Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBSNC-GAM-RSA_Gambell_SchoolENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 1 of 56 Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Comprehensive, Investment Grade Energy Audit of John Apangalook School, Gambell, Alaska Project # BSNC-GAM-RSA-01 Prepared for: Bering Straits School District March 2, 2012 Prepared by: Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC 2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6 Anchorage, AK 99501 and Energy Audits of Alaska P.O. Box 220215 Anchorage, AK 98522 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 2 of 56 TABLE OF CONTENTS Audit performed & report written by: __________________________ James Fowler, PE, CEA Energy Audits of Alaska CEA #1705 Reviewed by: __________________________ Richard Armstrong, PE, CEM CEA #178, CEM #13557 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Audit and Analysis Background 11 3. Acknowledgements 13 4. Building Description & Function 14 5. Historic Energy Consumption 16 6. Interactive Effects of Projects 16 7. Loan Program 17 Appendix A: Photos 18 Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 24 Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 29 Appendix D: Building Plan 34 Appendix E: Lighting Plan 35 Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 38 Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 39 Appendix H: Specifications supporting EEM’s 45 Appendix I: Monthly Benchmark Data 56 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 3 of 56 REPORT DISCLAIMERS The information contained in this report, including any attachments, is intended solely for use by the building owner and the AHFC. No others are authorized to disclose, copy, distribute or retain this report, in whole or part, without written authorization from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, 2321 Merrill Field Drive, C-6, Anchorage, Ak 99501 or Energy Audits of Alaska, 5935 Pioneer Park Pl, Langley, WA 98260. Additionally, this report contains recommendations that, in the opinion of the auditor, will cause the owner to realize energy savings over time. All recommendations must be designed by a registered engineer, licensed in the State of Alaska, in the appropriate discipline. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statue as well as IES recommendations. Payback periods may vary from those forecast due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, AHFC, or any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This audit meets the criteria of an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the Association of Energy Engineers definition, and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the AHFC. IGA’s are the property of the State, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Energy Data Inventory (ARIS), or other state and/or public information system. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 4 of 56 1. Executive Summary Guidance to the reader: The Executive Summary is designed to contain all the information the building owner/operator should need to determine how the subject building’s energy efficiency compares with other similar use buildings, what energy improvements should be implemented and their estimated savings. Sections 2 through 7 and the Appendices are back-up, and provide much more detailed information, should the owner desire to investigate further. This Comprehensive Energy Audit is performed in connection with AHFC’s Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) program. Subject Building: John Apangalook School P.O. Box 169 Gambell, AK 99742 Building Owner: Bering Straits School District P.O. Box 225 Unalakleet, AK 99684 Building contacts: Jarrod Koonooka, Plant Manager 907-985-5229 Debra Forkner, Principal 907-985-5229 dforkner@gam.bssd.org The site visit to subject building occurred on February 1, 2012, a sunny day with an ambient temperature of -38F. Gambell is a remote village on St. Lawrence Island, with approximately 600 residents. As is typical, the school is the largest building in the village; it was constructed in two stages over a 30 year period. The original school consisted of the south wing, it is not clear exactly what year it was built, it is estimated to be around 1982. The northeast and northwest wings, which are used for the elementary and high schools, were added in 1994. When the new wings were built a lighting upgrade was performed on the old part of the school. There are 198 students in K-12 and 46 staff. The school has a gymnasium used year round, a wood shop and home sciences room, both used during the school year, a moderately equipped commercial kitchen with a ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 5 of 56 walk-in refrigerator and freezer which is used during the school year and for special events during the summer months. Overall the interior and exterior of this building is well maintained, and in average condition. Energy Consumption and benchmark data This building utilizes fuel oil for heating and electricity generated by the adjacent village power plant. Fuel oil and electrical benchmark data was provided by Nortech Engineering, and contains two years of monthly consumption figures. Summarized values for electrical and fuel oil consumption are shown in Table 1 below: Table 1   2009 2010    Consumption Cost Consumption Cost  Electricity ‐ kWh 288,723  $   171,289  289,067  $  120,730   Fuel Oil ‐ gallons 37,777  $   145,280  36,820  $  114,393   Totals    $   316,569       $  235,123   The fuel oil cost difference between 2009 and 2010 is attributed to a per gallon cost reduction from $3.84 to $3.10. A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function buildings is the Energy Use Index (EUI), which takes the total annual energy used by the facility divided by the square footage area of the building, for a value expressed in terms of kBTU/SF. This number can then be compared to other buildings to see if it is average, higher or lower than similar buildings in the area. Likewise, the Energy Cost Index (ECI) is the cost of all energy used by the building expressed in $/SF of building area. The comparative values for the subject building are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 Average of 2009 and 2010  Subject  Building  Shishmaref  School  Diomede  School  Average US School  (continental US)  Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐  kBTU/SF 133 137 134 85‐98  Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐  $/SF $6.22  $7.75  $9.30  ‐  ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 6 of 56 As observed in Table 2, the subject building’s EUI is very much in line with two very comparable buildings, the Schools in Shishmaref and Diomede, and substantially higher than schools in the lower 48 states, which is to expected. A deeper analysis (see Chart 1 below) shows that this building has marginally higher consumption of fuel oil, and subtantially lower consumption of electricity, when compared with the other two buildings. Chart 1 The auditor also surveyed the Shismaref school, so a comparison can be made. The auditor attributes the lower electrical consumption in this buiding to: - 2/3 of the lighting in the subject building is on occupancy sensors - The air handlers, according to onsite personnel, in the Shishmaref school are turned off at 4:00 PM The higher fuel oil consumption is attributed to the presumed high OSA settings on the air handlers and their longer operating cycles. The ECI in Table 2 is lower for the subject school, presumably due to the lower cost per Kw of electricity – perhaps due to the village windfarm’s affect on local electricity pricing. See Appendix A photos. Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this building to determine if they would provide energy savings with reasonably good payback periods. EEMs are recommended for reasons including: 1.) they have a reasonably good payback period 2.) for code compliance 3.) end of life (EOL) replacement 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Subject Building Shishmaref School Diomede School Fuel Oil EUI Electrical EUI ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 7 of 56 4.) reasons pertaining to efficient building management strategy, operations, maintenance and/or safety All the EEMs considered for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm-C Energy Audit Report in Appendix B and in Appendix G. Each EEM includes payback times, estimated installation costs and estimated energy savings. Not all EEM’s considered are recommended. The summary EEM’s that follow are a distillation of all of the EEM’s recommended for this building. They are considered from three perspectives: overall efficiency of building management, reduction in energy consumption and return on investment (ROI). Efficient building management dictates, as an example: that all lights be upgraded, that lamp inventory variations be minimized and that all appropriate rooms have similar occupancy controls and setback thermostats - despite the fact that a single or several rooms may have an unjustifiably long payback on their individual lighting or controls upgrade. Some of the summary EEM’s below contain individual EEM’s that are grouped by type (i.e. all relevant lighting upgrades are summed and listed as a single upgrade, all thermostat setback retrofits are grouped together and listed as a single upgrade, etc.) and are prioritized with the highest ROI (shortest payback) listed first. Table 3 at the end of this section summarizes these EEM’s. A.) ROOM TEMPERATURE SETBACK THERMOSTATS It is assumed that the electronic, 24 volt HVAC control system does not have the capability to program night time temperature setbacks by zone or for the building. All rooms and zones appear to have individual, adjustable, low voltage thermostats which are recommended to be replaced with programmable versions @ $200 ea, which can accommodate unoccupied 55F setback temperatures. This EEM is detailed in Appendix B-1, 2 & 8. Combined Setback Thermostat EEM’s: Estimated cost $ 7,800 Annual Savings $ 26,036 Payback 4 months B.) HVAC CONTROLS AUDIT The fuel oil consumption of this building is higher than it should be. This conclusion is based on 2 observations: the fuel oil EUI is higher than both of the comparison schools in table 2, and in order to reconcile the ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 8 of 56 forecasted oil consumption (in AkWarm-C) with actual oil consumption, 3 air handlers (AHU’s) had to be entered with 50% outside air (OSA) and the balance with 33% OSA. This OSA value is excessive – it may or may not be the exact reason for the high consumption, but it indicates that there is a problem with the HVAC controls. It is recommended to audit and re-commission the controls to reduce consumption. Estimated cost for an audit is $15,000, estimated cost to repair/replace any defective valves, switches, actuators is $10,000. Savings are calculated by AkWarm-C by reducing OSA inputs to 15%. Appendix B-3 contains more detail. HVAC controls audit and re-commissioning EEM: Estimated cost $ 25,000 Annual Savings (10%) $ 39,530 Payback 8 months C.) REFRIGERATORS There are (5) full size, residential type refrigerators in this building, 3 of which appear to be 15 years old, or older. These should be replaced at EOL with Energy Star models, at an incremental cost of $75 ea. See Appendix B-9 for additional detail. Refrigerator EEM: Estimated cost $ 225 Annual Savings $ 329 Payback 9 months D.) ADD VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES (VFD’S): It is recommended to add VFD’s to the fan motors used in SF-1, SF-2, SF- 5 and to the pump motors used in CP-1 and CP-2. See Appendix G-7 and Appendix B-7 for complete detail. VFD EEM: Estimated cost $ 19,353 Annual Savings $ 23,980 Payback 10 months E.) MOTORS There are 6 motors in this building of 5 HP or larger. Generally, paybacks justify that these motors, if operating for 1500 hours per year ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 9 of 56 or more, at continuous speed, should be replaced at EOL with premium efficiency motors. Paybacks will justify that motors of this size, operating for 5000 hours per year or longer, be replaced with premium efficiency motors immediately. See table 4 in Appendix G-2 for complete, large-motor listing and recommended premium upgrades. In this building, one of the circulation pumps should be replaced now with a premium efficiency motor and three others in the air handlers (AHU) should be replaced at their EOL. Nameplates for the AHU motors were accessible, so efficiency ratings were estimated based on typical motors of this age. Motors recommended to be replaced now: Estimated cost $ 900 Annual Savings $ 343 Payback 2.6 years F.) PERSONAL COMPUTERS There are 14 PC’s in this building and it is recommended to replace these PC’s with laptops at their EOL A laptop will use approximately 50% less energy than a desktop PC; their incremental cost is $200 each. See Appendix B-11. PC replacement at EOL, EEM: Estimated cost $ 2,801 Annual Savings $ 976 Payback 2.9 years G.) LIGHTING AND LIGHTING CONTROLS For the most part, the lighting fixtures in this building have been upgraded to T8 lamps with electronic ballasts and in the elementary and high school wings, occupancy sensors are used in the classrooms and corridors. Building-wide, there is still more savings to be obtained. It is recommended to upgrade the remaining T12 fixtures with magnetic ballasts to T8-28 watt lamps and high efficiency electronic ballasts, and at the next building re-lamp, replace all T-8-32 watt lamps with T8-28 watt lamps. Additionally, install occupancy sensors in all remaining rooms, corridors and the gymnasium. Upgrading the exterior lighting from high pressure sodium (HPS) to LED lighting is also recommended. The completion of a full lighting upgrade for this building is summarized below, and detailed in Appendix B items 4-6, 10 and 12-22. For ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 10 of 56 additional information on occupancy sensors and lighting systems, see Appendix H. Combined Lighting & Lighting Control EEM’s: Estimated cost $ 46,828 Annual Savings $ 10,947 Payback 4.3 years H.) PLUMBING FIXTURES It is recommended that all urinals should be retrofitted or be replaced with ultra low flow models. Urinals and faucets should have proximity sensing on/off controls. Manually flushed toilets should be retrofitted with dual flush valves. This audit does not include water usage and AkWarm-C does not allow for the modeling of this, see Appendix G-1 for additional detail. Table 3 summarizes the estimated cost totals and estimated annual savings totals of the eight (A. through H) summary EEM’s listed above. Table 3 Combined total of all EEM’s recommended for  this building  (summarized by A through H  above and detailed in Appendices B & G):  Estimated total cost   $ 102,907     Annual Savings   $ 101,138      Simple payback        1  year  Does not include design or construction management costs In addition to EEMs, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) are recommended since they are policies or procedures that are followed by management and employees that require no capital outlay. Examples of recommended ECMs for this facility include: 1. Turning lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled by an occupancy sensor. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 11 of 56 2. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be properly maintained and adjusted to close and function properly. 3. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the office. 2. Audit and Analysis Background Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The scope of this project included evaluating the building shell, lighting, other electrical systems, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Measures were based on their payback period, life cycle replacement or for reasons pertaining to maintenance, operations and/or safety. a. Audit Description and Methodology: Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey, including benchmark utility consumption data, floor and lighting plans, and equipment schedules, where available. A site visit is then performed to inventory and evaluate the actual building condition, including: i. Building envelope (walls, doors, windows, etc) ii. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning iii. Lighting systems and controls iv. Building specific equipment v. Plumbing Systems b. Benchmark Utility Data Validation: Benchmark utility data provided through AHFC’s initial phase of their REAL program is validated, confirming that electrical and gas meter numbers on the subject building match the meters from which the energy consumption and cost data were collected. If the data is inaccurate new benchmark data is obtained. In the event that there are inconsistencies or gaps in the data, the existing data is evaluated and missing data points are interpolated. c. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit and during the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy modeling software program developed specifically for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to identify forecasted energy consumption. The forecasts can then be compared to actual energy consumption. AkWarm-C also has some pre-programmed EEM retrofit options that can be analyzed with projected energy savings based on occupancy schedules, utility rates, building construction type, building function, existing conditions, and climatic data uploaded to the program based on the zip code of the building. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on manufacturer’s cataloged information. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 12 of 56 Energy cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include the labor and equipment required to implement an EEM retrofit, but design and construction management costs are excluded. Cost estimates are +/- 30% for this level of audit, and are derived from one or more of the following: Means Cost Data, industry publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or equipment suppliers. Mechanical Solutions, Inc, Yaskawa America Drives, and J.P. Sheldon, all in Anchorage, were consulted for some of the VFD controls, dehumidification, boiler, air handling retrofit and/or replacement costs. Maintenance savings are calculated, where applicable, and are added to the energy savings for each EEM. The costs and savings are considered and a simple payback period and ROI is calculated. The simple payback period is based on the number of years that it takes for the savings to pay back the net installation cost (Net Installation costs divided by Net Savings.) In cases where the EEM recommends replacement at EOL, the incremental cost difference between the standard equipment in place, and the higher efficiency equipment being recommended is used as the cost basis for payback calculation. The SIR found in the AkWarm- C report is the Savings to Investment Ratio, defined as the breakeven cost divided by the initial installed cost. A simple life-time calculation is included in the AkWarm-C calculation for each EEM. The life-time for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the life-time of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total life-time multiplied by the yearly savings. d. Limitations of the Study: All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and may only act as an approximation. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. A design professional, licensed to practice in Alaska and in the appropriate discipline, who is following the recommendations, shall accept full responsibility and liability for the results. Budgetary estimates for engineering and design of these projects in not included in the cost estimate for each EEM recommendation, but these costs can be approximated at 15% of the cost of the work. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 13 of 56 3. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge the help of numerous individuals who have contributed information that was used to prepare this report, including: a. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (Grantor): AHFC provided the grant funds, contracting agreements, guidelines, and technical direction for providing the audits. AHFC reviewed and approved the final short list of buildings to be audited based on the recommendation of the Technical Service Provider (TSP). b. The Bering Straits School District (Owner): The BSSD provided building sizing information, two years fuel oil usage data, building schedules and functions, as well as building age. c. Nortech Engineering (Benchmark TSP): Nortech Engineering Company compiled the electrical data received from the Bering Straits Borough and entered that data into the statewide building database, called the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS). d. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC (Audit TSP): This is the TSP who was awarded the projects in the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Bering Straits area, and the Nana area. The firm gathered all relevant benchmark information provided to them by Nortech Engineering, cataloged which buildings would have the greatest potential payback, and with the building owner, prioritized buildings to be audited based on numerous factors, including the Energy Use Index (EUI), the Energy Cost Index (ECI), the age of the building, the size of the building, the location of the building, the function of the building, and the availability of plans for the building. They also trained and assigned their selected sub-contractors to the selected buildings, and performed quality control reviews of the resulting audits. They prepared a listing of potential EEMs that each auditor must consider, as well as the potential EEMs that the individual auditor may notice in the course of his audit. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC also performed some of the audits to assure current knowledge of existing conditions. e. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been selected to provide audits under this contract. The firm has two mechanical engineers, certified as energy auditors and/or professional engineers and has also received additional training from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC to acquire further specific information regarding audit requirements and potential EEM applications. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 14 of 56 4. Building Description and Function: This building has 43,593 square feet on its first floor, consisting of classrooms, offices, a gymnasium, mechanical and boiler rooms, corridors and common spaces. The small second floor has 750 square feet, and consists of a fan room and storage. In total, the building has 44,343 square feet. In 1994 the elementary and high school wings were added to the original building, which is estimated to have been constructed in 1982. The new wings were constructed on perimeter concrete foundation walls supporting 18” engineered joists, presumably filled with fiberglass batt for a nominal insulation value of R-57. The walls on the new wings are constructed of 7.25” structural insulated panels laminated with oriented strand board (OSB) on the outside, covered with horizontal cedar bevel siding, and 5/8” plywood finished with gypsum on the inside. AkWarm-C’s calculated insulation value is R-30. The roof of the elementary and high school wings is constructed of structural insulated panels, 11.25” thick, again laminated with OSB covered with standing seam metal roofing, for a composite (AkWarm-C) calculated insulation value of R-49.6. The original building is presumed to have been constructed in the same way as the new wings, so has the same insulation values. Plans were not available for the original building. Building details are as follows: a. Heating System: Heat is supplied to the school by (3) Weil McLain, 1632 MBH, 87% efficient, oil fired, cast iron sectional boilers. The boilers provide heat to rooms through a primary circulation pump supplying finned tube baseboard heaters, (7) AHU coils, (8) unit heaters (UH) and (7) cabinet unit heaters (CUH). The UH’s and CUH’s are all running wild (i.e. glycol flow is controlled only by the circulation pump at the boiler, with no secondary control at the UH), fan-controlled by local, low voltage zone thermostats. All rooms have adjustable, low voltage thermostats which presumably control local zone or room valves. The HVAC has an electronic control system and uses electric actuators. In order to reconcile actual fuel oil consumption with forecasted consumption, the outside air (OSA) on several AHU’s had to be increased to 50%. This is excessive, hence the recommendation to perform a controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 15 of 56 audit in Section 1.B. above. All glycol circulation pumps utilize constant speed motors. b. Ventilation: Ventilation, return air and make up air are provided by a series of air handlers (called “SF” in this building). SF-4, supplying the library and media center, was found to be in the “hand” position (i.e. manually overridden to be “on” 24/7/365), all others were on “auto”. All AHU’s utilize constant speed fan motors. c. Plumbing Fixtures: The building contains (22) toilets, (8) urinals, (13) lavatory sinks and (6) showers. (4) of the sinks utilize timer valves, all other fixtures are operated manually. All fixtures appear to be post-1992, so consume 1.6 gpf (toilets) and 1 gpf (urinals) and 2.6 gpm (shower heads). See Appendix G-1 for EEM recommendations. d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is provided to showers, lavatories and the kitchen by (2) indirect, 80 gallon hot water generators located in the boiler room. Hot water for the kitchen dishwasher is provided by a 3 Kw booster which is integral to the industrial dishwasher. e. Head Bolt Heaters: There are no head bolt heaters attached to this building. Transportation to and from school in winter appears to be on foot or by ATV’s and snow machines. f. Interior Lighting: This building utilizes, almost entirely, T8 lamps with electronic ballasts. The noteworthy exceptions are (6) architectural 400 watt metal halide fixtures in the corridor and library, and a number of T12 lamps & magnetic ballasts in storage areas, and other secondary spaces. The elementary and high school’s utilize occupancy sensors in classrooms and corridors, the rest of the building does not have sensors. Completion of a full lighting upgrade is recommended above and in Appendix B. g. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of 50 watt soffit and 150 watt High Pressure Sodium (HPS) wall packs. All are supposed to, and appear to be controlled by photo sensors. Several pole lights have been upgraded to LED’s. h. Building Shell: Other than several windows in need of replacement, the exterior building shell is in very good condition. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 16 of 56 i. Wood shop: Unlike many smaller village schools, this school woodshop is used regularly and there is a resident shop teacher. The equipment is in good condition, although none of it is used enough to justify replacement with higher efficiency models. 5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the AkWarm-C program. The program typically analyzes twelve months of data. Two year’s worth of fuel oil and electricity consumption were averaged, then input into AKWarm-C. This monthly data is found in Appendix I. Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost Index (ECI) and the Energy Use Index (EUI). The ECI takes the annual costs of natural gas and electrical energy over the surveyed period of time (two years) divided by the square footage of the building. The ECI for this building is $6.22/SF, the ECI’s for two similar buildings, the Schools in Shishmaref and Diomede, are $7.75/SF, and $9.30/SF, respectively. The energy use index (EUI) is the total annual average electrical and natural gas energy consumption expressed in thousands of BTUs/SF. The average of the 2009 and 2010 EUI for this building is 133 kBTU/SF; the average 2009/2010 EUI for the Shishmaref School is 137 kBTU/SF and 134 kBTU/SF for the Diomede School. The average for schools across the US varies from 85 to 98 kBTU/SF as logged by the US Energy Information Administration. This source data can be viewed at: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/efficiency/cbecstrends/cbi_pdf/cbecs_trends_6b.pdf 6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates savings assuming that all recommended EEM that are modeled, are implemented in the order shown in Appendix B. Some of the EEM’s listed in Appendix B noted as “see Appendix G” are not modeled in AkWarm-C model due to limitations in AkWarm-C’s capability. Therefore the savings calculated by AkWarm-C do not take them into consideration, and visa versa. Furthermore, if the EEM’s calculated by AkWarm-C are implemented out of order, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected, in some cases positively, and in others, negatively. As a result of these anomalies, the overall building savings on the first page of Appendix B may be over or understated. In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well. Best efforts are made to model the recommended projects sequentially, so as to best account for the interactive effects between the EEMs and not “double count” savings. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 17 of 56 Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore lighting efficiency improvements will reduce cooling requirements on air conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting efficiency improvements are anticipated to increase heating requirements slightly. Heating penalties are included in the lighting project analysis that is performed by AkWarm-C. 7. Loan Program: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions of municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Native corporations, tribal entities, and subsidiaries of the federal government are not eligible for loans under this program. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 18 of 56 Appendix A Photos School main entry; airport taxi shown in foreground. Student and staff bus service; note good condition of building exterior. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 19 of 56 OSA supply duct covered by snow – could be contributor to high oil consumption. Note LED pole light. Village wind farm adjacent to School; generator station at far right. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 20 of 56 Boiler #3 in foreground, (2) indirect water generators to the right All un-insulated heat pipes should be insulated. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 21 of 56 Windows in need of repair …or recently replaced ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 22 of 56 Gymnasium, note upgraded T5 lighting Kitchen – clean, well maintained ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 23 of 56 Aerial View of Gambell Airport John Apangalook School (subject building) NORTH Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  John Apangalook School Page 24   ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 3/2/2012 3:18 PM General Project Information  PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION  Building: John Apangalook School Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska  Address: P.O. Box 169 Auditor  Name: James Fowler  City: Gambell Auditor Address: 5935 Pioneer Park Pl  Langley, WA 98260 Client Name: Jarrod Koonooka, Debra Forkner  Client Address: P.O. Box 169  Gambell, AK 99742  Auditor Phone: (206) 954‐3614  Auditor FAX:   Client Phone: (907) 985‐5229 Auditor Comment:   Client FAX:   Design Data  Building Area: 44,343 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space:  1,928,043  Btu/hour   with Distribution Losses:  2,142,270 Btu/hour   Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and  25% Safety Margin: 3,265,656 Btu/hour   Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load,  if served.  Typical Occupancy: 247 people  Design Indoor Temperature: 71.9 deg F (building average)  Actual City: Gambell Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐27.8 deg F  Weather/Fuel City: Gambell Heating Degree Days: 14,572 deg F‐days     Utility Information  Electric Utility: AVEC‐Gambell ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Natural Gas Provider: None  Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.474/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf     Annual Energy Cost Estimate  Description Space  Heating  Space  Coolin g  Water  Heating Lighting Refrige ration  Other  Electrical  Cooki ng  Clothes  Drying  Ventilatio n Fans  Service  Fees Total Cost  Existing  Building  $172,556 $0 $30,774 $47,402 $2,818 $5,650 $0 $0 $16,744 $60 $276,004  With  Proposed  Retrofits  $84,391 $0 $34,827 $34,582 $2,434 $4,146 $0 $0 $13,426 $60 $173,866  SAVINGS $88,165 $0 ‐$4,053** $12,820 $383 $1,505 $0 $0 $3,319 $0 $102,138    ** AkWarm‐C is calculating an increase in DHW costs after all EEM’s are incorporated.  Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  John Apangalook School Page 25                     $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Existing Retrofit Service Fees Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  John Apangalook School Page 26   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Setback  Thermostat:  Elementary and  High School  Classrooms,  library, etc  Implement a Heating Temperature  Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for  the Elementary and High School  Classrooms, library, etc space  (22  room/zones)  $18,808 $4,400 57.98 0.2 2 Setback  Thermostat:  Gymnasium, main  vestibule and  lobby common  area  Implement a Heating Temperature  Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for  the Gymnasium, main vestibule and  lobby common area space (14  room/zones)  $6,802 $2,800 32.95 0.4 3 HVAC and  Ventilation  Controls  Perform an HVAC and HVAC controls  audit (estimated cost $15,000) and  re‐commission the HVAC system.   Replace/repair valves, acutators  and/or switches that are not  functioning correctly (estimated cost  $10,000), adjust OSA and RA  dampers/settings per code, or at  maximum, to a more reasonable 15%  OSA.  15% OSA is used in this retrofit  to calcuate annual savings.  Also,  return SF‐4 to "Auto" mode (currently  on "hand", running continously) and  operating schedule to "school  schedule"  $39,530 $25,000 21.21 0.6 4 Lighting: Exterior  Lighting ‐ soffitts  Replace with 4 LED 17W Module  StdElectronic  $287 $100 17.42 0.3 5 Lighting: T5‐4lamp,  54watt, Gym  lighting  Remove Manual Switching and Add  new Occupancy Sensor  $1,895 $1,000 11.58 0.5 6 Lighting:  Incandescent  flood/spot lights  Replace with 26 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp  15W  $587 $345 10.40 0.6 7 (see  also  Appen dix G‐ 7)  Variable  Frequency Drives  (VFD’s)  Add VFD's to CP‐1 & CP‐2 pump  motors and SF‐1, SF‐2 and SF‐5 fan  motors  $23,980 $19,353 10.21 0.8 8 Setback  Thermostat:  Mechanical and  Boiler rooms  Implement a Heating Temperature  Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for  the Mechanical and Boiler rooms  space (3 room/zones)  $426 $600 9.63 1.4 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  John Apangalook School Page 27   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 9 Refrigeration: Full  size refrigerator  At EOL, Replace with 3 Energy Star  versions @ incremental cost of $75 ea  $329 $225 8.94 0.7 10 Lighting: T8‐4lamp,  add OS  Remove Manual Switching and Add  new Occupancy Sensor and at next  re‐lamp Replace with 30 FLUOR (4) T8  4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant  StdElectronic  $599 $960 3.81 1.6 11 Personal  Computers  At EOL, Replace with 14 Laptops $976 $2,801 2.13 2.9 12 Lighting:  Incandescent  Lighting  Replace with 23 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp  15W and Remove Manual Switching  and Add new Occupancy Sensor  $619 $1,795 2.11 2.9 13 Lighting: Freezer  incandescent  lighting  Replace with 5 LED 10W Module  StdElectronic and Remove Manual  Switching and Add new Clock Timer  or Other Scheduling Control  $108 $325 2.06 3 14 Lighting: T12‐ 4lamp, add OS (PE  equipment room)  Replace with 12 FLUOR (4) T8 4'  F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant  HighEfficElectronic and Remove  Manual Switching and Add new  Occupancy Sensor  $1,309 $4,400 1.81 3.4 15 Lighting: T8‐3lamp,  add OS  Remove Manual Switching and Add  new Occupancy Sensor and at next  re‐lamp Replace with 111 FLUOR (3)  T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant  StdElectronic  $1,365 $5,499 1.52 4 16 Lighting: T12‐ 2lamp, add OS,  gymnasium  schedule  Replace with 10 FLUOR (2) T8 4'  F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant  HighEfficElectronic and Remove  Manual Switching and Add new  Occupancy Sensor  $702 $4,000 1.07 5.7 17 Lighting: T8‐2lamp;  add OS, school  schedule  Remove Manual Switching and Add  new Occupancy Sensor and at next  re‐lamp Replace with 76 FLUOR (2) T8  4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant  StdElectronic  $759 $4,506 1.03 5.9 18 Lighting: T12‐ 3lamp, magnetic  ballast (wood shop  workstation lights)  Replace with 3 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8  28W Energy‐Saver Instant  HighEfficElectronic  $96 $600 0.97 6.3 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison  AkWarm Commercial Audit Software  John Apangalook School Page 28   PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 19 Lighting: T8‐2lamp,  add OS,  gymnasium  schedule  Remove Manual Switching and Add  new Occupancy Sensor and at next  re‐lamp Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8  4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant  StdElectronic   $199 $1,548 0.78 7.8 20 Lighting: Exterior  Lighting  Replace with 22 LED 72W Module  StdElectronic  $1,921 $15,400 0.77 8 21 Lighting: T12‐ 2lamp, magnetic  ballast, add OS,  school schedule  Replace with 15 FLUOR (2) T8 4'  F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant  HighEfficElectronic and Remove  Manual Switching and Add new  Occupancy Sensor  $497 $6,150 0.49 12.4 22 Lighting: CFL, add  OS  Remove Manual Switching and Add  new Occupancy Sensor  $4 $200 0.11 54.5 The following EEM’s were calculated outside of AkWarm‐C and may not consider the  interactive affect of any other EEM’ above, unless specifically stated otherwise.  They are  not in order of priority or savings, relative to the EEM’s above. See  Appen dix G‐1  Plumbing Fixtures:  (22) W.C., (13)  lavatories, (8)  urinals, (6)  showers  Replace shower heads and lavatory   fixtures with low flow versions;  replace lavatory valves with proximity  sensing on/off controls, retrofit toilets  with dual‐flush valves, replace urinals  with ultra‐low flow and proximity  sensing controls  See  Appen dix G‐2  Motor  replacements  Replace1 motor now with premium  efficiency motor, replace 3 motors  with premium efficiency motors at  EOL; see Table 4 Appendix G‐2 for  details.  $343 $900 7.6 2.6 See  Append ix G‐3  HVAC Maintenance Repair opening in SF‐4 supply duct   See  Append ix G‐4  Village Generator  Waste Heat  Recovery  Perform engineering study and  implement waste heat recovery  $37,000‐ $46,000 (not  included in  total below)  unknown  See  Append ix G‐6  Heat Piping Insulate all heat pipes   TOTAL $102,138 $102,907 11.33 1   AkWarmCalc Ver  2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 2/2/2012    ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 29 of 56 Appendix C – Equipment Schedule ALL SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION, WHERE  ACCESSIBLE, OR FROM PLANS                (e = estimated)  AIR HANDLER SCHEDULE  SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL FAN CFM  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  SF‐1 Pace A‐20  DWDI 8885 7.5/208/3  155 MBH; Mech fan room, serves  High School  SF‐2 Pace A‐18  DWDI 8430 5/208/3  125 MBH, Mech fan room, serves  Elementary school  SF‐3 Pace A‐11 DWDI 2400 2/208/3  296 MBH; Mech fan room, serves  common area & offices  SF‐4 Pace A‐11 DWDI 2955 2/208/3  33 MBH; Mech fan room, serves  media center; on "hand"  SF‐5 Pace A‐15 DWDI 7200 5/208/3 282 MBH  SF‐6 Pace A‐15 DWDI 3500 2/208/3 121 MBH  SF‐7 Pace A‐15 DWDI 3200 2/208/3 133 MBH  HUMIDIFIER SCHEDULE  SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL  #  water/hr  FAN DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  HU‐1 Dri‐Steem VPC 16 45.6 16Kw/208/3  serves media center via SF‐4, located  Mech fan room (controls "off")  EXHAUST FAN SCHEDULE  SYMBO L MOTOR MFGR/MODEL CFM  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  EF‐1 Penn XR94 568 .1/120/1 Room 155  EF‐2 Penn AT35 1250 .17/120/1 Room 174  EF‐3 Penn AT24 1000 .125/120/1 Room 138  EF‐4 Penn XR94 480 .1/120/1 Room 137  EF‐5 Penn FMX15R 1600 .75/120/3 Room 102  EF‐6 Penn SX125WA 1900 .5/120/1 Mechanical room  CEF‐1 Penn Z‐5 100 .02/120/1    EH‐1 Gaylord GX‐BDL 2500 1/208/3e Kitchen exhaust hood  ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 30 of 56 PUMP SCHEDULE   SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL GPM  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  CP‐1  Grundfos pump/Baldor  motor 250  7.5/208/3,  85.5% Main glycol circulation  CP‐2  Grundfos pump/Baldor  motor 250  7.5/208/3,  85.5% Main glycol circulation ‐ standby  CP‐3  Grundfos pump/Baldor  motor 100 1/208/3 Glycol curculation  CP‐4  Grundfos pump/Baldor  motor 100 1/208/3 Glycol curculation ‐ standby  CP‐5 Grundfos 25‐98 BF 25 205w/115/1 DHW circulation  CP‐6 Grundfos UPS 15‐58 PC 15e 87w/115/1 Domestic water circulation  CP‐7 Grundfos UPS 15‐42 SF 12e 85w/115/1 Domestic water circulation  JP‐8 B&G/Marathon  400e  20/208/3,  88.5% Fire protection jockey pump  DT‐1 Marathon 45e .5/115/1 Day tank fuel oil pump  DT‐2 Marathon 45e .5/115/1 Day tank fuel oil pump  BOILER SCHEDULE   SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL    MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  B‐1 Weil McLain BL‐788WF   1.5/208/3  1632 MBU input, 1419 MBH output,  87% efficient, cast iron sectional, oil  fired  B‐2 Weil McLain BL‐788WF   1.5/208/3  1632 MBU input, 1419 MBH output,  87% efficient, cast iron sectional, oil  fired  B‐3 Weil McLain BL‐788WF   1.5/208/3  1632 MBU input, 1419 MBH output,  87% efficient, cast iron sectional, oil  fired  UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE  SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL CFM  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS  UH‐1 Airtherm HU‐39,  18.5 MBH 420 .02/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Tank room  UH‐2 Airtherm HU‐39,  25 MBH 460 .1/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Boiler room  ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 31 of 56 UH‐3 Airtherm HU‐39,  36 MBH 750 .18/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Fan room  UH‐4 Airtherm HU‐39,  18.5 MBH 420 .02/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Mechanical room  UH‐5 Airtherm HU‐39,  18.5 MBH 420 .04/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Maintenance shop  UH‐6 Airtherm HU‐39,  18.5 MBH 420 .04/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  generator room  UH‐7 Airtherm HU‐39,  18.5 MBH 420 .04/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  east storage room  UH‐8 Airtherm HU‐39,  18.5 MBH 420 .04/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  under gym  CUH‐1 Vulcan 02, 03 or 04, 15 MBH 195 .1/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Kitchen  CUH‐2 Vulcan 02, 03 or 04, 15 MBH 195 .1/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Vest, east of Kitchen  CUH‐3 Vulcan 02, 03 or 04, 15 MBH 195 .1/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Vest, lobby  CUH‐4 Vulcan 02, 03 or 04, 15 MBH 195 .1/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  vest, lobby  CHU‐5 Vulcan 02, 03 or 04, 15 MBH 195 .1/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  Vest, west of gym  CHU‐6 Vulcan 04, 21 MBH 270 .18/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  vest, elem  CUH‐7 Vulcan 04, 21 MBH 270 .18/115/1  compiled from plan & observed;  vest, high school  HOT WATER GENERATOR SCHEDULE   SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL GALLONS  NUMBER OF  ELEMENTS ELEMENT SIZE  HWG‐1 Amtrol WHS80ZDW 80   Indirect water generator  HWG‐2 Amtrol WHS80ZDW 80   Indirect water generator  PLUMBING FIXTURES   SYMBO L FIXTURE GPF QUANTITY REMARKS    W.C. 1.6 22 manually operated    Urinal 1 8 manually operated    Lavatory ‐ 11 7 manually operated, 4 on timer  ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 32 of 56 valves    Lavatory sink ‐ semicircular ‐ 2 valves on timers    Showers 2.6e 6 manually operated      ‐         Whirlpool Clothes washer   1  Stacked clothes washer/electric dryer;  21.5A/120/1  KITCHEN EQUIPMENT  & STUDENT STORE  SYMBO L FIXTURE  QUANTIT Y  MOTOR DATA   HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS    Garland Electric Range 1 40Kw/208/3e  only cooktop and griddle used 2‐3  hrs/day; ovens not used     Lang 2ECCO  double  convection oven 1 23Kw/208/3e used 4 hrs/day    Hobart D300 Mixer 1 .5/115/1 used 1 hr/day    Savory Toaster oven 1 15.4A/208/1 used 1/2 hr/day     Stero Dishwasher SD‐2RA‐ MB  1 .75/208/3 motor, used 2 hrs/day  1 3Kw/208/3 tank heat, used 2 hrs/day    Kolpak Walk in  refrigerator 1 53w/115/1 Bonn evaporator fan motor    1   Condenser     Kolpak Walk in Freezer  1 457w/208/1 Bonn evaporator fan motors    1   Condenser    1 800w/208/1 Defrost Coils & drain pan heater    Wells Food wamer table 1 5Kw/208/1 used 2 hrs/day    Norris Milk dispenser 1 93w/115/1 condenser refrigeration; always on    Panasonic Microwave 2 1250w/115/1 1 unit used 1 hr/day    Full size refrigerator 3   est. 15+ yrs old    Full size refrigerator 2   est. 5 yrs old    Popcorn machine 1 2300w/115/1 used average of 2 hrs/wk    2 burner electric hot plate 1 1500w/115/1 used average .5 hr/wk    Contential beverage cooler 1 920w/115/1 condenser refrigeration; always on    Electric Range/Oven 1 3.5Kw/220/1 e Home sciences room    Taylor soft ice cream 1 1700w/115/1 used average .5 hr/wk  OTHER EQUIPMENT    GE Motor 1 1.5/115/1 Utility compressor;      Chest Freezer, full size, no  defrost 1   est 15+ years old  ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 33 of 56 Appendix C – 1982 Lighting Schedule LIGHTING SCHEDULE  FIXTURE  TYPE DESCRIPTION LAMPS MOUNTING  NUMBER WATTS TYPE HEIGHT  Wall pack HPS ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 150 surface 20'  Wall pack HPS ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast 1 50 surface under soffit  Pendant Metal Halide ‐ Interior, magnetic ballast 1 400 hanging 20'  T8‐3 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 3 32 recess ceiling  T8‐2 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 2 32 recess ceiling  T8‐4 Florescent, T8 lamps, electronic ballast 4 32 recess ceiling  T12‐2 Florescent, T12 lamps, magnetic ballast 2 40 surface ceiling  T12‐4 Florescent, T12 lamps, electronic ballast 4 40 surface ceiling  Incandescent wall mount fixture 1 60 surface 7'  Incandescent display illumination floods 1 65 surface inside display  Incandescent wall mount fixture 1 60 surface 7'  Incandescent wall mount fixture, freezer 1 60 surface 6'  Can light CFL, magnetic ballast 1 17 recess ceiling  ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 34 of 56 Appendix D – Building Floor Plan ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 35 of 56 Appendix E – Lighting Plan – Original School Building ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 36 of 56 Appendix E – Lighting Plan – Elementary School wing ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 37 of 56 Appendix E – Lighting Plan – High School wing ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 38 of 56 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematic ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 39 of 56 Appendix G Additional, Building-Specific EEM details WITH THE EXCEPTION OF D-1, THESE EEM’S MAY BE INTERACTIVE AND DO NOT TAKE EACH OTHER INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SAVINGS ARE CALCULATED, SO THEY CANNOT BE ADDED CUMULATIVELY. FURTHERMORE, INDIVIDUAL EEM SAVINGS WILL BE REDUCED (OR INCREASED) DEPENDING ON WHICH EEM’S ARE SELECTED AND IN WHAT ORDER THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED. G-1: Plumbing fixtures: All urinals should be retrofitted or be replaced with ultra low flow models. Urinals and faucets should have proximity sensing on/off controls. Manually flushed toilets should be retrofitted with dual flush valves (see below). This audit does not include water usage and AkWarm-C does not allow for the modeling of it, but a typical faucet retrofit will result in 30% water savings and will payback in less than 3 years. Ultra low flow urinals (1 pint to ½ gallon per flush) can save up to 66% of water used, and typically pay back within 3 years. Dual flush toilet valves will typically pay back within 1-3 years, depending on usage. These payback periods are reduced by 66% or more if the fixture is replaced at its EOL rather than while it’s still functioning. For an EOL replacement, the cost used is the incremental difference in cost between an ultra-low-flow fixture and a straight across replacement with the same fixture. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 40 of 56 G-2: Motor replacements: It is generally recommended that all motors, 5HP or larger, operating for 1500 hrs per year, or more, at continuous speed, be replaced at EOL with premium efficiency motors. Motors operating for 5000 hours per year, or more, can be replaced with premium efficiency motors prior to burn out, with a justifiable payback. Motors in this building, 5HP and larger, are listed below, along with recommendations for cost effective replacement at burn-out and for immediate replacement. There is one instance in this building of cost effective motor replacement with premium efficiency motor prior to burn out. Table 4 – Motor Listing Motor use &  location (5 HP  or larger) HP/Volts/Ph   Existing  Efficiency  Premium  Efficiency  Estimated  annual  usage (hrs)  Annual  Savings  Burn‐out  payback  (yrs)  Replacement  payback (yrs)  RECOMMENDED TO BE REPLACED WITH PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTOR NOW  CP‐1 7.5/208/3 85.5% 91.70% 8760  $  345.33  .6/$200 2.6/$900  RECOMMENDED TO BE REPLACED WITH PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTOR AT END OF LIFE  SF‐1 7.5/208/3 e85.5% 91.70% 2600  $ 102.50  2.0/$200 8.8/$900  SF‐2 5/208/3 e82% 88.50% 2600  $   77.40  1.9/$150 7.8/$600  SF‐5 5/208/3 e82% 88.50% 3750  $ 111.63  1.3/$150 5.4/$600  NOT RECOMMENDED TO BE REPLACED WITH PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTORS  CP‐2 7.5/208/3 85.5% 91.70% backup  $      ‐     ‐ ‐  Jockey Pump 20/208/3 88.50% 93.00% 0 $       ‐   ‐  ‐  Efficiency ratings at Full Load, per nameplate  e = estimated because nameplate not accessible or information not on nameplate (typical value for motor's  of this age was used)  Payback figures based on power consumption at 66% of full load  SF‐1, 2 & 5 operating hours assumed to start 1 hour before and end 1 hour after school operating hours  ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 41 of 56 G-3: HVAC maintenance: This opening in the supply duct from SF-4 should be covered. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 42 of 56 G-4: Generator Waste Heat Recovery: The village power generation facility is adjacent to this building. Waste heat recovered from the generators can be used to heat nearby buildings, essentially for free, once the capital costs are recovered. As a rough rule of thumb, 1/3 of the energy in a gallon of fuel oil is wasted as combustion losses up the generator’s stack, 1/3 is converted to electricity and 1/3 is wasted through the generator’s cooling radiators. This last 1/3 is recoverable by adding heat exchangers to the generator cooling system. It is recommended that an engineering study be undertaken to determine the amount, quality and cost of recovering this generator waste heat. It is estimated that in a village the size of Gambell, the generator waste heat could provide for much of the school’s heating needs. As a comparison, the waste heat from 3 generators in the smaller village of Atqasuk provides approximately 1,761 MBH, (supplying a portion of the heating needs of 5 nearby buildings). This amount of heat in Gambell would replace the output of 1.3 of the 3 boilers during the winter months, and supply the school’s entire heat load during 3-4 summer months, saving an estimated 12,000-15,000 gallons, or $37,000-$46,000 per year at 2010 fuel oil prices. G-5: De-Stratification Fans in Gymnasium and Commons: De-strat fans can save up to 23% in high-ceiling space-heating costs, depending on the temperature difference at the ceiling and at the thermostat level. In this gymnasium, the measured difference in temperature from the thermostat’s to the ceiling as only 1F, and 1.2F in the Commons. Therefore, based on this measurement, de-stratification fans are not justified and therefore not recommended. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 43 of 56 G-6: Heat pipe insulation: All heat piping should be insulated. Un-insulated piping contributes to boiler heat loads, especially when night time set-back temperatures are implemented. G-7: Variable Frequency Drive: If outfitted with a VFD with a programmable input device (PID) which responds to a process parameter such as duct pressure or temperature for an AHU or suction or discharge pressure on a pump, a motor has the capability to only produce enough power to meet the demand. There is tremendous savings potential resulting from the relationship between motor load required and resulting fluid or air flow (Affinity Laws). As an example, if 100% of the air flow requires 100% motor’s horsepower, the Affinity laws state that 70% of air (or fluid) flow requires only 34% of the horsepower. Fan motors and pumps are sized for the worst case load scenario; consequently 90% of the time, they need only operate at 30%-70% of their full load/full speed. VFD’s are recommended for larger, 3-phase motors that are under varying load and duty cycles, such as air handlers and circulation pump motors. The motors summarized in table 5 below, are recommended to be retro-fitted with VFD’s. These motors were evaluated using software called, “Energy Predictor”, provided by Yaskawa, a manufacturer of VFD’s; excerpts from the detailed software reports are found in Appendix H. The percentage of savings (68% for the fan motors and 69% for the pump motors) were predicted using the Yaskawa software, and then input into ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 44 of 56 AkWarm-C as a reduction in power consumption for the particular fan or pump motor. The motor savings are included in the EEM in Appendix B-7. It is important to note that these savings are over-stated because they are based solely on the reduction in electrical consumption resulting from the motor speed reduction. When a fan or compressor motor speed is reduced, GPM or CFM is also reduced, so the motor will have to operate at slightly higher load and speed to maintain building parameters, which will erode a small percentage of the electrical savings. Neither the Yaskawa software or the AkWarm-C software has the capability to calculate this iterative condition. Table 5 Summarized cost and savings from addition of VFD’s to AHU fan motors and main circulation pump motors * Predicted by Yaskawa software outside of AkWarm, and therefore does not consider any other EEM’s (and is therefore overstated) See Appendix H for Yaskawa “Energy Predictor” reports. Estimated cost Annual Savings Payback  Air Handlers:  SF‐1, SF‐2 and SF‐5 (7.5  HP, 5 HP and 5 HP respectively) $11,455 $13,933 * 10 months  Circulation Pumps: CP‐1 and CP‐2 (7.5  HP motors) $  7,898 $17,659 * 6 months  ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 45 of 56 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls Occupancy sensors sense the presence of people, turn the lights on at a pre- determined level, and then turn the lights off after a programmed time period of no occupancy. Line of sight, motion sensing occupancy sensors can be installed in existing duplex switch boxes, as well as on ceilings. Dual technology sensors are typically ceiling mounted in rooms, lavatories, corridors, vehicle bays and storage areas where obstacles may interfere with line-of-sight sensors. The second technology in these sensors activates lighting based on sound or changes in position, and work even when a person is fully obscured by an obstacle. Zoned occupancy controls are typically recommended for long corridors, large vehicle bays and large storage areas with multiple switches and lighting zones. Zoned controls are designed to activate and de-activate lighting by zone, by row, or even by fixture, based on the location of the occupant. Occupancy sensors can reduce power consumption by 25-60%. Paybacks on occupancy sensors range from 1 to 5 years, depending on the light fixture consumption and occupancy of the room. Lighting Management Systems (LMS) today have the capability to manage lighting based on a wide variety of parameters including building usage, daylight conditions and occupancy. They are retro-fittable, and can be stand alone or integrated into a building’s HVAC DDC control system. Additionally, they can be easily re-configured as a building’s usage or occupancy pattern changes. Sample LMS systems and a sample high bay occupancy sensor (which could be used for zone lighting control) follow. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 46 of 56 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Energy Saver T8-28 watt lamps ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 47 of 56 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Energy Saver T8-28 watt lamps ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 48 of 56 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 49 of 56 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 50 of 56 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 51 of 56 Appendix H - Specifications supporting EEM’s VFD Reports ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 52 of 56 Appendix H - Specifications supporting EEM’s VFD Reports ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 53 of 56 Appendix H - Specifications supporting EEM’s VFD Reports ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 54 of 56 Appendix H - Specifications supporting EEM’s VFD Reports ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 55 of 56 Appendix H - Specifications supporting EEM’s VFD Reports ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 56 of 56 Appendix I – Summary Benchmark Data $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Jan‐09Mar‐09May‐09Jul‐09Sep‐09Nov‐09Jan‐10Mar‐10May‐10Jul‐10Sep‐10Nov‐10Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr) Gambell Schools ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($) Electric Consumption  (kWh) Electric Cost ($) $0.00  $5,000.00  $10,000.00  $15,000.00  $20,000.00  $25,000.00  0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Jan‐09Mar‐09May‐09Jul‐09Sep‐09Nov‐09Jan‐10Mar‐10May‐10Jul‐10Sep‐10Nov‐10Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr) Gambell Schools ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($) Oil Consumption (Therms) Oil Cost ($)