Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BBNC-A79-CAEC LPSD Chignik Lake School 2012-EE
Chignik Lake School 300 School Road Chignik Lake, Alaska 99548 AkWarm ID No. BBNC-A79-CAEC-01 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net June 29, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium H&V ................................................................................................................................... Heating and Ventilation IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode LPSD ............................................................................................................... Lake and Peninsula School District ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE iv OF iv REPORT DISCLAIMER This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, nor any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 1 OF 22 This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Lake and Peninsula School District Contact: Tim McDermott PO Box 498 King Salmon, AK 99613 Email: tmcdermott@lpsd.com Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Rebekah Luhrs 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). The estimated July 2009 – June 2011 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: Electricity $ 55,850 Fuel Oil $ 31,548 Total $ 87,398 Energy Utilization Index: 92.7 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 4.11 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 78.9 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $3,497 per Occupant The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for Chignik Lake School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not cumulative because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 2 OF 22 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings (w/Maint. Savings) Installed Cost1 Savings to Investme nt Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 4 bulb T8 Add new Occupancy Sensor and controls $1,455 $3,200 5.34 2.2 2 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 3 bulb T8 Add new Occupancy Sensor and controls $1,687 $5,600 3.54 3.3 3 HVAC And DHW Implement a reduced run time scheme for DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours. ($2,500). $38 ($450) $2,500 2.83 65.5 (5.1) 4 Setback Thermostat: Addition Section Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Addition space. $2,833 $15,550 2.47 5.5 5 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T8 Manual Add new Occupancy Sensor and controls $811 $4,000 2.38 4.9 6 Setback Thermostat: Original Section Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Existing space. $2,296 $15,550 2.00 6.8 7 Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: BGFP Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $224 $3,464 1.53 15.5 8 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T12 Replace with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,598 ($252) $16,360 1.33 10.2 (8.8) 9 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Outdoor HPS Replace with 17 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,056 ($2,380) $41,200 1.23 39.0 (12.0) TOTAL, all measures $11,997 ($3,082) $107,424 1.87 9.0 (7.1) Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 3 OF 22 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $11,997 per year, or 14.0% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $107,424, for an overall simple payback period of 9.0 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $11,997 per year, or 14.0% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $107,424, for an overall simple payback period of 9.0 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $41,807 $2,906 $25,131 $2,664 $11,900 $1,373 $85,781 With All Proposed Retrofits $37,538 $1,785 $18,524 $2,664 $11,900 $1,373 $73,784 SAVINGS $4,269 $1,121 $6,607 $0 $0 $0 $11,997 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 4 OF 22 While the intent of many Energy Efficiency Measures is to increase the efficiency of fuel-burning and electrical equipment, an important factor of energy consumption lies in the operational profiles which control the equipment usage. Such profiles can be managed by administrative controls and departmental leadership. They determine how and when equipment is used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simple equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when EEMs are combined with efficient minded operational profiles. Operational profiles may be outlined by organization policy or developed naturally or historically. These profiles include, but are not limited to; operating schedules, equipment set-points and control strategies, maintenance schedules, and site and equipment selection. Optimization of operational profiles can be accomplished by numerous methods so long as the intent is reduction in energy-using equipment runtime. Due to the numerous methods of optimization, energy cost savings solely as a result of operational optimization are difficult to predict. Quantification, however, is easy to accomplish by metering energy usage during and/or after implementation of energy saving operational profiles and EEMs. Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given area are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after-hour events are consolidated and held within the most energy efficient buildings available for use. As a result, unoccupied buildings could be shut-down to the greatest extent possible to reduce energy consumption. Operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including set-points. Occupancy and daylight sensors can be programmed to automatically shut-off or dim lighting when rooms are unoccupied or sufficiently lit from the sun. Operating schedules can be optimized to run equipment only during regular or high-occupancy periods. Also, through a central control system, or with digital programmable thermostats, temperature set-points can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, domestic hot water circulation systems and sporadically used equipment can be shut-down during unoccupied hours to further save energy. In general, having equipment operating in areas where no occupants are present is inefficient, and presents an opportunity for energy savings. Operational profiles can also be implemented to take advantage of no or low cost EEMs. Examples include heating system optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning, and completing preventative maintenance on outside air damper and temperature reset systems) and tighter controls of equipment set-backs and shut-downs (unoccupied zones equipment shut-down, easier access to and finer control of equipment for after-hours control). In a large facility management program, implementation of these measures across many or all sites will realize dramatic savings due to the quantity of equipment involved. Changes to building operational profiles can only be realized while simultaneously addressing health, safety, user comfort, and user requirements first. It is impractical to expect users to occupy a building or implement operational behaviors which do not meet such considerations. That said, it is quite practical for management groups to implement administrative controls which reduce losses brought about by excess and sub-optimum usage. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 5 OF 22 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 21,270 square foot Chignik Lake School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, a kitchen, and a gymnasium. This school also features a vocational education building, a boiler building, and teacher housing facilities, all of which are separate buildings that are not connected to the main school. The teacher housing buildings are being used throughout the school year. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Section 6.0 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 6 OF 22 After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating and ventilation (H&V), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on May 31, 2012 and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. Additionally during the site visit, thermal images of the building’s exterior were taken. These thermal images illustrate heat loss exhibited by the school. Several of the thermal images are included in this report as Appendix E. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visits, developing the AkWarm-C Energy Model for the building, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 7 OF 22 Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section 2.0. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, gymnasium, and classrooms. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software (AkWarm-C), a building energy modeling program developed for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The data was processed by AkWarm-C to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm-C. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm-C. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. The Geographic Area Cost Factor dated April 2011 for the Chignik Lake area has an index of 136.04 and was used in this report. Installation costs include design, labor, equipment, overhead and profit for school renovation projects and used to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR) are calculated. These are listed in Section 7.0 and summarized in Table 1.1 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 8 OF 22 The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective - total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $50,000 and results in a savings of $5,000 a year, the payback time is 10 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 20 years, it would be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 10 years is less than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, Simple Payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 9 OF 22 All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. With this particular school, the utility data provided for electrical use was deemed accurate. However, fuel use data was determined to be inaccurate based on the fuel situation of this village. Originally, LPSD took responsibility of providing fuel to the village generators and the school. Because of this, data provided includes generator fuel use as well as school heating use. In addition to this, there is also a waste heat system using excess heat from the generators to supplement the school boilers. This heat loop is also un-metered, causing further convolution to an already perplexing heating system. This has required the auditor to resort to estimations on energy use of certain systems using prior experience in similar schools. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, Chignik Lake School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Chignik Lake, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 10 OF 22 Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for Chignik Lake, Alaska. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the fuel oil and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. AkWarm-C does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm-C simulations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 11 OF 22 The structure of Chignik Lake School is a two-story facility that was built in 1984, including classrooms, a kitchen, a gymnasium, and restrooms. This school also features a detached mechanical room, vocational education building, and teacher housing buildings. This building has had two additions made to it including one demolition project. From the audit it was determined to be a well built and functional school facility. The school typically opens at 7AM by staff with faculty and student occupancy to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional occupancy time keeping the school open late or on weekends occurs occasionally. There are an estimated 25 full time students, faculty, and staff occupants using the building. Teacher housing buildings are typically used during the school year, with occasional use during the summer. The insulation values and conditions were modeled using the data provided in the architectural drawings. No destructive testing was completed for the audit. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm-C building model: Exterior walls of the building have double paned, vinyl framed windows in place which have an estimated U-factor of 0.33 Btu/hr-sf-F. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are windowed or solid. Most of the doors appear to be in adequate condition, but could use additional weather stripping installed. The crawlspace walls of the school consist of an all-weather wood system with 6-inch studs and insulated with fiberglass batt as well as exterior rigid foam board insulation. The crawlspace is constructed with a floor location approximately 3-feet below grade, having an average wall height of 4- feet. There is no vapor barrier in place on the crawlspace floor. The above grade wall sections of the school are made up of 10-inch studs with icynene insulation, providing an estimated R-22 composite value. Wall height of the school varies from 20-feet to 30-feet, depending on location. The different wall constructions can be noted in the IR images provided in Appendix E of this report. The roof system of the original school is cathedral ceiling, insulated with fiberglass batt for an insulating estimated R-38 value. The newer gymnasium section has a ceiling with an attic, also using R-38 fiberglass batt insulation. The entirety of the roof is covered with corrugated metal roofing. Overall, the building shell components appear to be well built and in good condition. Installation of a tightly installed vapor barrier and laying out R-19 fiberglass batt insulation up against the edge of the foundation wall is evaluated in this report. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 12 OF 22 Heat is provided to the school mainly through a waste heat recovery system, using the waste heat from the nearby village generators. In addition to the waste heat, the building is heated by two (2) fuel oil- fired cast iron boilers, which were installed in the year 2007. The boilers are located in the detached generator building, which is small in size. The hydronic heating system is circulated throughout the building by two 1½ HP circulation pumps located in the mechanical room. Heated water is supplied to the entire school campus and the teacher housing units using these circulating pumps. The hydronic heat is delivered to the Air Handling Unit (AHU), unit heaters, and baseboard radiators through the various building hydronic loops. This building has a DDC control system in place with end devices using electronic controls. The heating plants used in the building are described as follows: Boiler’s 1 & 2 Fuel Type: Fuel Oil Input Rating: 588,000 Btu/hr OR 4.2 gal/hr Rated Efficiency: 82 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic, Water Boiler Operation: All Year Waste Heat System Fuel Type: Waste Heat Plate Exchanger Input Rating: 300,000 Btu/hr (Plate Exchanger appears small for application) Rated Efficiency: N/A Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic, Water Boiler Operation: All Year It is recommended the plate exchanger on the waste heat recovery system be evaluated for size. More waste heat may be recoverable which will reduce the fuel oil fired boiler operational time. Also, the amount of fuel oil used by the school boilers needs to be more accurately metered with a properly sized meter designed for the custody transfer application as the school district is purchasing the fuel from the city for the school’s use. In addition, a Btu meter is recommended to be installed on the waste heat supply so that the amount of energy being used from the system can be recorded and monitored to permit an overall heating system evaluation. Usages from the fuel oil and waste heat systems had be to estimated for this audit as actual numbers were not available. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied by one (1) indirect-fired storage hot water maker. This is a side-arm water maker located in the boiler room. There is no power supplied to this unit, other than to the required circulating pump. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the showers, restrooms, kitchen, and the various sinks in the buildings. Storage Water Heater 1 Fuel Type: Side-arm Input Rating: 100,000 Btu/hr (estimated) Rated Efficiency: 70 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Circulation 24/7 DHW Maker Operation: All Year CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 13 OF 22 There is one (1) AHU located inside of the building providing ventilation to the school on occasion. The school has no other mechanical ventilation devices other than exhaust fans. The AHU uses electronically controlled end devices, controlled by the DDC system. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through windows and this AHU, when operated. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of exhaust fans located throughout the building. The International Mechanical Code for this application requires the building to bring in 7,445 CFM of outdoor air into the school (minimum design for classroom space specifies 35 occupants/1,000 sf @ 10 CFM/occupant for the 21,270 sf school = 7,445 CFM). The capacity of the exhaust fans in the school equals approximately 1,350 CFM, indicating the school appears to be over-ventilated at 54 CFM/occupant in the school, assuming the exhaust systems are operated per design capacity and at the current occupant level of 25 during school hours. The outdoor air should never be provided at less than 10 CFM/occupant to be code compliant. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building uses newer T8 or T5 lights. The gym lighting system also uses T8 bulbs. The T8 lighting systems remaining in the building were evaluated for installation of programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls. The High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lights mounted on the outside of the building were evaluated for replacement as there have been recent advances in LED technology, often making it a viable option to replace the HPS systems. There are several EEM’s provided in this report reviewing the lighting systems upgrade recommendations. There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the computers with monitors, copy machines, microwave ovens, coffee pots, kitchen appliances and shop equipment. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.4 watts/sf. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment inventory was created and is attached as Appendix C. The equipment listed is considered to be the major energy consuming items in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 14 OF 22 Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil energy usage for the surveyed facility from July 2009 to June 2011. Electricity for the school is provided under large commercial building rate schedules. Fuel Oil is being provided under a contract to top off the tanks. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 15 OF 22 The fuel oil usage profile shows the predicted fuel oil energy usage for the building. As actual oil usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Fuel oil is sold to the customer in units of gallon (GAL), which contains approximately 140,000 BTUs of energy. The estimated average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and fuel oil utility data provided, the 2009-2010 through 2010-2011 school year costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2009-2010 2010-2011 Average Electric 0.60 $/kWh 0.60 $/kWh 0.60 $/kWh Fuel Oil 4.30 $/GAL 4.30 $/GAL 4.30 $/GAL Total Cost $91,424 $83,373 $87,399 ECI 4.30 $/sf 5.88 $/sf 5.09 $/sf Electric EUI 15.5 kBtu/sf 14.4 kBtu/sf 15.0 kBtu/sf Fuel Oil EUI 48.6 kBtu/sf 42.5 kBtu/sf 45.6 kBtu/sf Thermal EUI 34.3 kBtu/sf 30.0 kBtu/sf 32.2 kBtu/sf Building EUI 98.4 kBtu/sf 87.0 kBtu/sf 92.7 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83.0 kBtu/sf. For reference, data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 84 schools in the Anchorage School District computed an average EUI of 106.5 kBtu/sf, and ECI of 1.77 $/sf, with an average building size of 86,356 square feet. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an estimated average EUI of 92.7 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 11.7% more energy than the US average and 13.0% less energy than the Anchorage School District average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 16 OF 22 At current utility rates, the Lake and Peninsula School District is modeled to pay approximately $85,781 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Chignik Lake School. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 17 OF 22 Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. It should be noted that the retrofit bar for the windows is actually showing a slight negative associated cost, implying that the windows will be adding to the building heating load. The tables below show AkWarm-C ’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Lighting 3981 3627 3981 3852 3915 1898 1962 3004 3852 3981 3852 3981 Refrigeration 377 343 377 365 377 365 377 377 365 377 365 377 Other Electrical 1922 1751 1922 1860 1885 766 791 1375 1860 1922 1860 1922 Ventilation Fans 225 205 225 218 220 76 78 154 218 225 218 225 DHW 28 25 28 27 28 27 28 28 27 28 27 28 Space Heating 1807 1647 1807 1749 1807 1749 1807 1807 1749 1807 1749 1807 Space Cooling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Oil #2 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 51 46 51 50 53 54 59 59 54 53 50 51 Space Heating 833 769 787 661 509 348 254 254 333 537 660 806 Hot Water District Ht Consumption (Million Btu) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Space Heating 76 71 72 60 46 31 22 22 30 49 60 74 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 18 OF 22 Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBTU Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBTU Electricity 90,068 kWh 307,402 3.340 1,026,723 #2 Oil 7,381 gallons 1,018,635 1.010 1,028,821 Hot Wtr District Ht 669.45 million Btu 669,454 1.280 856,901 Total 1,995,491 2,912,445 BUILDING AREA 21,270 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 94 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 137 kBTU/Ft²/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 19 OF 22 The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below: Electrical & Appliance Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 4 bulb T8 47 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor and controls. Installation Cost $3,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,455 Breakeven Cost $17,091 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.3 Simple Payback ( yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending that these lights be installed with occupancy sensors, if not already, and controls for daylight harvesting where possible. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 3 bulb T8 72 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor and controls. Installation Cost $5,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,687 Breakeven Cost $19,817 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.5 Simple Payback ( yrs) 3 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM 1 for similar recommendations. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 2 bulb T8 Manual 51 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor and controls. Installation Cost $4,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $811 Breakeven Cost $9,529 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.4 Simple Payback ( yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM 1 for similar recommendations. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 20 OF 22 Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 2 bulb T12 18 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $16,360 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,598 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $252 Breakeven Cost $21,783 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 10 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 40-Watt T12 lights in the building be replaced with 25-Watt Energy Saver T8 bulbs and programmable start ballasts. Additionally, these lights should be installed with occupancy sensors, if not already, and controls for daylight harvesting. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 Outdoor HPS 17 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 17 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $41,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,056 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $2,380 Breakeven Cost $50,830 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 39 Auditors Notes: All of the high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. This recommendation assumes a Dark Campus environment where the lights are turned off during the late evening and early morning hours and are turned on under motion sensor activation, security alarm activation, or when controlled by the Building Automation System, when available. Rank Building Space Recommendation 4 Addition Section Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Addition space. Installation Cost $15,550 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,833 Breakeven Cost $38,463 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.5 Simple Payback ( yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures which varies with the season. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The staff is likely to complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point and condensation occurs. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below, then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Other parameters relating to the building setback temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 21 OF 22 Domestic Hot Water Measure Building Shell Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 6 Original Section Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Existing space. Installation Cost $15,550 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $2,296 Breakeven Cost $31,168 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback ( yrs) 7 Auditors Notes: See EEM # 4 for similar notes. Rank Recommendation 3 Implement a reduced run time scheme for DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours. ($2,500). Installation Cost $2,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $38 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $450 Breakeven Cost $7,084 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 65 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends placing the domestic hot water circulation pump, for both the school and gym, on timer controls. This will reduce water circulation when the school is not occupied, effectively reducing the amount motor run time and heat wasted during unoccupied periods. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 7 Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: BGFP Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 14.6 Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $3,464 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $224 Breakeven Cost $5,302 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback ( yrs) 15 Auditors Notes: Addition of insulation to the perimeter of the floor area of the crawlspace will help with heat retention in the building. A well fitted vapor barrier on the floor of the crawlspace will help the fiberglass batt to last longer and reduce unwanted moisture from entering into the crawlspace environment. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐A79‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 22 OF 22 Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX A Appendix A Benchmark Reports First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Tim McDermott 246‐4280 ext 318 State Zip AK 99613 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 7 to 50 0 0 Average # of Occupants During 25 Renovations / Notes Date 1983 1987 2007 PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Contact Person Email tmcdermott@lpsd.com Mailing Address City PO Box 498 King Salmon Primary Operating Hours Details Original Construction Classroom Addition Gymnasium Addition 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. Regional Education Attendance 06/06/12 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date Lake & Peninsula School Dist 105 1984 Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Chignik Lake School Education ‐ K ‐ 12 21,270 Facility City Facility Zip 99548300 School Rd Chignik Lake Building Type Community Population Year Built Wood Frame 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. Oil data provided for 2 years, and was divided in half. All utility data includes teacher housing and school building usage. 89.1% of utility data was allocated to school building, per LPSD estimates. Facility Address Chignik Lake K-12 Buiding Size Input (sf) =21,270 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)96,288 2010 Electric Cost ($)57,773 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)10,329.98 2010 Oil Cost ($)33,651 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($)0.00 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Coal Cost ($)0.00 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Wood Cost ($)0.00 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)7,304.03 2010 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)2,092,032 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)91,424 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)15.5 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf) 48.6 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 34.3 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)98.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.72 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.58 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)4.30 2011 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2011 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2011 Electric Consumption (kWh)89,880 2011 Electric Cost ($)53,928 2011 Oil Consumption (Therms)9,039.06 2011 Oil Cost ($)29,445 2011 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2011 Propane Cost ($)0 2011 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2011 Coal Cost ($)0 2011 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2011 Wood Cost ($)0 2011 Thermal Consumption (Therms)6,391.25 2011 Thermal Cost ($)0 2011 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2011 Steam Cost ($)0 2011 Total Energy Use (kBtu)1,849,791 2011 Total Energy Cost ($)83,373 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2011 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)0.0 2011 Electricity (kBtu/sf)14.4 2011 Oil (kBtu/sf)42.5 2011 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2011 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2011 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2011 Thermal (kBtu/sf)30.0 2011 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2011 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)87.0 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2011 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2011 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.54 2011 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.38 2011 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2011 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2011 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2011 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2011 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2011 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)3.92 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's Chignik Lake K-12ElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)NEA Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/2009313,540121$2,1240.60NEAAug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/2009315,280180$3,1680.60NEASep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/2009309,000307$5,4000.60NEAOct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/20093100$00.00NEANov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/20093018,600635$11,1600.60NEADec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/20093110,578361$6,3470.60NEAJan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/2010318,460289$5,0760.60NEAFeb‐10 2/1/20102/28/20102811,400389$6,8400.60NEA Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/2010319,630329$5,7780.60NEAApr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/20103012,000410$7,2000.60NEAMay‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/2010317,800266$4,6800.60NEAJun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/20103000$00.00$0NEAJul‐10 7/1/2010 7/31/2010315,520188$3,3120.60NEAAug‐10 8/1/2010 8/31/2010315,400184$3,2400.60NEASep‐10 9/1/2010 9/30/20103000$00.00NEAOct‐10 10/1/2010 10/31/20103118,420629$11,0520.60NEANov‐10 11/1/2010 11/30/2010309,240315$5,5440.60NEADec‐10 12/1/2010 12/31/2010317,680262$4,6080.60NEAJan‐11 1/1/2011 1/31/20113113,680467$8,2080.60NEAFeb‐11 2/1/2011 2/28/2011283,660125$2,1960.60NEAMar‐11 3/1/2011 3/31/2011318,460289$5,0760.60NEAApr‐11 4/1/2011 4/30/2011308,940305$5,3640.60NEAMay‐11 5/1/2011 5/31/2011316,780231$4,0680.60NEAJun‐11 6/1/2011 6/30/2011302,10072$1,2600.60Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:96,2883,2860$57,773$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:89,8803,0680$53,928$0$0.60$0.60Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg: $0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,00002,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Chignik Lake K‐12 ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($) Chignik Lake K-12OilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/200931782610,330$33,6513.26Aug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/20093100$00.00Sep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/20093000$00.00Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/20093100$00.00Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/20093000$00.00Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/20093100$00.00Jan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/20103100$00.00Feb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/20102800$00.00Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/20103100$00.00Apr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/20103000$00.00May‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/20103100$00.00Jun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/20103000$00.00Jul‐10 7/1/2010 7/31/20103168489,039$29,4453.26Aug‐10 8/1/2010 8/31/20103100$00.00Sep‐10 9/1/2010 9/30/20103000$00.00Oct‐10 10/1/2010 10/31/20103100$00.00Nov‐10 11/1/2010 11/30/20103000$00.00Dec‐10 12/1/201012/31/20103100$00.00Jan‐11 1/1/2011 1/31/20113100$00.00Feb‐11 2/1/2011 2/28/20112800$00.00Mar‐11 3/1/2011 3/31/20113100$00.00Apr‐11 4/1/2011 4/30/20113000$00.00May‐11 5/1/2011 5/31/20113100$00.00Jun‐11 6/1/2011 6/30/20113000$00.00Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:7,82610,3300$33,651$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:6,8489,0390$29,445$03.263.26Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg: $0.00$5,000.00$10,000.00$15,000.00$20,000.00$25,000.00$30,000.00$35,000.00$40,000.0002,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Chignik Lake K‐12 ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($) Chignik Lake K-12ThermalBtu/Btu =1ProviderCustomer # Month Start Date End Date Billing DaysConsumption (BTU)Consumption (Therms)Demand Use Thermal Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Jan‐107304028007304.028$0$0Feb‐1000$0$0Mar‐1000$0$0Apr‐1000$0$0May‐1000$0$0Jun‐1000$0$0Jul‐1000$0$0Aug‐1000$0$0Sep‐1000$0$0Oct‐1000$0$0Nov‐1000$0$0Dec‐1000$0$0Jan‐116391252006391.252$0$0Feb‐1100$0$0Mar‐1100$0$0Apr‐1100$0$0May‐1100$0$0Jun‐1100$0$0Jul‐1100$0$0Aug‐1100$0$0Sep‐1100$0$0Oct‐1100$0$0Nov‐1100$0$0Dec‐1100$0$0Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:730,402,800.007,304.03$0$0$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:639,125,200.006,391.25$0$0$0Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:$0 $0$0$0$0$0$1$1$1$1$1$1010002000300040005000600070008000Thermal Cost ($)Thermal Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Building Name ‐Thermal Consumption (Therms) vs Coal Cost ($)Thermal Consumption (Therms)Thermal Cost ($) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B AkWarm Short Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL Page 1 APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 6/29/2012 2:03 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Chignik Lake K-12 Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 100 School Road Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Chignik Lake Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Dr Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Tim McDermott Client Address: P.O. Box 498 King Salmon, AK 99613 Auditor Phone: (907) 260-5311 Auditor FAX: ( ) - Client Phone: (907) 246-4280 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: ( ) - Design Data Building Area: 21,270 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 231,795 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 243,995 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 371,943 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 25 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Chignik Lake Design Outdoor Temperature: 10.1 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Chignik Lake Heating Degree Days: 9,612 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Chignik Lake Electric Utility - Commercial - Lg Fuel Oil Provider: Local Provider Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.600/kWh Average Annual Cost/Gal: $4.30/Gal Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrige ration Other Electri cal Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilatio n Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $41,807 $0 $2,906 $25,131 $2,664 $11,90 0 $0 $0 $1,373 $0 $85,781 With Proposed Retrofits $37,538 $0 $1,785 $18,524 $2,664 $11,90 0 $0 $0 $1,373 $0 $73,784 SAVINGS $4,269 $0 $1,121 $6,607 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,997 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL Page 2 APPENDIX B $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL Page 3 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 4 bulb T8 Replace with 47 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,455 $3,200 5.34 2.2 2 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 3 bulb T8 Replace with 72 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,687 $5,600 3.54 3.3 3 HVAC And DHW Implement a reduced run time scheme for DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours. ($2,500). $38 + $450 Maint. Savings $2,500 2.83 65.5 4 Setback Thermostat: Addition Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Addition space. $2,833 $15,550 2.47 5.5 5 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T8 Manual Replace with 51 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $811 $4,000 2.38 4.9 6 Setback Thermostat: Existing Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Existing space. $2,296 $15,550 2.00 6.8 7 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: BGFP Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $224 $3,464 1.53 15.5 8 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T12 Replace with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,598 + $252 Maint. Savings $16,360 1.33 10.2 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL Page 4 APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ran k Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 9 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Outdoor HPS Replace with 17 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,056 + $2,380 Maint. Savings $41,200 1.23 39 TOTAL $11,997 + $3,082 Maint. Savings $107,424 1.87 9 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 7 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: BGFP Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 14.6 Install R-19 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 2 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $3,464 $224 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL Page 5 APPENDIX B 3 Implement a reduced run time scheme for DHW to reduce heat wasted during unoccupied hours. ($2,500). $2,500 $38 + $450 Maint. Savings Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 4 Addition Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 68.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Addition space. $15,550 $2,833 6 Existing Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 68.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Existing space. $15,550 $2,296 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 4 bulb T8 47 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 47 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $3,200 $1,455 2 3 bulb T8 72 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 72 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $5,600 $1,687 5 2 bulb T8 Manual 51 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 51 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $4,000 $811 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL Page 6 APPENDIX B 8 2 bulb T12 18 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $16,360 $1,598 + $252 Maint. Savings 9 Outdoor HPS 17 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 17 LED (3) 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $41,200 $1,056 + $2,380 Maint. Savings ------------------------------------------ AkWarmCalc Ver 2.2.0.3, Energy Lib 5/18/2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB-1 BOILER RMBUILDING HEATBURNHAMV904AOIL/CAST IRON 4.2 GPH OIL 82%-3530B-2 BOILER RMBUILDING HEATBURNHAMV904AOIL/CAST IRON 4.2 GPH OIL 82%-3532WH-1 BOILER RMDHW SUPPLYAMTROLN/AINDIRECT STORAGE 119 GALLONS EST 80% -2419CP-1 BOILER RMBUILDING HEATGRUNDFOSUP 50-75INLINE20 GPM @ 16' EST 82% .167 HP 105CP-2 BOILER RMBUILDING HEATGRUNDFOSUP 50-75INLINE20 GPM @ 16' EST 82% .167 HP 105CP-3 BOILER RMBUILDING HEATGRUNDFOSUP 50-160INLINEEST 125 GPM EST 82% 950-1300 W 105CP-4 BOILER RMBUILDING HEATGRUNDFOSUP 50-160INLINEEST 125 GPM EST 82% 950-1300 W 105EF-1KITCHENEAN/AN/AAXIALEST 450 CFM EST 82% EST 0.13 HP 2015EF-2 OLD RESTROOMSEAN/AN/ACENTRIFUGAL EST 450 CFM EST 82% EST 0.13 HP 2015EF-3 NEW RESTROOMSEAN/AN/ACENTRIFUGAL EST 450 CFM EST 82% EST 0.13 HP 2015AHU-1FAN RMSAJACKSON & CHURCHN/ACENTRIFUGAL EST 1,500 CFM EST 82% 1.0 HP 200MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. View of the main entrance of the school. 2. View of the hallway connecting the original building to the gym addition. 3. View of the south side of the original school. 4. View of the side of the original building. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 5. View of the classroom lighting. 6. View of the school gym lighting. 7. View of the DW fuel oil tank in place. 8. View of the fuel oil fired boilers. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 9. Close-up of boiler 1. 10. Close-up view of the fuel oil burner. 11. Heated water circulation pumps. 12. View of the heated water supply and return lines. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 13. Heat exchanger pulling excess heat from generator cooling water. 14. Side arm hot water maker. 15. View of the crawlspace below the gym. 16. View of the attic above the gym. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 17. Air handler of the school, rarely used. 18. HydroTherm DDC system. 19. View of exit sign in the school. 20. Kitchen refrigeration units. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. Overall view of the front entrance of the school. Warmer areas are reflecting heat, rather than losing heat. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 2. Overall view of the middle section of the school. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 3. Heat loss exhibited around doorway, could use improved weather stripping. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 4. Side of the school. High heat loss exhibited from below grade wall. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. Back of the school. Wall temperature differs due to exposure to sunlight. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 6. Back of the school. Heat loss exhibited (A) from below grade wall (B) around window. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 7. Side of the school. (A) Doors exhibiting heat loss, could use improved weather stripping. (B) Heat loss exhibited from the wall. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CHIGNIK LAKE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX F Appendix F Waste Heat Recovery Meter 46 Appendix F Waste Heat: Add instrumentation per schematic below, to measure the amount of waste heat being utilized by the subject building. This information will complete the picture regarding energy input to the building and inform owner/management decisions regarding capital and energy related improvements. Outside Inside building Temperature sensor Flow meter measuring glycol flow rate Tin From power plant Supply glycol To power plant Return glycol Temperature sensor Measuring Tout Amount of waste heat (BTU/hr) = flow rate (gallons/minute) x (Tin-Tout) x 450 •Temperature is in degrees F •Shenitech ultrasonic flowmeter (or equivalent) can be used to determine temperatures and flow rate, data sheet attached as Appendix H. Appendix F Main Unit Repeatability Better than 0.2% Accuracy For flow measurement: r1% of reading, plus r0.006m/s (r0.02ft/s) in velocity Response Time 0.5s. Configurable between 0.5s and 99s Velocity -16 ~ +16m/s (-52 ~ +52 ft/s), bi-directional Display / Keypad LCD with backlight. 2 x 20 letters. 4 x 4 tactile-feedback membrane keypad. Displays instantaneous energy rate, total energy (positive, negative and net), temperatures, flow rate, time, analog inputs, etc. Units English (U.S.) or metric Signal Outputs Current output: 4-20mA isolated output for energy rate, flowrate, velocity or sound speed. Impedance 0-1k. Accuracy 0.1% OCT output: isolated Open Collector Transistor output. Up to 0.5A load Relay output: 1A@125VAC or 2A@30VDC Can be programmed as pulse signal for energy/flow totalization; ON/OFF signal for relay drive or alarm drive; batch control Sound alarm Temperature and other Analog Inputs RTD interface: two temperature channels that can accommodate two PT100 3-wire temperature sensors for thermal energy measurement. Analog input: one channel of 4-20mA input. Can be used for temperature, pressure and level Recording Automatically records the totalizer data of the last 128 days / 64 months / 5years Optional SD data logger (2GB space) or external USB data logger Communication Interface Isolated RS-485 with power surge protection. Supports the MODBUS protocol StufManagerTM PC software for real-time data acquisition (optional) Optional wireless module (GPRS/GSM/RF) for remote monitoring (STUF-300RnB only) Enclosure Protection Class: IP65 (NEMA 4X) weather-resistant. Additional protection enclosure (large polycarbonate enclosure) available upon request (STUF-300R2B model only). Dimension: 230mm x 150mm x 75mm (9” x 5.9” x 3”) LiquidsLiquid Types Virtually all commonly used liquids (full pipe) Liquid Temp -40˚C ~ 100˚C or -40˚C ~ 155˚C, depending on transducer type Suspension concentration <20,000ppm, or, < 2%, particle size smaller than 100um. PipePipe Size DN15 ~ DN6,000mm (0.5" ~ 240"), depending on transducer type Pipe Material All metals, most plastics, fiber glass, etc. Allow pipe liner. Straight Pipe Section Longer than 15D, where D is pipe diameter. If a pump or a valve is nearby upstream, the straight pipe section following the pump should be > 25D. Cable Shielded transducer cable. Standard length 15’ (5m). Can be extended to 1640’ (500m). Contact the manufacturer for longer cable requirement. Environment Temperature Main unit: -10˚C ~ 70˚C (14˚F ~ 158˚F) Ultrasonic Transducer: -40˚C ~ 100˚C (-40˚F ~ 212˚F) for standard version -40˚C ~ 155˚C (-40˚F ~ 312˚F) for higher temperature version PT100 temperature sensor: -40˚F ~ 312˚F (-40˚C ~ 155˚C) Humidity Main unit: 85% RH Ultrasonic Transducer: water-immersible, water depth less than 10’ (3m) Power DC: 12 ~ 24VDC, or, AC: 90 ~ 260VAC Power consumption: < 1.5W at 12VDC Weight Main unit: 2 kg (4 lbs) for standard version, 2.5 kg (5 lbs) for network version Specifications: Applications: The STUF-300R1B thermal energy measurement system is an ideal choice for a wide range of applications in HVAC, energy production, energy transfer, building management, university facility management, district heating and cooling, geothermal or solar-thermal system monitoring, and all other liquid-based thermal energy production/transferring. Some examples are: x Chilled water sub-metering x Hot water sub-metering x Condenser water x Glycol x Thermal storage x Geothermal system x Solar hot-water system x Lake source cooling x Chemical feed, ammonia feed x Energy meter network x Power plants Transducer Options: Type HF x : Special transducer for small size pipes DN15 ~ DN25mm (0.5” ~ 1”) Temperature range -20˚C ~ 60˚C (0˚F ~ 140˚F) x represents pipe material: 0-Copper; 1–Tubing; 2–ANSI Plastic; 3-ANSI Metal Type S1 x : Standard-S1 transducer (magnetic) for pipes DN25 ~ DN100mm (1” ~ 4”) Temperature range -40˚C ~ 80˚C (-40˚F ~ 175˚F) x represents pipe material. Same as above Type S1HT x : High-temp S1 transducer for small size pipes DN25 ~ DN100mm (1” ~ 4”) Temperature range -40˚C ~ 155˚C (-40˚F ~ 312˚F) x represents pipe material. Same as above Type M1: Standard-M1 transducer (magnetic) for medium size pipes DN50 ~ DN700mm (2” ~ 28”) Temperature range -40˚C ~ 80˚C (-40˚F ~ 175˚F) Type M1HT: High-temp M1 transducer for medium size pipes DN50 ~ DN700mm (2” ~ 28”) Temperature range -40˚C ~ 155˚C (-40˚F ~ 312˚F) Type L1: Standard-L1 transducer for large size pipes DN300 ~ DN6,000mm (11” ~ 240”) Temperature range -40˚C ~ 80˚C (-40˚F ~ 175˚F) PT100SM: surface-mount temperature sensor, 3-wire PT100 Thermal isolation around the sensor is recommended in order to get a temperature reading close to the liquid temperature PT100IN: Insertion type temperature sensor, 3-wire PT100 Users may use their own RTD temperature sensor Model Selection: S T U F - 3 0 0 R 1 B - - - - - - - Example: Model# STUF-300R1B-M1-PT100SM-A-DN100-M5-AO-DLSD stands for standard main unit, M1-type clamp-on transducer and PT100 surface-mount sensor for pipe size DN100mm, 1m lead for temperature sensor and 5 meter cable for flow transducer, with 4-20mA output and SD data logger. Note: If you prefer to work with the English system for the model number, please put “IN” (for inch) or “F” (for foot) right before the dimension values. For example, the above model# in the English system will be: STUF-300R1B-M1-PT100SM-A-IN4-F15-AO-DLSD. SHENITECH, LLC 10-214 Tower Office Park, Woburn, MA 01801, USA Tel. +1 781-932-0900, +1 888-738-0188 (Toll-free) Fax +1 978 418 9170 sales@shenitech.com,www.shenitech.com ©2007 Copyright Shenitech. All rights reserved. SHENITECH R Transducer: HFx – Special transducer for 0.5”-1” * S1x – Standard S1-type for pipes 1” – 4” * S1HTx – High-temperature version of the S1-type * M1 – Standard M1-type for pipes 2” – 28” M1HT – High-temperature version of the M1-type *x represents pipe material: 0-Copper; 1–Tubing; 2–ANSI Plastic; 3-ANSI Metal Transducer Cable Length: Mxx - Cable length in meters Fxx – Cable length in ft Pipe Size: DNxxx (metric) or INxxx (English) 4-20mA Output: AO – With 4-20mA output NAO or absent – No 4-20mA output Other Options: DLSD – With SD data logger (2GB) DLUSB – With external USB data logger SW – StufManagerTM PC software 485USB – RS485-to-USB convertor Temperature Sensor: PT100SM – With a pair of PT100 sensors, surface-mount PT100IN – With a pair of PT100 sensors, insertion mount NO or absent – No temperature sensor Temperature Sensor Lead Length: A –1meter (3ft); B – 3meters(9ft); C – 10meters (30ft)