HomeMy WebLinkAboutBSNC-OME-RSA Icy View Fire Station 2012-EE1
Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC
Mechanical/Electrical Engineer
Comprehensive Energy Audit
of
Icy View Fire Station
Project # BSNC-OME-RSA-05
Prepared for:
The City of Nome
October 8, 2011
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
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Performed by: __________________________
James Fowler, PE, CEA
CEA #1705
Reviewed by: __________________________
Richard Armstrong, PE, CEM
CEA #178, CEM #13557
1. Executive Summary 4
2. Audit and Analysis Background 9
3. Acknowledgements 10
4. Building Description & Function 11
5. Historic Energy Consumption 12
6. Interactive Effects of Projects 13
7. Loan Program 13
Appendix A: Photos 15
Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 18
Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 22
Appendix D: Building Plan 24
Appendix E: Lighting Plan 25
Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 26
Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 27
3
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. 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.
4
1. Executive Summary
This Comprehensive Energy Audit is performed in connection with AHFC’s
Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) program.
Subject Building:
Icy View Fire Station
401 Out of the Way Rd
Nome, AK 99762
Building Owner:
The City of Nome
102 Division Street
Nome, AK 99762
Josie Bahnke, City Manager
907-443-6600 office
jbahnke@nomealaska.org
Building contacts:
Matt Johnson, Fire Chief
907-304-1535 mobile
mjohnson@nomealaska.org
Alan Maxwell, Building Inspector
907-304-3399 mobile
amaxwell@nomealaska.org
Jerry Krier, Maintenance supervisor
907-304-3398 mobile
The site visit to subject building occurred on September 9th, 2011.
This fire station is a small, 1684 square foot satellite station intended to
provide rapid, volunteer response to the Icy View Subdivision and outlying
areas of Nome. The energy audit of this building took place on request of
the Nome fire chief. The building consists of high bay vehicle storage and
a boiler room which also doubles as a toilet room. It is a one story
building with a tower formerly used for drying fire hoses, and a small
mezzanine used for storage.
Plans and equipment schedules could not be located for this building. The
plans and schedules found in the Appendix’s were created from on-site
measurements and observations made during the survey. Building shell
details including roof and floor construction, insulation values and
structural configuration were assumed based on the auditor’s on-site
observations and conversations with the maintenance lead.
Benchmark data from Central Alaska Engineering Company indicates a
5
build date of 1983. There does not appear to have been any significant
upgrades or additions to the structure, plumbing or electrical systems, but
the HVAC system appears to have been upgraded around 2002.
Considering its age, the building is in average condition. There is
apparently a sewer line freeze-up issue, as the sink is left running
24/7/365.
Energy Consumption and Benchmark Data
Benchmark data - annual fuel oil and annual electricity consumption only -
was provided by Central Alaska Engineering Company, and validated with
Nome administration by the auditor. The two annual data points provided
were distributed by the auditor, to estimate reasonable monthly usage.
Summarized data is displayed in Table 1 below:
Table 1
2009 2010
Consumption Cost Consumption Cost
Electricity ‐ kWh 8,374 $ 3,004 6,346 $ 2,695
Fuel Oil ‐ gallons 1,817 $ 8,638 2,050 $ 8,730
Totals $ 11,642 $ 11,425
A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function
buildings in the area 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 – Table 2 below -
indicate that this building’s energy consumption is significantly higher than
it comparable buildings in Nome.
Table 2 – indexes for existing building
Subject Building
Average of (4) similar
buildings in Nome
Ambulance
Building
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐
kBTU/SF 166 124 137
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐
$/SF $6.85 $4.38 $5.20
After incorporation of the EEM recommendations in this report, there is a
reduction in the EUI and ECI, as calculated by AKWarm, as show in Table
6
3 below, bringing the building in line or below, the average Nome
buildings.
Table 3 – indexes after implementation of EEM’s
Subject
Building
Average of (4) similar buildings
in Nome
Ambulance
Building
Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐
kBTU/SF
84 124 137
Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐
$/SF
$3.48 $4.38 $5.20
Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this
building to determine if they would be applicable for 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.) life cycle replacement or 4.) reasons pertaining to
operations, maintenance and/or safety. For example, where a lighting
upgrade is recommended from T-12 lamps with magnetic ballasts to T-8
lamps with electronic ballasts, then the entire facility should be re-lamped
and re-ballasted to maintain a standard lighting parts inventory, regardless
of the payback. An individual storage room that is infrequently used may
not show a very good payback for a lighting upgrade, but consistency and
ease of maintenance dictates a total upgrade.
Specific EEMs recommended for this facility are detailed in the attached
AkWarm Energy Audit Report in Appendix B. Each EEM includes
payback times, estimated installation costs and estimated energy savings.
The higher priority items are summarized below:
Lighting Upgrades: This facility has T12 lamps and magnetic
ballasts. All lamps should be replaced with new 28 watt, T8
lamps and electronic ballasts. Typical savings in power
consumption varies from 30-50% with this upgrade.
Lighting Control Upgrades: Occupant controls can sense the
presence of workers, and turn the lights on at a pre-
determined level, and then turn the lights off after a
programmed time period of no occupancy. This building is
intermittently and infrequently occupied. It is recommended to
install occupancy sensors in the existing duplex switch boxes
and ceiling mounted, dual technology sensors in the vehicle
bay. (this prevents obstacles, like trucks, from interfering with
line-of-sight sensors) The second mode in a dual technology
7
occupancy sensor is activated by sound. This could reduce
power consumption by 60-90%.
Exterior Lighting Upgrades: The exterior high pressure sodium
lights operate during periods of darkness, which is about half
of the year. It is estimated that the use of LED exterior lights
can reduce the power consumption by 60% and extend bulb
replacement frequency to 5-10 years, further reducing
maintenance costs.
Setback Thermostat in vehicle bay. It is recommended that
lockable setback thermostats be installed and programmed for
occupied temperatures of 72 deg F, and unoccupied
temperatures of 55 deg F. This has an estimated payback of
less than 3 months.
Headbolt Heater Controls: There are retrofit headbolt heater
receptacles that can replace standard duplex receptacles in
the (2) headbolt heaters outside the building. They contain an
integrated microprocessor and thermometer that cycles power
on and off in response to the outside air temperature. Energy
savings is typically 50%.
Plumbing fixtures: At end of life (EOL) of the toilet and sink,
new fixtures should be installed that have proximity sensing
on/off controls. Given the small size and infrequent occupancy
of this building this recommendation is not cost effective until
EOL of existing fixtures has been reached. It should be noted
that this audit does not include water usage and AKWarm
does not allow for the modeling of this, but a typical faucet
retrofit will result in 30% water savings and will payback in
under 3 years. Installing 2-level flush toilets (.9 gallons per
flush for liquids, 1.6 gallons for solids) typically saves 33%
water, and pays back in under 2 years. There is a sewer
freeze-up problem which is being temporarily solved by
continuously running water down the drain. This is estimated
to cost $1314/yr and should be fixed. See Appendix G-4.
De-stratification Fans: In all high bay facilities air stratification
occurs due to the lower density of hot air; there can be a 5
degree F to as much as 15 degree F difference between the
floor and ceiling air temperatures. De-stratification fans mix
the air and bring higher temperature air down to where
occupants are, and where the thermostat is. De-stratifying as
little as a 5 degree temperature difference in a warehouse with
a 20’ ceiling saves 12% in energy costs of heating that space.
It is recommended that an industrial de-strat fan be added to
8
the vehicle bay, along with a timer controlled automatic shut
off that coincides with thermostat setbacks. Payback is less
than 1 year. See Appendix G-5.
HVAC: The heating system appears to be relatively new and
in good working order, however, all glycol supply and return
piping should be insulated. (See Appendix G-2). There is no
ventilation in the building, but given its small size, its
infrequent occupancy and the high frequency of door openings
when occupied, the addition of ventilation is not a cost
effective recommendation.
Exit Signs: Exit signs were not observed at either man-door.
Self luminous signs should be installed for egress safety
reasons. See Appendix G-1.
Building Shell: Due to the high cost of overhead door
replacement, the payback period is very long, and
replacement recommendations are reserved for EOL. This
said, the 1-1/2” thick, wood overhead doors in this building are
in poor condition, appear to be at EOL, and should be
replaced. They have an estimated insulation value of R-3, and
there is significant air infiltration around the edges and bottom.
New, R-14.5 doors should be retrofitted. This reduces heat
loss through the door by 60-70%, and further reduces air
infiltration which adds to the building heat load. There is a
hole in the building siding between the two overhead doors
that should be repaired. (See Appendix G-3) Overhead door
closing timers should be added, to prevent the doors being left
open after an emergency call. One door open left open for 2
hours in -20F weather results in $147 energy cost.
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. Repair the waste/sewage freeze problem. (Appendix G-4)
2. Turning lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled
by an occupancy sensor.
3. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be
properly maintained and adjusted to close and function
properly.
4. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the
office.
9
The 13 priority recommendations in the detailed report estimate to
save $5,606/year, with an installed cost of $14,360. The combined
payback on this investment is 2.5 years. This does not include
design or construction management services, or the water/sewer
savings described in Appendix G-5,
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 at 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 which 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
10
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 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. Costs are derived
from one or more of the following: Means Cost Data, industry
publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or
equipment suppliers. Haakensen Electric, Proctor Sales and
Pioneer Door, all in Anchorage were consulted for some of the
lighting, boiler and overhead door (respectively) retrofit 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 return on investment (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 report is the Savings to
Investment Ratio, defined as the breakeven cost divided by the
initial installed cost.
A simple life-time calculation is shown 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.
11
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 City of Nome (Owner): The City of Nome provided building
sizing information, two years energy billing data, building schedules
and functions, as well as building age.
c. Central Alaska Engineering Company (Benchmark TSP):
Central Alaska Engineering Company compiled the data received
from the City of Nome 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
Central Alaska Engineering Company, 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 their selected
sub-contracted auditors, assigned auditors 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.
12
4. Building Description and Function:
The site visit and survey of subject building occurred on September 9th,
2011. It has one story, with a small mezzanine and a tower formerly used
to dry fire hoses. It is constructed on an un-cooled, poured concrete slab.
It is not know if there is any insulation beneath the slab. Walls appear to
be 2x6 construction with R-19 fiberglass batting, the ceiling insulation is
unknown but estimated to have 12” of batting and an R-38. Interior walls
are gypsum, exterior walls and roof are metal.
Building details are as follows:
a. Heating System: Heat is supplied by an oil fired, Burnham 166
MBH, cast iron sectional boiler. Heat is distributed through (2)
ceiling mounted, horizontal, hydronic unit heaters running “wild” (i.e.
no modulation of glycol flow). Their fans are controlled by a
standard low voltage thermostat.
b. Ventilation System: There is no ventilation provided to the
building.
c. Plumbing Fixtures: The toilet and sink are located in the boiler
room, both are manually operated. See Appendix G-4 for EEM
recommendations.
d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is generated using a 4000 W
Rheem electric, 6 gallon water heater, also located in the boiler
room.
e. Appliances: There are only two significant, energy consuming
appliances in the building. The first is a self contained, fan-cooled
communications (assumed to be police and fire) equipment rack
contains equipment estimated to consume 3000 Watts, 24/7/365.
The second is a breathing air system which includes a compressor
utilizing a premium efficiency (91% nameplate rating), 20hp, 230V,
3 phase motor. This motor is estimated to run 6-8 hours/month.
f. Head Bolt Heaters: There are (2) duplex receptacle head bolt
heaters along the West and South sides of the building, both are
suitable for retrofit.
g. Interior Lighting: Interior lighting is provided by (8) ceiling
mounted, 8’, 2-lamp, T12 fixtures with magnetic ballasts, and (1)
incandescent lamp in the boiler room. There are no occupancy
sensors in the building. There are no exit signs in the building.
h. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of (1) 100 W and (1)
250 W High Pressure Sodium (HPS) wall-pack lights on a photocell
sensor, and (1) incandescent soffit light.
5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within
the AkWarm-C program. The program analyzes (12) months of data.
Because only (2) data points (2 years) of annual utility benchmark data
13
were provided, this data was graphed into a reasonable seasonal curves
to create two years of (12) monthly data points, which were then averaged
and input into AKWarm-C.
Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost
Index (ECI) and the Energy Use Index (ECU). The energy cost index
takes the average cost of gas and electrical energy over the surveyed
period of time (typically 2 years) and averages the cost, divided by the
square footage (SF) of the building. The ECI for this building is $6.85/SF,
the average ECI for (4) similar buildings benchmarked in Nome is
$4.38/SF.
The energy use index (EUI) is the total average electrical and heating
energy consumption per year expressed in thousands of BTUs/SF. The
average EUI for this building is 166 kBTU/SF 2009 and 2010; the average
EUI for (4) similar buildings benchmarked in Nome is 124 kBTU/SF. Both
of these index’s are high for this building.
6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates
savings assuming that all recommended EEM are implemented. If some
EEMs are not implemented, savings for the remaining EEMs will be
affected, in some cases positively, and in others, negatively. For example,
if the fan motors are not replaced with premium efficiency motors, then the
savings for the project to install variable speed drives (VFDs) on the fans
will be increased.
In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings
associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well.
For example, the night setback EEM was analyzed using the fan and
heating load profile that will be achieved after installation of the VFD
project is completed. By modeling the recommended projects
sequentially, the analysis accounts for interactive effects between the
EEMs and does not “double count” savings.
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
14
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.
15
Appendix A
Photos
View from the West (above), man-door entrance on the right; old fire hose
cooling tower shown below, as seen from the East.
16
Interior of building, very clean and well maintained
17
Aerial Views of Nome
Icy View
Subdivision
Airport
Nome, downtown
Area
NORTH
Icy View Fire Station
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Icy View Fire Station
Page 1
ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 10/8/2011 10:43 AM
General Project Information
PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION
Building: Icy View Fire Station Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska
Address: 410 Out of the Way Rd Auditor Name: James Fowler
City: Nome Auditor Address: P.O. Box 220215
Anchorage, AK 99522 Client Name: Alan Maxwell
Client Address: 102 Division Street
Nome, AK 99762
Auditor Phone: (206) 954‐3614
Auditor FAX:
Client Phone: (907) 304‐1535 Auditor Comment:
Client FAX:
Design Data
Building Area: 1,684 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 55,541 Btu/hour
with Distribution Losses: 61,712 Btu/hour
Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25%
Safety Margin: 94,073 Btu/hour
Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if
served.
Typical Occupancy: 2 people Design Indoor Temperature: 72 deg F (building average)
Actual City: Nome Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐27 deg F
Weather/Fuel City: Nome Heating Degree Days: 14,371 deg F‐days
Utility Information
Electric Utility: Nome Joint Utilities Systems ‐
Commercial ‐ Sm
Natural Gas Provider: None
Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.361/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf
Annual Energy Cost Estimate
Description Space
Heating
Space
Cooling
Water
Heating Lighting
Other
Electrica
l
Cooking Clothes
Drying
Ventilation
Fans
Service
Fees
Total
Cost
Existing
Building
$9,409 $0 $0 $1,134 $806 $0 $0 $0 $36 $11,384
With
Proposed
Retrofits
$4,701 $0 $0 $351 $691 $0 $0 $0 $36 $5,778
SAVINGS $4,708 $0 $0 $783 $115 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,606
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Icy View Fire Station
Page 2
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Existing Retrofit
Service Fees
Space Heating
Other Electrical
Lighting
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Icy View Fire Station
Page 3
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
1 Setback Thermostat:
Equipment Bay
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 55.0 deg F for
the Equipment Bay space.
$2,683 $200 201.32 0.1
2 Lighting: Soffit light Replace with LED 12W
Module StdElectronic and
Controls retrofit
$70 $30 14.81 0.4
3 Lighting: Exterior Replace with LED 72W
Module StdElectronic
$236 $800 1.89 3.4
4 Other Electrical:
Headbolt heaters
Improve Manual Switching $115 $400 1.84 3.5
5 Lighting: Exterior Replace with LED 25W
Module StdElectronic
$97 $500 1.24 5.1
6 Lighting: Equipment
bay lights
Replace with 8 FLUOR (2)
T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy‐
Saver HighEfficElectronic
and Remove Manual
Switching and Add new
Occupancy Sensor
$218 $1,550 0.82 7.1
7 Lighting: Boiler room
light
Replace with LED 12W
Module StdElectronic and
Remove Manual Switching
and Add new Occupancy
Sensor
$13 $180 0.44 13.4
8 Garage Door:
Overhead Doors
Replace existing garage
door with R‐14.5,
polyurethane core
replacement door. Add
automatic, timer‐activated
door closers.
$1,044 $9,000 8.6
Appe
ndix
G‐1
Exit Signs Install self luminous exit
signs for egress safety
reasons
negative $400
($200 ea
for self
luminous)
n/a n/a
Appe
ndix
G‐2
Heating pipes Insulate heating pipes
throughout building
unknown $500 n/a n/a
Appe
ndix
G‐3
Exterior siding Repair hole between
overhead doors
Maintenance item $100 n/a n/a
Appendix B
Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison
AkWarm Commercial Audit Software
Icy View Fire Station
Page 4
PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
SIR Payback
(Years)
Appe
ndix
G‐4
Plumbing Fixtures
and sewer freeze‐up
Repair sewer freeze‐up
problem; at end of life
(EOL) replace toilet and
faucet with auto on/off
versions with proximity
sensors
$1314
(water/sewer
savings, not in
AKWarm model)
Sewer
repair ‐
unknown
n/a n/a
Appe
ndix
G‐5
De‐Stratification Fan
in high bay vehicle
storage
Install an industrial grade
fans in vehicle storage bay
$1129 $700 .6
TOTAL $5,606 $14,360 2.5
22 Appendix C MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE SYMBOL MFGR/MODEL CFM/GPM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS UH‐1 Trane UHSA090S8AAAF Hydronic 815 .125/115/1 UH‐2 Trane UHSA090S8AAAF Hydronic 815 .125/115/1 B‐1 Burnham 5WFH .14/115/1 166 MBH oil fired, 82% efficiency with Beckett burner motor CP‐1 Taco 007‐F3 Cartridge Circulator 10 GPM @ 8’ HD .04/115/1 Glycol circulation pump CP‐2 Grunfos UP‐15‐18‐SF 5 GPM @ 5’ HD .74A/115/1 Water supply circulating pump
23 Appendix C – Lighting Schedule LIGHTING FIXTURES SYMBOL FIXTURE DESCRIPTION MOUNTING LAMPS TYPE HEIGHT NUMBER WATTS A Wall pack HPS ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast surface 20' 1 250 B Wall pack HPS ‐ Exterior, magnetic ballast surface 12’ 1 100 C T12‐2 Florescent, T12 lamps, magnetic ballast surface ceiling 2 75 D Incandescent ceiling fixture surface ceiling 1 60 E Incandescent Exterior entry door surface soffit 1 60
24 Appendix D Building Floor Plan
25 Appendix E Lighting Plan
26 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematic CP-2 (water supply re-circ) UH-1 CP-1 B-1 UH-2
27
Appendix G
Additional, Building-Specific EEM details
G-1: Exit Signs: Self luminous signs should be installed, they are available with
10 year and 20 year battery live, and cost from $150-$200 ea.
G-2: Insulate heat circulation pipes throughout building.
G-3: Repair hole in siding:
28
G-4: Plumbing fixtures and running water: The sign above this sink (below)
says to leave the water running 24/7/365 to prevent sewer main freeze-up.
This stream is approximately 1/8 gpm, which is using approximately 65,000
gallons of water per year. Nome’s water/sewer rate is approximately $.02-
03/gal. At $.02/gal, this stream costs $1314/yr. The freeze-up problem should
be fixed. Additionally, at EOL of the toilet and faucet, they should be replaced
with automatic fixtures activated by proximity sensors. A typical faucet retrofit
will result in 30% water savings and will payback in under 6 years in a low
occupancy building like this one. Installing 2-level flush toilets (.9 gallons per
flush for liquids, 1.6 gallons for solids) typically saves 33% water, and pays
back in under 4 years in a low use facility.
G-5: Install an industrial grade de-stratification fan in high bay vehicle storage
area: De-strat fans typically save from 12%-23% in high-ceiling space-heating costs,
depending on the temperature difference at the ceiling and at floor level, and the ceiling
height. For a 5 degree F temperature difference between the floor and an 18 foot
ceiling (most high ceiling spaces have a larger temperature difference), a 12% savings
in energy cost for that space should be realized. Estimated cost for (1) fan is $700. A
reasonable estimation of annual savings in this building is $1129 (12% of $9408, the
total space heating energy costs), the payback on this EEM is 7 months. Additionally,
the fan should be on an occupancy sensor, so that is stops running a prescribed time
period after non-occupancy.