HomeMy WebLinkAboutASRC-BRW-RSA SD Bus Barn 2012-EE1
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
Mechanical/Electrical Engineer
Comprehensive Energy Audit
of
Barrow School District Bus Barn
Project # ASRC-BRW-RSA-04A
Prepared for:
The North Slope Borough
School District
August 2, 2011
Prepared by:
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6
Anchorage, Ak 99501
and
Jeff Fondy, CEA # 1625
Energy Audits of Alaska
P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 98522
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signature Page 3
1. Executive Summary 5
2. Audit and Analysis Background 8
3. Acknowledgements 9
4. Building Description & Function 10
5. Historic Energy Consumption 11
6. Interactive Effects of Projects 12
7. Loan Program 12
Appendix A: Photos 13
Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 15
Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 23
Appendix D: Building Plan 25
Appendix E: Lighting Plan 27
Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 29
Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 31
3
SIGNATURE PAGE
Drafted by: __________________________ __________
Jeff Fondy, CEA #1625 Date
Reviewed by: __________________________ __________
Richard Armstrong, PE, CEM Date
4
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.
5
1. Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Energy Audit is performed in connection with AHFC’s Retrofit
Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) program.
Subject Building:
Barrow School District Bus Barn and Shops
1683 Okpik
Barrow, AK 99723
Building Owner:
North Slope Borough School District (NSBSD)
Building contact:
Linda Janousek, Transportation manager
The site visit to subject building occurred on July 19th and July 20th.
The subject building is estimated to have been originally constructed in 1976, but it
underwent a significant reconstruction and upgrade in 1987 after a fire destroyed
much of the building. Additionally, a ventilation upgrade was performed in 1996.
The facility contains vehicle storage partitioned into two large bays, as well as
offices, storage room and break room. Considering its age, the building is in
average to below average condition. The 2009 and 2010 annual utility energy
consumption reported by BUECI and collected as benchmark data by Nortec
Engineering is displayed in Table 1 below:
Table 1
2009 2010
Consumption Cost Consumption Cost
Electricity – kWh 89,120 $ 10,398 96,720 $ 11,364
Natural Gas ‐ CCF 16,058 $ 5,098 13,175 $ 4,060
Totals $ 15,496 $ 15,424
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 listed in Table 2 below:
6
Table 2
Subject
Building
Barrow
Average
Barrow Fire
Station #2
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐ kBTU/SF 251 211 175
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐ $/SF $2.15 $1.68 $1.51
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
payback period of less than 8 years, 2.) for code compliance, 3.) life cycle
replacement or 4.) reasons pertaining to operations and maintenance. 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. Each EEM includes payback times, estimated installation
costs and estimated energy savings.
The following list summarizes the cost and savings of the higher priority EEM’s
included in this audit:
Lighting Upgrades: In general, this facility has already been upgraded
to T8 lamps with electronic ballasts. The lamps are 5 years old, so
light output has degraded by approximately 20%, replacing the lamps
with high efficiency T8 bulbs saves 10% in power consumption and
brings lighting levels back to original levels.
Lighting Control Upgrades: Many lights were found to be left on with
nobody in the space. Occupant controls can sense the presence of
workers, and turn the lights on. The controller can then turn the lights
off after a programmed time period of no occupancy. These controls
can reduce total kWh consumption for the lighting in the order of 30-
90%, depending on the amount of time the lights are manually left on.
Exterior Lighting Upgrades: The exterior high pressure sodium lights
operate during periods of darkness, which is about half of a year. It is
estimated that the use of LED exterior lights can reduce the power
consumption by 60%.
Furnace and Unit Heaters: It is recommended that the (1) office
furnace and (2) vehicle bay unit heaters be replaced at their end of
life (EOL). AKWarm models the incremental difference in cost
between (3) equivalent units and high efficiency units ($10,000). The
7
total cost to replace the (3) units is estimated at $20,000. The
payback on the incremental difference in cost is 10 years.
Setback Thermostats in Office and Vehicle storage bays. The
thermostats were found to be set to 78 degrees F, 24/7. 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 of less
than 6 months.
Headbolt Heater Controls: There are retrofit headbolt heater, duplex
receptacles that have microprocessors to cycle the power on and off
in response to the outside air temperature. This is estimated to have
a payback of less than 1 year. Hard-wired headbolt heater cables
cannot currently be retrofitted.
Air Tightening: The last major upgrade to the building was in 1987,
24 years ago. It is recommended that all of the doors be tightened
with new weather stripping to reduce infiltration and the office
windows be replaced as they leak both air and water and have
damaged assets and impacted employee work output. The window
replacement EEM has a high cost to implement, and does not have a
significant financial payback resulting from energy savings, but will
improve worker moral and eliminate damage to work and assets.
Additionally, the overhead doors are in poor condition, are in need of
replacement and are also a large source of air leakage. If the doors
were in good condition, the energy savings payback would not justify
the high cost of replacement (estimated at $4900/door). The doors
should be replaced with today’s standard R-14.6 overhead door.
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. Keeping roll-up doors closed as much as possible. 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 22 recommendations in the detailed report are estimated to save $5,435/year,
with an installed, replacement cost of $95,422; this is a payback of 17.35 years. It
is important to note that this replacement cost includes $57,204 to replace
overhead doors and office windows, which should be replaced for maintenance
8
reasons. If these required maintenance costs are subtracted from the total above,
the payback on recommendations for energy savings is 7 years.
These figures do not include design or CA services, but overall they indicate a cost
effective energy savings program.
2. Audit and Analysis Background
a. 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.
b. 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
c. 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. In
the event that the data is inaccurate, new benchmark utility data is obtained.
d. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit and at
the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy modeling software
program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
specifically to identify forecasted energy consumption which can 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 publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors
and equipment suppliers. Haakensen Electric, in Anchorage was consulted
9
for some of the lighting 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.)
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.
e. 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. North Slope Borough (Owner): The NSB provided building sizing
information, two years energy billing data, building schedules and functions,
as well as building age.
c. 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. In
the event that the data is inaccurate, new benchmark utility data is obtained.
d. Nortech Engineering (Benchmark TSP): Nortech Engineering compiled
the data received from the NSB and entered that data into the statewide
building database, called the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS).
e. 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
10
information provided to them by Nortech, cataloged which buildings would
have the greatest potential payback, and 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 their selected sub-contracted
auditors, assigned auditors 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.
f. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been selected to
provide audits under this contract in addition to RSA Engineering. The firm
has two mechanical engineers, certified as energy auditors 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 July 19th and July 20th.
The building is one story, and consists of 7193 square feet of space, 5243 of which
is vehicle bay/shop, the remaining 1950 square feet are office space. The building
is used by the Barrow School District for bus maintenance and repair, as well as
administration of bus transportation.
An inspection of the exterior and interior of the building revealed that the overall
condition of the building is in average to below average considering its age.
Original building plans were not available. It appears that the original building was
constructed in 1976 on pilings, using 2x6 construction with T-111 plywood exterior
siding. A major re-construction was performed to repair severe fire damage to the
northwest quadrant of the building in 1987. Drawings were available for this re-
construction. Portions of the offices were re-built, the mechanical systems and
power and lighting were upgraded and the entire roof was replaced during this
1987 re-construction. Another mechanical system upgrade was performed in
1996, including the addition of shop exhaust fan, vehicle exhaust fans,
replacement of domestic hot water heater and modifications to office forced air
heating system.
Benchmark utility data provided by AHFC was found to be inaccurate, as building
square footage and meter numbers did not correspond to the actual electric and
gas meters on subject building. Accurate data for the years 2009 and 2010,
corresponding to subject building meter numbers, was obtained from the Barrow
Utilities & Electric Co-op, Inc (BUECI) subsequent to the site visit. Building
dimensions in this report are accurate per drawings obtained from the Barrow
11
School District archives, and confirmed by a sampling of exterior building
measurements made on site.
Building details are as follows:
a. Heating System - offices: The office heating system consists of a York
forced air furnace, rated at 190 MBtu/hr input, with 50-80 Deg F rise This
furnace supplies heat to some of the offices and to the lunch room – all of
which have been re-configured since the 1987 build out. The parts storage
room is heated by a ceiling mounted electric unit heater with integral
thermostat, 208V, .5Amp, 315 CFM. In addition to the furnace for office
heat, there are (3) 60” and (1) 40” baseboard electric heaters in the entry
office, each with an integral thermostat.
b. Heating System – shops: The heating system for the shop consists of (1)
Dayton and (1) Trane Unit Heaters, 400MBH input, 308 MBH output, each
rated at 4800 CFM. These are controlled by a standard 24 V thermostat.
c. Ventilation System: The shop is ventilated with Reznor, NG, 600 MBH,
4000 CFM, make-up air unit and a Titus 4000 CFM make-up air unit.
Vehicle exhaust is removed by a CAR-MON centrifugal 2500 CFM blower.
Additionally there is a high side wall, Penn Domax centrifugal, 4300 CFM
exhauster on the west wall. Each toilet room has an 85 CFM exhaust fan.
d. Plumbing Fixtures: There are two lavatories, both with a toilet and sink,
the Mens lav includes a urinal.
e. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is generated using a 20 gallon, State,
electric hot water heater, located in the Men’s lav.
f. Appliances: A stackable washer and clothes dryer are located in the Men’s
lav. The set appears to be 10-15 years old, and is used once or twice daily
to wash employee coveralls. A refrigerator is located in the lunch room, as
is a microwave. A second microwave is located in the entry office. There
are 6 personal computers in use.
g. Head Bolt Heaters: There are (8) head bolt heaters (“bull rail”) along the
east and west sides of the building. There does not appear to be a separate
electric meter in evidence for these outlets, although BUECI personnel have
one listed as “bull rail”, which is drawing power in the winter months.
h. Interior Lighting: All fluorescent fixtures in this building have standard
electronic ballasts. Shop lighting consists of (28) 8’, 3-lamp fixtures with T8
bulbs and (3) 8’, 2-lamp fixtures with T8 bulbs. Office lighting consists of (4)
4’, 4-lamp surface or recessed fixtures with T8 bulbs and (4) 8’, 2-lamp
surface mount fixtures with T8 bulbs.
i. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of (10) 250 W High Pressure
Sodium (HPS) wall-pack lights.
5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the
AkWarm-C program. The program only analyzes 12 months of data, so where 24
months of data are available, the data is averaged to provide more accuracy. The
energy consumption data is presented and graphed in the attached AkWarm-C
program results.
Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost Index (ECI)
12
and the Energy Use Index (ECU). The energy cost index takes the average cost of
gas and electrical energy over the surveyed period of time (typically 2 years) and
averages the cost, divided by the square footage of the building. The ECI for this
building is $2.15/square foot, the average ECI for all of the benchmarked buildings
in Barrow is $1.68/square foot.
The energy use index (EUI) is the total average electrical and heating energy
consumption per year expressed in thousands of BTUs/SF. The EUI for this
building is 211 and 251 kBTU/SF for 2009 and 2010 respectively; the average EUI
for all of the benchmarked buildings in Barrow is 207 kBTU/SF.
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 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-C.
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.
13
Appendix A
Photos
View from street
View from West, arctic entry to offices is seen behind vehicle
14
View from street showing connector building (right) on East side of subject
building; municipal Bus Barn is on far left.
Overhead doors are closed, demonstrating need for replacement
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
NSB Bus Storage Facility
Page 1
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 9/4/2011 3:58 PM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION
Building: NSB Bus Storage Facility Auditor Company:
Address: 1683 Okpik Auditor Name: Jim Fowler, Dick Armstrong, Jeff Fondy
City: Barrow Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 99522 Client Name: Mark McCumber and Linda Janousek
Client Address: 1683 Okpik
Barrow, AK 99723
Auditor Phone: (907) 223‐0717
Auditor FAX:
Client Phone: (907) 852‐5211 Auditor Comment:
Client FAX:
Design Data
Building Area: 7,193 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 180,839 Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 226,049 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25%
Safety Margin: 344,587 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if
served.
Typical Occupancy: 16 people Design Indoor Temperature: 78 deg F (building average)
Actual City: Barrow Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐41 deg F
Weather/Fuel City: Barrow Heating Degree Days: 20,370 deg F‐days
Utility Information
Electric Utility: Barrow Utilities & Electric‐elec ‐
Commercial ‐ Lg
Natural Gas Provider: Barrow Utilities & Electric‐gas ‐
Commercial ‐ Lg
Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.121/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.308/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
$4,172 $0 $84 $2,471 $5,312 $0 $84 $0 $1,222 $13,457
With
Proposed
Retrofits
$2,226 $0 $0 $1,494 $3,316 $0 $84 $0 $1,222 $8,423
SAVINGS $1,946 $0 $84 $976 $1,995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,034
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
NSB Bus Storage Facility
Page 2
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Existing Retrofit
Service Fees
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Clothes Drying
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
NSB Bus Storage Facility
Page 3
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
1 Air Tightening: (by
replacing 9
overhead doors)
Perform air sealing to
reduce air leakage by 2000
cfm at 50 Pascals.
$616 $1
(Cost of
replace‐
ment is
included
in #19
below)
5545.67 0
2 Setback Thermostat:
Vehicle Bays
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Vehicle Bay space.
$711 $200 45.23 0.3
3 Lighting: Bathroom
Lighting
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL,
A Lamp 15W
$69 $25 17.57 0.4
4 Setback Thermostat:
Office
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Office space.
$206 $200 13.09 1
5 Other Electrical:
Head Bolt Heaters
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Other
Controls
$1,885 $2,000 6.02 1.1
6 Lighting: room 104 Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$21 $100 1.34 4.8
7 Lighting: Room 105 Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$21 $100 1.34 4.8
8 Lighting: Room 103 Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$16 $100 0.99 6.4
9 Lighting: Vehicle Bay
‐ Typical
Replace with 28 FLUOR (3)
T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy‐
Saver StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$140 $1,300 0.86 9.3
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
NSB Bus Storage Facility
Page 4
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
10 HVAC And DHW Replace existing
thermostats now with set‐
back thermostats. At end
of life (EOL) replace forced
air NG furnace in office
with smaller, more
efficient unit; at EOL
replace (2) NG unit heaters
in vehicle bays with newer,
more efficient, condensing
gas units. Incremental
cost to replace furnace
with high efficiency
version is $1000;
incremental cost to
replace (2) unit heaters
with high efficiency
versions is $2000 each;
double equipment cost to
include remote site and
installation; Total
incremental cost $10,000.
$528 $10,000 0.85 19
11 Lighting: Room 103 Replace with 3 FLUOR (2)
T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy‐
Saver StdElectronic
$4 $50 0.50 12.6
12 Other Electrical: Hot
Water Heater
Replace with Tankless,
electric water heater and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Other
Controls
$69 $1,200 0.37 17.3
13 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 12 LED 100W
Module StdElectronic
$653 $16,167 0.35 24.7
14 Other Electrical:
Clothes Washing
Machine
Replace with Energy Star
clothes washer
$27 $500 0.35 18.2
15 Refrigeration:
Refrigerator
Replace with Energy Star
refrigerator
$28 $750 0.32 27
16 Lighting: Bathroom
Lighting
Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$3 $150 0.12 52.1
17 Window/Skylight:
West Walls
Replace existing window
with triple pane, 2 low‐E,
argon window.
$7 $9,372 0.01 1407.1
18 Window/Skylight:
South Facing wall
Replace existing window
with triple pane, 2 low‐E,
argon window.
$2 $3,124 0.01 1577.3
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
NSB Bus Storage Facility
Page 5
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
19 Overhead doors Replace existing garage
door with R‐14.6, 2"
polyurethane core
replacement door.
$29 $44,708 0.00 1555609
Appe
ndix
G‐1
Arctic Entry Door Replace door to eliminate
air leakage (air leakage
improvements are
considered in EEM 1)
$600
Appe
ndix
G‐2
Arctic Entry
detachment from
building
Repair entry structure to
eliminate air leakage
(leakage improvements
are considered in EEM 1)
$2,000
Appe
ndix
G ‐3
De‐stratification fans Add (4) de‐stratification
fans in vehicle bay; energy
savings typically greater
than 10%
$400 $2,800 7
TOTAL $5435 $95,422 17.5
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Building Envelope
Insulation
Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-
Value
Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
Exterior Doors – Replacement
Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
19 Overhead doors Door Type: 2" metal clad‐
polystyrene core
Insulating Blanket: None
Modeled R‐Value: 6.3
Replace existing garage
door with R‐14.6, 2"
polyurethane core
replacement door.
$44,708 $29
Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement
Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
NSB Bus Storage Facility
Page 6
17 Window/Skylight:
West Walls
Glass: Double, glass
Frame: Wood\Vinyl
Spacing Between Layers:
Quarter Inch
Gas Fill Type: Air
Modeled U‐Value: 0.56
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient:
0.46
Replace existing window
with triple pane, 2 low‐E,
argon window.
$9,372 $7
18 Window/Skylight:
South Facing wall
Glass: Double, glass
Frame: Wood\Vinyl
Spacing Between Layers:
Quarter Inch
Gas Fill Type: Air
Modeled U‐Value: 0.56
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient:
0.46
Replace existing window
with triple pane, 2 low‐E,
argon window.
$3,124 $2
Air Leakage
Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage
Target
Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
1 Cost of
replacement of (9)
overhead doors is
included in another
EEM
Air Tightness estimated as:
6500 cfm at 50 Pascals
Perform air sealing to
reduce air leakage by 2000
cfm at 50 Pascals.
$1 $616
2. Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical
Rank Recommendation Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
10 Replace existing thermostats now with set‐back thermostats. At end of life (EOL)
replace forced air NG furnace in office with smaller, more efficient unit; at EOL
replace (2) NG unit heaters in vehicle bays with newer, more efficient, condensing
gas units. Incremental cost to replace furnace with high efficiency version is $1000;
incremental cost to replace (2) unit heaters with high efficiency versions is $2000
each; double equipment cost to include remote site and installation; Total
incremental cost $10,000.
$10,000 $528
Setback Thermostat
Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
2 Vehicle BayS Existing Unoccupied Heating
Setpoint: 78.0 deg F
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Vehicle Bay space.
$200 $711
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
NSB Bus Storage Facility
Page 7
4 Office Existing Unoccupied Heating
Setpoint: 78.0 deg F
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Office space.
$200 $206
Ventilation
Rank Recommendation Cost Annual
Energy
Savings
3. Appliances and Lighting
Lighting Fixtures and Controls
Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
3 Bathroom Lighting 2 INCAN (2) A Lamp, Std 100W
with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL,
A Lamp 15W
$25 $69
6 room 104 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W
Standard Instant StdElectronic
with Manual Switching
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$100 $21
7 Room 105 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W
Standard Instant StdElectronic
with Manual Switching
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$100 $21
8 Room 103 3 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 59W
Standard StdElectronic with
Manual Switching
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$100 $16
9 Vehicle Bay ‐
Typical
28 FLUOR (3) T8 8' F96T8 59W
Standard StdElectronic with
Manual Switching
Replace with 28 FLUOR (3)
T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy‐
Saver StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$1,300 $140
11 Room 103 3 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 59W
Standard StdElectronic with
Manual Switching
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2)
T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy‐
Saver StdElectronic
$50 $4
13 Exterior 12 HPS 250 Watt Magnetic with
Manual Switching
Replace with 12 LED 100W
Module StdElectronic
$16,167 $653
16 Bathroom Lighting 2 INCAN (2) A Lamp, Std 100W
with Manual Switching
Add new Occupancy Sensor $150 $3
Refrigeration
Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
15 Refrigerator Refrigerator Replace with Energy Star
refrigerator
$750 $28
Other Electrical Equipment
Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
NSB Bus Storage Facility
Page 8
5 Head Bolt Heaters 5 Head Bolt Heaters ‐ Duplex
receptacles with Manual
Switching
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Other
Controls
$2,000 $1,885
12 Hot Water Heater 20 Gallon Electric HW with
Manual Switching
Replace with Tankless,
electric water heater and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Other
Controls
$1,200 $69
14 Clothes Washing
Machine
Stackable clothes
Washer/Dryer (Washer only ‐
Dryer considered under
"drying" section with Manual
Switching
Replace with Energy Star
clothes washer
$500 $27
Cooking/Clothes Drying
Rank Recommended Installed
Cost
Annual
Energy
Savings
23
Appendix C
Equipment Schedule – 1987 re-construction
24 Appendix C Equipment Schedule – 1996 upgrade
25
Appendix D
Building Elevations - 1987
26 Appendix D Building Floor Plan - 1987
27 Appendix E Lighting Plan – 1987 re-construction
28 Appendix E Lighting Fixture Schedule – 1987 re-construction
29 Appendix F Mechanical Schematics – 1987 re-construction
30 Appendix F Mechanical Schematics – 1996 upgrade
31
Appendix G
Additional, Building-Specific EEM details
G-1: Arctic Entry Door replacement
or sweep: The arctic entry door has a
1” gap under it. It either needs to
have a sweep added, or the door
needs to be replaced with a tightly
fitting unit. The energy savings from
this EEM is included in EEM #1 – air
tightening.
G-2: Arctic Entry Detachment: The
arctic entry to the offices on west side
of the building is detached from the
building wall, leaving a 1” air gap.
The structure needs to be shored up
and re-fastened to the building wall.
The energy savings from this EEM is
included in EEM #! – air tightening.
G-3: Install de-stratification fans in vehicle bays: De-strat fans
typically save from 10%-23% in high-bay space heating costs, depending
on the temperature difference at the ceiling and at floor level, and the
ceiling height. For this audit, a conservative, 10% savings in energy
costs has been used, resulting in a 7 year payback.