HomeMy WebLinkAboutBSNC-GAM-RSA John Apangalook School 2012-EEENERGY 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 ($)
Oil Consumption (Therms)
Oil Cost ($)