fuel consumption of this building over the course of two
years. The lowest monthly use is called the baseline use. The high baseline for electricity for
District Office is mainly from lighting as the changes in consumption do not match the climate
pattern and are scattered due to the random occupancy. The clear relation of increased energy
usage during periods of cold weather can be seen in the months with higher oil usage.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10KWH Electrical Consumption
Pribilof School District - District Office
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Gallons Fuel Oil Deliveries
Pribilof School District - District Office
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
10
2.2.4 Future Energy Monitoring
Energy accounting is the process of tracking energy consumption and costs. It is important for
the building owner or manager to monitor and record both the energy usage and cost each
month. Comparing trends over time can assist in pinpointing major sources of energy usage and
aid in finding effective energy efficiency measures. There are two basic methods of energy
accounting: manual and automatic. Manual tracking of energy usage may already be performed
by an administrative assistant: however if the records are not scrutinized for energy use, then
the data is merely a financial accounting. Digital energy tracking systems can be installed. They
display and record real-time energy usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are
several types which have all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
11
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS
After benchmarking of a building is complete and the site visit has identified the specific systems
in the building, a number of different methods are available for quantifying the overall energy
consumption and to model the energy use. These range from relatively simple spreadsheets to
commercially available modeling software capable of handling complex building systems.
NORTECH has used several of these programs and uses the worksheets and software that
best matches the complexity of the building and specific energy use that is being evaluated.
Modeling of an energy efficiency measure (EEM) requires an estimate of the current energy
used by the specific feature, the estimated energy use of the proposed EEM and its installed
cost. EEMs can range from a single simple upgrade, such as light bulb type or type of motor, to
reprogramming of the controls on more complex systems. While the need for a major retrofit
can typically be identified by an energy audit, the specific system upgrades often require
collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that are beyond the scope of the
Level II energy audit.
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. Common EEMs that could apply to almost
every older building include:
• Reduce the envelope heat losses through:
o increased building insulation, and
o better windows and doors
• Reduce temperature difference between inside and outside using setback thermostats
• Upgrade inefficient:
o lights,
o motors,
o refrigeration units, and
o other appliances
• Reduce running time of lights/appliances through:
o motion sensors,
o on/off timers,
o light sensors, and
o other automatic/programmable systems
The objective of the following sections is to describe how the overall energy use of the building
was modeled and the potential for energy savings. The specific EEMs that provide these overall
energy savings are detailed in Appendix A of this report. While the energy savings of an EEM is
unlikely to change significantly over time, the cost savings of an EEM is highly dependent on the
current energy price and can vary significantly over time. An EEM that is not currently
recommended based on price may be more attractive at a later date or with higher energy
prices.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
12
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at District
Office. The AkWarm program was developed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) to model residential energy use. The original AkWarm is the modeling engine behind
the successful residential energy upgrade program that AHFC has operated for a number of
years. In the past few years, AHFC has developed a version of this model for commercial
buildings.
Energy use in buildings is modeled by calculating energy losses and consumption, such as:
• Heat lost through the building envelope components, including windows, doors,
walls, ceilings, crawlspaces, and foundations. These heat losses are computed for
each component based on the area, heat resistance (R-value), and the difference
between the inside temperature and the outside temperature. AkWarm has a library
of temperature profiles for villages and cities in Alaska.
• Window orientation, such as the fact that south facing windows can add heat in the
winter but north-facing windows do not.
• Inefficiencies of the heating system, including the imperfect conversion of fuel oil or
natural gas due to heat loss in exhaust gases, incomplete combustion, excess air,
etc. Some electricity is also consumed in moving the heat around a building through
pumping.
• Inefficiencies of the cooling system, if one exists, due to various imperfections in a
mechanical system and the required energy to move the heat around.
• Lighting requirements and inefficiencies in the conversion of electricity to light;
ultimately all of the power used for lighting is converted to heat. While the heat may
be useful in the winter, it often isn’t useful in the summer when cooling may be
required to remove the excess heat. Lights are modeled by wattage and operational
hours.
• Use and inefficiencies in refrigeration, compressor cooling, and heat pumps. Some
units are more efficient than others. Electricity is required to move the heat from
inside a compartment to outside it. Again, this is a function of the R-Value and the
temperature difference between the inside and outside of the unit.
• Plug loads such as computers, printers, mini-fridges, microwaves, portable heaters,
monitors, etc. These can be a significant part of the overall electricity consumption
of the building, as well as contributing to heat production.
• The schedule of operation for lights, plug loads, motors, etc is a critical component of
how much energy is used.
AkWarm adds up these heat losses and the internal heat gains based on individual unit usage
schedules. These estimated heat and electrical usages are compared to actual use on both a
yearly and seasonal basis. If the AkWarm model is within 5 % to 10% of the most recent 12
months usage identified during benchmarking, the model is considered accurate enough to
make predictions of energy savings for possible EEMs.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
13
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the District Office
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm
to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm
calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the
savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes
recommendations based on the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR), which is defined as ratio of the
savings generated over the life of the EEM divided by the installed cost. Higher SIR values are
better and any SIR above one is considered acceptable. If the SIR of an EEM is below one, the
energy savings will not pay for the cost of the EEM and the EEM is not recommended.
Preferred EEMs are listed by AkWarm in order of the highest SIR.
A summary of the savings from the recommended EEMs are listed in this table.
Description Space
Heating
Water
Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other
Electrical Cooking Clothes
Drying Total
Existing
Building $9,441 $586 $2,355 $531 $1,115 $59 $71 $14,158
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$7,449 $516 $811 $236 $1,115 $59 $71 $10,257
Savings $1,992 $70 $1,544 $295 $0 $0 $0 $3,901
Savings in these categories do not reflect interaction with other categories. So, for example, the
savings in lighting does not affect the added space heating cost to make up for the heat saved
in replacing less-efficient lights with more-efficient lights that waste less heat.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
14
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in lighting and space
heating. The energy cost by end use breakdown was provided by AkWarm based on the field
inspection and does not indicate that all individual fixtures and appliances were directly
measured. The current energy costs are shown below on the left hand bar of the graph and the
projected energy costs, assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the right.
This graphical format allows easy visual comparison of the various energy requirements of the
facility. In the event that not all recommended retrofits are desired, the proposal energy savings
can be estimated from visual interpretation from this graph.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
15
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm
The AkWarm program effectively models wood-framed and other buildings with standard
heating systems and relatively simple HVAC systems. AkWarm models of more complicated
mechanical systems are sometimes poor due to a number of simplifying assumptions and
limited input of some variables. Furthermore, AKWarm is unable to model complex HVAC
systems such as variable frequency motors, variable air volume (VAV) systems, those with
significant digital or pneumatic controls or significant heat recovery capacity. In addition, some
other building methods and occupancies are outside AkWarm capabilities.
This report section is included in order to identify benefits from modifications to those more
complex systems or changes in occupant behavior that cannot be addressed in AkWarm.
The District Office could be modeled well in AKWarm. Retrofits for the HVAC system were
adequately modeled in AkWarm and did not require additional calculations.
AkWarm does not include an accurate envelope selection for Pan-Abode style cedar building.
The District office has been modeled as a 16” diameter log wall building with an R-Value of 18
assuming R-Values of 1.33 per inch for Cedar and 5 per inch of foam board.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
16
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M)
4.1 Operations and Maintenance
A well-implemented operation and maintenance (O & M) plan is often the driving force behind
energy savings. Such a plan includes preserving institutional knowledge, directing preventative
maintenance, and scheduling regular inspections of each piece of HVAC equipment within the
building. Routine maintenance includes the timely replacement of filters, belts and pulleys, the
proper greasing of bearings and other details such as topping off the glycol tanks. Additional
benefits to a maintenance plan are decreased down time for malfunctioning equipment, early
indications of problems, prevention of exacerbated maintenance issues, and early detection of
overloading/overheating issues. A good maintenance person knows the building’s equipment
well enough to spot and repair minor malfunctions before they become major retrofits.
Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems act within the design or
usage ranges. This process ideally, though seldom, occurs as the last phase in construction.
HVAC system operation parameters degrade from ideal over time due to incorrect maintenance,
improper replacement pumps, changes in facility tenants or usage, changes in schedules, and
changes in energy costs or loads. Ideally, re-commissioning of a building should occur every
five to ten years. This ensures that the HVAC system meets the potentially variable use with
the most efficient means.
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations
Several maintenance and operations issues were noted during the site visit.
• The boiler should be inspected, cleaned and repaired annually.
• Thermostats do not control the correct zone valves for the rooms which they are located,
ensuring that both thermostats and zone valves correspond to their respective zones will
ensure better temperature control and comfort.
• Weather stripping on the doors and windows should be regularly inspected and replaced
as needed.
• The wooden portions of the exterior show signs of weather damage, replacing the
weather protection regularly can prevent further damage and decrease air and moisture
leakage.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
17
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
18
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures
A number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) are available to reduce the energy use and
overall operating cost for the facility. The EEMs listed below are those recommended by
AkWarm based on the calculated savings/investment ration (SIR) as described in Appendix E.
AkWarm also provides a breakeven cost, which is the maximum initial cost of the EEM that will
still return a SIR of one or greater.
This section describes each recommended EEM and identifies the potential energy savings and
installation costs. This also details the calculation of breakeven costs, simple payback, and the
SIR for each recommendation. The recommended EEMs are grouped together generally by the
overall end use that will be impacted.
A.1 Temperature Control
A common retrofit for heating control is installing programmable thermostats to allow for
automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks.
Reduction of the nighttime temperature set point will decrease the energy usage. District Office
does not seem to have the heating capacity from the existing boiler to perform a heating
setback, therefore new temperature controls are not recommended. However, zone valves
should be inspected to ensure proper operation and even heat distribution to all zones.
A.2 Electrical Loads
A.2.1 Lighting
The electricity used by lighting eventually ends up as heat in the building. In areas where
electricity is more expensive than other forms of energy, or in areas where the summer
temperatures require cooling; this additional heat can be both wasteful and costly. Converting
to more efficient lighting reduces cooling loads in the summer and allows the user to control
heat input in the winter. The conversion from T12 (one and a half inch fluorescent bulbs) to T8
(one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED bulbs provides a significant
increase in efficiency. LED bulbs can be directly placed in existing fixtures. The LED bulb
bypasses the ballast altogether, which removes the often irritating, “buzzing” noise that
magnetic ballasts tend to make.
Four incandescent night lights are left on 24/7 in areas throughout the building. Although these
lights are only 7 watts a piece, this wattage combined with high use adds up to a high cost.
New LED nightlights consume as little as 0.7 watts and some even include daylight sensors.
Switching to newer LED night lights will save a considerable amount of energy.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
2
night lights- 2nd bath,
kitchen, atrium,
reception
4 INCAN [Unknown Lamp] with Manual
Switching
Remove Manual Switching and
Add new Daylight Sensor
Installation Cost $25 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 25 Energy Savings (/yr) $100
Breakeven Cost $1,577 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 63 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
19
The price of electricity in Saint Paul is high in comparison to other cities in Alaska, therefore
switching from the existing 40 watt T12s to more efficient 17 watt LED lamps will produce
significant energy savings.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5 1st bath FLUOR (2) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $175 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $94
Breakeven Cost $1,039 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.9 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
10 reception 3 FLUOR (4) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 3 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $525 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $128
Breakeven Cost $1,416 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.7 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
11 accts payable 3 FLUOR (4) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 3 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $525 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $91
Breakeven Cost $1,011 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yr) 6
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
12 superintendent 4 FLUOR (4) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $700 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $121
Breakeven Cost $1,348 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yr) 6
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
13 finance director 2 FLUOR (4) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $350 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $55
Breakeven Cost $607 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yr) 6
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
20
Various areas of District Office uses task lighting with incandescent lamps. Every instance of
incandescent lamps should be replaced with more efficient compact fluorescent lamps.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
16 atrium 4 FLUOR (4) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $700 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $173
Breakeven Cost $1,049 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
17 file room 2 FLUOR (4) T12 4’ F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $350 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $74
Breakeven Cost $450 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
1 exterior 2 INCAN A Lamp, Std 60W with Manual
Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, A
Lamp 15W
Installation Cost $10 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Installation Cost $10
Breakeven Cost $2,110 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 210 Breakeven Cost $2,110
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 bed 2 INCAN [Unknown Lamp] with Manual
Switching
Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W
Installation Cost $5 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $7
Breakeven Cost $40 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.0 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 bed 1, 3 2 INCAN A Lamp, Std 150W with Manual
Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 42 W
Installation Cost $25 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $23
Breakeven Cost $138 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.5 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 reception INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 50W with Manual
Switching
Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W
Installation Cost $10 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $8
Breakeven Cost $48 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.8 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
21
A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads
Re-commissioning the boiler and heating system will allow for more efficient heat distribution in
the building. As a result, electronic space heaters will experience lower usage schedules.
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
The east wall of the basement in District Office is partially above grade. This exposed eight inch
concrete wall provides little resistance to heat loss and adding insulation to the interior of this
basement wall will produce significant savings. The insulation should be installed to wrap 4 feet
into neighboring exterior walls. Care should be taken during construction to keep all code
required separation distance between the boiler and combustible wall coverings.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8 bed 2 INCAN (3) A Lamp, Std 25W with Manual
Switching
Replace with FLUOR (3) CFL,
Spiral 10 W
Installation Cost $10 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $5
Breakeven Cost $29 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.9 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 finance director INCAN A Lamp, Std 40W with Manual
Switching
Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 13 W
Installation Cost $10 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $5
Breakeven Cost $28 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
14 2nd floor living 3 INCAN A Lamp, Std 25W with Manual
Switching
Replace with 3 FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 10 W
Installation Cost $15 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $4
Breakeven Cost $23 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
4
Below- (part or all)
Grade Wall: east
basement wall
Wall Type: Masonry
Insul. Sheathing: None
Masonry Wall: 8" Poured Concrete
Modeled R-Value: 2.5
Install R-25 rigid foam board to
interior side of the east
basement wall. Cover insulation
with sheetrock.
Installation Cost $7,262 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,833
Breakeven Cost $43,178 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.9 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
22
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
No EEMs are recommended in this area.
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
The existing insulation in the roof consists of 2” of XPS foam and 2” of cedar boards. Although
insulating this roof would result in savings, it is not recommended at this time due to the risk of
creating a second vapor barrier.
A.3.4 Windows
No EEMs are recommended in this area. An upgrade to the existing double pane windows to
better insulated fiberglass windows was considered but was not economic.
A.3.5 Doors
No EEMs are recommended in this area. However, the existing doors need weather stripping
replaced to help reduce air leakage.
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
The existing heating system setup is inefficient and should be re-evaluated. The following
should be performed during the boiler re-commissioning:
• A vent damper should be installed to reduce boiler idle loss.
• The existing barometric damper is not functioning properly and should be replaced.
• Ensure the installed nozzle is 1.2 gph.
• Measure the pressure difference across the pump with all zones open to determine the
max system flow and increase the pump size to provide a minimum of 16 gpm at that
found pressure based on the selected pump curve.
• The distribution pump should be relocated to the supply side of the heating loop.
Some areas of District Office do not get enough heat. Replacing the distribution pump with a
slightly larger pump will allow for heat to flow faster to the respective zones. Insulating the
exposed heating distribution piping in the boiler room will allow for heat to travel farther at the
desired temperature.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
23
A single speed pump is currently used in the heating system in the District Office. This pump
should be replaced with a variable speed pump such as a Grundfos Magna. These pumps have
been shown to save a minimum of 50% of the electrical energy over conventional pumps due to
the motor design. Variable speed pumps work well in systems that experience flow variation, as
the pumps are capable of reducing speed when appropriate and reduced speeds save energy.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No EEMs are recommended in this area. There are no air conditioning units present in the
District Office.
A.4.3 Ventilation
No EEMs are recommended in this area. There are no ventilation units present in the District
Office.
A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening
No EEMs are recommended in this area because of the difficulty of quantifying the amount of
leaking air and the savings. However, by using a blower door to depressurize the building and
an infra-red camera, the location of significant air leaks can be determined so they can be
repaired.
Rank Recommendation
14 Perform boiler re-commissioning, install vent damper, replace barometric damper, replace distribution
pump with variable speed pump, insulate pipes in basement
Installation Cost $7,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $620
Breakeven Cost $10,639 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 11
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
24
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended
As indicated in other sections of the report, a number of potential EEMs were identified that
were determined to be NOT cost effective by the AkWarm model. These EEMs are not
currently recommended on the basis of energy savings alone because each may only save a
small amount of energy, have a high capital cost, or be expensive to install. While each of
these EEMs is not cost effective at this time, future changes in building use such as longer
operating hours, higher energy prices, new fixtures or hardware on the market, and decreases
in installation effort may make any of these EEMs cost effective in the future. These potential
EEMs should be reviewed periodically to identify any changes to these factors that would
warrant re-evaluation.
Although these upgrades are not currently cost effective on an energy cost basis, the fixtures,
hardware, controls, or operational changes described in these EEMs should be considered
when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other reasons. For example, replacing an existing
window with a triple-pane window may not be cost effective based only on energy use, but if a
window is going to be replaced for some other reason, then the basis for a decision is only the
incremental cost of upgrading from a less efficient replacement window to a more efficient
replacement window. That incremental cost difference will have a significantly shorter payback,
especially since the installation costs are likely to be the same for both units.
The following measures were not found to be cost-effective:
Rank Feature/Location Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
20 Window/Skylight: 2nd
bath
Replace existing window with
U-0.30 vinyl window $18 $349 0.91 19
21 Lighting: mail room Replace with 3 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $78 $525 0.90 6.7
22 Lighting: stairwell 1-2 Replace with 2 LED (4) 17W
Module (2) StdElectronic $44 $650 0.75 15
23
Window/Skylight:
kitchen, bedroom 2,
accts payable, 1st
bath, finance
Replace existing window with
U-0.22 vinyl window $209 $6,583 0.55 32
24 Lighting: stairwell 1-2 Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $8 $175 0.52 21
25 Window/Skylight: file,
mail room
Replace existing window with
U-0.30 vinyl window $37 $1,338 0.48 36
26 Window/Skylight:
bedroom 1,3
Replace existing window with
U-0.22 vinyl window $82 $3,072 0.46 38
27 Lighting: kitchen Replace with 8 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $55 $1,400 0.44 26
28 Window/Skylight:
superintendent
Replace existing window with
U-0.22 vinyl window $14 $750 0.32 55
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
25
The following measures were not found to be cost-effective:
Rank Feature/Location Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
29 Lighting: 2nd floor
living
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $7 $350 0.22 52
30 Lighting: stairwell b-1
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant HighEfficElectronic
$1 $29 0.20 30
31 Lighting: bathroom Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $5 $350 0.15 77
32 Lighting: basement Replace with 8 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $12 $1,400 0.05 120
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
26
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated
Efficiency Notes
Boiler Weil-McLain P-WG0-4 #2 Fuel Oil 82% Estimated Input Rating
145,000 Btu/hour
Circ. Pump Taco 007-F5 Electric n/a 1/25 HP
Unit Heater Dunham Bush H-100-C Electric n/a 100,000 BTU/hr rating
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR
Exterior Incandescent A-Lamp 60W 2 770 $ 416
Atrium Fluorescent T12 4 476 257
Reception Fluorescent T12 3 357 193
Superintendent Fluorescent T12 4 340 184
Bathroom Fluorescent T12 1 332 179
Accounts Payable Fluorescent T12 3 255 138
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.54/kWh
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR
Refrigerator Kitchen Whirlpool 900 $ 486
Resistance Heaters Entire Building Varies 537 290
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.54/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
27
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure
The information in this section was provided directly from the local utility or gathered from the
local utility’s publicly available information at the time of the audit. All language used in this
section was provided by the local utility and believed to be current at the time of the audit.
Energy use terms, specific fees, and other specific information are subject to change. Updated
rate structure information should be gathered from the utility during future discussion of rates,
rate structures and utility pricing agreements.
City of Saint Paul Rate Structure:
The City of Saint Paul owns the electric company as well as the buildings that were audited
including the Polar Star, Public Works Building, City Maintenance Building, Fire Station, and
City Hall. The city has a method of internal billing. The building is charged $0.54 per kWh for
all kWh’s below 33,530 which is the amount that qualifies the city for assistance under the
power cost equalization program. After this mark, the electric rate increases.
Utility Charge (kWh charge)
This charge is multiplied by the number of kilowatt-hours (kWh) used in a monthly billing period.
It covers the costs to maintain power plants and substations, interest on loans as well as wires,
power poles and transformers.
Regulatory Charge
This charge of .000492 per kWh is set by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Since
November 1, 1992, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska has been funded by a Regulatory
Charge to the utilities it regulates rather than through the State general fund. The charge,
labeled "Regulatory Cost Charge." on your bill, is set by the RCA, and applies to all retail
kilowatt-hours sold by regulated electric utilities in Alaska.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
28
Appendix E Analysis Methodology
Data collected was processed using AkWarm energy use software to estimate current energy
consumption by end usage and calculate energy savings for each of the proposed energy
efficiency measures (EEMs). In addition, separate analysis may have been conducted to
evaluate EEMs that AkWarm cannot effectively model to evaluate potential reductions in annual
energy consumption. Analyses were conducted under the direct supervision of a Certified
Energy Auditor, Certified Energy Manager, or a Professional Engineer.
EEMs are evaluated based on building use, maintenance and processes, local climate
conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule and existing conditions.
Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering
estimations. Each model created in AkWarm is carefully compared to existing utility usage
obtained from utility bills. The AkWarm analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the
cost effectiveness of various improvement options. The primary assessment value used in this
audit report is the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). The SIR is a method of cost analysis that
compares the total cost savings through reduced energy consumption to the total cost of a
project over its assumed lifespan, including both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance
and operating costs. Other measurement methods include Simple Payback, which is defined as
the length of time it takes for the savings to equal the total installed cost and Breakeven Cost,
which is defined as the highest cost that would yield a Savings/Investment Ratio of one.
EEMs are recommended by AkWarm in order of cost-effectiveness. AkWarm first calculates
individual SIRs for each EEM, and then ranks the EEMs by SIR, with higher SIRs at the top of
the list. An individual EEM must have a SIR greater than or equal to one in order to be
recommended by AkWarm . Next AkWarm modifies the building model to include the installation
of the first EEM and then re-simulates the energy use. Then the remaining EEMs are re-
evaluated and ranked again. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all suggested
EEMs have been evaluated.
Under this iterative review process, the savings for each recommended EEM is calculated
based on the implementation of the other, more cost effective EEMs first. Therefore, the
implementation of one EEM affects the savings of other EEMs that are recommended later.
The savings from any one individual EEM may be relatively higher if the individual EEM is
implemented without the other recommended EEMs. For example, implementing a reduced
operating schedule for inefficient lighting may result in relatively higher savings than
implementing the same reduced operating schedule for newly installed lighting that is more
efficient. If multiple EEMs are recommended, AkWarm calculates a combined savings.
Inclusion of recommendations for energy savings outside the capability of AkWarm will impact
the actual savings from the AkWarm projections. This will almost certainly result in lower
energy savings and monetary savings from AkWarm recommendations. The reality is that only
so much energy is consumed in a building. Energy savings from one EEM reduces the amount
of energy that can be saved from additional EEMs. For example, installation of a lower wattage
light bulb does not save energy or money if the bulb is never turned on because of a schedule
or operational change at the facility.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
29
Appendix F Audit Limitations
The results of this audit are dependent on the input data provided and can only act as an
approximation. In some instances, several EEMs or installation methods may achieve the
identified potential savings. Actual savings will depend on the EEM selected, the price of
energy, and the final installation and implementation methodology. Competent tradesmen and
professional engineers may be required to design, install, or otherwise implement some of the
recommended EEMs. This document is an energy use audit report and is not intended as a
final design document, operation, and maintenance manual, or to take the place of any
document provided by a manufacturer or installer of any device described in this report.
Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each EEM. Estimated costs
include labor and equipment for the full up-front investment required to implement the EEM.
The listed installation costs within the report are conceptual budgetary estimates and should not
be used as design estimates. The estimated costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry
publications, local contractors and equipment suppliers, and the professional judgment of the
CEA writing the report and based on the conditions at the time of the audit.
Cost and energy savings are approximations and are not guaranteed.
Additional significant energy savings can usually be found with more detailed auditing
techniques that include actual measurements of electrical use, temperatures in the building and
HVAC ductwork, intake and exhaust temperatures, motor runtime and scheduling, and infrared,
air leakage to name just a few. Implementation of these techniques is the difference between a
Level III Energy Audit and the Level II Audit that has been conducted.
Disclaimer: "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."
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
30
Appendix G References
Although not all documents listed below are specifically referenced in this report, each contains
information and insights considered valuable to most buildings.
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development; Education Support Services/Facilities.
(1999). Alaska School Facilities Preventative Maintenance Handbook. Juneau, AK:
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Alaska Housing Finance Corportation. (2010). Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans. AHFC.
ASHRAE. (1997). 1997 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 105-2007 Expressing and Comparing Building Energy
Performance. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Energy Standards for buildings Except Low-
Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 Ventilaton for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.
Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in
Low Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE RP-669 and SP-56. (2004). Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits.
Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
Coad, W. J. (1982). Energy Engineering and Management for Building Systems. Scarborough,
Ontario, Canada: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Daley, D. T. (2008). The Little Black Book of Reliability Management. New York, NY: Industrial
Press, Inc.
Federal Energy Management Program. (2004, March 3). Demand Controlled Ventilation Using
CO2 Sensors. Retrieved 2011, from US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_co2.pdf
Federal Energy Management Program. (2006, April 26). Low-Energy Building Design
Guidelines. Retrieved 2011, from Department of Energy; Federal Energy Management
Program: http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/
Institute, E. a. (2004). Variable Speed Pumping: A Guide to Successful Applications. Oxford,
UK: Elsevier Advanced Technology.
International Code Council. (2009). International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills,
IL: International Code Council, Inc.
Leach, M., Lobato, C., Hirsch, A., Pless, S., & Torcellini, P. (2010, September). Technical
Support Document: Strategies for 50% Energy Savings in Large Office Buildings.
Retrieved 2011, from National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49213.pdf
Thumann, P.E., C.E.M., A., Younger, C.E.M., W. J., & Niehus, P.E., C.E.M., T. (2010).
Handbook of Energy Audits Eighth Edition. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2006). Commercial Building Energy Consumption
Survey (CBECS). Retrieved 2011, from Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
31
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage
This report provides data on typical energy costs and use on selected building in Fairbanks and
Anchorage, Alaska for comparative purposes only. The values provided by the US Energy
Information Administration CBECS study included a broader range of building types for the
Continental U.S. are not necessarily good comparatives for buildings and conditions in Alaska.
An assortment of values from CBECS may be found in Appendix I.
The Alaska data described in this report came from a benchmarking study NORTECH and other
Technical Services Providers (TSPs) completed on publicly owned buildings in Alaska under
contract with AHFC. This study acquired actual utility data for municipal buildings and schools
in Alaska for the two recent full years. The utility data included costs and quantities including
fuel oil, electricity, propane, wood, steam, and all other energy source usage. This resulted in a
database of approximately 900 buildings. During the course of the benchmarking study, the
comparisons made to the CBECS data appeared to be inappropriate for various reasons.
Therefore, this energy use audit report references the average energy use and energy cost of
Anchorage and Fairbanks buildings as described below.
The Alaska benchmarking data was evaluated in order to find valid comparison data. Buildings
with major energy use information missing were eliminated from the data pool. After detailed
scrutiny of the data, the most complete information was provided to NORTECH by the
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD) and the Anchorage School District
(ASD). The data sets from these two sources included both the actual educational facilities as
well as the district administrative buildings and these are grouped together in this report as
Fairbanks and Anchorage schools. These two sources of information, being the most complete
and reasonable in-state information, have been used to identify an average annual energy
usage for Fairbanks and for Anchorage in order to provide a comparison for other facilities in
Alaska.
Several factors may limit the comparison of a specific facility to these regional indicators. In
Fairbanks, the FNSBSD generally uses number two fuel oil for heating needs and electricity is
provided by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA). GVEA produces electricity from a coal
fired generation plant with additional oil generation upon demand. A few of the FNSBSD
buildings in this selection utilize district steam and hot water. The FNSBSD has recently (the
last ten years) invested significantly in envelope and other efficiency upgrades to reduce their
operating costs. Therefore a reader should be aware that this selection of Fairbanks buildings
has energy use at or below average for the entire Alaska benchmarking database.
Heating in Anchorage is through natural gas from the nearby natural gas fields. Electricity is
also provided using natural gas. As the source is nearby and the infrastructure for delivery is in
place, energy costs are relatively low in the area. As a result, the ASD buildings have lower
energy costs, but higher energy use, than the average for the entire benchmarking database.
These special circumstances should be considered when comparing the typical annual energy
use for particular buildings.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
32
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S.
Released: Dec 2006
Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007
Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003
All Buildings* Sum of Major Fuel Consumption
Number of
Buildings
(thousand)
Floor space
(million
square feet)
Floor space
per Building
(thousand
square feet)
Total
(trillion
BTU)
per
Building
(million
BTU)
per
Square
Foot
(thousand
BTU)
per
Worker
(million
BTU)
All Buildings* 4,645 64,783 13.9 5,820 1,253 89.8 79.9
Building Floor space (Square Feet)
1,001 to 5,000 2,552 6,789 2.7 672 263 98.9 67.6
5,001 to 10,000 889 6,585 7.4 516 580 78.3 68.7
10,001 to 25,000 738 11,535 15.6 776 1,052 67.3 72.0
25,001 to 50,000 241 8,668 35.9 673 2,790 77.6 75.8
50,001 to 100,000 129 9,057 70.4 759 5,901 83.8 90.0
100,001 to 200,000 65 9,064 138.8 934 14,300 103.0 80.3
200,001 to 500,000 25 7,176 289.0 725 29,189 101.0 105.3
Over 500,000 7 5,908 896.1 766 116,216 129.7 87.6
Principal Building Activity
Education 386 9,874 25.6 820 2,125 83.1 65.7
Food Sales 226 1,255 5.6 251 1,110 199.7 175.2
Food Service 297 1,654 5.6 427 1,436 258.3 136.5
Health Care 129 3,163 24.6 594 4,612 187.7 94.0
Inpatient 8 1,905 241.4 475 60,152 249.2 127.7
Outpatient 121 1,258 10.4 119 985 94.6 45.8
Lodging 142 5,096 35.8 510 3,578 100.0 207.5
Retail (Other Than Mall) 443 4,317 9.7 319 720 73.9 92.1
Office 824 12,208 14.8 1,134 1,376 92.9 40.3
Public Assembly 277 3,939 14.2 370 1,338 93.9 154.5
Public Order and Safety 71 1,090 15.5 126 1,791 115.8 93.7
Religious Worship 370 3,754 10.1 163 440 43.5 95.6
Service 622 4,050 6.5 312 501 77.0 85.0
Warehouse and Storage 597 10,078 16.9 456 764 45.2 104.3
Other 79 1,738 21.9 286 3,600 164.4 157.1
Vacant 182 2,567 14.1 54 294 20.9 832.1
This report references the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), published by the U.S.
Energy Information Administration in 2006. Initially this report was expected to compare the annual energy
consumption of the building to average national energy usage as documented below. However, a direct comparison
between one specific building and the groups of buildings outlined below yielded confusing results. Instead, this
report uses a comparative analysis on Fairbanks and Anchorage data as described in Appendix F. An abbreviated
excerpt from CBECS on commercial buildings in the Continental U.S. is below.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
33
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units
1 British Thermal Unit is the energy required to raise one pound of water one degree F°
1 Watt is approximately 3.412 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 2,544 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 746 Watts
1 "ton of cooling” is approximately 12,000 BTU/hr, the amount of power required to
melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours
1 Therm = 100,000 BTU
1 KBTU = 1,000 BTU
1 KWH = 3413 BTU
1 KW = 3413 BTU/Hr
1 Boiler HP = 33,400 BTU/Hr
1 Pound Steam = approximately 1000 BTU
1 CCF of natural gas = approximately 1 Therm
1 inch H2O = 250 Pascal (Pa) = 0.443 pounds/square inch (psi)
1 atmosphere (atm) = 10,1000 Pascal (Pa)
BTU British Thermal Unit
CCF 100 Cubic Feet
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
GPM Gallons per minute
HP Horsepower
Hz Hertz
kg Kilogram (1,000 grams)
kV Kilovolt (1,000 volts)
kVA Kilovolt-Amp
kVAR Kilovolt-Amp Reactive
KW Kilowatt (1,000 watts)
KWH Kilowatt Hour
V Volt
W Watt
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
34
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions
ACH Air Changes per Hour
AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
Air Economizer A duct, damper, and automatic control system that
allows a cooling system to supply outside air to reduce
or eliminate the need for mechanical cooling.
Ambient Temperature Average temperature of the surrounding air
Ballast A device used with an electric discharge lamp to cause
the lamp to start and operate under the proper circuit
conditions of voltage, current, electrode heat, etc.
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CUI Cost Utilization Index
CDD Cooling Degree Days
DDC Direct Digital Control
EEM Energy Efficiency Measure
EER Energy Efficient Ratio
EUI Energy Utilization Index
FLUOR Fluorescent
Grade The finished ground level adjoining a building at the
exterior walls
HDD Heating Degree Days
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning
INCAN Incandescent
NPV Net Present Value
R-value Thermal resistance measured in BTU/Hr-SF-̊F (Higher
value means better insulation)
SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) Savings over the life of the EEM divided by Investment
capital cost. Savings includes the total discounted dollar
savings considered over the life of the improvement.
Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and
materials required to install the measure.
Set Point Target temperature that a control system operates the
heating and cooling system
Simple payback A cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of
an EEM is divided by the first year’s savings of the EEM
to give the number of years required to recover the cost
of the investment.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Pribilof School District- District Office
Saint Paul, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-900 Aleutians Region\50-940 Pribolof SD\50-943 District Office\Reports\Final\201207.16 Final AHFC Report SNP
District Office.Docx
35
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Building Floor Plan by NORTECH based on Field Measurements