The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBBNC-MBA-CAEC Manokotak School 2012-EE 800 F Street Anchorage, AK 99501 p (907) 276‐6664 f (907) 276‐5042 Contact: Walter K. Heins, PE, CCP, CxA, CEA 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 p (907) 260‐5311 Contact: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA ENERGY AUDIT FINAL REPORT Manokotak School Manokotak, AK 99628 p (907) 842‐5280 AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐MBA‐CAEC‐01 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 i AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Contents I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 II. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5 III. Energy Audit Process ............................................................................................................. 6 IV. Method of Analysis ................................................................................................................. 7 V. Manokotak School Description ............................................................................................... 8 V.I SCHOOL ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 8 V.II SCHOOL MECHANICAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 8 V.III SCHOOL ELECTRICAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 9 VI. Portable Buildings Description ........................................................................................... 10 VI.I PORTABLE BUILDINGS ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 10 VI.II PORTABLE BUILDINGS MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL DESCRIPTION ......................................... 10 VII. Historic Energy Consumption and Cost ........................................................................... 11 VII.I ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION DATA ................................................................................................ 11 VII.II FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION DATA .................................................................................................... 11 VII.III OVERALL CONSUMPTION DATA .................................................................................................. 11 VIII. Equipment Inventory and Photo Survey ........................................................................ 13 IX. Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................... 14 IX.I MANOKOTAK SCHOOL ..................................................................................................................... 14 IX.II PORTABLE BUILDINGS .................................................................................................................... 18 IX.III ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION AND OPTIMIZATION ....................... 19 Appendices Appendix A – Energy Benchmark Data Appendix B – AkWarm Commercial Reports Appendix C – Major Equipment List Appendix D – Energy Conservation Measures Appendix E – Site survey Photos Appendix F – AkWarm Model of Portable Building Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 ii AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 REPORT DISCLAIMER Privacy The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), was produced under contract to Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGAs 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. Limitations of Study This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings, and provide an opinion of the costs to implement the recommendations. This audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE), and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. In preparing this report, the preparers acted with the standard of care prevalent in this region for this type of work. All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. Not all data could be verified and no destructive testing or investigations were undertaken. Some data may have been incomplete. This report is not intended to be a final design document. 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 upgrades should undergo a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statutes as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. All liabilities for upgrades, including but not limited to safety, design, and performance are incumbent upon the professional(s) who prepare the design. Coffman Engineers, Inc (CEI) and Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) bear no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Financial ratios may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, installation costs, related additional work, or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, many ECMs are interactive, so implementation of one ECM may impact the performance of another ECM. CEI and CAEC accept no liability for financial loss due to ECMs that fail to meet the forecasted financial ratios. The economic analyses for the ECMs relating to lighting improvements are based solely on energy savings. Additional benefits may be realized in reduced maintenance cost, deferred maintenance, and improved lighting quality. The new generation lighting systems have significantly longer life leading to long term labor savings, especially in high areas like Gyms and exterior parking lots. Lighting upgrades displace re-lamping costs for any fixtures whose lamps would otherwise be nearing the end of their lifecycle. This reduces maintenance costs for 3-7 years after the upgrade. An overall improvement in lighting quality, quantified by numerous studies, improves the performance of students and workers in the built environment. New lighting systems can be designed to address all of the above benefits. US Government Disclaimer: 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. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 1 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 I. Executive Summary This report presents the findings of an energy audit conducted at the Manokotak Elementary/High School as part of a contract for: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Scott Waterman 4300 Boniface Parkway Anchorage, AK 99510 Email: swaterma@ahfc.us (907) 330-8195 SW Region School District Contact: Rick Dallmann P.O. Box 90 Dillingham, AK 99576 Email: rdallmann@swrsd.org (907) 842-5280 This audit was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State of Alaska’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The average annual documented utility costs at this 39,200 square foot (sf) facility from January 2009 to December 2010 are as follows: Electricity $177,136 Fuel Oil $119,006 Total $296,142 2009 and 2010 Average Energy Utilization Index (EUI) = 111.5 kBTU/sf 2009 and 2010 Average Energy Cost Index = 7.55 $/sf Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) calculated to be cost effective are shown below in the Executive Summary Table with the energy analyst’s best opinion of probable cost, savings, and investment returns. Be aware that the measures are not all additive because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is ± 30% until detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. See Section IX for detailed descriptions of all cost effective ECMs. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 2 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Executive Summary – Recommended ECMs Manokotak School (MS) Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) MS-0a Refrigerators Replace Refrigerators older than 5 years old - - - <10 years MS-1 Lighting: Industrial Arts T12 Florescent Replace magnetic ballasts in 4’ and 8’ fixtures with electronic ballasts. $283 - - 0 MS-2 Setback Thermostat: Classrooms Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms space. $19,364 $200 1452.86 0 MS-3 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $4,464 $200 334.90 0 MS-4 Lighting: Exterior Add new On/Off Photoswitch to control wall packs and pole mounted fixtures $7,783 $1,500 79.86 0.2 MS -5 Lighting: Corridor Nightlights Rewire Nightlights to be Switched with the Corridor Lights $2,625 $550 68.89 0.2 MS -6 Lighting: Classroom Add new Daylight Sensors $4,214 $2,050 29.33 0.5 MS -7 Lighting: Fan room Replace with 12 FLUOR LED, A Lamp 13W $1,091 $420 22.71 0.4 MS -8 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 30%. $14,393 $15,000 9.88 1 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 3 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Executive Summary – Recommended ECMs Manokotak School (MS) Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) MS -9 Exterior Lighting: Building and Pole Mounted HPS Replace with 20 LED fixtures $5,000 $35,000 2.2 7.0 MS -10 Lighting: Corridor Replace with 97 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W High Efficiency Electronic Ballast; Retrofit kit $2,137 $14,550 2.13 6.8 MS -11 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Perimeter Crawlspace Install R-14 rigid insulation on basement wall $1,579 $20,253 2.10 12.8 MS -12 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors w/windows Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $241 $3,634 1.79 15.1 MS -13 Lighting: Classroom T8 Parabolic Replace with 332 FLUOR T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Electronic Ballast; Retrofit kit $6,015 $49,800 1.73 8.3 MS -14 Lighting: Intermittent (3) and (4) lamp T8 Add new Occupancy Sensors $191 $2,650 1.05 13.9 Notes: a Due to advances in refrigerators in the previous 5 years, new Energy Star refrigerators are much more efficient and result in viable energy savings. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 4 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Portable Building ECMs All ECMs shown in the Portable Building Executive Summary, below, are based on an AkWarm model for one portable building. Two portables exist at the site. Multiply the annual energy savings and installed costs by two to account for both portables. Executive Summary – Recommended Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) Portable Building (PB) Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) PB-1 Setback Thermostat: Portable Building Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Portable Building space. $631 $500 18.95 0.8 PB-2 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 30%. $144 $700 2.11 4.9 PB-3 Exterior Door: Portable Building - Doors Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $109 $2,180 1.35 19.9 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 5 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 II. Introduction This energy audit was conducted at Manokotak School for AHFC and the SW Regional School District. The school is a 39,200 square feet (sf) campus that includes two 1,300 sf portable buildings and a 36,600 sf school building. The location of the school is shown in the following regional and overhead images. The energy audit was conducted in order to evaluate areas and equipment where energy savings can be realized. The savings were then compared to a baseline and evaluated for reasonable project financial ratios and payback. Manokotak, Alaska – Google Maps Manokotak School, Manokotak AK – Google Maps Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 6 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 III. Energy Audit Process Prior to visiting the school, the first task was to collect and review two years of utility data for electricity and fuel oil usage. 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 energy conservation measures. A spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (see Appendix A). The primary benchmark calculation used for comparison and baseline data is the Energy Utilization Index, or EUI (see Section VII). After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the architectural and engineering drawings to develop a building profile which documented building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning, (HVAC), water heating, and refrigeration. 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 was gathered, the next step in the process was the physical site investigation (site survey). A site survey was completed on August 6, 2011. We spent our time inspecting the building systems that impact energy consumption and answering questions from our preliminary review of the school. The on- site contact during the investigation was Mr. Rick Dallmann1 of the Southwest Region School District. The following information was also collected while on site: occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption. The following energy audit includes an evaluation of the information gathered, the researching of possible conservation opportunities, organizing the energy audit into a comprehensive report, and making ECM recommendations for mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. 1 Mr. Rick Dallmann, (907) 842-5280 (office) Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 7 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 IV. Method of Analysis Having completed the preliminary energy audit tasks, Coffman Engineers, Inc., (CEI) conducted a site survey. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy savings opportunities exist within the facility. The energy audit team from CEI walked the entire site to inventory and investigate the building envelope and major equipment, including: HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, and classrooms. An understanding of how the major equipment is used is determined during the site survey. The collected data was entered into AkWarm Commercial™ software, an energy calculating program for buildings. The data was processed by AkWarm to model a baseline from which energy ECMs could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of the baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm. The recommended ECMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, water heating, and other electrical measures that will reduce annual energy consumption. ECMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s cataloged information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm. Implementation of more than one ECM often affects the savings of other ECMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher for an ECM implemented individually than when that ECM is just one of multiple recommended ECMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedules of inefficient lighting systems may result in a given savings. Also implementing a more efficient lighting system will add to the savings, but less than the efficient lighting would alone because there is less energy to be saved when the lights are on a reduced operating schedule. Thus, if multiple ECMs are recommended, the combined savings must be calculated and identified appropriately in groups. In Appendix D, Energy Conservation Measures, the simple lifetime calculation is shown for each ECM, which is based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings are extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the ECM. The total energy savings are calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings. The cost savings and installation costs are used to calculate simple payback2 and Savings to Investment Ratio3 (SIR). These are listed in Appendix D and summarized in the Executive Summary Table of this report. The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. Cost savings is calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include labor and equipment to evaluate the initial investment required to implement and ECM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. The energy analyst’s opinions of probable cost are garnered from RS Means Cost Data, other industry publications, and local contractors and suppliers. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. 2 The simple payback is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). 3 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR): Break Even Cost divided by initial installed cost, where Break-Even Cost is how much can be spent and still have the measure be cost effective; it equals the Present Value (PV) of Savings over the life of the measure minus PV of maintenance costs. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 8 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 V. Manokotak School Description The Manokotak School is a medium sized, two story school with two portable buildings. The school was originally constructed in 2001. The school is regularly occupied by approximately 150 people, Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm, during the school year. The school year starts in August and ends in May. One of the portable buildings serves as the living quarters for the school’s principal while the other portable building is used for teacher housing. Both portables are occupied during the hours of 5 pm to 8 am during the school year. V.I School Architectural Description Wall, Floor, and Roof construction details were obtained from the architectural drawings. The above grade walls of the Manokotak School are constructed of 2x8 studs on 16” centers with 7.25” thick fiberglass batt insulation, plywood sheathing, and metal siding on the exterior walls for a composite R- value of R-25.8. A crawlspace area is located below the floor of the school, with walls that are constructed of 8” CMU blocks with 2” thick XPS insulation on the exterior side for an equivalent R-value of R-13.6. There is a total of 19,293 sf of total wall area. The 36,600 sf main floor uses wood I-joist and plywood construction. The perimeter floor edges are insulated with 2”XPS having an effective R-value of R-15.4. The roof construction of the school is made up of a metal roof with three layers of rigid insulation on top of wood decking. According to the original architectural drawings, the rigid insulation of the roof is 5” thick. While the roof insulation could not be accessed, it was estimated that the composite R-value for the roof system is R-50.1. There is 38,224 sf of roofing on the school building. Typical window construction consists of 1/4” air space, low emissivity double pane glass with metal frames. Both fixed windows and operable tilt-turn windows were observed. The school has several different types of insulated exterior doors. There are four solid metal doors and two metal doors with quarter-light glass, each with an estimated R-value of R-3.3. There are also five double paned, half-glass doors that are located in the vestibule areas and have an estimated insulating value of R-2.2. V.II School Mechanical Description The school building is heated with two oil fired Burnham V908A boilers, each with an input rating of 1,386,000 BTU/hr. The boilers are connected to a boiler loop that delivers heat to the school, the principal’s portable, and the teacher’s housing portable. Within the school, the boiler loop connects to the fin tubes, unit heaters, and hydronic coils in the air handling units (AHUs). Fuel oil is stored outside in two 10,000 gallon above ground fuel oil tanks. A 50 gallon day tank is located inside the boiler room. The boilers are estimated to be 10 years old and appear to be well maintained. The boiler system is controlled by a Direct Digital Control (DDC) system. There are three AHUs in the school that provide tempered ventilation air to the classrooms, the gym area, and the kitchen. All AHUs utilize hydronic heating coils to heat the supply air. The AHU serving the kitchen is a dedicated make-up air unit. In the boiler room, a combustion air fan is provided. A heat recovery ventilator (HRV) works in conjunction with the AHU that serves the gym area. The domestic hot water for the building is supplied by two indirect-fired water heaters with a storage capacity of 119 gallons each. One of the water heaters is manufactured by Amtrol and the other is manufactured by SuperStor. The domestic hot water consumption for the building was estimated to be 1.5 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 9 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 gallons per student per day. This estimate is based on typical school usage patterns developed by ASHRAE. V.III School Electrical Description The school is served by an 800 Amp (A), 480 Volt (V), 3-phase, 4-wire, overhead service connected to three 75 Kilovolt-Amperes (kVA), pole-mounted, single-phase transformers. The electric utility is the Manokotak Power Co. The school has a 300 kilowatt (kW) standby, reciprocating diesel generator. Inside the school, 277/480V power is used to serve large mechanical loads, lighting, and three step-down dry- type transformers. The transformers convert the voltage to 120/208V, three phase for receptacle loads, computers, and kitchen equipment. There are two 112.5 kVA transformers with an impedance of 4.2%Z and one 30 kVA harmonic mitigating transformer with an impedance of 5.1%Z. These transformers were manufactured in the year 2000. Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, all general purpose transformers have been required to meet the efficiency requirements listed in the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association publication NEMA TP1-2002. There are energy savings available by replacing these transformers with new models that meet or exceed the standard, however caution must be exercised because replacing transformers impacts available fault current and over-current protection device selective coordination. The replacement of these transformers could only be recommended after performing a power system analysis. That level of study is outside the scope of this project. Most fluorescent light fixtures in the school utilize T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. T12 light fixtures are only present in the industrial arts classroom. The gym is illuminated using T5HO fixtures. Nightlights (un-switched light fixtures) are present throughout the corridors. Exterior lighting consists of 100 watt (W) high pressure sodium (HPS) wallpacks and 250W HPS pole mounted fixtures. Some of these fixtures were observed as having integral photo sensors. The photo sensors were inoperable. During the site survey, all exterior fixtures were illuminated during the day. Other electricity-using equipment not previously described in the mechanical or electrical sections include a small walk-in freezer (which is shut down in the summer to save energy), a microwave and other various kitchen equipment, and various user equipment such as projectors, computers, and printers. There is also a variety of wood shop equipment including a table saw, bench grinders, drill presses, a band saw, and a chop saw. It is outside of the scope of this project, but we need to mention a potential electrical safety hazard that was noted during the audit. Electrical panel "K" located in the kitchen is missing covers over the spare circuit breaker slots, this exposes live bus work. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 10 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 VI. Portable Buildings Description VI.I Portable Buildings Architectural Description There are two portable units on the site. One portable is the principal’s housing while the other portable is the teacher’s housing. The teacher’s housing is comprised of four individual living units that resemble single family housing units. The two portables are 2x4 wood stud wall construction at 16” on-center with R-11 fiberglass batt insulation in between the studs. The exterior face of the wall is T1-11 siding with drywall on the interior side of the wall. Interior and exterior wall heights are nine feet under the roof eaves, and the end-walls vary in height from nine feet at the eaves to 11 feet at the roof peak in the center of the end wall. One portable typically has 2,054 sq ft of exterior wall area. The portables have above grade floors resting on sleepers. Plywood skirting, insulated with 2” blue board, protects the sleepers and floor construction from weather and has an equivalent insulating value of R- 13.1. The floor construction is plywood flooring resting on 2x8 wood joists. The floor is insulated with 2” of blue board rigid insulation resulting in an equivalent insulating value of R-23.9. One portable typically has 1,300 sq ft of floor area. The portables are covered by cold roofs, with shingles covering plywood decking. It is estimated that the roof insulation is R-19 fiberglass batt insulation, with an additional 2” of blue board insulation on top for a total of R-23.3. One portable typically has 1,838 sq ft of roof area. The portables have double pane wood windows with an estimated R-value of R-1.8. There are two metal doors per portable, with estimated insulation values of R-1.7. VI.II Portable Buildings Mechanical and Electrical Description Both portables are heated with fin tube as well as a hydronic unit heater located in the crawlspace area. The principal’s housing obtains its heat from the school’s boiler system. Hot water is supplied to the principal’s housing through buried arctic piping, which is then supplied to a Weil-McLain indirect water heater for the domestic hot water. The teacher’s housing has a dedicated 50,000 BTU/hr oil-fired boiler, a small day tank, and four 148,000 BTU/hr Toyo 180 instantaneous water heaters. The portable units are not billed to the school for electrical usage. Therefore, the electrical usage for these buildings is not included in the energy model for these buildings. Due to the fact that the two on-site portables have similar building envelope construction and heating equipment, only one AkWarm model was created to model one portable building. The results and recommended ECMs generated by this single portable AkWarm model should be applied to both portable buildings. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 11 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 VII. Historic Energy Consumption and Cost Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil usage for the school from January 2009 to December 2010. Manokotak Electric Company provides the electricity and Manokotak Power Company provides the fuel oil to the facility. Both utility companies bill the school using a commercial rate schedule. VII.I Electrical Consumption Data The electric utility costs consist of several components: a fixed monthly customer charge, an energy usage charge, fuel surcharge, taxes, and a demand charge. The energy usage and fuel surcharge are based on the customer's usage as measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh). The usage (kWh) is determined by load wattage divided by 1,000, times hours running. For example; a 1,000 watt space heater operating for one hour will use 1 kWh of electricity as would ten, 100 watt lamps operating for one hour or one, 100W lamp operating for 10 hours. One kWh is equivalent to 3,413 BTU. VII.II Fuel Oil Consumption Data The fuel oil supplier measures consumption and bills in gallons of fuel oil. The average heating value of fuel oil is 132,000 BTUs per gallon. Fuel oil is sold to the customer in units of gallons which is equal to approximately 1.32 Therms of energy, or 132,000 BTUs. Oil is delivered and invoiced once annually. Ideally, the storage tanks are "topped off" but in reality the amount purchased can be influenced by school district budgets. Correlation to the invoices assumes that the annual expenditure is equal to one year's usage. VII.III Overall Consumption Data 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 data provided, the 2009 and 2010 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in the table below. Energy Cost and Consumption Data 2009 2010 Average Electric Rate $0.56/kWh $0.57 /kWh $0.56/kWh #2 Fuel Oil Rate $5.68 /Therm $3.85 /Therm $4.77 /Therm Total Cost $218,444 $274,666 $296,142 ECI $5.57 /sf $7.01 /sf $7.55 /sf Electric EUI 12.3 kBTU/sf 27.1 kBTU/sf 27.4 kBTU/sf Fuel Oil EUI 83.0 kBTU/sf 85.2 kBTU/sf 84.1 kBTU/sf Building EUI 95.3 kBTU/sf 112.3 kBTU/sf 111.5 kBTU/sf The Energy Cost Index (ECI) is derived by dividing the annual cost by the building square footage. The combined square footage of the main building and the two portables was calculated to be 39,200 sf. The annual EUI is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units per Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption of similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting the annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s and then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 12 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural, mechanical, and electrical drawings were obtained and utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 13 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 VIII. Equipment Inventory and Photo Survey Following the completion of the field survey a detailed equipment list was created and is attached as Appendix C. The major equipment listed are considered to be the major energy consuming equipment in the building whose replacement 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. Additionally, photos of various equipment and the building construction were taken during the site survey. Several photos are included in Appendix E. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 14 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 IX. Energy Conservation Measures IX.I Manokotak School ECM #MS-0 – Replace Refrigerators Older than 5 years Old Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) ---<10 years Due to recent advances in refrigerators in the last 5 years, new Energy Star refrigerators are significantly more efficient than previous models. Replacing existing refrigerators, which are older than 5 years old, with new energy star models will typically have paybacks of less than 10 years. ECM #MS-1 – Replace Magnetic Ballasts in T12 Fixtures with Electronic Ballasts Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $283 --0 The majority of the T12 light fixtures in the Industrial Arts classroom and storage areas have already been retrofit with electronic ballasts. Six 8’ and three 4’ fixtures remain with magnetic ballasts. It is recommended that these existing ballasts be replaced with electronic ballasts as part of normally scheduled maintenance. See items 1 and 3 in Appendix D for more information. ECM #MS-2 – Setback Thermostat for Classrooms Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $19,364 $200 -0 Significant energy savings exist by reducing the room temperature of the classroom areas during unoccupied times. By reducing the temperature of all classroom spaces to 60F during unoccupied times, the heating load required from the boiler will be reduced. This will reduce the amount of heating oil burned. The costs associated with the night setback do not include travel and time costs. The cost shown reflects the cost for two hours of programming labor. See item 2 in Appendix D for more information. ECM #MS-3 – Setback Thermostat for Gym Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $4,464 $200 334.90 0 Significant energy savings exist by reducing the room temperature of the gym area during unoccupied times. By reducing the temperature of the gymnasium space to 60F during unoccupied times, the heating load required from the boiler will be reduced. This will in turn reduce the amount of heating oil burned. The costs associated with the night setback do not include travel and time costs. The cost shown reflects the cost for two hours of programming labor. See item 4 in Appendix D for more information. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 15 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 ECM #MS-4– Install New On/Off Photoswitch Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $7,783 $1,500 79.86 0.2 Currently, the exterior lighting is on constantly on. This ECM is to install a photocell and contactor to switch off all exterior lighting during the day. See items 5 and 7 in Appendix D for more information. This improvement will also save maintenance costs by decreasing lamp burn time, thus decreasing the frequency of relamping. Note that the savings of this ECM are reduced if ECM #MS-9, replace exterior lighting with LED, is implemented. ECM #MS-5– Revise Wiring to Eliminate Night Lights Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $2,625 $550 68.89 0.2 There are several nightlights in the corridor and common areas of the school. Due to the existing lighting control contactor’s connection to the existing security system, these night lights could be eliminated. The security system can be programmed to switch on all common area lights if motion is detected by existing motion sensors. The retrofit will include wiring revisions at 17 light fixtures to connect them to the switched conductor and programming revisions to the security system to signal the common area lights to switch on when occupancy is detected. This measure is modeled as items 6 and 9 in Appendix D. This improvement will also save maintenance costs by decreasing lamp burn time, thus decreasing the frequency of relamping. Note that the savings of this ECM are reduced if ECM #MS-10, replace corridor lighting, is implemented. ECM #MS-6 – New Daylight Sensors Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $4,214 $2,050 29.33 0.5 Energy savings exist by switching off lights and using natural daylight. There are ample windows in most classrooms in the school. Daylight sensors can be used to switch off one of the three lamps or two of the four in the existing light fixtures when there is sufficient natural light available. This calculation assumes that the daylight sensors will reduce energy usage by 33% in half of the three lamp fixtures and 50% in all four lamp fixtures, 6% of the time. See items 8 and 12 in Appendix D for more information. Note that the savings of this ECM are reduced if ECM #MS-13, replace classroom lighting, is implemented. ECM #MS-7 – Re-lamp the Existing Fan Room Light Fixtures with Compact Fluorescent Lamps Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $1,091 $420 22.71 0.4 The existing porcelain socket light fixtures in the fan room are equipped with incandescent lamps. Significant energy can be saved by replacing the incandescent lamps with LED lamps. See item 10 in Appendix D for more information. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 16 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 ECM #MS-8 – Air Tightening Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $14,393 $15,000 9.88 1 By tightening the building envelope with air sealing improvements, infiltration into the building will be reduced. This in turn will reduce the heating load required by the building and reduce the amount of fuel oil being burned by the boilers. While a blower door test was not completed, it is anticipated that air leakage is occurring though weather stripping around doors, window frames, and wall and roof penetrations. Leakage is also expected to be occurring through the outdoor air vents in the crawlspace areas. Methods to decrease the infiltration into the building include: sealing around the windows and doors with caulking and insulation, adding new weather stripping to doors, providing gaskets to all exterior cover plates and sealing all roof and wall penetrations. See item 11 in Appendix D for more information. ECM #MS-9– Replace Exterior HPS with LED Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $5,000 $35,000 2.2 7.0 The existing exterior lighting consists of (16) 100W HPS wall packs and (4) 250W HPS pole mounted fixtures. This ECM replaces the 100W HPS wall packs with 35W LED wall packs and the 250W HPS pole-mounted fixtures with 100W LED fixtures. It is assumed that the new fixtures will be in the existing locations and utilize the existing wiring. See items 15 and 17 in Appendix D for more information. ECM #MS-10–Retrofit Existing T8 Parabolic Fixtures in Corridors to T5 Volumetric Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $2,137 $14,550 2.13 6.8 The existing corridor lighting consists of (97) 4' T8 fluorescent parabolic fixtures with electronic ballasts and either 2 or 3 lamps. These spaces are generally over illuminated. The fixtures can be upgraded to (2) lamp T5 volumetric fixtures via a drop in retrofit kit. The result will be more even illumination, as increased perceived brightness, and energy savings. See items 13, 14, 37, and 38 in Appendix D for more information. ECM #MS-11– Add Insulation to Crawlspace Walls Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $1,579 $20,253 2.10 12.8 Currently, there is no insulation installed on the interior crawlspace walls. By adding R-14 insulation to the interior walls of the crawlspace, the amount of heat lost through the school’s floor and crawlspace area will be reduced. This will decrease the amount of heat required to maintain a warm, conditioned crawlspace area. See item 16 in Appendix D for more information. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 17 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 ECM #MS-12– Replace Exterior Glass Doors Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $241 $3,634 1.79 15.1 Currently, there are five 36” x 84” partial-glass doors, with an estimated R-value of R-2.2, leading into the school. It is recommended that these doors be removed and replaced with new R-6.25 minimum (U- 0.16) insulated doors. See item 18 in Appendix D for more information. ECM #MS-13– Retrofit Existing T8 Parabolic Fixtures in Classrooms to (2) Lamp T5 Volumetric Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $6,015 $49,800 1.73 8.3 The existing classroom lighting consists of (332) 4' T8 fluorescent parabolic fixtures with electronic ballasts and either 3 or 4 lamps. These spaces are generally over illuminated. The fixtures can be upgraded to (2) lamp T5 volumetric fixtures via a drop in retrofit kit. The result will be more even illumination, as increased perceived brightness, and energy savings. See items 19 and 21 in Appendix D for more information. ECM #MS-14–Install New Occupancy Sensors Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $191 $2,650 1.05 13.9 Currently, no occupancy sensors are used in the school for lighting control. This ECM is to install occupancy sensors in intermittently occupied rooms such as offices, conference rooms, and storage spaces that have three or four lamp T8 fluorescent light fixtures. The model shows that installing occupancy sensors in similar locations with two lamp fixtures is not cost effective. See items 20, 22, 23, and 24 in Appendix D for more information. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 18 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 IX.II Portable Buildings There are two portable buildings that exist on-site. The principal’s housing is connected to the school’s boiler system while the teacher housing is equipped with a standalone boiler. A typical AkWarm model was created to model the typical portable, due to similarities in construction type and heating systems. The following ECM savings and installed costs are for one portable building. Multiply the results by two to obtain savings and costs for the both portables. ECM #PB-1 – Setback Thermostat Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $631 $500 18.95 0.8 Significant energy savings exist by reducing the room temperature of the portable buildings during unoccupied times. By reducing the temperature of the space to 60F during unoccupied times, the heating load required from the boiler will be reduced. This will in turn reduce the amount of heating oil burned. ECM #PB-2 – Seal Building Envelope and Reduce Infiltration by 30% Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $144 $700 2.11 4.9 By tightening the building envelope with air sealing improvements, infiltration into the building will be reduced. This in turn will reduce the heating load required by the building and reduce the amount of fuel oil being used by the boiler. Reducing infiltration by air sealing the building envelope will produce energy savings. While a blower door test was not completed, it is anticipated that air leakage is occurring around old weather stripping around doors, window frames, through the crawlspace, and wall and roof penetrations. Methods to decrease the infiltration into the building include: sealing around the windows and doors with caulking and insulation, adding new weather stripping to doors, providing gaskets to all exterior cover plates and sealing all roof, floor, and wall penetrations. ECM #PB-3 – Replace Exterior Doors Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (years) $109 $2,180 1.35 19.9 The portable buildings each have two poorly insulated (R-1.7) metal doors. It is recommended that both doors be removed and replaced with a new R-6.25 minimum (U-0.16) insulated door. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 19 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 IX.III Administrative Controls for Energy Conservation and Optimization While the intent of many energy conservation 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 fuel-burning and electrical equipment are used, and therefore have a greater impact on energy savings potential than simply equipment upgrades alone. Significant energy cost savings can be realized when ECMs 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 setpoints 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 ECMs. Shown below are some examples which have proven successful for other organizations. Optimization of site selection includes scheduling and location of events. If several buildings in a given neighborhood are all lightly used after regularly occupied hours, energy savings can be found when after- hours 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. Two operational behaviors which can be combined with equipment upgrades are operating schedules and equipment control strategies including setpoints. 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 setpoints can be reduced during low-occupancy hours to maximize savings. In addition, 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 ECMs. Examples include heating plant optimizations (boiler section cleaning, boiler flush-through cleaning) and tighter controls of equipment setbacks and shutdowns (unoccupied zones equipment shutdown, 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. Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Appendix A Energy Benchmark Data Manokotak School Draft Energy Audit Report Building Type Community Population Year Built Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Manokotak School 39,200 SW Region School District Regional Education Attendance 05/09/11 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Rick Dallmann 842‐5280 State Zip Contact Person Email rdallmann@swrsd.org Mailing Address City Facility Address Facility City Facility Zip Manokotak 99628 Building Type Community Population Year Built Mixed 415 2001 State Zip AK 99576 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 8 to 50 0 0 Average # of Occupants Mailing Address City P.O. Box 90 Dillingham Primary Operating Hours Occupants During Operating Hours 147 Renovations/Notes Dt DtilDate None Note: What drawings may be available are maintained at the school for maintenance. Specific information on drawings is unavailable from facility owner. Details PART II – ENERGY SOURCES 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Describe Coffman Engineers, Inc.AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak School Draft Energy Audit Report Manokotak Buiding Size Input (sf) =39,200 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)140 7552009 Electric Consumption (kWh)140,755 2009 Electric Cost ($)78,432 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)32,538 2009 Oil Cost ($)140,012 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)3,734,197 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)218,444 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)12.3 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 83.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)95.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.002009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.00 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)3.57 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)5.57 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)310,988 2010 Electric Cost ($)177 2612010 Electric Cost ($)177,261 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)33,396 2010 Oil Cost ($)97,405 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)4,401,002 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)274,666 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)() 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)27.1 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)85.2 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)112.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)4.52 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)2482010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)2.48 20010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)7.01 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's Coffman Engineers, Inc.AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak SchoolDraft Energy Audit ReportManokotakElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)MPC Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/2009 31NO DATA NO DATA NO DATA NO DATAMPCFeb092/1/20092/28/200928NODATANODATANODATANODATAMPCFeb‐092/1/20092/28/200928NO DATANO DATANO DATANO DATAMPCMar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/200931NO DATANO DATANO DATANO DATAMPCApr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/200930NO DATANO DATANO DATANO DATAMPCMay‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/200931NO DATANO DATANO DATANO DATAMPCJun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/20093014,974511$6,738$0.45MPCJul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/20093110,320352$5,882$0.57MPCAug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/20093123,106789$13,170$0.57MPCSep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/20093029,5551,009$16,846$0.57MPCOct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/200931NO DATANO DATANO DATANO DATA////$$MPCNov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/20093032,4131,106$18,475$0.57MPCDec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/20093130,3871,037$17,321$0.57MPCJan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/20103132,5531,111$18,555$0.57MPCFeb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/20102829,5631,009$16,851$0.57MPCMar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/20103131,2851,068$17,832$0.57MPCApr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/20103029,9021,021$17,044$0.57MPCMay‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/20103121,947749$12,510$0.57MPCJun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/2010308,073276$4,602$0.57MPCJul‐10 7/1/2010 7/31/2010318,706297$4,962$0.57MPCAug‐10 8/1/2010 8/31/20103121,823745$12,439$0.57MPCSep‐10 9/1/2010 9/30/20103030,8201,052$17,567$0.57MPCOct‐10 10/1/2010 10/31/20103131,5851,078$18,003$0.57MPCNov‐10 11/1/2010 11/30/20103031,9321,090$18,201$0.57MPCDec‐10 12/1/2010 12/31/20103132,7991,119$18,695$0.57Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:140,7554,8040$78,432$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:310,98810,6140$177,261$0$0.56Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:$0.56$0.57Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:gCoffman Engineers, Inc.AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak SchoolDraft Energy Audit ReportManokotakOilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/20083100$00.00A088/1/20088/31/20083100$0000Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/2008 31 0 0 $0 0.00Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/2008 30 0 0 $0 0.00Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/2008 31 0 0 $0 0.00Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008 30 0 0 $0 0.00Dec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/20083100$00.00Jan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/20093100$00.00Feb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/20092800$00.00Mar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/20093100$00.00Apr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/20093000$00.00May‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/2009 31 0 0 $0 0.00Jun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/2009 30 24,650 32,538 $140,012 4.30Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/2009 31 0 0 $0 0.00Aug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/2009 31 0 0 $0 0.00Sep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/2009 30 0 0 $0 0.00Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/2009 31 0 0 $0 0.00Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/2009 30 0 0 $0 0.00Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/20093100$00.00////$Jan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/2010 31 0 0 $0 0.00Feb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/2010 28 0 0 $0 0.00Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/2010 31 0 0 $0 0.00Apr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/20103000$00.00May‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/20103100$00.00Jun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/20103025,30033,396$97,4052.92Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:24,65032,5380$140,012$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:25,30033,3960$97,405$0Jul‐08toJun‐09avg:5.68Jul 08 to Jun 09 avg:5.68Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:3.85Coffman Engineers, Inc.AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Appendix B AkWarm Commercial Reports Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 11/8/2011 10:02 AM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Manokotak K-12 School Auditor Company: Coffman Engineers, Inc. Address: PO Box 30 Auditor Name: Walter Heins, PE, CxA, CEA City: Manokotak Auditor Address: 800 F Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Client Name: Rick Dallmann Client Address: PO Box 90 Dillingham, AK 99576 Auditor Phone: (907) 276-6664 Auditor FAX: (907) 276-5042 Client Phone: (907) 842-5280 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 37,900 square feet. This area includes the 1,300 sf principal’s housing and the 36,600 sf school. The school’s heating system serves both buildings. Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 1,154,136 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 1,214,880 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 1,851,952 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 147 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Manokotak Design Outdoor Temperature: -19.3 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Manokotak Heating Degree Days: 11,306 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Manokotak Power Company - Commercial - Lg Natural Gas Provider: None Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.560/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $150,015 $0 $11,311 $79,480 $23,933 $0 $0 $17,993 $0 $282,732 With Proposed Retrofits $106,745 $0 $12,017 $46,574 $23,933 $0 $0 $17,993 $0 $207,263 SAVINGS $43,270 $0 -$706 $32,905 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,469 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Appendix C Major Equipment List Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORY TAG LOCATION FUNCTION MAKE MODEL TYPE CAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZE ASHRAE SERVICE LIFE ESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFE NOTES B‐1 Boiler Rm Building Heating Burnham V908A Natural Draft, #2 Oil Fired 1,386 MBH 83% ‐ 30 20 B‐2 Boiler Rm Building Heating Burnham V908A Natural Draft, #2 Oil Fired 1,386 MBH 83% ‐ 30 20 B‐3 Teacher Housing Building Heating Weil McLain N/A #2 Oil Fired 50 MBH 85% ‐ 30 20 WH‐1 Boiler Rm Domestic Hot Water Amtrol SBD85500NEA120 Indirect‐fired 119 gal ‐ ‐ 15 5 WH‐2 Boiler Rm Domestic Hot Water SuperStor SSU‐119 Indirect‐fired 119 gal ‐ ‐ 15 5 WH‐3 Principal Housing Domestic Hot Water Weil McLain N/A Indirect‐fired N/A ‐ ‐ 15 5 WH‐4 Teacher Housing Domestic Hot Water Toyotomi OM‐180 #2 Oil Fired 148 MBH 90% ‐ 15 5 WH‐5 Teacher Housing Domestic Hot Water Toyotomi OM‐180 #2 Oil Fired 148 MBH 90% ‐ 15 5 P‐1 Boiler Rm Hot Water Recirc Grundfos UP75‐18B7 Inline 15 gpm 80% 1/25 HP 10 0 P‐2A Boiler Rm AHU Loop Circ Grundfos N/A Inline 105 gpm 84% 3 HP 10 0 P‐2B Boiler Rm AHU Loop Circ Grundfos N/A Inline 105 gpm 84% 3 HP 10 0 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORY TAG LOCATION FUNCTION MAKE MODEL TYPE CAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZE ASHRAE SERVICE LIFE ESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFE NOTES P‐3A Boiler Rm Main Loop Circ Grundfos N/A Inline 95 gpm 84% 3 HP 10 0 P‐3B Boiler Rm Main Loop Circ Grundfos N/A Inline 95 gpm 84% 3 HP 10 0 P‐4 Boiler Rm Cold Water Grundfos N/A Inline 60 gpm 84% 7.5 HP 10 0 AHU‐1 Second Floor Classrooms GovernAir RSA‐01‐E Centrifugal Fan 7,150 CFM 80% Motor 5 HP 25 15 AHU‐2 Second Floor Gym GovernAir RSA‐01‐F Centrifugal Fan 5,250 CFM 80% Motor 5 HP 25 15 MUA‐1 Second Floor Kitchen GovernAir RSA‐01‐E Centrifugal Fan 3,000 CFM 80% Motor 2 HP 25 15 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Appendix D Energy Conservation Measures Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: Industrial arts 8' T12 Mag. Ballast Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12/HO 110W Standard StdElectronic $195 $1 2741.00 0 2 Setback Thermostat: Classrooms Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms space. $19,364 $200 1452.86 0 3 Lighting: Industrial arts 4' T12 Mag. Ballast Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F48T12/HO 60W Standard StdElectronic $90 $1 1279.50 0 4 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $4,464 $200 334.90 0 5 Lighting: 100W HPS Wallpack Add new On/Off Photoswitch and Improve Occupancy Sensor $4,933 $750 101.24 0.2 6 Lighting: Corridor night light (3) lampT8 surface parabolic Add new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control and Improve Occupancy Sensor $2,520 $500 72.76 0.2 7 Lighting: Pole mounted HPS Add new On/Off Photoswitch $2,850 $750 58.49 0.3 8 Lighting: Classroom (3) T8 Para Add new Daylight Sensor $3,725 $1,150 46.20 0.3 9 Lighting: Corridor night light (2) lamp T8 parabolic wall mount Add new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $105 $50 30.23 0.5 10 Lighting: Fan room Replace with 12 LED 12W Module StdElectronic $1,091 $420 22.71 0.4 11 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 30%. $14,393 $15,000 9.88 1 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 12 Lighting: Classroom (4) T8 para Add new Daylight Sensor $489 $900 7.77 1.8 13 Lighting: Corridor night light (3) lampT8 surface parabolic Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $992 $2,400 5.99 2.4 14 Lighting: Corridor Non- night light Replace with 27 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $1,194 $4,050 4.29 3.4 15 Lighting: Pole mounted HPS Replace with 4 LED 100W Module StdElectronic $1,709 $7,000 3.76 4.1 16 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Walls Install R-14 rigid insulation on basement wall $1,579 $20,253 2.10 12.8 17 Lighting: 100W HPS Wallpack Replace with 16 LED 35W Module StdElectronic $3,291 $28,000 1.81 8.5 18 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors w/windows Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $241 $3,634 1.79 15.1 19 Lighting: Classroom (3) T8 Para Replace with 320 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard (2) HighEfficElectronic $5,873 $48,000 1.75 8.2 20 Lighting: Intermittent (2) T8 para Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Manual Switching $15 $150 1.46 9.9 21 Lighting: Classroom (4) T8 para Replace with 12 FLUOR (3) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $142 $1,800 1.13 12.6 22 Lighting: Intermittent (4) T8 para Add new Occupancy Sensor $75 $1,050 1.04 14 23 Lighting: Intermittent (4) T8 lensed Add new Occupancy Sensor $91 $1,300 1.02 14.3 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 24 Lighting: Intermittent (3) T8 lensed Add new Occupancy Sensor $10 $150 1.00 15.4 25 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $104 $3,028 0.92 29.2 26 Lighting: Intermittent (3) T8 para Add new Occupancy Sensor $8 $150 0.77 18.9 27 Lighting: Intermittent (2) T8 lensed Add new Occupancy Sensor $88 $2,000 0.68 22.8 28 Window/Skylight : Classroom Windows Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $3,873 $140,40 0 0.53 36.2 29 Window/Skylight : Classroom windows - South Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $2,192 $118,24 1 0.36 54 30 HVAC And DHW replace pump motors with higher efficiency motors, replace DHW circ pump with ECM motor $4 $24,495 0.18 5539.5 31 Lighting: Intermittent (4) T8 para Replace with 21 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $38 $3,150 0.17 83.8 32 Lighting: Intermittent (3) T8 para Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $3 $450 0.09 172.5 33 Lighting: Intermittent (3) T8 lensed Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $3 $750 0.06 242.4 34 Lighting: Intermittent (4) T8 lensed Replace with 26 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard HighEfficElectronic $1 $3,900 0.00 7341.2 35 Lighting: Intermittent (2) T8 para Replace with FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $0 $150 0.00 -9600 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 36 Lighting: Intermittent (2) T8 lensed Replace with 40 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic -$1 $6,000 0.00 -7111.1 37 Lighting: Corridor Non- night light Replace with 53 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic -$48 $7,950 -0.09 -164.4 38 Lighting: Corridor night light (2) lamp T8 parabolic wall mount Replace with FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic -$1 $150 -0.13 -114.3 39 Lighting: Industrial arts 8' 12 Elec. Ballast Replace with 26 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard HighEfficElectronic -$549 $6,500 -1.21 -11.8 TOTAL $75,144 $455,024 2.42 6.1 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 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 16 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Walls Wall Type: MasonryInsul. Sheathing: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Masonry Wall: Concrete block, 2 core Modeled R-Value: 13.6 Install R-14 rigid insulation on basement wall $20,253 $1,579 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 18 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors w/windows Door Type: Metal/FG half lite Modeled R-Value: 2.2 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $3,634 $241 25 Exterior Door: Exterior Doors Door Type: Metal/PU half lite Modeled R-Value: 3.3 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $3,028 $104 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 28 Window/Skyli ght: Classroom Windows Glass: Double, Low-E Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.78 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.43 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $140,400 $3,873 29 Window/Skyli ght: Classroom windows - South Glass: Double, Low-E Frame: Aluminum w/ Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.59 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient including Window Coverings: 0.43 Replace existing windows with Low E/argon fiberglass or insulated vinyl windows $118,241 $2,192 Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 11 Air Tightness estimated as: 1.30 cfm/ft2 of above-grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 30%. $15,000 $14,39 3 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 30 replace pump motors with higher efficiency motors, replace DHW circ pump with ECM motor $24,495 $4 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 2 Classrooms Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Classrooms space. $200 $19,364 4 Gym Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $200 $4,464 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 Industrial arts 8' T12 Mag. Ballast 6 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12/HO 110W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12/HO 110W Standard StdElectronic $1 $195 3 Industrial arts 4' T12 Mag. Ballast 3 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F48T12/HO 60W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F48T12/HO 60W Standard StdElectronic $1 $90 5 100W HPS Wallpack 16 HPS 100 Watt Magnetic Add new On/Off Photoswitch and Improve Occupancy Sensor $750 $4,933 6 Corridor night light (3) lampT8 surface parabolic 16 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic Add new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control and Improve Occupancy Sensor $500 $2,520 7 Pole mounted HPS 4 HPS 250 Watt Magnetic Add new On/Off Photoswitch $750 $2,850 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 8 Classroom (3) T8 Para 320 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching, Multi-Level Switch Add new Daylight Sensor $1,150 $3,725 9 Corridor night light (2) lamp T8 parabolic wall mount FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic Add new Clock Timer or Other Scheduling Control $50 $105 10 Fan room 12 INCAN A Lamp, Std 60W with Manual Switching Replace with 12 LED 12W Module StdElectronic $420 $1,091 12 Classroom (4) T8 para 12 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching, Multi-Level Switch Add new Daylight Sensor $900 $489 13 Corridor night light (3) lampT8 surface parabolic 16 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $2,400 $992 14 Corridor Non- night light 27 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Occupancy Sensor Replace with 27 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $4,050 $1,194 15 Pole mounted HPS 4 HPS 250 Watt Magnetic Replace with 4 LED 100W Module StdElectronic $7,000 $1,709 17 100W HPS Wallpack 16 HPS 100 Watt Magnetic Replace with 16 LED 35W Module StdElectronic $28,000 $3,291 19 Classroom (3) T8 Para 320 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching, Multi-Level Switch Replace with 320 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard (2) HighEfficElectronic $48,000 $5,873 20 Intermittent (2) T8 para FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Manual Switching $150 $15 21 Classroom (4) T8 para 12 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching, Multi-Level Switch Replace with 12 FLUOR (3) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $1,800 $142 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 22 Intermittent (4) T8 para 21 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,050 $75 23 Intermittent (4) T8 lensed 26 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,300 $91 24 Intermittent (3) T8 lensed 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor $150 $10 26 Intermittent (3) T8 para 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor $150 $8 27 Intermittent (2) T8 lensed 40 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,000 $88 31 Intermittent (4) T8 para 21 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 21 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $3,150 $38 32 Intermittent (3) T8 para 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $450 $3 33 Intermittent (3) T8 lensed 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $750 $3 34 Intermittent (4) T8 lensed 26 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 26 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard HighEfficElectronic $3,900 $1 35 Intermittent (2) T8 para FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $150 $0 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 36 Intermittent (2) T8 lensed 40 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 40 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $6,000 -$1 37 Corridor Non- night light 53 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic with Occupancy Sensor Replace with 53 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $7,950 -$48 38 Corridor night light (2) lamp T8 parabolic wall mount FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Program StdElectronic Replace with FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F28T5 28W Standard HighEfficElectronic $150 -$1 39 Industrial arts 8' 12 Elec. Ballast 26 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12/HO 110W Standard StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 26 FLUOR (2) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Standard HighEfficElectronic $6,500 -$549 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 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Appendix E Site survey Photos Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 1. East side of school 2. South side of school 3. West side of school 4. Principal’s housing 5. Teacher’s Housing Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 6. Teacher’s Housing with 10,000 gallon fuel oil storage tanks, FOT-1 and FOT-2, in foreground 7. Heating pumps P-2A, P-2B, P-3A, and P- 3B 8. Burnham fuel oil boilers B-1 and B-2 9. Fuel oil day tank for B-1 and B-2 10. Indirect Amtrol water heater WH-1 11. Indirect water heater WH-2 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 12. Domestic hot water recirculating pump P- 1 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Appendix F AkWarm Model of Portable Building Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 12/6/2011 3:03 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Manokotak K-12 School- Portable Building Auditor Company: Coffman Engineers, Inc. Address: PO Box 30 Auditor Name: Walter Heins, PE, CxA, CEA City: Manokotak Auditor Address: 800 F Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Anchorage, AK 99501 Client Name: Rick Dallmann Client Address: PO Box 90 Dillingham, AK 99576 Auditor Phone: (907) 276-6664 Auditor FAX: (907) 276-5042 Client Phone: (907) 842-5280 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 1,300 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 32,911 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 34,643 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 52,809 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 4 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Manokotak Design Outdoor Temperature: -19.3 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Manokotak Heating Degree Days: 11,306 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: Manakotak Power Company - Commercial - Sm Natural Gas Provider: None Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.000/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $3,767 $0 $3,277 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,044With Proposed Retrofits $2,195 $0 $3,277 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,472SAVINGS $1,573 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,573 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 $0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000Existing RetrofitSpace HeatingDomestic Hot WaterAnnual Energy Costs by End Use Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Setback Thermostat: Portable Building Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Portable Building space. $631 $500 18.95 0.8 2 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 30%. $144 $700 2.11 4.9 3 Exterior Door: Portable Building - Doors Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $109 $2,180 1.35 19.9 4 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Skirting Install R-15 rigid foam board to interior or exterior side of wall. Does not include cost of coverings. $214 $6,518 0.88 30.5 5 Exposed Floor: Portable Building - Floor Remove insulation from 2x8 cavity and replace with R-30 fiberglass batts. $186 $6,855 0.73 36.8 6 Window/Skylight : Portable Building - Double Pane Windows Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $207 $13,908 0.29 67.1 7 Above-Grade Wall: Portable Building - 2x4 Stud Wall Install R-5 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. $81 $20,516 0.11 254.8 TOTAL $1,573 $51,177 0.6 32.5 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 2. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 4 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace Skirting Wall Type: All Weather Wood Insul. Sheathing: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Framed Wall: 2 x 2, 24" on center None Modeled R-Value: 13.1 Install R-15 rigid foam board to interior or exterior side of wall. Does not include cost of coverings. $6,518 $214 5 Exposed Floor: Portable Building - Floor Framing Type: 2 x Lumber Insulating Sheathing: None Top Insulation Layer: None Bottom Insulation Layer: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Modeled R-Value: 22.4 Remove insulation from 2x8 cavity and replace with R-30 fiberglass batts. $6,855 $186 7 Above-Grade Wall: Portable Building - 2x4 Stud Wall Wall Type: Single Stud Siding Configuration: Just Siding Insul. Sheathing: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Structural Wall: 2 x 4, 16 inches on center R-15 Batt:FG or RW, 3.5 inches Window and door headers: Not Insulated Modeled R-Value: 23.9 Install R-5 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. $20,516 $81 Exterior Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 3 Exterior Door: Portable Building - Doors Door Type: Metal - fiberglass or mineral wool Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre- hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $2,180 $109 Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 6 Window/Skyli ght: Portable Building - Double Pane Windows Glass: Double, glass Frame: Wood\Vinyl Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.56 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $13,908 $207 Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 Air Tightness estimated as: 975 cfm at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 30%. $700 $144 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Portable Building Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Portable Building space. $500 $631 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings Manokotak School Final Energy Audit Report Coffman Engineers, Inc. 6/8/2012 AkWarm No. BBNC-MBA-CAEC-01 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 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