HomeMy WebLinkAboutASRC-AWI-RSA Wainwright Alak School 2012-EE1
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
Mechanical/Electrical Engineer
Comprehensive Energy Audit
of
Wainwright Alak School
Project # ASRC-AWI-RSA-02
Prepared for:
North Slope School District
November 4, 2011
Prepared by:
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6
Anchorage, AK 99501
and
Energy Audits of Alaska
P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 98522
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Performed by: __________________________
James Fowler, PE, CEA
CEA #1705
Reviewed by: __________________________
Richard Armstrong, PE, CEM
CEA #178, CEM #13557
1. Executive Summary 4
2. Audit and Analysis Background 10
3. Acknowledgements 11
4. Building Description & Function 12
5. Historic Energy Consumption 14
6. Interactive Effects of Projects 14
7. Loan Program 15
Appendix A: Photos 16
Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 20
Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 26
Appendix D: Building Plan 35
Appendix E: Lighting Plan 36
Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 41
Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 44
3
REPORT DISCLAIMERS
The information contained in this report, including any attachments, is intended
solely for use by the building owner and the AHFC. No others are authorized to
disclose, copy, distribute or retain this report, in whole or part, without written
authorization from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, 2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6,
Anchorage, Ak 99501. Additionally, this report contains recommendations that,
in the opinion of the auditor, will cause the owner to realize energy savings over
time. All recommendations must be designed by a registered engineer, licensed
in the State of Alaska, in the appropriate discipline. 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 Statue as well
as IES recommendations.
Payback periods may vary from those forecast 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, Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, AHFC, or any
other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss
due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods.
This audit meets the criteria of an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the
Association of Energy Engineers definition, and is valid for one year. The life of
the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the
AHFC.
IGA’s are the property of the State, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the
Alaska Energy Data Inventory (ARIS), or other state and/or public information
system.
4
1. Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Energy Audit is performed in connection with AHFC’s
Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) program.
Subject Building:
Wainwright Alak School
567 Main St
Wainwright, AK 99782
Building Owner:
North Slope Borough School District
829 Aikik Street
Barrow, AK 99723
Building contacts:
Eric Estes, Plant Manager
907-763-2023 office
907-763-0072 mobile
eric.estes@nsbsd.org
The site visit to subject building occurred on September 10th and 11th, 2011.
Wainwright is a small village of approximately 400 residents. As is typical, the
school is the largest building in the village, over three times the size of the next
largest building, and was constructed and re-constructed in stages over a 30
year period.
The plant manager at the school started in his position in June of 2011, the
principal started in August of 2011, so there is little institutionalized knowledge
carrying forward regarding typical building usage. The North Slope Borough
School District (NSBSD) retained Johnson Controls to perform an HVAC controls
audit during the summer of 2011. As a result, a dozen or more components
(valves, thermostats, etc.) were ordered; more detailed results were not
available.
The original high school and an addition were built prior to 1980. In 1981 the
elementary school was built, and attached to the high school via an enclosed
corridor. In 1982 an addition was made to the high school and the utility building
was added, to the north of the elementary school, connected by an elevated,
uncovered walkway. The high school had a serious fire and was rebuilt in 1988.
Another addition to the high school was made in 1997 which created one large
building, no longer with an apparent differentiation between the elementary and
high schools.
The school has a gymnasium used year round, a natatorium used during and
after school hours, a home sciences room, a science room, and a fully equipped
commercial kitchen.
Overall the interior of this building is very well maintained, and in above average
5
condition. The exterior is less well maintained, and in average condition.
Energy Consumption and Benchmark Data
This building shares an electric meter and the HVAC system with the utility
building to the east. For the purposes of this audit, their details may be discussed
separately, but they are considered one building.
Benchmark data - annual consumption only – for fuel oil was provided by the
NSBSD. The two annual data points provided, were distributed across 12
months by the auditor, to estimate a seasonal curve and reasonable monthly
usage. Electrical benchmark data was provided by Nortech Engineering, and
contains two years of monthly data points. Summarized values for electrical and
fuel oil consumption are shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1
2009 2010
Consumption Cost Consumption Cost
Electricity ‐ kWh 732,000 $ 252,540 724,800 $ 250,056
Fuel Oil ‐ gallons 67,724 $ 251,256 70,582 $ 261,859
Totals $ 503,796 $ 511,915
A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function buildings in
the area is the Energy Use Index (EUI), which takes the total annual energy used
by the facility divided by the square footage area of the building, for a value
expressed in terms of kBTU/SF. This number can then be compared to other
buildings to see if it is average, higher or lower than similar buildings in the area.
Likewise, the Energy Cost Index (ECI) is the cost of all energy used by the
building expressed in $/SF of building area. The comparative values for the
subject building are shown in Table 2 below. As observed, the EUI is 15% higher
than a very comparable building, the Trapper School in Nuiqsut, and the ECI is
correspondingly high. This is an indicator that there is excessive energy
consumption in the Alak School; this is discussed in detail within this report.
Table 2
Subject
Building
Barrow
Average
Trapper School ‐ Nuiqsut
(before NG, no waste heat)
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐ kBTU/SF 209 211 180
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐ $/SF $9.07 $1.68 $7.86
Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this building
to determine if they would be applicable for energy savings with reasonably good
payback periods. EEMs are recommended for reasons including: 1.) they have
a reasonably good payback period, 2.) for code compliance, 3.) end of life (EOL)
replacement, or 4.) reasons pertaining to operations, maintenance and/or safety.
6
For example, where a lighting upgrade is recommended from T-12 lamps with
magnetic ballasts to T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts, then the entire facility
should be re-lamped and re-ballasted to maintain a standard lighting parts
inventory, regardless of the payback. An individual storage room that is
infrequently used may not show a very good payback for a lighting upgrade, but
consistency and ease of maintenance dictates a total upgrade.
Specific EEMs recommended for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm
Energy Audit Report in Appendix B. Each EEM includes payback times,
estimated installation costs and estimated energy savings. The higher priority
items are summarized below:
Lighting Upgrades: Although most of this building has been
upgraded, there are several areas that have not. The
gymnasium, natatorium and multi-purpose rooms have metal
halide fixtures that should be replaced with high output T5
fixtures on occupancy sensors. There is not a significant
energy savings resulting directly from the fixture change, but
T5 fixtures allow the use of occupancy sensors, which can
result in a 30-60% energy savings. Additionally, at the next
building re-lamp, all the T8-32 watt lamps should be
replaced with T8-28 watt, energy saver lamps which result in
a 4% reduction in light output, but a 12% reduction in energy
consumption.
Lighting Control Upgrades: The metal halide gymnasium
lights and the outside HPS lights on the north and west sides
of the building are on 24/7/365 as a result of a building
controls malfunction. This results in excess of $20,000/year
in unwarranted energy costs, plus additional maintenance
costs. Certain metal halide lamps are not designed to be on
24/7, they will be subject to overheat and could necessitate
fixture as well as bulb replacement. It is recommended to
take the gym and exterior lighting off of the building control
system, perform the lighting upgrades described in this
report (Appendix B) and install occupancy sensors in the
gym and photo-cell sensors for all exterior lights.
Occupant controls sense the presence of occupants, turn the
lights on at a pre-determined level, and then turn the lights
off after a programmed time period of no occupancy. It is
recommended to install motion sensing occupancy sensors
in the existing duplex switch boxes for all offices, corridors
and stairwells, and to install ceiling mounted, dual
technology sensors where obstacles may interfere with line-
of-sight sensors, such as in lavatories, corridors, the
gymnasium, natatorium, and some storage areas. The
second technology in these sensors activates lighting based
7
on sound. It is recommended to install step-dim occupancy
sensors in the classrooms wired with a two-switch system
which allows 1/3, 2/3 or ½ of the lights to be turned on by
one switch. A step-dim occupancy sensor turns on the first
set of lights automatically, and allows the occupant to turn on
the second set manually as desired. Occupancy sensors
can reduce power consumption by 60-90%.
Exterior Lighting Upgrades: The exterior high pressure
sodium lights operate during periods of darkness, which is
about half of the year. It is estimated that the use of LED
exterior lights can reduce the power consumption by 60%-
80% and extend bulb replacement frequency to 5-10 years.
Setback Thermostats in vehicle bays and offices. It is
recommended that lockable setback thermostats be installed
and programmed for occupied temperatures of 72 deg F,
and unoccupied temperatures of 55 deg F. This has an
estimated payback in this building of between 2 months an
1.5 years, depending on the size of the zone.
Plumbing fixtures: It appears that all showers, toilets and
urinals currently installed are post 1992 fixtures (1.6 or 1.4
gallons/flush toilets and 1 gpf urinals). It is recommended to
install touchless controls on all fixtures. Water usage for
toilets and urinals will not be significantly reduced with
touchless controls, but they are more hygienic and reduce
maintenance resulting from abuse of manual fixtures. This
audit does not include water usage and AKWarm does not
allow for the modeling of it, but a typical touchless, low flow
faucet retrofit will result in 30% water savings and will
payback in under 3 years. At the end of life (EOL) of a
urinal, low flow urinals should be installed, which require 1
pint of water per flush. Payback on the incremental cost
difference for this retrofit is less than 1 year. See Appendix
G-1.
Assuming that the water supply line is in a properly insulated
utilidor, the water supply re-circulation pump should either be
turned off with the summer school shutdown, or retrofitted
with a seasonal timer to enable shut down during the
summer months. See Appendix G-3
HVAC: The new plant manager felt that the HVAC system
was not performing properly, and questioned whether it
would perform properly, even after the components
recommended for replacement by Johnson Controls are
installed. This conclusion is supported by this auditor’s
8
difficulty in reconciling a 3100 MMBTU discrepancy between
AKWarm’s predicted fuel oil usage for the building, and the
building’s actual usage. In order to reconcile, and based on
on-site observations, the AKWarm model was modified to
accommodate the introduction of significant amounts of
outside air. The AHU-3 motor controller was found to be on
“hand”, therefore running 24/7/365 and EF-11, located in a
small crawl space off a storage closet, was also on 24/7/365
via a manual switch – see Appendix G-4. Note that the
benchmark utility data used in AKWarm is from 2009 and
2010 and this energy audit was performed in September
2011. The benchmark period was prior to the current plant
manager’s tenure and the HVAC Johnson controls walk
through, but this $82,000/year (3100 MMBTU/140,000
BTU/gallon x $3.71/gal) additional fuel oil cost bears further
investigation. It is recommended that fuel usage be tracked
on a monthly basis and a full HVAC evaluation be performed
after the components indicated by the Johnson Controls
analysis are installed, to assure that the system is
functioning properly. It is also very significant to note that if
3100 MMBTU’s are subtracted from the energy consumption
in Table 2, Alak School’s EUI is reduced to 156 and ECI is
reduced to $7.29 – very much in line with, and slightly better
than the Trapper School indexes.
Some of the hydronic piping is un-insulated, and although it
is in conditioned space, it should be insulated – especially
after set-back thermostats are installed. See Appendix G-2.
Motor Upgrades: It is recommended to upgrade large (3HP
and above) continuously operating, single speed motors to
premium efficiency models at their EOL. This typically
results in a payback of greater than 6 years when the
existing motor is still operating. But replacement at the
motor’s EOL, i.e. at “burnout”, typically has a payback of less
than 2 years. See Appendix G-6 and Table 3 for specific
examples and payback periods.
Building Shell: The overhead (OH) door on the west side of
the school has a very low insulation value (estimated R-2)
and has its windows boarded up, (see Appendix A photos) it
should be replaced with an R-14.5 door. Due to the high
expense of OH door replacement, the payback periods are
very long, in this case annual savings are estimated to be
$350 with a payback of 14 years. See Appendix G-8. There
is a section of siding that should be replaced on the west
side of the school and two holes in the siding on the north
side of the Utility building that should be repaired, and the
building is in need of paint to protect its siding.
9
In addition to EEMs, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) are
recommended since they are policies or procedures that are followed by
management and employees that require no capital outlay. Examples of
recommended ECMs for this facility include:
1. Turning lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled
by an occupancy sensor.
2. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be
properly maintained and adjusted to close and function
properly.
3. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the
office.
The 34 recommendations in this report estimate to save $102,904/year,
with an installed cost of $118,286. The combined payback on this
investment is 1.1 years. This does not include design or construction
management services,
This savings also does not include the estimated $82,000 in annual
energy savings expected to be realized when the HVAC system is working
efficiently.
10
2. Audit and Analysis Background
Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop,
and evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The
scope of this project included evaluating the building shell, lighting, other
electrical systems, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment. Measures were based on their payback period, life cycle
replacement or for reasons pertaining to maintenance, operations and/or
safety.
a. Audit Description and Methodology: Preliminary audit
information was gathered in preparation for the site survey,
including benchmark utility consumption data, floor and lighting
plans, and equipment schedules, where available. A site visit is
then performed to inventory and evaluate the actual building
condition, including:
i. Building envelope (walls, doors, windows, etc)
ii. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
iii. Lighting systems and controls
iv. Building specific equipment
v. Plumbing Systems
b. Benchmark Utility Data Validation: Benchmark utility data
provided through AHFC’s initial phase of their REAL program is
validated, confirming that electrical and gas meter numbers on the
subject building match the meters from which the energy
consumption and cost data were collected. If the data is inaccurate
new benchmark data is obtained. In the event that there are
inconsistencies or gaps in the data, the existing data is evaluated
and missing data points are interpolated.
c. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit
and during the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy
modeling software program developed specifically for Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to identify forecasted energy
consumption which can then be compared to actual energy
consumption. AkWarm-C also has some pre-programmed EEM
retrofit options that can be analyzed with projected energy savings
based on occupancy schedules, utility rates, building construction
type, building function, existing conditions, and climatic data
uploaded to the program based on the zip code of the building.
When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is
calculated based on manufacturer’s cataloged information.
Energy cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy
costs for the building. Installation costs include the labor and
equipment required to implement an EEM retrofit, but design and
construction management costs are excluded. Costs are derived
from one or more of the following: Means Cost Data, industry
11
publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or
equipment suppliers. Haakensen Electric, Proctor Sales, Pioneer
Door, and J.P. Sheldon, all in Anchorage were consulted for some
of the lighting, boiler, overhead door and air handling (respectively)
retrofit costs. Maintenance savings are calculated, where
applicable, and are added to the energy savings for each EEM.
The costs and savings are considered and a simple payback period
and return on investment (ROI) is calculated. The simple payback
period is based on the number of years that it takes for the savings
to pay back the net installation cost (Net Installation costs divided
by Net Savings.) In cases where the EEM recommends
replacement at EOL, the incremental cost difference between the
standard equipment in place, and the higher efficiency equipment
being recommended is used as the cost basis for payback
calculation. The SIR found in the AKWarm report is the Savings to
Investment Ratio, defined as the breakeven cost divided by the
initial installed cost.
A simple life-time calculation is shown for each EEM. The life-time
for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the
equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is
extrapolated throughout the life-time of the EEM. The total energy
savings is calculated as the total life-time multiplied by the yearly
savings.
d. Limitations of the Study: All results are dependent on the quality
of input data provided, and may only act as an approximation. In
some instances, several methods may achieve the identified
savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. A
design professional, licensed to practice in Alaska and in the
appropriate discipline, who is following the recommendations, shall
accept full responsibility and liability for the results. Budgetary
estimates for engineering and design of these projects in not
included in the cost estimate for each EEM recommendation, but
these costs can be approximated at 15% of the cost of the work.
3. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge the help of numerous
individuals who have contributed information that was used to prepare this
report, including:
a. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (Grantor): AHFC provided
the grant funds, contracting agreements, guidelines, and technical
direction for providing the audits. AHFC reviewed and approved
the final short list of buildings to be audited based on the
recommendation of the Technical Service Provider (TSP).
b. The North Slope Borough School District (Owner): The NSBSD
provided building sizing information, two years fuel oil usage data,
building schedules and functions, as well as building age.
12
c. Nortech Engineering (Benchmark TSP): Nortech Engineering
Company compiled the electrical data received from the North
Slope Borough (NSB) and entered that data into the statewide
building database, called the Alaska Retrofit Information System
(ARIS).
d. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC (Audit TSP): This is the TSP
who was awarded the projects in the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation, Bering Straits area, and the Nana area. The firm
gathered all relevant benchmark information provided to them by
Nortech Engineering, cataloged which buildings would have the
greatest potential payback, and with the building owner, prioritized
buildings to be audited based on numerous factors, including the
Energy Use Index (EUI), the Energy Cost Index (ECI), the age of
the building, the size of the building, the location of the building, the
function of the building, and the availability of plans for the building.
They also trained and assigned their selected sub-contractors to
the selected buildings, and performed quality control reviews of the
resulting audits. They prepared a listing of potential EEMs that
each auditor must consider, as well as the potential EEMs that the
individual auditor may notice in the course of his audit. Richard S.
Armstrong, PE, LLC also performed some of the audits to assure
current knowledge of existing conditions.
e. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been
selected to provide audits under this contract. The firm has two
mechanical engineers, certified as energy auditors and/or
professional engineers and has also received additional training
from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC to acquire further specific
information regarding audit requirements and potential EEM
applications.
4. Building Description and Function:
The site visit and survey of subject building occurred on September 10th
and 11th, 2011. This building has 50,310 square feet on its first floor,
consisting of classrooms, offices, a gymnasium, natatorium, corridors and
common spaces. The second floor has 3075 square feet, and consists of
mechanical rooms and storage. The utility building has 2160 square feet.
In total, building has 55,545 square feet.
The school building is constructed on pilings using 21” glue lam beams to
support the floor with 24” of fiberglass batting (R-76), walls are 2x12 stud
construction with fiberglass batting (R-38). The roof is supported with 24”
engineered joists, insulated with fiberglass batting (R-76) in the high
school and 8.5” rigid insulation roof panels in the elementary school. Plans
show the interior walls are finished with gypsum, exterior walls of the high
school are finished with plywood sheathing, a layer of gypsum and cedar.
13
The elementary school interior walls appear to be finished the same as the
high school, exterior walls have plywood sheathing and cedar. The entire
roof is metal. The utility building is also constructed on pilings, but has a
poured concrete floor supported by steel I-beams back-filled with foamed
insulation (R-50), 2x8 walls (R-25) and 24” engineered roof support joists.
Fiberglass batting is used as insulation in the walls and roof.
Building details are as follows:
a. Heating System: Heat is supplied to the school and utility building
by (2) Weil McLain, 1419 MBH boilers and (1) Weil McLain 943
MBH boiler. All are cast iron, sectional boilers, with an 83%
efficiency. The boilers supply heat to rooms through a series of
circulation pumps supplying finned tube baseboard heaters, (10)
unit heaters (UH) in the school and (5) in the utility building. The
UH’s in the utility building are running wild (i.e. glycol flow is
controlled only by the circulation pump at the boiler, with no
secondary control at the UH), fan-controlled by local, low voltage
zone thermostats. The UH’s in the school are fan and fluid valve-
controlled by zone thermostats. The older rooms in the building
have temperature sensors providing signal to the controls system
which controls zone valves; the newer rooms have adjustable, low
voltage thermostats which control local zone valves. All controls
are managed by the Metasys control system.
b. Ventilation: Ventilation, return air and make up air are provided by
a series of air handlers (tagged “ASU’s”) and return air blowers, all
controlled by the Metasys control system. As previously
mentioned, the motor controller for ASU-3 and RA-3 are both in the
“hand” position, forcing 24/7/365 operation.
c. Plumbing Fixtures: The building contains (22) toilets, (5) urinals
and (19) lavatory sinks; (5) of the sinks utilize touchless controls.
All other fixtures are manually operated and appear to be post-
1992, so consume between 1.4 and 1.6 gpf (toilets) and 1 gpf
(urinals). See Appendix G-1 for EEM recommendations.
d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is provided by a 41 gallon Amtrol
and an 80 gallon Amtrol hot water generator. Both are indirect and
supplied with heat from the boilers.
e. Head Bolt Heaters: There is 1 head bolt heater attached to this
building, it is suitable for retrofit. Employee’s generally walk or are
driven to work by the principal.
f. Interior Lighting: This building, almost entirely, has been
upgraded to T8 lamps with electronic ballasts. The noteworthy
exceptions are a few storage rooms which still have T12 lamps and
magnetic ballasts, and the Gymnasium, Natatorium and multi-
purpose rooms – all are using 400 watt metal halide lamps. All exit
signs appear to be LED’s. Completion of a full lighting upgrade
including the gym, natatorium and multi-purpose rooms is
recommended in the AKwarm report in appendix B. The
14
gymnasium lighting controls are malfunctioning, resulting in the MH
lamps being on 24/7/365.
g. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of 50, 70 and 250 watt
High Pressure Sodium (HPS) wall packs and deck lighting. All are
supposed to be controlled by the building’s control system, and
secondarily by photocell sensors. As previously mentioned, it was
reported and observed (see photo in Appendix A) that the lights on
the west and north sides of the building were on 24/7/365 due to a
control system malfunction. The wall pack on the east side of the
utility building needs to be replaced, see Appendix G-5.
h. Building Shell: Other than those identified on page 8, there were
no reported or observed deficiencies in the building shell. See
Appendix G-5.
5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within
the AkWarm-C program. The program analyzes twelve months of data.
Because only two data points (two years) of annual utility benchmark data
was provided, this data was graphed into a reasonable seasonal curves to
create two years of twelve monthly data points, which were then averaged
and input into AKWarm-C.
Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost
Index (ECI) and the Energy Use Index (EUI). The energy cost index takes
the average cost of gas and electrical energy over the surveyed period of
time (typically two years) and averages the cost, divided by the square
footage of the building. The ECI for this building is $9.07/SF, the average
ECI for similar buildings in Barrow is $1.68, and in Nuiqsut, $7.86. All else
being equal, ECI’s in Wainwright will be 6-8 times higher than Barrow due
to the 8.5x higher cost/BTU of fuel oil in Wainwright versus natural gas in
Barrow. The Alak School’s ECI is higher than the Trapper School’s ECI
due to the ventilation reasons discussed earlier in this report.
The energy use index (EUI) is the total average electrical and heating
energy consumption per year expressed in thousands of BTUs/SF. The
average of the 2009 and 2010 EUI for this building is 209 kBTU/SF; the
average EUI for similar buildings in Barrow and Nuiqsut are 211kBTU/SF
and 180 kBTU/SF, respectively.
6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates
savings assuming that all recommended EEM are implemented. If some
EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be
affected, in some cases positively, and in others, negatively. For example,
if the fan motors are not replaced with premium efficiency motors, then the
savings for the project to install variable speed drives (VFDs) on the fans
will be increased.
In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings
associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well.
For example, the night setback EEM was analyzed using the fan and
15
heating load profile that will be achieved after installation of the VFD
project is completed. By modeling the recommended projects
sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive effects between the
EEMs and does not “double count” savings.
Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate
heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these
contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore lighting
efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements on air
conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting efficiency improvements are
anticipated to increase heating requirements slightly. Heating penalties
are included in the lighting project analysis that is performed by AkWarm.
7. Loan Program: 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 of municipal
governments;
c. The University of Alaska;
d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or
e. The State of Alaska
Native corporations, tribal entities, and subsidiaries of the federal
government are not eligible for loans under this program.
16
Appendix A
Photos
Looking from the Northwest, boarded up, wooden overhead door in need of
replacement. Note HPS lighting on during daylight hours.
Metal Halide gym lighting on 24/7
17
1997 addition on north side of high school (again, note the exterior lighting
on during daylight hours)
Looking from the southeast at back of building. Note lack of chain link
preventing access to underside of building.
18
Boiler Room – clean, well maintained
Utility Building – clean, well maintained interior
19
Aerial View of Wainwright and the buildings audited
Utility building
(subject building) Airport
Alak School Fire Station
(subject building)
NORTH
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Wainwright Alak School
Page 1
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 11/3/2011 10:14 PM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION
Building: Wainwright Alak School Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska
Address: 567 Main St Auditor Name: James Fowler
City: Wainwright Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 99522
Client Name: Eric Estes
Client Address: 567 Main St
Wainwright, AK 99762
Auditor Phone: (206) 954‐3614
Auditor FAX: ( ) ‐
Client Phone: (907) 763‐2023 Auditor Comment:
Client FAX:
Design Data
Building Area: 55,545 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 2,615,800
Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 2,906,445 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25%
Safety Margin: 4,430,556 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if
served.
Typical Occupancy: 180 people Design Indoor Temperature: 71.9 deg F (building average)
Actual City: Wainwright Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐41 deg F
Weather/Fuel City: Wainwright Heating Degree Days: 19,824 deg F‐days
Utility Information
Electric Utility: North Slope Borough Utilities ‐
Commercial ‐ Lg
Natural Gas Provider: None
Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.341/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf
Annual Energy Cost Estimate
Description Space
Heating
Space
Cooling
Water
Heating Lighting Other
Electrical Cooking Clothes
Drying
Ventilation
Fans
Service
Fees Total Cost
Existing
Building
$279,523 $0 $8,492 $111,247 $83,424 $0 $0 $17,357 $180 $505,044
With
Proposed
Retrofits
$257,434 $0 $8,490 $44,001 $70,521 $0 $0 $17,048 $180 $402,140
SAVINGS $22,088 $0 $2 $67,246 $12,903 $0 $0 $309 $0 $102,904
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Wainwright Alak School
Page 2
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
Existing Retrofit
Service Fees
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Wainwright Alak School
Page 3
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
1 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐
Gymnasium T8's
Eliminate 12 FLUOR (2) T8 8'
and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control. Cost for
removal and for addition of
occupancy sensor is included
in Item 8 below.
$3,086 Included
in Item 8
2 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ Multi‐
Purpose ‐ T8's
Eliminate 10 FLOR (4) T8 4’
after replacing metal
halide’s with T5‐HO and
adding occupancy sensors;
cost for removal and for
addition of occ sensors is
included in Item 24 below.
$778 Included
in item 24
3 Setback
Thermostat: (30)
Classrooms,
offices, corridors,
common spaces ‐
Perimeter
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for the
(30) Classrooms, offices,
corridors, common spaces ‐
Perimeter space.
$36,832 $6,000 92.13 0.2
4 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ T8‐2 x
36"; add dual tech
occ sensor
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$463 $250 11.40 0.5
5 Setback
Thermostat: (15)
Classrooms,
offices, corridors,
common spaces ‐
not perimeter
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for the
(15) Classrooms, offices,
corridors, common spaces ‐
not perimeter space.
$2,267 $3,000 11.34 1.3
6 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐
Incandescent
Replace with 8 FLUOR CFL, A
Lamp 15W
$216 $120 11.07 0.6
7 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ freezer
incandescent
Replace with 2 LED 10W
Module StdElectronic
$66 $50 8.06 0.8
8 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ (24)
Gymnasium metal
halide
Replace with 25 FLUOR (4)
T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO
Standard HighLight
HighEfficElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$21,775 $21,400 6.31 1
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Wainwright Alak School
Page 4
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
9 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ T8‐4; add
occ sensors, dual
tech and step dim ‐
43 rooms
Replace with 454 FLUOR (4)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐
Saver Instant StdElectronic
and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$10,405 $13,548 4.70 1.3
10 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ T8‐3 ‐ 2
rooms add occ
sensor
Replace with 28 FLUOR (3)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐
Saver Instant StdElectronic
and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$892 $1,252 4.37 1.4
11 Other Electrical: 73
Personal
Computers
At EOL, replace with 73
Laptops, incremental cost
difference is $200 ea
$8,896 $14,600 3.72 1.6
12 Lighting: Exterior
Lighting ‐ utility
building
Replace with 3 LED 72W
Module StdElectronic
$948 $1,800 3.36 1.9
13 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ misc T8 x
24"
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$79 $150 3.23 1.9
14 Other Electrical:
Head Bolt Heater ‐
duplex receptacle
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Other Controls
$108 $200 3.22 1.9
15 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ T8‐2, add
40 occ sens + 16
dual tech occ
sensors
Replace with 394 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐
Saver Instant StdElectronic
and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$5,979 $12,364 2.97 2.1
16 Lighting: Utility
Building ‐ Interior
Lighting ‐ T12's
Replace with 25 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐
Saver Program StdElectronic
and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$1,211 $2,650 2.81 2.2
17 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ (12) Pool
metal hailide
Replace with 11 FLUOR (4)
T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO
Standard HighEfficElectronic
and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$2,802 $7,600 2.27 2.7
18 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ T12's
Replace with 2 FLUOR T8 4'
F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Program StdElectronic
$32 $100 1.94 3.2
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Wainwright Alak School
Page 5
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
19 Lighting: Exterior ‐
School ‐ non‐entry
Replace with 14 LED 25W
Module StdElectronic
$2,149 $7,000 1.90 3.3
20 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ T12‐2
Replace with 48 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐
Saver Program StdElectronic
and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$1,907 $6,850 1.70 3.6
21 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ T8's with
Magnetic ballasts
Replace with 12 FLUOR (2)
T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐
Saver Program
HighEfficElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$431 $1,950 1.36 4.5
22 Lighting: Utility
Building ‐ Interior
Lighting ‐ T8's
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver
Instant StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$72 $450 0.98 6.3
23 Lighting: Exterior ‐
School ‐ Entry
Replace with 8 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic
$472 $4,000 0.70 8.5
24 Lighting: Interior
Lighting ‐ Multi‐
Purpose Room ‐
Metal hallide
Replace with 12 FLUOR (4)
T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO
Standard HighLight
HighEfficElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$456 $10,200 0.28 22.4
25 Setback
Thermostat:
Gymnasium and
common access
areas
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for
the Gymnasium and
common access areas
space.
Included in
items 3 & 4
above
$400 0.00
26 Setback
Thermostat:
Utility Building
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Utility Building space.
Included in
items 3 & 4
above
$200 0.00
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Wainwright Alak School
Page 6
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
Appen
dix G‐
1
Plumbing
Fixtures
Replace 5 urinal flush
valves with touchless
controls; replace 22 toilet
flush valves with touchless
controls; replace 14
lavatory faucets with
touchless controls
Appen
dix G‐2
Heating pipe
insulation
Insulate all heating piping
Appen
dix G‐3
Water supply re‐
circulation pump
Implement procedure to
shut down pump during
summer months, or add
seasonal shut down timer
$179 $500 2.8
Appen
dix G‐4
HVAC Controls After installation of the
components recommended
by Jonson Controls audit in
summer 2011, monitor fuel
oil consumption and
perform thorough HVAC
evaluation to assure system
is working as designed
Estimated
savings $82,000
(not included in
total below or in
summary above)
unknown unknown
Appen
dix G‐5
Building Shell
Maintenance
Repair indicated areas Maintenance
item
Appen
dix G‐6
and
Table 3
Motors At EOL of ASU/AHU, RA and
RF, and PMP‐6, replace with
premium efficiency motors
(Pool filter pump is already
premium efficiency)
Varies by pump
size, load and
usage
See Table
3
Appen
dix G‐7
Refrigerators At EOL, replace 2 residential‐
type refrigerators with
energy star models,
incremental cost difference
is $75 ea
$144 $150
1.1
Appen
dix G‐8
Overhead door ‐
School
Replace existing OH door
with R‐14.5 version.
Incremental cost over
straight across replacement
is $1500
$350
102,231
$1500
116,136
1.1
TOTAL $102,904 $118,286 8.4 1.1
26
Appendix C – Mechanical Equipment Schedules
SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM PLANS AND ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE
OBSERVATION ‐ WHERE ACCESSIBLE
AIR HANDLER SCHEDULE
SYMB
OL MFGR/MODEL
FAN
CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
ASU‐
1 PACE A27 15400 8.41/480/3
218 fan room; nameplate data
from 1988 plans
ASU‐
2 PACE A22 9950 4.35/480/3
218 fan room; nameplate data
from 1988 plans
ASU‐
3 PACE A16 5700 2.4/480/3
218 fan room; nameplate data
from 1988 plans
AHU‐
5 unknown 10000 5/208/3
103 fan room; nameplate data
from motor, CFM estimated
AHU‐
7
Gaylord/Logicaire
MCF‐135‐OA 1550 1.5/208/3
103 fan room; nameplate data
from unit & 1997 plans
AHU‐
8
Gaylord/Logicaire
MCF‐135‐OA 1550 1/208/3
216 freezer room; nameplate data
from unit & 1997 plans
EXHAUST FAN SCHEDULE
SYMB
OL
MOTOR
MFGR/MODEL CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
EF‐1 Loren Cook 5000 2/208/3
Weld shop exhaust hood; CFM
estimated, no tag
EF‐3 unknown 1200 .25/208/3
169 pool mechanical room; CFM
estimated
ALA
#7
Greenheck SQD‐13G‐
B‐OD 450 .1/115/1
106 mech room; toilet room
exhaust; CFM estimated
EF‐8
unknown, assume
Nutone V‐260 210 240w/115/1
unknown toilet room; data from
1988 plans
EF‐9
unknown, assume
Nutone V‐260 210 240w/115/1
unknown toilet room; data from
1988 plans
EF‐10
unknown, assume
Nutone V‐260 210 240w/115/1
unknown toilet room; data from
1988 plans
EF‐11
unknown, assume
Nutone V‐260 210 240w/115/1
unknown toilet room; data from
1988 plans
EF‐12 unknown 800 .5/208/3
178 mechanical room; assume
exhausts lockers; CFM estimated
EF‐15 Penn ZJ‐1 157 105w/115/1 172 room, data from 1988 plans
EF‐23 Penn ZT 85 48w/115/1
assume located in school store,
data from 1997 plans
EF‐24 Greenheck SFB‐9 800 .5/120/1
dishwasher hood, not confirmed,
no nameplate, data from 1997
27
plans
EF‐25 Greenheck SFB‐12 1700 .75/120/1
oven hood, not confirmed, no
nameplate, data from 1997 plans
EF‐26 Penn Z8H 341 130w/120/1
computer rack, not confirmed, no
nameplate, data from 1997 plans
EF‐27 Penn Z8S 165 75w/120/1
kitchen toilet, not confirmed, no
nameplate, data from 1997 plans
PUMP SCHEDULE
SYMB
OL MFGR/MODEL GPM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
CP‐3 Grundfos UPS 80‐160 150 2400w/208/3
103 fan room, data from
nameplate, GPM estimated
CP‐3A Grundfos UPC 80‐160 130 2/208/3
Boiler room, data from nameplate
and 1997 plans
CP‐3B Grundfos UPC 80‐160 130 2/208/3
Boiler room, data from nameplate
and 1997 plans
CP‐5 Grundfos UMC 50‐80 45 520w/115/1
103 fan room, data from
nameplate, GPM estimated; HW
circ
CP‐6 Grundfos UMC 50‐80 45 520w/115/1
103 fan room, data from
nameplate, GPM estimated; HW
circ
PMP‐
5 Grundfos UP 24‐64 5 .083/115/1
Boiler room, data from nameplate
and 1988 plans
PMP‐
6 Baldor 120 7.5/480/3
Boiler room, data from nameplate
and 1988 plans ‐ water supply
pump
PMP‐
7 Dayton LR22132 65 2/208/3
138 sump room, sewage lift station
pump, data from nameplate, GPM
estimated
PMP‐
8 Grundfos UP 24‐64 5 .083/115/1
169 pool room, no nameplate, data
assumed from 1988 plans
CP‐7 Grundfos UPSC 80‐160 45 495w/208/3
103 fan room, data from
nameplate, GPM estimated
CP‐8 Grundfos UPSC 80‐160 150 2400w/208/3
103 fan room, data from
nameplate, gPM estimated
CP‐12 Grundfos UPA 80‐160 100 2.65A/460/3
Boiler room, data from nameplate,
GPM estimated
CP‐13 Grundfos UPA 80‐160 100 2.65A/460/3
Boiler room, data from nameplate,
GPM estimated
CP‐14 Grundfos UPA 80‐160 100 2.65A/460/3
Boiler room, data from nameplate,
GPM estimated
CP‐15 Grundfos UPA 80‐160 100 2.65A/460/3
Boiler room, data from nameplate,
GPM estimated
CP‐22
AO Smith
K48N2PA102A2 130 2/230/1
169 pool room, data from
nameplate and 1988 plans, GPM
28
estimated; pool filter circulation
CP‐XX Grundfos UP 15‐42 5 85w/115/1
169 pool room, no tag, data from
nameplate, GPM estimated; water
supply re‐circ
BOILER SCHEDULE
SYMB
OL MFGR/MODEL
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
B‐1 Weil McLain BL‐788W 1/115/1
1,419.1 MBH net IBR output, 1,632
MBH Gross IBR output, 14.2 GPH,
83% efficient
B‐2 Weil McLain BL‐788W 1/115/1
1,419.1 MBH net IBR output, 1,632
MBH Gross IBR output, 14.2 GPH,
83% efficient
B‐3 Weil McLain 588 .5/120/1
943 MBH net IBR output, 1,084
MBH Gross IBR output, 9.4 GPH,
83% efficient
UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE
SYMB
OL MFGR/MODEL CFM
MOTOR DATA
HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS
UH‐1 Sterling H54212B 700 .033/115/1 103 fan room, data from 1988 plans
UH‐2 Sterling H34108B 520 9w/115/1
assumed in utility building, data
from 1988 plans
UH‐
1A Modine 813 .14/115/1 218 storage, data estimated
UH‐6 Modine 813 .14/115/1
169 pool mechanical room, data
estimated ‐ not in use
UH‐9 Modine 813 .14/115/1 218 storage, data estimated
UH‐
11 Modine 813 .14/115/1 217 kitchen storage, data estimated
UH‐
12 Modine 813 .14/115/1 boiler room, data estimated
UH‐
13 Modine 813 .14/115/1 boiler room, data estimated
UH‐
14 Modine 813 .14/115/1 boiler room, data estimated
UH‐
15 Modine 813 .14/115/1 boiler room, data estimated
UH‐
16
Ted Reed/Modine
60VC14 1200 .25/115/1
Utility building, no tag, nameplate
not readable, CFM and motor data
estimated
29
UN‐
17
Ted Reed/Modine
60VC14 1200 .25/115/1
Utility building, no tag, nameplate
not readable, CFM and motor data
estimated
UH‐
17
Ted Reed/Modine
60VC14 1200 .25/115/1
Utility building, no tag, nameplate
not readable, CFM and motor data
estimated
UH‐
18
Ted Reed/Modine
60VC14 1200 .25/115/1
Utility building, no tag, nameplate
not readable, CFM and motor data
estimated
UH‐
19
Ted Reed/Modine
60VC14 1200 .25/115/1
Utility building, no tag, nameplate
not readable, CFM and motor data
estimated
HOT WATER GENERATOR SCHEDULE
SYMB
OL MFGR/MODEL GALLONS
NUMBER
OF
ELEMENTS ELEMENT SIZE
HWG‐
1 Amtrol WH‐10C‐DW 80 n/a
Indirect water generator; data from
nameplate and 1997 plans
HWG‐
2 Amtrol WH‐7C‐DW 41 n/a
Indirect water generator; data from
nameplate and 1997 plans
PLUMBING FIXTURES
SYMB
OL FIXTURE GPF REMARKS
W.C. 1.5 22 manually operated
Urinal 1 5 manually operated
Lavatory ‐ 14 manually operated
Lavatory ‐ 5 touch‐less
Showers ‐ 10 low flow, assumed 1 gpm
Clothes Washer 2 residential type, top loading
30
Appendix C – 1988 Lighting Schedule - A
31
Appendix C – 1988 Lighting Schedule - B
32
Appendix C – 1997 Lighting Schedule
33 Appendix C – Kitchen Equipment Schedule Boxed items not found on site
34 Appendix C – Items Missing from Kitchen Equipment Schedule above KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ‐ MISSING FROM ABOVE ITEM MFGR/MODEL USAGE (% ON DURING KITCHEN OPERATION) POWER REMARKS 1 Hussman SM0511A refrigeration 3.3A/115 small chest freezer 2 Lang Pizza Oven (2) 10% 10KW/208/3 assumed power use, nameplate not accessible 3 Vulcan VPX3 10% 9KW/208/3 steamer
35 Appendix D Building Floor Plan
36 Appendix D 1997 Lighting Plan – east section of Elementary School
37 Appendix D 1997 Lighting Plan – west section of Elementary School
38 Appendix D 1997 Lighting Plan – north quarter of High School
39 Appendix D 1988 Lighting Plan – north half of building
40 Appendix D 1988 Lighting Plan – south half of building
41 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematic
42 Appendix F – 1997 Heating Plan – east section of Elementary School
43 Appendix F – 1997 Heating Plan – west section of Elementary School
44
Appendix G
Additional, Building-Specific EEM details
G-1: Plumbing fixtures: All toilets, urinals and faucets should be retrofitted or be
replaced with energy efficient models. Faucet fixtures should have proximity sensing
on/off controls. This audit does not include water usage and AKWarm does not allow
for the modeling of it, but a typical faucet retrofit will result in 30% water savings and
will payback in under 3 years. Low flow urinals can save up to 66% of water used, and
typically pay back within 3 years. These payback periods are reduced by 66% or more
if the fixture is replaced at its EOL rather than while it’s still functioning. Then the cost
used is the incremental difference in cost between an ultra-low-flow fixture and a
straight across replacement with the same fixture.
G-2: Install pipe insulation: Even in conditioned spaces, heat delivery pipes should
be insulated. This becomes more important after set-back thermostats are installed, as
reduction in room temperatures create additional load on the boiler when piping is un-
insulated.
Utility building generator room
Wood shop
45
G-3: Water supply re-circulation seasonal shut down: Most water supply re-
circulation pumps run 24/7/365. Assuming the water supply lines are in an adequately
insulated utilidor, shutting the pump down during the summer months will save 20%
energy, or approximately $179/year. It may also be retrofitted with a 365 day timer
such as the one shown below, to turn the pump off during the summer months,
resulting in a 3 year payback.
46
G-4: HVAC controls: ASU-3 and RA-3 motor controllers both set on “hand”, forcing
24/7/365 operation, and introducing an estimated 5700 CFM of outside air.
Additionally, EF-7 appears to be on a manual switch, also “on” 24/7, requiring an
estimated 800 CFM of continuous make up air. The AKWarm model calculated a 3100
MMBTU heating load to accommodate these two issues. With a fuel oil cost of
$3.71/gallon (average 2009/2010), and 140,000 BTU/gallon energy content, this results
in an $82,000/year cost. It is not feasible, without more research, to estimate the cost
to bring the HVAC system back into an efficiently functioning state. The Johnson
Controls audit identified several malfunctioning components, which may rectify these
problems. Therefore the recommendation is to install the components, then perform a
thorough system-wide evaluation, including piping, filters, controls, etc. This may
require an engineer to confirm design intent, as well as a technician to confirm
functionality.
ASU-3 controls on “hand”
47
EF-7 – Exhaust fan appears to be manually switched on
48
G-5: Building Shell maintenance:
West side of school
HPS wall pack on east side
of utility building
North side of utility building, 2 holes in siding
above waste pipe exit; electric meter is for heat
trace. Note peeling paint.
49
G-6:Motor replacements: Generally, the payback on replacing an operating motor
with a premium efficiency motor of the same size is longer than 6 years. But the
payback on replacing a burnt-out motor with a premium efficiency motor is generally
less than 2 years. It is recommended to replace all AHU/ASU, RA and RF fan motors
with premium efficiency motors as they reach their EOL (burnout). Table 3 below
shows specific examples of selected motors in this building, their existing efficiencies
and paybacks for replacement with the same model or a premium efficiency version.
Table 3
Motor use HP/Volts/Ph
Existing
Efficiency
Premium
Efficiency
Burn‐out
payback
(yrs)
Replacement
payback
(yrs)
Controls Compressor 1
motor 3/208/3 82.50% 87.50% 1.3 6.4
Controls Compressor 2
motor 3/208/3 86.50% 87.50% 6.7 33.4
ASU‐1 10/460/3 87.50% 90.20% 1.2 5.8
AHU‐3 3/208/3 85.50% 87.50% 3.3 16.5
AHU‐5 5/200/3 85.50% 88.50% 1.7 6.7
PMP‐6, Domestic water
pressure 7.5/230/3 85.50% 88.50% 0.9 5.3
Assumed 4380 operating hours per year, 66% load
G-7: Refrigerator replacement: Replace (2) full size residential type refrigerators at
EOL, with Energy Star versions. Incremental cost difference is $75 or less, average
energy savings is $72/year, payback is less than 1.5 years.
G-8: Overhead door replacement: The single overhead door on the school appears
to be original and the R-value is estimated to be R-2 at best. The current R value for a
new, well insulated overhead door is R14.5. This results in a $350/yr energy savings.
The total cost to replace the door is estimated to be $5000, so the payback is 14 years.
Since the door needs replacement anyway (boarded up windows, etc.) the payback in
the AKWarm report in Appendix B is calculated on the incremental difference in cost
between a standard R-6 door and an R-14.5 door, which is $1500. The payback on
this is 1.1 years.