Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBBNC-ILI-CAEC LPSD Tanalian School 2012-EE Tanalian School 100 School Road Port Alsworth, Alaska 99653 AkWarm ID No. BBNC-ILI-CAEC-02 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 30, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE i OF iv  CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE ii OF iv      CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 1 OF 20  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 July 2008 – June 2010 average annual utility costs at this facility are as follows: Electricity $ 37,449 Fuel Oil $ 21,720 Total $ 59,169 Energy Utilization Index: 97.6 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 6.08 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 23.7 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $1,479 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 Tanalian 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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 2 OF 20  Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings (w/Maint. Savings) Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Crawlspace Install R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $421 $2,186 4.56 5.2 2 HVAC And DHW Place DHW circ pump on timer [$2500] $426 ($100) $2,500 4.63 5.9 (4.8) 3 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T5 Add new Occupancy Sensor and Controls for Gym Lights. $756 $4,800 8.61 6.3 4 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Add R-19 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $714 $9,997 1.69 14.0 5 Setback Thermostat: 2nd Floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the 2nd Floor space. $1,047 $9,690 1.47 9.3 6 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T12 Replace with 89 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $3,811 ($1,335) $42,000 1.45 11.0 (8.2) 7 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $1,457 $15,690 1.26 10.8 8 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: HPS Replace with 7 LED 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,006 ($700) $16,000 1.26 15.9 (9.4) 9 Setback Thermostat: 1st Floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the 1st Floor space. $797 $9,690 1.12 12.2 10 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T8 Replace with 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,506 ($1,050) $33,600 0.90 22.3 (13.1) TOTAL, all measures $11,940 ($3,185) $146,153 1.61 12.2 (9.7) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 3 OF 20  Table Notes: 1. Cost estimates were generated using the Program Demand Cost Model for Alaskan Schools, 12th Edition, Updated 2011, developed for the State of Alaska DOE, Education Support Services/Facilities. Renovations Projects Manual provides information on school renovation costs. Upon developing a final scope of work for an upgrade with detailed engineering completed, detailed savings and benefits can then be better determined. Some of the EEM’s should be completed when equipment meets the burn-out phase and is required to be replaced and in some cases will take significant investment to achieve. 2. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 3. Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $11,940 per year, or 19.8% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $146,153, for an overall simple payback period of 12.2 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $10,434 per year, or 17.3% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $112,553, for an overall simple payback period of 10.8 years. Table 1.2 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 $28,784 $8,052 $13,290 $1,876 $563 $7,840 $60,405 With All Proposed Retrofits $25,231 $6,744 $6,211 $1,876 $563 $7,840 $48,465 SAVINGS $3,553 $1,308 $7,079 $0 $0 $0 $11,940 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 4 OF 20  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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 5 OF 20  This comprehensive energy audit covers the 9,730 square foot Tanalian School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, a kitchen, and a gymnasium. This school also features a boiler room and teacher housing facilities, all of which are separate buildings that are not connected to the main school. The teacher housing building on campus is 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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 6 OF 20  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 June 3, 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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 7 OF 20  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 Port Alsworth area has an index of 160.73 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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 8 OF 20  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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 9 OF 20  All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, Tanalian School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Port Alsworth, Alaska was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section 7.0 of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. Limitations of the AkWarm-C Commercial© Software are reviewed in this section. The AkWarm-C model is based on typical mean year weather data for Port Alsworth, 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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 10 OF 20  The structure of Tanalian School is a two-story facility that was built in 1983. This building has had one (1) addition made to it, adding more classroom space in 2007. 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 40 full time students, faculty, and staff occupants using the building. 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. These windows are in good condition. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are windowed or solid. 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 exterior with 6-inch studs and insulated on the outside with 2-inches of rigid foam board. The above grade wall sections of the school are made up of 6-inch studs filled with fiberglass batt insulation, providing an estimated R-18 composite value. Wall height varies from 15 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 is a cathedral ceiling insulated with fiberglass batt for an estimated R-40 insulating value. The entirety of the roof is covered with corrugated metal roofing. Heat is provided to the school mainly through a waste heat recovery system, using the waste heat from the nearby village generators. In the generator building, there are circulation pumps which appear to be in continuous operation, attempting to remove heat from the generators. This is causing the school heating system to be uncontrolled, and can get overheated requiring the windows to be opened to reduce the heat. This pump needs to be shut down to save energy when the school does not require heating and the excess heat should be dumped elsewhere. In addition to the waste heat, the building is heated by two (2) fuel oil-fired sectional boilers, which were installed in the year 2009. The boilers are located in the detached boiler building, which is small in size but neatly configured. 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 Units (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 on the following page. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 11 OF 20  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 Input Rating: 500,000 Btu/hr (estimated) Rated Efficiency: N/A Heat Distribution Type: Hydronic, Water Boiler Operation: All Year 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. Usage from the waste heat system had to be estimated for this audit as actual numbers were not available. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is supplied by an indirect-fired storage hot water maker. DHW is circulated 24/7 around the building and supplies hot water to the showers, restrooms, kitchen, and the various sinks in the building. Storage Water Heater Fuel Type: Side-arm Input Rating: 199,990 Btu/hr (estimated) Rated Efficiency: 80 % (estimated) Heat Distribution Type: Circulation 24/7 DHW Maker Operation: All Year There is one (1) AHU located inside of the building providing ventilation to the school. The AHU’s use 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 as well as an intertied return fan. The International Mechanical Code for this application requires the building to bring in 3,406 CFM of outdoor air (minimum design for classroom space specifies 35 occupants/1,000 sf @ 10 CFM/occupant for the 9,730 sf school = 3,405.5 CFM). The combined capacity of the exhaust fans equals approximately 1,900 CFM, indicating the school appears to be over-ventilated at 47.5 CFM/occupant, assuming the exhaust system is operated per design capacity and at current occupant level of 40 during school hours. The outdoor air should never be provided at less than 10 CFM/occupant to be code compliant. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 12 OF 20  There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building uses older T12 and T8 lights. Often times it was found that T12 and T8 lights were sharing the same fixture. The gym lighting system uses a new T5 HO system. The T12 lighting systems remaining in the building were evaluated for replacement to new Energy-Saver T8, programmable start electronic ballast and occupancy sensor based controls. The High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lights mounted on the outside of the building are also good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology making it a viable option to replace the HPS systems. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade recommendations. There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the computers with monitors, copy machines, refrigerators, appliances, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.1 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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 13 OF 20  Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil energy usage for the surveyed facility from July 2008 to June 2010. Electricity is provided by the village power plant under their large commercial 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. The fuel oil usage profile shows the predicted fuel oil energy usage for the building. As actual oil usage records were available, the model used to predict usage was calibrated to approximately match actual usage. Fuel oil is sold to the customer in units of gallon (GAL), which contains approximately 140,000 BTUs of energy. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and fuel oil utility data provided, the 2008-2009 through 2009-2010 school year costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2008-2009 2009-2010 Average Electric 0.70 $/kWh 0.63 $/kWh 0.67 $/kWh Fuel Oil 5.58 $/GAL 5.58 $/GAL 5.58 $/GAL Total Cost $59,109 $59,229 $59,169 ECI 6.07 $/sf 6.09 $/sf 6.08 $/sf Electric EUI 18.7 kBtu/sf 20.9 kBtu/sf 19.8 kBtu/sf Fuel Oil EUI 52.8 kBtu/sf 52.8 kBtu/sf 52.8 kBtu/sf Waste Heat EUI 25.0 kBtu/sf 25.0 kBtu/sf 25.0 kBtu/sf Building EUI 96.5 kBtu/sf 98.7 kBtu/sf 97.6 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 average EUI of 97.6 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 17.6% more energy than the US average and 8.4% less energy than the Anchorage School District average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 14 OF 20  At current utility rates, the Lake and Peninsula School District is modeled to pay approximately $60,405 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Tanalian 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 Existing Retrofit Hot Wtr District Ht #2 Oil Electricity Annual Energy Costs by Fuel CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 15 OF 20  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 2045 1864 2045 1979 1990 318 329 1215 1979 2045 1979 2045 Refrigeration 238 217 238 230 238 230 238 238 230 238 230 238 Other Electrical 88 80 88 85 86 7 8 49 85 88 85 88 Ventilation Fans 1214 1106 1214 1175 1180 161 166 707 1175 1214 1175 1214 DHW 28 25 28 27 28 27 28 28 27 28 27 28 Space Heating 1882 1715 1882 1821 1882 1821 1882 1882 1821 1882 1821 1882 Fuel Oil Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 105 97 108 109 123 135 139 139 127 113 104 105 Space Heating 468 388 347 191 76 0 0 0 30 192 322 482 Hot Water Waste Heat Consumption (Million Btu) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 7 6 7 7 8 9 9 9 8 7 7 7 Space Heating 29 24 22 12 5 0 0 0 2 12 20 30 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 16 OF 20  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 57,674 kWh 196,843 3.340 657,456 #2 Oil 3,900 gallons 538,229 1.010 543,611 Hot Wtr District Ht 246.55 million Btu 246,553 1.280 315,587 Total 981,625 1,516,654 BUILDING AREA 9,730 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 101 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 156 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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 17 OF 20  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 3 2 bulb T5 14 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor and controls. Installation Cost $4,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $756 Breakeven Cost $8,880 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback ( yrs) 6 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching to reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 2 bulb T12 89 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 89 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $42,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,811 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $1,335 Breakeven Cost $60,705 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 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 8 HPS 7 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 7 LED 25W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $16,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,006 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $700 Breakeven Cost $20,170 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 16 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. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 18 OF 20  Mechanical Equipment Measures Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 2 bulb T8 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $33,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,506 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $1,050 Breakeven Cost $30,223 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 22 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 32-Watt T8 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 Recommendation 2 Place DHW circ pump on timer [$2500] Installation Cost $2,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $426 Maintenance Savings (/yr) $100 Breakeven Cost $11,563 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.6 Simple Payback yrs 6 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends placing the domestic hot water circulation pump, for both the school and gym, on a timer. This will reduce water circulation when the school is not occupied, effectively reducing the amount of heat wasted during off-hours. Rank Building Space Recommendation 5 2nd Floor Space Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the 2nd Floor space. Installation Cost $9,690 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,407 Breakeven Cost $14,219 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback ( yrs) 9 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  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 19 OF 20  Building Shell Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 7 Gym Space Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. Installation Cost $15,690 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,457 Breakeven Cost $19,783 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback ( yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: See EEM #5 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 9 1st Floor Space Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the 1st Floor space. Installation Cost $9,690 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $797 Breakeven Cost $10,822 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback ( yrs) 12 Auditors Notes: See EEM #5 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 1 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Crawlspace Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 14.6 Install R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $2,186 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $421 Breakeven Cost $9,975 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.6 Simple Payback ( yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: Addition of insulation to the perimeter of the floor area of the crawlspace will greatly 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. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 4 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Wall Type: All Weather Wood Insul. Sheathing: None Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 24" on center EPS Type I - psi 10, 2 inches Modeled R-Value: 12.1 Add R-19 fiberglass batts to crawlspace wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. Installation Cost $9,997 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $714 Breakeven Cost $16,932 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback ( yrs) 14 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates adding additional insulation to the crawlspace wall. This recommendation, coupled with the perimeter insulation mentioned in EEM #3 will help to reduce the heading load required by the school. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY  TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT  AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐ILI‐CAEC‐02  PAGE 20 OF 20  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    TANALIAN 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  40       Renovations / Notes Date 2005 PART II – ENERGY SOURCES  Heating Oil  Electricity  Natural Gas   Propane  Wood  Coal  $ /gallon  $ / kWh  $ / CCF  $ / gal  $ / cord  $ / ton Other energy  sources?  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. Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip 99653100 School Rd Tanalian 118 1983 Oil data provided for 2 years, and was divided in half. Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Tanalian School Education ‐ K ‐ 12 9,730 Regional Education Attendance 06/12/12 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date Lake & Peninsula School Dist Contact Person Email tmcdermott@lpsd.com Mailing Address City PO Box 498 King Salmon Primary  Operating  Hours Details 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period  for each energy source  you use. All utility data includes teacher housing and school building usage. 75.5% of utility data was allocated to school building, per LPSD estimates. Addition NOTE: Tanalian K-12 Buiding Size Input (sf) =9,730 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)53,216 2009 Electric Cost ($)37,389 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)5,135.80 2009 Oil Cost ($)21,720 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($)0.00 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Coal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Wood Cost ($)0.00 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)2,433.33 2009 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)938,541 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)59,109 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)18.7 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 52.8 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 25.0 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)96.5 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)3.84 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)2.23 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)6.07 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)59,525 2010 Electric Cost ($)37,509 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)5,135.80 2010 Oil Cost ($)21,720 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($)0 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Coal Cost ($)0 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Wood Cost ($)0 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)2,433.33 2010 Thermal Cost ($)0 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Steam Cost ($)0 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)960,072 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)59,229 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)20.9 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)52.8 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)25.0 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)98.7 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)3.85 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)2.23 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)6.09 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's Tanalian 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‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/200831193266$1,3600.70NEAAug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/2008314186143$2,9400.70NEASep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008304702160$3,3010.70NEAOct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008315190177$3,6440.70NEANov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008305638192$3,9590.70NEADec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/2008315613192$4,1910.75NEAJan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009316205212$4,6330.75NEAFeb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009286039206$4,0950.68NEAMar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009316821233$4,6250.68NEAApr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/2009304491153$3,0450.68NEAMay‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/200931232179$1,4810.64NEAJun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/200930793$1161.46NEAJul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/200931112738$721$0.64NEAAug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/2009313370115$2,150$0.64NEASep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/2009305218178$3,257$0.62NEAOct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/2009315740196$3,582$0.62NEANov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/2009306536223$4,079$0.62NEADec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/2009316267214$3,911$0.62NEAJan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/2010317010239$4,375$0.62NEAFeb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/2010286384218$3,984$0.62NEAMar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/2010316488221$4,143$0.64NEAApr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/2010306138209$3,920$0.64NEAMay‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/2010313708127$2,368$0.64NEAJun‐10 6/1/2010 6/31/201031154053$1,019$0.66Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:53,2161,8160$37,389$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:59,5252,0320$37,509$0$0.70$0.63Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg: $0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000$4,500$5,000010002000300040005000600070008000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Tanalian K‐12 ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($) Tanalian 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 ($)Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009313,8915,136$21,7204.23Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/20093100$00.00Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/20093000$00.00Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/20093100$00.00May‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/20093000$00.00Jun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/20093100$00.00Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/20093100$00.00Aug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/20092800$00.00Sep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/20093100$00.00Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/20093000$00.00Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/20093100$00.00Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/20093000$00.00Jan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/2010313,8915,136$21,7204.23Feb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/20103100$00.00Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/20103000$00.00Apr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/20103100$00.00May‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/20103000$00.00Jun‐10 6/1/20106/30/20103100$00.00Jul‐10 7/1/20107/31/20103100$00.00Aug‐10 8/1/20108/31/20102800$00.00Sep‐10 9/1/20109/30/20103100$00.00Oct‐10 10/1/201010/31/20103000$00.00Nov‐10 11/1/201011/30/20103100$00.00Dec‐10 12/1/201012/31/20103000$00.00Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:3,8915,1360$21,720$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:3,8915,1360$21,720$04.234.23Jul ‐ 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$25,000.0001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Tanalian K‐12 ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($) Tanalian K-12ThermalBtu/Btu =1ProviderCustomer # Month Start Date End Date Billing DaysConsumption (BTU)Consumption (Therms)Demand Use Thermal Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Jan‐0930000000300$0Feb‐0926666667267$0Mar‐0921666667217$0Apr‐0918333333183$0May‐0915000000150$0Jun‐0910000000100$0Jul‐0910000000100$0Aug‐0915000000150$0Sep‐0918333333183$0Oct‐0921666667217$0Nov‐0926666667267$0Dec‐0930000000300$00Jan‐1030000000300$0Feb‐1026666667267$0Mar‐1021666667217$0Apr‐1018333333183$0May‐1015000000150$0Jun‐1010000000100$0Jul‐1010000000100$0Aug‐1015000000150$0Sep‐1018333333183$0Oct‐1021666667217$0Nov‐1026666667267$0Dec‐1030000000300$0Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:243,333,333.332,433.33$0$0$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:243,333,333.332,433.33$0$0$0Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:$0 $0$0$0$1$1$1$1050100150200250300350Thermal Cost ($)Thermal Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Tanalian K‐12 ‐Thermal Consumption (Therms) vs Coal Cost ($)Thermal Consumption (Therms)Thermal Cost ($) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    TANALIAN SCHOOL K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX B   Appendix B Short AK-Warm Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Tanalian K‐12 Page 1     ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 6/30/2012 11:31 AM General Project Information  PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION  Building: Tanalian K‐12 Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co.  Address: 100 School Road Auditor  Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA  City: Tanalian 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: 9,730 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space:  240,015  Btu/hour   with Distribution Losses:  250,016 Btu/hour   Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and  25% Safety Margin: 381,121 Btu/hour   Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load,  if served.  Typical Occupancy: 40 people  Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average)  Actual City: Tanalian Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐19.5 deg F  Weather/Fuel City: Port Alsworth Heating Degree Days: 11,206 deg F‐days     Utility Information  Electric Utility: Self Generated Power (oil) ‐ Residential Natural Gas Provider: None  Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.670/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf     Annual Energy Cost Estimate  Description Space  Heating  Space  Cooling  Water  Heating Lighting Refrige ration  Other  Electric al  Cooking Clothes  Drying  Ventilatio n Fans  Service  Fees Total Cost  Existing  Building  $28,784 $0 $8,052 $13,290 $1,876 $563 $0 $0 $7,840 $0 $60,405  With  Proposed  Retrofits  $25,231 $0 $6,744 $6,211 $1,876 $563 $0 $0 $7,840 $0 $48,465  SAVINGS $3,553 $0 $1,308 $7,079 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,940    Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Tanalian K‐12 Page 2                        $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 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  Tanalian K‐12 Page 3     PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 On‐ or Below‐Grade  Floor, Perimeter:  House  Install R‐30 Fiberglass  Batts on the Perimeter 4  feet of the Crawl Space  Floor.  $421 $2,186 4.56 5.2 2 HVAC And DHW Place DHW circ pump on  timer [$2500]  $426 + $100 Maint.  Savings $2,500 4.63 5.9 3 Lighting ‐ Combined  Retrofit: 2 bulb T5  Replace with 14 FLUOR (2)  T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO  Standard StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor, Manual Dimmer  $756 $4,800 1.85 6.3 4 Below‐ (part or all)  Grade Wall:  Crawlspace  Add R‐19 fiberglass batts  to masonry wall.  Cost  does not include studs or  firring strips.  $714 $9,997 1.69 14 5 Setback Thermostat:  2nd Floor  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the 2nd Floor space.  $1,047 $9,690 1.47 9.3 6 Lighting ‐ Combined  Retrofit: 2 bulb T12  Replace with 89 FLUOR (2)  T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program  HighEfficElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $3,811 + $1,335 Maint.  Savings $42,000 1.45 11 7 Setback Thermostat:  Gym  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the Gym space.  $1,457 $15,690 1.26 10.8 8 Lighting ‐ Combined  Retrofit: HPS  Replace with 7 LED 25W  Module StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $1,006 + $700 Maint.  Savings $16,000 1.26 15.9 9 Setback Thermostat:  1st Floor  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the 1st Floor space.  $797 $9,690 1.12 12.2 10 Lighting ‐ Combined  Retrofit: 2 bulb T8  Replace with 70 FLUOR (2)  T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program  HighEfficElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor  $1,506 + $1,050 Maint.  Savings $33,600 0.90 22.3 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Tanalian K‐12 Page 4     PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) TOTAL $11,940 + $3,185 Maint. Savings $146,153 1.39 12.2         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 1 On‐ or Below‐ Grade Floor,  Perimeter: House  Insulation for 0' to 2'  Perimeter: None  Insulation for 2' to 4'  Perimeter: None  Modeled R‐Value: 14.6    Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts  on the Perimeter 4 feet of  the Crawl Space Floor.  $2,186 $421 4 Below‐ (part or all)  Grade Wall:  Crawlspace  Wall Type: All Weather Wood  Insul. Sheathing: None  Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 24" on  center  EPS Type I ‐ psi 10, 2 inches  Modeled R‐Value: 12.1    Add R‐19 fiberglass batts to  masonry wall.  Cost does  not include studs or firring  strips.  $9,997 $714 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  Tanalian K‐12 Page 5     2 Place DHW circ pump on timer [$2500] $2,500 $426 + $100  Maint.  Savings Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 5 2nd Floor Existing Unoccupied Heating  Setpoint: 70.0 deg F  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the 2nd Floor space.  $9,690 $1,047 7 Gym Existing Unoccupied Heating  Setpoint: 70.0 deg F  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the Gym space.  $15,690 $1,457 9 1st Floor Existing Unoccupied Heating  Setpoint: 70.0 deg F  Implement a Heating  Temperature Unoccupied  Setback to 60.0 deg F for  the 1st Floor space.  $9,690 $797 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 2 bulb T5 14 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F54W/T5  HO Standard StdElectronic with  Manual Switching  Replace with 14 FLUOR (2)  T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO  Standard StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy  Sensor, Manual Dimmer  $4,800 $756 6 2 bulb T12 89 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12  34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic  with Manual Switching  Replace with 89 FLUOR (2)  T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program  HighEfficElectronic and Add  new Occupancy Sensor  $42,000 $3,811 + $1,335  Maint.  Savings 8 HPS 7 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with  Manual Switching  Replace with 7 LED 25W  Module StdElectronic and  Add new Occupancy Sensor  $16,000 $1,006 + $700  Maint.  Savings 10 2 bulb T8 70 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W  Standard Instant StdElectronic  with Manual Switching  Replace with 70 FLUOR (2)  T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program  HighEfficElectronic and Add  new Occupancy Sensor  $33,600 $1,506 + $1,050  Maint.  Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  Tanalian K‐12 Page 6     Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Other Electrical Equipment Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Cooking/Clothes Drying Rank Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings         ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  AkWarmCalc Ver  2.2.0.3, Energy Lib 5/18/2012    CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY    TANALIAN SCHOOL K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX C   Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYTANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKEMODELTYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB-1 BOILER RM BUILDING HEAT BURNHAM V-904A OIL/CAST IRON 4.2 GPH OIL 82.1% - 35 32B-2 BOILER RM BUILDING HEAT WEIL-MCLAIN V-904A OIL/CAST IRON 4.2 GPH OIL 82.1% - 35 32WH-1 MECH RM DHW SUPPLY AMTROL WHSMZCDW INDIRECT STORAGE 50 GALLONS 80.0% - 24 17CP-1 BOILER RM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPS 50-160 F INLINE EST 125 GPM EST 82% 950-1300 W 10 7CP-2 BOILER RM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPS 50-160 F INLINE EST 125 GPM EST 82% 950-1300 W 10 7CP-3 BOILER RM WASTE HEAT GRUNDFOS UP 50-75 F INLINE 20 GPM @ 16' EST 82% 0.17 HP 10 7CP-4 BOILER RM WASTE HEAT GRUNDFOS UP 50-75 F INLINE 20 GPM @ 16' EST 82% 0.17 HP 10 7EF-1 MECH RM RA GREENHECK SFB-22-20 CENTRIFUGAL EST 5,000 CFM EST 82% EST 2.5 HP 25 18 RETURN AIR FROM SCHOOLEF-2 MECH RM EA GREENHECK N/A CENTRIFUGAL EST 1000 CFM EST 82% 0.5 HP 25 18 LABELED EXAIR 1EF-3 MECH RM EA WESTINGHOUSE 316P 347 CENTRIFUGAL EST 300 CFM EST 82% 0.17 HP 25 18EF-4 KITCHEN EA GREENHECK N/A AXIAL EST 900 CFM EST 82% EST 0.5 CFM 25 18AHU-1 MECH RM SA GREENHECK N/A CENTRIFUGAL EST 10,000 CFM 87.5% 5 HP 25 18MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   1. View of the main entrance of the school. 2. View of the side of the school showing where the classrooms were attached to the original building. 3. View of the back of the school. 4. View of the side of the gym. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   5. View of the school gym lighting. 6. View of the classroom lighting 7. View of the bathroom lighting. 8. View of exterior light fixture. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   9. View of the DW fuel oil tank in place. 10. Overall view of the boilers. 11. Close-up of boiler 1. 12. Heated water circulation pumps. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   13. Domestic hot water maker. 14. Heat exchanger removing waste heat from village generators. 15. Crawlspace, showing heated water supply lines. 16. Overall view of the fan room. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX D   17. School return air fan. 18. Kitchen range hood. 19. View of exit sign in the school. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  1. Overall view of the main entrance of the school. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  2. South side of the school. Heat loss exhibited from the wall. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  3. South side of the school. Expected heat loss exhibited from below grade wall. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  4. East side of the school. Heat loss exhibited from the (A) doorway (B) below grade wall. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  5. East side of the school. Heat loss due to open door. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY      TANALIAN SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT   APPENDIX E  6. Northwest corner of the school. Heat loss exhibited from the doorway. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY TANALIAN 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)