Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BBNC-PEV-CAEC Perryville School 2012-EE
Perryville School 100 School Road Perryville, Alaska 99648 AkWarm ID No. BBNC-PEV-CAEC-01 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net June 25, 2012 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE i OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE ii OF iv CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE iii OF iv AEE ...................................................................................................................... Association of Energy Engineers AHFC ........................................................................................................... Alaska Housing Finance Corporation AHU .............................................................................................................................................. Air Handling Unit ARIS ............................................................................................................... Alaska Retrofit Information System ARRA .................................................................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ASHRAE .................................. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers BPO .................................................................................................................................... Building Plant Operator BTU ......................................................................................................................................... British Thermal Unit CAEC ......................................................................................................... Central Alaska Engineering Company CCF .................................................................................................................................... Hundreds of Cubic Feet CFL ......................................................................................................................................... Compact Fluorescent CFM ...................................................................................................................................... Cubic Feet per Minute DDC ........................................................................................................................................ Direct Digital Control deg F ........................................................................................................................................... Degrees Fahrenheit DHW ........................................................................................................................................ Domestic Hot Water ECI .............................................................................................................................................. Energy Cost Index EEM .............................................................................................................................. Energy Efficiency Measure EMCS ........................................................................................................... Energy Management Control System EPA ................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency EUI .................................................................................................................................... Energy Utilization Index hr(s) ................................................................................................................................................................ Hour(s) HP ........................................................................................................................................................... Horsepower HPS ........................................................................................................................................ High Pressure Sodium H&V ................................................................................................................................... Heating and Ventilation IES ....................................................................................................................... Illuminating Engineering Society IGA ..................................................................................................................................... Investment Grade Audit kBtu ................................................................................................................ Thousands of British Thermal Units kWh .................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt Hour LED ......................................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode LPSD ............................................................................................................... Lake and Peninsula School District ORNL .................................................................................................................... Oak Ridge National Laboratory sf ............................................................................................................................................................... Square Feet SIR ............................................................................................................................... Savings to Investment Ratio SP ...................................................................................................................................................... Simple Payback W ....................................................................................................................................................................... Watts CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE iv OF iv REPORT DISCLAIMER This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, nor any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 1 OF 21 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 $ 41,053 Fuel Oil $ 86,630 Total $ 127,683 Energy Utilization Index: 101.9 kBtu/sf Energy Cost Index: 7.56 $/sf Energy Use per Occupant: 861.3 MMBtu per Occupant Energy Cost per Occupant: $6,390 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 Perryville 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 2 OF 21 Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings (w/Maint. Savings) Installed Cost1 Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR2 Simple Payback (w/Maint. Savings)3 1 Setback Thermostat: Bottom floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Bottom floor space. $11,107 $15,719 9.59 1.4 2 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $4,403 $15,719 3.80 3.6 3 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Floor Install R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $1,401 $12,631 2.63 9.0 4 Setback Thermostat: Top floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Top floor space. $2,631 $15,719 2.27 6.0 5 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 4 bulb T12 Replace with 90 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $7,119 ($1,800) $66,500 1.58 9.3 (7.5) 6 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: Metal Hallide Replace with 32 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy- Saver HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $4,611 ($320) $54,800 1.06 11.9 (11.1) 7 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T12 Replace with 44 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,959 ($880) $31,800 1.05 16.2 (11.2) 8 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: BGW Add R-19 fiberglass batts to below grade wall. Cost does not include studs or furring strips. $614 $14,069 1.03 22.9 9 Lighting - Combined Retrofit: HPS Replace with 8 LED 35W Module StdElectronic and Add new Motion Sensor $906 ($800) $23,200 0.87 25.6 (13.6) TOTAL, all measures $34,752 ($3,800) $250,156 2.04 7.2 (6.5) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 3 OF 21 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 $34,752 per year, or 25.9% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $250,156 for an overall simple payback period of 7.2 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented, (i.e. SIR > 1.0), the annual utility cost can be reduced by $33,846 per year, or 25.2% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $226,956 for an overall simple payback period of 6.7 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Ventilation Fans Total Cost Existing Building $91,461 $7,474 $25,348 $2,562 $4,649 $2,564 $134,057 With All Proposed Retrofits $71,089 $7,690 $10,752 $2,562 $4,649 $2,564 $99,305 SAVINGS $20,372 -$216 $14,596 $0 $0 $0 $34,752 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 4 OF 21 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 5 OF 21 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 16,904 square foot Perryville School, depicted below in Figure 2.1, including classrooms, restrooms, a kitchen, and a gymnasium. There are two separate teacher housing buildings on campus, both of which were 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 6 OF 21 After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating and ventilation (H&V), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on May 30, 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 7 OF 21 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 Perryville area has an index of 124.4 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 8 OF 21 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 9 OF 21 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, Perryville School was modeled using AkWarm-C energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Copper Center, 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 Perryville, 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 10 OF 21 The structure of Perryville School is a two story facility that was built in 1983. This building has had two additions made to it, including one demolition project. From the audit it was determined to be a well built and functional school facility. The school typically opens at 7AM by staff with faculty and student occupancy from 8AM to 4PM during the weekdays. Additional occupancy time keeping the school open late or on weekends occurs occasionally. There are an estimated 20 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. Most of these windows appear to be in acceptable condition. All doors on this building are commercial grade, insulated and metal framed that are half-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 with various types of insulation, including rigid foam board, fiberglass batts, and sprayed polyurethane. Insulation varies throughout the crawlspace and is modeled as providing an estimated R- 19 composite value. The above grade wall sections of the school are made up of 8-inch studs filled with fiberglass batt insulation, providing an estimated R-21 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 of the original school is a rafter framed ceiling insulated with fiberglass batt for an insulating estimated R-38 value. The new section of the school 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. The building is heated by two (2) fuel oil-fired cast iron boilers which were installed in the year 2003. The boilers are located in a detached mechanical room which is 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 11 OF 21 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, Glycol Boiler Operation: All Year 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 are two (2) AHUs located inside of the building providing ventilation to the school. The AHUs use electronically controlled end devices, controlled by the DDC system. Outside air is drawn into the building primarily through windows and these AHUs, when operated. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of exhaust fans located throughout the building. The International Mechanical Code for this application requires the building to bring in 5,916 CFM of outdoor air (minimum design for classroom space specifies 35 occupants/1,000 sf @ 10 CFM/occupant for the 16,904 sf school = 5,916.4 CFM). The capacity of the exhaust fan equals approximately 450 CFM, indicating the school appears to be slightly over-ventilated at 22.5 CFM/occupant, assuming the exhaust system is operated per design capacity at current occupant level of 20 during school hours. The outdoor air should never be provided at less than 10 CFM/occupant to be code compliant. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. The majority of the building uses older T12 lights. The gym lighting system uses 250-Watt Metal Halide (MH) bulbs which are good candidates for upgrading to the 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. Interior lights were evaluated as being replaced with new LED technology, though at this time the light output of LED lights is not substantial enough to compete with readily available and cheaper fluorescent bulbs. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 12 OF 21 There are several large plug loads throughout the building. This includes the computers with monitors, copy machines, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm-C modeling program at 0.2 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 13 OF 21 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 of Perryville 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. Identify your school’s major equipment, know when it is used and work with staff to adjust time and duration of use. Also, consider using smart thermostats, relays, timers, on/off switches, and circuit breakers to shut down non-essential equipment and lights before starting equipment which draws a large amount of power. Relays or timers can prevent two large loads from being on at the same time. Peak demand can be best managed if first understood when it occurs. Know your school’s peak months, days and hours. Billing information can be used to acquire your benchmark data on the demand load and cost for the school building. Demand costs can be managed by scheduling times of the day when your electric usage is lowest to run equipment that uses the most power. You may want to pay special attention to equipment such as pumps, electric water heaters, 5-horsepower and larger motors, electric heat and commercial appliances. Most equipment has an identification tag or nameplate that lists the kW, or demand. Some tags may only list the amperage (amps and voltage the equipment uses). You can still use this information to figure the approximate usage rate in kilowatts. Multiply amps by volts and divide by 1,000 to get kilowatts. To help manage demand load and cost, install a special meter that records 15 minute load profile information, allowing you to view the electric power consumption over time. This data can help in determining when the peak loads occur. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 14 OF 21 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 2010 through 2011 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2010 2011 Average Electric 0.60 $/kWh 0.62 $/kWh 0.61 $/kWh Fuel Oil 7.66 $/GAL 7.66 $/GAL 7.66 $/GAL Total Cost $127,107 $128,259 $127,683 ECI 7.52 $/sf 7.59 $/sf 7.56 $/sf Electric EUI 13.6 kBtu/sf 13.5 kBtu/sf 13.6 kBtu/sf Fuel Oil EUI 88.3 kBtu/sf 88.3 kBtu/sf 88.3 kBtu/sf Building EUI 101.9 kBtu/sf 101.8 kBtu/sf 101.9 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83.0 kBtu/sf. For reference, data from the ARRA funded utility benchmark survey for the subject fiscal years completed on 84 schools in the Anchorage School District computed an average EUI of 106.5 kBtu/sf, and ECI of 1.77 $/sf, with an average building size of 86,356 square feet. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an estimated EUI of 101.9 kBtu/sf. This means the surveyed facility uses a total of 22.8% more energy than the US average and 4.3% less energy than the Anchorage School District average on a per square foot basis. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 15 OF 21 At current utility rates, the Lake and Peninsula School District is modeled to pay approximately $134,057 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Perryville School. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm-C computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 16 OF 21 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 356 325 356 345 356 345 356 356 345 356 345 356 Refrigeration 764 696 764 739 746 203 210 496 739 764 739 764 Other Electrical 4180 3809 4180 4045 3938 1135 1173 2648 4040 4180 4045 4180 Ventilation Fans 435 397 435 421 423 61 63 255 421 435 421 435 DHW 28 26 28 27 28 27 28 28 27 28 27 28 Space Heating 1630 1486 1630 1578 1630 1578 1630 1630 1578 1630 1578 1630 Fuel Oil Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 79 72 79 77 80 79 84 85 80 80 77 79 Space Heating 1263 1170 1205 1016 789 565 424 409 521 823 1004 1220 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 17 OF 21 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 77,120 kWh 263,211 3.340 879,123 #2 Oil 11,360 gallons 1,567,615 1.010 1,583,291 Total 1,830,826 2,462,415 BUILDING AREA 16,904 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 108 kBTU/Ft²/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 146 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 18 OF 21 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 5 4 bulb T12 90 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 90 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $66,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $7,119 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $1,800 Breakeven Cost $105,116 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 9 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the existing 40-Watt T12 lights in the building be replaced with 28-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 6 Metal Halide 32 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 32 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-Saver HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $54,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $4,611 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $320 Breakeven Cost $57,982 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 12 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with a modern efficient T5 High Output system. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Below is an example picture of a recently re-lamped elementary gym showing the T5 HO light system. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 19 OF 21 Night Setback Thermostat Measures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 2 bulb T12 44 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 44 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $31,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,959 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $880 Breakeven Cost $33,521 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 16 Auditors Notes: See EEM #5 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 HPS 8 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 LED 35W Module StdElectronic and Add new Motion Sensor Installation Cost $23,200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $906 Maintenance Savings ($/yr) $800 Breakeven Cost $20,196 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 26 Auditors Notes: All of the high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are considered to be good candidates for replacement as the heat they emit is wasted to the outdoors. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. This recommendation assumes a Dark Campus environment where the lights are turned off during the late evening and early morning hours and are turned on under motion sensor activation, security alarm activation, or when controlled by the Building Automation System, when available. Rank Building Space Recommendation 1 Bottom floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Bottom floor space. Installation Cost $15,719 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $11,107 Breakeven Cost $150,807 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.6 Simple Payback ($/yrs) 1 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 20 OF 21 Building Shell Measures Rank Building Space Recommendation 2 Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. Installation Cost $15,719 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $4,403 Breakeven Cost $59,781 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.8 Simple Payback ($/yrs) 4 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Building Space Recommendation 4 Top floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Top floor space. Installation Cost $15,719 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,631 Breakeven Cost $35,726 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback ($/yrs) 6 Auditors Notes: See EEM #1 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 3 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Floor Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 6.7 Install R-30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $12,631 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,401 Breakeven Cost $33,238 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback ($/yrs) 9 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 and reduce undesirable moisture from entering the crawlspace area. Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R-Value 8 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: BGW Wall Type: All Weather Wood Insul. Sheathing: None Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 24" on center Polyurethane (PLUR), 3.5 inches Insulation Quality: Damaged Modeled R-Value: 19.2 Add R-19 fiberglass batts to crawlspace wall. Cost does not include studs or furring strips. Installation Cost $14,069 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $614 Breakeven Cost $14,554 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback ($/yrs) 23 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT AkWarm ID No. BBNC‐PEV‐CAEC‐01 PAGE 21 OF 21 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 PERRYVILLE 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 20 Renovations / Notes Date 1983 1987 Note: PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Contact Person Email tmcdermott@lpsd.com Mailing Address City PO Box 498 King Salmon Primary Operating Hours Details Original Construction Classroom Addition 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. Regional Education Attendance 06/06/12 REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Facility Owned By Date Lake & Peninsula School Dist 122 1983 Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Perryville School Education ‐ K ‐ 12 16,904 Facility City Facility Zip 99648100 School Rd Perryville Building Type Community Population Year Built Wood Frame 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. Oil data provided for 2 years, and was divided in half. All utility data includes teacher housing and school building usage. 75.5% of utility data was allocated to school building, per LPSD estimates. Facility Address Perryville K-12 Buiding Size Input (sf) =16,904 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)67,462 2009 Electric Cost ($)40,477 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)14,928.42 2009 Oil Cost ($)86,630 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Propane Cost ($)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)0.00 2009 Thermal Cost ($)0.00 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2009 Steam Cost ($)0.00 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)1,723,088 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)127,107 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)13.6 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 88.3 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.0 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)101.9 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.39 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)5.12 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)7.52 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($)0 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)66,879 2010 Electric Cost ($)41,629 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)14,928.42 2010 Oil Cost ($)86,630 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Propane Cost ($)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)0.00 2010 Thermal Cost ($)0 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.00 2010 Steam Cost ($)0 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)1,721,099 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)128,259 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)13.5 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)88.3 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.0 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)101.8 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.00 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)2.46 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)5.12 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)7.59 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's Perryville 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 7/31/20083100$0$0.00NEAAug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/20083100$0$0.00NEASep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/20083000$0$0.00NEAOct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/20083117,693604$10,615$0.60NEANov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/2008307,783266$4,670$0.60NEADec‐08 12/1/2008 12/31/20083100$0$0.00NEAJan‐09 1/1/2009 1/31/20093120,362695$12,217$0.60NEAFeb‐09 2/1/2009 2/28/2009287,228247$4,337$0.60NEAMar‐09 3/1/2009 3/31/2009314,771163$2,863$0.60NEAApr‐09 4/1/2009 4/30/2009305,909202$3,545$0.60NEAMay‐09 5/1/2009 5/31/2009312,84197$1,705$0.60NEAJun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/20093087730$526$0.60NEAJul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/2009311,64356$986$0.60NEAAug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/2009313,948135$2,369$0.60NEASep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/20093011,983409$7,190$0.60NEAOct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/20093100$0$0.00NEANov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/20093000$0$0.00NEADec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/20093120,520700$12,312$0.60NEAJan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/20103116,111550$9,667$0.60NEAFeb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/2010284,565156$2,739$0.60NEAMar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/20103158620$352$0.60NEAApr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/2010303,232110$1,939$0.60NEAMay‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/2010313,175108$3,016$0.95NEAJun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/2010301,11638$1,060$0.95Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:67,4622,3020$40,477$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:66,8792,2830$41,629$0$0.60$0.62Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg: $0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,000$14,00005,00010,00015,00020,00025,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Perryville K‐12 ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($) Perryville K-12OilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Jul‐08 7/1/2008 7/31/20083111,30914,928$86,6305.80Aug‐08 8/1/2008 8/31/20083100$00.00Sep‐08 9/1/2008 9/30/20083000$00.00Oct‐08 10/1/2008 10/31/20083100$00.00Nov‐08 11/1/2008 11/30/20083000$00.00Dec‐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 5/31/20093100$00.00Jun‐09 6/1/2009 6/30/20093000$00.00Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/20093111,30914,928$86,6304.34Aug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/20093100$00.00Sep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/20093000$00.00Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/20093100$00.00Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/20093000$00.00Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/20093100$00.00Jan‐10 1/1/20101/31/20103100$00.00Feb‐10 2/1/20102/28/20102800$00.00Mar‐10 3/1/20103/31/20103100$00.00Apr‐10 4/1/20104/30/20103000$00.00May‐10 5/1/20105/31/20103100$00.00Jun‐10 6/1/20106/30/20103000$00.00Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 total:11,30914,9280$86,630$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:11,30914,9280$86,630$05.805.80Jul ‐ 08 to Jun ‐ 09 avg:Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg: $0.00$10,000.00$20,000.00$30,000.00$40,000.00$50,000.00$60,000.00$70,000.00$80,000.00$90,000.00$100,000.0002,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,000Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Perryville K‐12 ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($) CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE 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 Perryville K‐12 Page 1 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 6/25/2012 9:12 AM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Perryville K‐12 Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Co. Address: 100 School Road Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Perryville 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: 16,904 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 193,720 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 210,565 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 320,984 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 20 people Design Indoor Temperature: 70 deg F (building average) Actual City: Perryville Design Outdoor Temperature: 10.1 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Perryville Heating Degree Days: 9,612 deg F‐days Utility Information Electric Utility: Perryville Electric Utility ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas Provider: None Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.610/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 $91,461 $0 $7,474 $25,348 $2,562 $4,649 $0 $0 $2,564 $0 $134,057 With Proposed Retrofits $71,089 $0 $7,690 $10,752 $2,562 $4,649 $0 $0 $2,564 $0 $99,305 SAVINGS $20,372 $0 ‐$216 $14,596 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,752 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Perryville K‐12 Page 2 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 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 Perryville K‐12 Page 3 PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Setback Thermostat: Bottom floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Bottom floor space. $11,107 $15,719 9.59 1.4 2 Setback Thermostat: Gym Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $4,403 $15,719 3.80 3.6 3 On‐ or Below‐Grade Floor, Perimeter: Floor Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $1,401 $12,631 2.63 9 4 Setback Thermostat: Top floor Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Top floor space. $2,631 $15,719 2.27 6 5 Lighting ‐ Combined Retrofit: 4 bulb T12 Replace with 90 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $7,119 + $1,800 Maint. Savings $66,500 1.58 9.3 6 Lighting ‐ Combined Retrofit: Metal Hallide Replace with 32 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch $4,611 + $320 Maint. Savings $54,800 1.06 11.9 7 Lighting ‐ Combined Retrofit: 2 bulb T12 Replace with 44 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,959 + $880 Maint. Savings $31,800 1.05 16.2 8 Below‐ (part or all) Grade Wall: BGW Add R‐11 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $614 $14,069 1.03 22.9 9 Lighting ‐ Combined Retrofit: HPS Replace with 8 LED 35W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $906 + $800 Maint. Savings $23,200 0.87 25.6 TOTAL $34,752 + $3,800 Maint. Savings $250,156 2.04 7.2 Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Perryville K‐12 Page 4 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 3 On‐ or Below‐ Grade Floor, Perimeter: Floor Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R‐Value: 6.7 Install R‐30 Fiberglass Batts on the Perimeter 4 feet of the Crawl Space Floor. $12,631 $1,401 8 Below‐ (part or all) Grade Wall: BGW Wall Type: All Weather Wood Insul. Sheathing: None Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 24" on center Polyurethane (PLUR), 3.5 inches Insulation Quality: Damaged Modeled R‐Value: 19.2 Add R‐11 fiberglass batts to masonry wall. Cost does not include studs or firring strips. $14,069 $614 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 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Perryville K‐12 Page 5 1 Bottom floor Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Bottom floor space. $15,719 $11,107 2 Gym Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Gym space. $15,719 $4,403 4 Top floor Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 70.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the Top floor space. $15,719 $2,631 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 5 4 bulb T12 90 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 90 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $66,500 $7,119 + $1,800 Maint. Savings 6 Metal Hallide 32 MH 250 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 32 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch $54,800 $4,611 + $320 Maint. Savings 7 2 bulb T12 44 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy‐Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 44 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Program HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $31,800 $1,959 + $880 Maint. Savings 9 HPS 8 HPS 70 Watt Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 LED 35W Module StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $23,200 $906 + $800 Maint. Savings Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Other Electrical Equipment Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Perryville K‐12 Page 6 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 PERRYVILLE SCHOOL K‐12 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYPERRYVILLE 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 82.0% - 35 26B-2 BOILER RM BUILDING HEAT BURNHAM V-904A OIL/CAST IRON 4.2 GPH OIL 82.0% - 35 26WH-1 OLD BOILER RM DHW SUPPLY AMTROL WH9LDW INDIRECT STORAGE 26 GALLONS EST 80% - 24 15WH-2 KITCHEN DHW BOOSTER AMERICAN N/A ELECTRIC BOOSTER 10 GALLONS EST 90% - 15 0WH-2 LOWER FAN RM DHW SUPPLY AMTROL WH9LDW INDIRECT STORAGE 26 GALLONS EST 80% - 24 15CP-1 BOILER RM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPS 50-160 INLINE EST 125 GPM EST 82% 1050-1250 W 10 1 3 SPEEDCP-2 BOILER RM BUILDING HEAT GRUNDFOS UPS 50-160 INLINE EST 125 GPM EST 82% 1050-1250 W 10 1 3 SPEEDCP-3 BOILER RM FREEZE PROTECTION GRUNDFOS UPS 50-80 INLINE EST 75 GPM 78.5% 600-630 W 10 1 PUMP DOES NOT SERVICE SCHOOLCP-4 BOILER RM DHW SUPPLY GRUNDFOS UP 15-42 INLINE 10 GPM @ 8' 78.5% .04 HP 10 1CP-5 FIRE CONTROL RM SPRINKLER SYSTEM A.O. SMITH C48M2DC11A1 BASE MOUNTED EST 125 GPM EST 82% 1.5 HP 20 7EF-1 KITCHEN EA N/A N/A CENTRIFUGAL EST 450 CFM EST 82% EST 0.5 HP 25 15SA-1 LOWER FAN RM SA PACE A9-FC-SI CENTRIFUGAL 1,425 CFM 82.0% 1 HP 25 16SA-2 UPPER FAN RM SA FLEXAIRE SDF 25-OFI CENTRIFUGAL 4,610 CFM 82.0% 3 HP 25 16MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. Windows typical of school. 2. Doors typical of school. 3. Boiler room featuring insulated utilidor carrying heating water for school campus. 4. School crawlspace, showing typical insulation and heated water utilidor. Note there is no vapor barrier installed on the crawlspace floor. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 5. Overall view of boiler room. 6. Close-up of boiler B-1. 7. Heated water supply and return lines, entering utilidor. 8. Heated water circulation pumps. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 9. Heated water supply lines. 10. Air handling unit SA-1. 11. DDC System. 12. Water heater typical of the school. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 13. Electric water heater booster in kitchen. 14. Typical classroom lighting. 15. View of the village fuel tank farm. 16. View of the electrical meters in place. Sub metering of the different outbuildings is possible.. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E Appendix E Thermal Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 1. South side main school entrance. Typical school doorway, heat loss expected. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 2. Overall view of the east side of the school. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 3. Back side of the school. (A) Heat loss expected around typical school window. (B) Air ventilation exhaust, heat loss expected. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 4. Back side of the school. (A) Typical school doorway, heat loss expected. (B) Unusually high heat loss exhibited from the second floor wall. A B CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 5. Back entrance of the school. Typical school doorway, heat loss exhibited. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 6. Overall view of the west side of the school. Unusually high heat loss exhibited from the wall. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 7. Close up view of crawl space entrance. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY PERRYVILLE SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX E 8. Southern side of the school. Typical school doorway, heat loss is exhibited.