Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CAC-CDV-CAEC Cordova JR-SR High School 2012-EE
Cordova Jr./Sr. High School 100 Fishermans Way Cordova, Alaska 99574 AkWarm ID No. CAC-CDV-CAEC-01 Submitted by: Central Alaska Engineering Company Contact: Jerry P. Herring, P.E., C.E.A. 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, Alaska 99669 Phone (907) 260-5311 akengineer@starband.net June 30, 2012 This Investment Grade Audit (IGA) was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGA’s are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract by AHFC. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE- EE0000095. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This energy audit is intended to identify and recommend potential areas of energy savings, estimate the value of the savings and approximate the costs to implement the recommendations. Any modifications or changes made to a building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals in their fields. Lighting recommendations should all be first analyzed through a thorough lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) recommendations. Central Alaska Engineering Company bears no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report. Payback periods may vary from those forecasted due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Central Alaska Engineering Company, AHFC, nor any other party involved in preparation of this report accepts liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This energy audit meets the criteria of a Level 2 IGA per the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). The life of the IGA may be extended on a case- by-case basis, at the discretion of AHFC. This report presents the findings of an investment grade energy audit conducted for: Cordova School District Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contact: Jim Nygaard Contact: Rebekah Luhrs P.O. Box 140 P.O. Box 101020 Cordova, AK 99574 Anchorage, AK 99510-1020 Email: jnygaard@cordovasd.org Email: rluhrs@ahfc.us This audit was performed using ARRA funds to promote the use of innovation and technology to solve energy and environmental problems in a way that improves the State’s economy. This can be achieved through the wiser and more efficient use of energy. The purpose of the energy audit is to identify cost-effective system and facility modifications, adjustments, alterations, additions and retrofits. Systems investigated during the audit included heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, motors, building envelope, and energy management control systems (EMCS). Table 1.0 summarizes the utility usage for the school. Energy Type Annual Cost Electricity $92,116 Fuel Oil _______________ Total Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf) Energy Cost Index ($/sf) $64,761 ______________ $156,877 74.6 2.89 The potential annual energy savings are shown on the following page in Table 1.1 which summarizes the Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s) analyzed for the Cordova Jr./Sr. High School. Listed are the estimates of the annual savings, installed cost, and two different financial measures of return on investment. Be aware that the measures are not additive because of the interrelation of several of the measures. The cost of each measure for this level of auditing is considered to be + 30% until further detailed engineering, specifications, and hard proposals are obtained. Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 1 Lighting: Emergency Gym 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents Replace with 2 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-Saver (2) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi- Level Switch $1,954 $2,750 10.94 1.4 2 Refrigeration: Refrigerated Vending Machines Replace with Refrigerated Vending Machines and Improve Seasonal Shutdown $218 $200 9.53 0.9 3 Lighting: Emergency 3 Bulb Fluorescent Troffers Replace with 13 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant LowLight StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $990 $1,750 8.37 1.8 4 Lighting: Emergency 2 Bulb Fluorescent Troffers Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant LowLight StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $573 $1,065 7.97 1.9 5 Lighting: Incandescent Various Locations Replace with 30 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $607 $740 6.54 1.2 6 Ventilation Upgrade DDC system to reduce HVAC operational time. $3,146 $7,500 5.84 2.4 7 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $6,587 $25,000 3.96 3.8 8 Lighting: Gym 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents Replace with 18 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-Saver (2) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi- Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $3,051 $15,250 3.08 5.0 9 HVAC And DHW HVAC System Upgrades $3,900 $20,000 2.74 5.1 10 Exterior Door: ED Metal Broken Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $92 $1,013 2.45 11.0 11 Garage Door: Wrestling Room Replace existing garage door with R- 7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $112 $1,239 2.42 11.1 12 Refrigeration: Ice Making Machine near Locker Rooms Replace with Ice Making Machine and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $24 $200 1.88 8.2 13 Lighting: T-12 Office Lights Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $200 $1,280 1.82 6.4 14 Lighting: Exit Signs Replace with 15 LED 4W Module StdElectronic $473 $2,250 1.70 4.8 15 Lighting: T-12 Library, Wrestling Room and Various Locations Replace with 132 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $5,486 $39,512 1.61 7.2 16 Refrigeration: Standup Refrigerators Replace with 5 Refers and Improve Seasonal Shutdown $476 $2,600 1.60 5.5 17 Lighting: Restrooms with Occupancy Sensor Lighting Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Improve Occupancy Sensor $132 $1,320 1.42 10.0 18 Lighting: T-12 Home Economics and Various Locations Replace with 36 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,269 $10,415 1.42 8.2 19 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 5%. $674 $5,000 1.39 7.4 Table 1.1 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR1 Simple Payback (Years)2 20 Other Electrical: Classroom Portables Replace with 2 Classroom Portables Removed and Improve Manual Switching $987 $1,500 1.27 1.5 21 Lighting: Outside Lighting Replace with 12 LED (2) 67W Module StdElectronic and Add new Daylight Sensor $366 $4,800 1.17 13.1 22 Lighting: 3 Bulb Fluorescent Troffers Replace with 50 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $518 $6,580 1.16 12.7 23 Lighting: 2 Bulb Fluorescent Troffers Replace with 128 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,232 $15,714 1.16 12.8 24 Lighting: Shop 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-Saver (2) HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch $523 $7,500 1.07 14.3 25 Lighting: T-12 Classrooms and Various Locations Replace with 52 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,326 $14,930 1.03 11.3 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $34,915 $190,108 2.45 5.4 The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: 26 Window/Skylight: Voc Tech NSFW Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $343 $11,256 0.59 32.8 27 Window/Skylight: Voc Tech SFW Replace existing window with U-0.30 vinyl window $117 $3,934 0.57 33.6 28 Garage Door: Voc Tech Shop Doors Replace existing garage door with R- 7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $34 $3,671 0.25 108.4 TOTAL, all measures $35,408 $208,969 2.27 5.9 Table Notes: 1 Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is a life-cycle cost measure calculated by dividing the total savings over the life of a project (expressed in today’s dollars) by its investment costs. The SIR is an indication of the profitability of a measure; the higher the SIR, the more profitable the project. An SIR greater than 1.0 indicates a cost-effective project (i.e. more savings than cost). Remember that this profitability is based on the position of that Energy Efficiency Measure (EEM) in the overall list and assumes that the measures above it are implemented first. 2 Simple Payback (SP) is a measure of the length of time required for the savings from an EEM to payback the investment cost, not counting interest on the investment and any future changes in energy prices. It is calculated by dividing the investment cost by the expected first-year savings of the EEM. With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $35,408 per year, or 21.4% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $208,969, for an overall simple payback period of 5.9 years. If only the cost-effective measures are implemented, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $34,915 per year, or 21.1% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $190,108, for an overall simple payback period of 5.4 years. Table 1.2 below is a breakdown of the estimated annual energy cost across various energy end use types, such as Space Heating and Water Heating. The first row in the table shows the breakdown for the building as it is now. The second row shows the expected breakdown of energy cost for the building assuming all of the retrofits in this report are implemented. Finally, the last row shows the annual energy savings that will be achieved from the retrofits. Table 1.2 Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Other Electrical Ventilation Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $91,364 $1,359 $5,488 $41,780 $13,178 $9,764 $0 $165,328 With All Proposed Retrofits $78,345 $834 $5,323 $23,017 $12,191 $8,527 $0 $129,919 SAVINGS $13,019 $525 $164 $18,763 $987 $1,237 $0 $35,408 This comprehensive energy audit covers the 52,956 square foot Cordova Jr./Sr. High School that includes classrooms, locker rooms, restrooms, administrative offices, a library, a gymnasium and a vocational technical center. Utility information was collected and analyzed for two years of energy use by the building. This information was used to analyze operational characteristics, calculate energy benchmarks for comparison to industry averages, estimate savings potential and establish a baseline to monitor the effectiveness of implemented measures. An excel spreadsheet was used to enter, sum, and calculate benchmarks and to graph energy use information (refer to Appendix A for the Benchmark Report). The Annual Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is expressed in Thousands of British Thermal Units/Square Foot (kBtu/sf) and can be used to compare energy consumption to similar building types or to track consumption from year to year in the same building. The EUI is calculated by converting annual consumption of all fuels used to Btu’s then dividing by the area (gross conditioned square footage) of the building. EUI is a good indicator of the relative potential for energy savings. A comparatively low EUI indicates less potential for large energy savings. Building architectural, mechanical and electrical drawings were utilized to calculate and verify the gross area of the facility. The gross area was confirmed on the physical site investigation. Refer to Page 20 of this report for additional details on EUI issues. After gathering the utility data and calculating the EUI, the next step in the audit process was to review the drawings to develop a building profile which documented the building age, type, usage, and major energy consuming equipment or systems such as lighting, heating, ventilation and air condition (HVAC), domestic hot water heating, refrigeration, snow-melt, etc. The building profile is utilized to generate, and answer, possible questions regarding the facility’s energy usage. These questions were then compared to the energy usage profiles developed during the utility data gathering step. After this information is gathered, the next step in the process is the physical site investigation (site visit). The site visit was completed on June 23, 2011, and was spent inspecting the actual systems and answering specific questions from the preliminary review. Occupancy schedules, O&M practices, building energy management program, and other information that has an impact on energy consumption were obtained. Photos of the major equipment and building construction were taken during the site visit. Several of the site photos are included in this report as Appendix D. The post-site work includes evaluation of the information gathered during the site visit, researching possible conservation opportunities, organizing the audit into a comprehensive report, and making recommendations on mechanical, electrical and building envelope improvements. Central Alaska Engineering Company (CAEC) began the site survey after completing the preliminary audit tasks noted in Section II. The site survey provided critical input in deciphering where energy opportunities exist within the facility. The audit team walked the entire site to inventory the building envelope (roof, walls, windows and doors, etc.), the major equipment including HVAC, water heating, lighting, and equipment in kitchens, offices, gymnasium, vocational education wing, and classes. The site survey was used to determine an understanding of how the equipment is used. The collected data was entered into the AkWarm Commercial© Software (AkWarm), a building energy modeling program developed for AHFC. The data was processed by AkWarm to model a baseline from which energy efficiency measures (EEMs) could be considered. The model was compared to actual utility costs to ensure the quality of baseline and proposed energy modeling performed by AkWarm. The recommended EEMs focus on the building envelope, HVAC systems, water heating, lighting, and other electrical improvements that will reduce annual energy consumption. EEMs are evaluated based on building use and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule, existing conditions, and foreseen future plans. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on the manufacturer’s information where possible. Energy savings are calculated by AkWarm. Implementation of more than one EEM often affects the savings of other EEMs. The savings may in some cases be relatively higher if an individual EEM is implemented in lieu of multiple recommended EEMs. For example, implementing reduced operating schedule for specific inefficient lighting systems will result in a greater relative savings than merely replacing fixtures and bulbs. Implementing reduced operating schedules for newly installed efficient lighting will result in a lower relative savings, because there is less energy to be saved. If multiple EEM’s are recommended to be implemented, the combined savings is calculated and identified appropriately. Following in Section VII of this report for the Energy Efficiency Measures, the simple lifetime calculation is shown for each EEM. The lifetime for each EEM is estimated based on the typical life of the equipment being replaced or altered. The energy savings is extrapolated throughout the lifetime of the EEM. The total energy savings is calculated as the total lifetime multiplied by the yearly savings. Cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include labor and equipment to evaluate the initial investment required to implement an EEM. These are applied to each recommendation with simple paybacks calculated. The energy analyst’s opinions of probable cost are garnered from Means Cost Data, other industry publications, and local contractors and suppliers. In addition, where applicable, maintenance cost savings are estimated and applied to the net savings. The costs and savings are applied and a Simple Payback (SP) and Savings to Investment Ration (SIR). These are listed in Section VII and summarized in Table 1.1 of this report. The SP is based on the years that it takes for the net savings to payback the net installation cost (Cost divided by Savings). The SIR is calculated as a ratio by dividing the break even cost by the initial installed cost. The analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. These tools utilize Life-Cycle Costing, which is defined in this context as a method of cost analysis that estimates the total cost of a project over the period of time that includes both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) = Savings divided by Investment Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. When these savings are added up, changes in future fuel prices (usually inflationary) as projected by the Alaska Department of Energy are included in the model. Future savings are discounted to the present to account for the time-value of money (i.e. money’s ability to earn interest over time). The Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. An SIR value of at least 1.0 indicates that the project is cost-effective—total savings exceed the investment costs. Simple payback is a cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of a project is divided by the first year’s savings of the project to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. This may be compared to the expected time before replacement of the system or component will be required. For example, if a boiler costs $12,000 and results in a savings of $1,000 in the first year, the payback time is 12 years. If the boiler has an expected life to replacement of 10 years, it would not be financially viable to make the investment since the payback period of 12 years is greater than the project life. The Simple Payback calculation does not consider likely increases in future annual savings due to energy price increases. As an offsetting simplification, simple payback does not consider the need to earn interest on the investment (i.e. it does not consider the time-value of money). Because of these simplifications, the SIR figure is considered to be a better financial investment indicator than the Simple Payback measure. All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided. In this case, data were incomplete, and the site investigation was limited to observable conditions. No testing or destructive investigations were undertaken. Although energy-conserving methods are described in the EEMs, in some instances several methods may also achieve the identified savings. Detailed engineering is required in order to develop the EEMs to a realizable project. This audit and report are thus intended to offer approximations of the results achievable by the listed improvements. This report is not intended to be a final design document. The design professional or other persons following the recommendations shall accept responsibility and liability for the results. Budget for engineering and design of these projects is not included in the cost estimate for each measure. Limitations of the AkWarm Commercial© Software are reviewed on Page 20 of this report. The original structure of the Cordova Jr./Sr. High School is a single story facility built in 1966. There have been two additions to the building; a two story attached vocational education facility and 2 story gymnasiums with shower facilities in the basement. The facility was remodeled in 2001 to add HVAC controls, a new boiler, lighting and motors. The school is typically occupied from 8AM to 4PM during the weekdays with extracurricular and community activities happening occasionally in the evenings and the weekends in the gymnasium and classroom areas. There are an estimated 210 full time student and staff occupants using the building. There were two separate portable classroom buildings included in the benchmark data that were being removed at the time of the field audit. There is a modern 1200 SF wood framed garage/shop on location housing a waste oil boiler system. Quantity of waste oil used for building heat is unmetered and therefore could not be accounted for in the Benchmark Data Report. As few architectural drawings were provided for this audit, assumptions of the shell insulation values were made as no destructive testing was completed for the audit. The insulation values and condition could not be verified as access was not available. The following are the assumptions made for the AkWarm building model: Exterior walls of the original main building have double pane vinyl windows in place which appear to have been installed around the time of the 2001 remodel and have an estimated U-factor of 0.50 Btu/hr- sf-F. These windows appear to be generally in good condition. The exterior walls of the original structure are wood sided with a height in the main building varying between 9 feet to 14 feet with an estimated R-16.7 composite insulation value. The vocational education addition is approximately 25 feet in height with metal siding. The walls are assumed to be wood framed with R-19 fiberglass batt in place with an estimated R-16.7 composite insulation value. The windows in this section are double pane metal framed and are generally in poor condition with broken seals on many of the windows. These windows are assumed to have an estimated U-factor of 0.83 Btu/hr-sf-F. The roof system is rafter framed and is assumed to have an estimated average of 4-6 inches of foam board installed throughout for an estimated composite insulation value of R-28. The gymnasium was re-sided with metal panels and had an additional 1-½ inches of foam board installed. These walls are estimated to have a composite insulation value of R-22. The floor/foundation of the building is a concrete slab-on-grade configuration. The slab edge does not appear to be insulated on the outside and there is no indication there is insulation installed under the concrete slab from the architectural drawings reviewed for the audit. All major doors are heavy institutional grade doors, metal framed and insulated, and have double paned tempered glass windows. The emergency exit doors on the back side of the gym were not functional and several of the overhead doors are in poor condition, good candidates for replacement. Building heat is provided from three (3) fuel oil fired boilers and one (1) waste oil fired boiler. The glycol hydronic system is circulated throughout the building by circulation pumps located in the boiler room and provides heat to the baseboard system and the air handling units. There is no outdoor temperature reset control which is recommended to be added and controlled by the building DDC system. The Heating and Cooling Plants used in the building are: Boiler 1 Fuel Type: #2 Oil Input Rating: 3,588,000 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 80 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: Oct - Apr Boiler 2 Fuel Type: #2 Oil Input Rating: 1,959,600 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 80 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: Sep - Jun Boiler 3 Fuel Type: #2 Oil Input Rating: 351,900 BTU/hr Rated Efficiency: 84 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: All Year Boiler 4 Fuel Type: waste oil Input Rating: 300,000 BTU/hr Estimated Efficiency: 80 % Idle Loss: 1.5 % Heat Distribution Type: Glycol Boiler Operation: All Year Server Room Spot Cooler Nameplate Information: Fujitsu Model AOU18C1 Cooling Capacity: 1.5 Tons Cooling Distribution Type: Air Rated SEER: 9.00 Notes: Unit appears to be broken. The DHW system utilizes five (5) 120 gallon Amtrol side-arm hot water generators located in the boiler room and one (1) 26 gallon Amtrol side-arm hot water generator in the vocational education addition. DHW is circulated around the building and supplies the shower facilities, kitchen, restrooms, teacher’s lounge, laboratory sinks and the vocational building. Six hundred gallons of hot water storage in the boiler room is more than needed and is recommended to be reduced in EEM 9 which also provides the recommendation to install a timer on the DHW circulation system to automate this process. Outside air is drawn into the building through the air handling systems. There are seven (7) Air Handling Units (AHU) located inside of the building providing ventilation. All of these AHU’s were installed in the 2001 building upgrade project except the unit serving the kitchen and entry areas. The AHU’s appear to be in good condition and are equipped with variable speed controllers. There are two makeup air units in the building. One is providing supply air to the kitchen exhaust hood system and the other is located in the boiler room to supply combustion air to the boilers. Excess air is removed from the building with the use of exhaust fans located throughout the building. The ventilation system is controlled by an outdated Honeywell DDC System. Improved control and operational ability of the heating and ventilation equipment can be achieved by modernizing the Honeywell DDC system to provide energy savings and is evaluated as EEM 6 in this report. There are several types of light systems throughout the building. Lighting upgrade opportunities provide some of the best investment opportunities in the building. There are outdated gym and shop light systems in place which if updated to modern systems can produce more illumination with a third less energy. The T-12 lighting systems remaining in the building are good candidates for replacement to new T-8 systems. All of the high pressure sodium lights mounted on the outside of the building are also good candidates for replacement. There have been recent advances in LED technology and are recommended to replace the HPS systems. Several EEM’s are provided in this report reviewing the lighting system upgrade recommendations. There are several plug loads throughout the building. This includes the kitchen equipment, computers with monitors, copy machines, vending machines, ice making machine, clothing dryer, washing machine, refrigerators, microwave ovens and coffee pots. There are several high wattage pieces of equipment in the vocational building that are used occasionally. In additional there are electric ranges and ovens, refrigerators and appliances in the home economics room. These building plug loads are estimated in the AkWarm modeling program at 0.5 watts/sf. Following the completion of the field survey a detailed building major equipment list was created and is attached as Appendix C. The major equipment listed are considered to be the major energy consuming equipment in the building whose replacement or upgrade could yield substantial energy savings. An approximate age was assigned to the equipment if a manufactured date was not shown on the equipment’s nameplate. As listed in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for HVAC Applications, Chapter 37, Table 4, the service life for the equipment along with the remaining useful life in accordance to the ASHRAE standard are also noted in the equipment list. Where there are zero (0) years remaining in the estimated useful life of a piece of equipment, this is an indication that maintenance costs are likely on the rise and more efficient replacement equipment is available which will lower the operating costs of the unit. Maintenance costs should also fall with the replacement. Tables provided in Appendix A, Energy Benchmark Data Report, represent the electric and fuel oil energy usage for the surveyed facility from July 2009 to June 2011 (Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011). Cordova Electric provides the electricity under their commercial rate schedules. Fuel oil is billed at the prevailing rate at the time delivered. The electric utility bills for consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for maximum demand in kilowatts (kW). One kilowatt-hour is equivalent to 3,413 Btu’s. The consumption (kWh) is determined as the wattage times the hours it is running. For example, 1,000 watts running for one hour, or 500 watts running for two hours is a kWh. The maximum demand is simply the sum of all electrical devices on simultaneously. For example, ten, 100 watt lights running simultaneously would create a demand of 1,000 watts (1 kW). Demand is averaged over a rolling window, usually 15 minutes. Thus, the facility must be concerned not only with basic electricity usage (consumption) but also the rate at which it gets used. The basic usage charges are shown as generation service and delivery charges along with several non-utility generation charges. The fuel oil deliveries reflect the quantities of oil delivered to the school tank. This method is accurate for the overall yearly deliveries but does not reflect the daily or monthly actual usage. If the tank was being filled to a volumetric gage line on a site glass, then each delivery would be a reflection of actual volumes consumed since the last delivery. The upper heating value of the fuel oil was assumed to be approximately 132,000 Btu/gallon. The average billing rates for energy use are calculated by dividing the total cost by the total usage. Based on the electric and fuel oil utility data provided, the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 costs for the energy and consumption at the surveyed facility are summarized in Table 6.1 below. 2010 2011 Electric 0.26 $/kWh 0.28 $/kWh Fuel Oil 3.42 $/Gal 2.93 $/Gal Total Cost $174,200 $156,877 ECI 2.55 $/sf 2.64 $/sf Electric EUI 22.2 kBtu/sf 21.3 kBtu/sf Fuel Oil EUI 61.0 kBtu/sf 55.0 kBtu/sf Building EUI 83.3 kBtu/sf 76.4 kBtu/sf Data from the U.S.A. Energy Information Administration provides information for U.S.A. Commercial Buildings Energy Intensity Using Site Energy by Census Region. In 2003, the U.S.A. average energy usage for Education building activity is shown to be 83 kBtu/sf. Over the analyzed period, the surveyed facility was calculated to have an average energy utilization index of 80 kBtu/sf - a factor of 3.6 % better (or lower than) the USA average. At current rates, Cordova School District pays on average during the study period approximately $165,539 annually for electricity and other fuel costs for the Cordova Jr./Sr. High School. Figure 6.1 below reflects the estimated distribution of costs across the primary end uses of energy based on the AkWarm computer simulation. Comparing the “Retrofit” bar in the figure to the “Existing” bar shows the potential savings from implementing all of the energy efficiency measures shown in this report. Figure 6.2 below shows how the annual energy cost of the building splits between the different fuels used by the building. The “Existing” bar shows the breakdown for the building as it is now; the “Retrofit” bar shows the predicted costs if all of the energy efficiency measures in this report are implemented. Figure 6.3 below addresses only Space Heating costs. The figure shows how each heat loss component contributes to those costs; for example, the figure shows how much annual space heating cost is caused by the heat loss through the Walls/Doors. For each component, the space heating cost for the Existing building is shown (blue bar) and the space heating cost assuming all retrofits are implemented (yellow bar) are shown. The tables below show AkWarm’s estimate of the monthly fuel use for each of the fuels used in the building. For each fuel, the fuel use is broken down across the energy end uses. Note, in the tables below “DHW” refers to Domestic Hot Water heating. Electrical Consumption (kWh) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Other_Electrical 5042 4595 5042 4879 4388 953 985 3079 4879 5042 4879 5042 Lighting 15267 13912 15267 14774 13657 5237 5412 11132 14774 15267 14774 15267 Refrigeration 753 686 753 729 753 729 753 753 729 753 729 753 Ventilation_Fans 3790 3454 3790 3668 3226 537 555 2225 3668 3790 3668 3790 DHW 648 591 648 627 648 627 648 648 627 648 627 648 Space_Heating 9280 8457 9280 8879 9275 8874 8404 8293 8894 9280 8980 9280 Space_Cooling 0 0 0 322 12 207 1814 2474 204 0 0 0 Fuel Oil #2 Consumption (Gallons) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec DHW 97 90 100 94 102 91 97 95 102 107 97 98 Space_Heating 3393 2706 2723 1821 1266 356 238 347 957 1872 2505 3123 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 Floor Wall/Door Window Ceiling Air Existing Retrofit Annual Space Heating Cost by Component Energy Utilization Index (EUI) is a measure of a building’s annual energy utilization per square foot of building. This calculation is completed by converting all utility usage consumed by a building for one year, to British Thermal Units (Btu) or kBtu’s, and dividing this number by the building square footage. EUI is a good measure of a building’s energy use and is utilized regularly for comparison of energy performance for similar building types. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Buildings Technology Center under a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy maintains a Benchmarking Building Energy Performance Program. The ORNL website determines how a building’s energy use compares with similar facilities throughout the U.S. and in a specific region or state. Source use differs from site usage when comparing a building’s energy consumption with the national average. Site energy use is the energy consumed by the building at the building site only. Source energy use includes the site energy use as well as all of the losses to create and distribute the energy to the building. Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is required to operate the building. It incorporates all transmission, delivery, and production losses, which allows for a complete assessment of energy efficiency in a building. The type of utility purchased has a substantial impact on the source energy use of a building. The EPA has determined that source energy is the most comparable unit for evaluation purposes and overall global impact. Both the site and source EUI ratings for the building are provided to understand and compare the differences in energy use. The site and source EUIs for this building are calculated as follows. (See Table 6.4 for details): Building Site EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu) Building Square Footage Building Source EUI = (Electric Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio + Fuel Oil Usage in kBtu X SS Ratio) Building Square Footage where “SS Ratio” is the Source Energy to Site Energy ratio for the particular fuel. Energy Type Building Fuel Use per Year Site Energy Use per Year, kBtu Source/Site Ratio Source Energy Use per Year, kBtu Electricity 368,426 kWh 1,257,438 3.340 4,199,842 Fuel Oil 22,475 gallons 3,101,594 1.010 3,132,610 Total 4,359,032 7,332,452 BUILDING AREA 52,956 Square Feet BUILDING SITE EUI 82 kBtu/sf/Yr BUILDING SOURCE EUI 138 kBtu/sf/Yr * Site - Source Ratio data is provided by the Energy Star Performance Rating Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use document issued March 2011. An accurate model of the building performance can be created by simulating the thermal performance of the walls, roof, windows and floors of the building. The HVAC system and central plant are modeled as well, accounting for the outside air ventilation required by the building and the heat recovery equipment in place. The model uses local weather data and is trued up to historical energy use to ensure its accuracy. The model can be used now and in the future to measure the utility bill impact of all types of energy projects, including improving building insulation, modifying glazing, changing air handler schedules, increasing heat recovery, installing high efficiency boilers, using variable air volume air handlers, adjusting outside air ventilation and adding cogeneration systems. For the purposes of this study, the Cordova Jr./Sr. High School was modeled using AkWarm energy use software to establish a baseline space heating and cooling energy usage. Climate data from Cordova was used for analysis. From this, the model was be calibrated to predict the impact of theoretical energy savings measures. Once annual energy savings from a particular measure were predicted and the initial capital cost was estimated, payback scenarios were approximated. Project cost estimates are provided in the Section VII of this report reviewing the Energy Efficiency Measures. • The AkWarm model is based on typical mean year weather data for Cordova. This data represents the average ambient weather profile as observed over approximately 30 years. As such, the gas and electric profiles generated will not likely compare perfectly with actual energy billing information from any single year. This is especially true for years with extreme warm or cold periods, or even years with unexpectedly moderate weather. • The heating and cooling load model is a simple two-zone model consisting of the building’s core interior spaces and the building’s perimeter spaces. This simplified approach loses accuracy for buildings that have large variations in cooling/heating loads across different parts of the building. • The model does not model HVAC systems that simultaneously provide both heating and cooling to the same building space (typically done as a means of providing temperature control in the space). The energy balances shown in Section VI were derived from the output generated by the AkWarm simulations. The Energy Efficiency Measures are summarized below: Electrical & Appliance Measures Lighting Measures The goal of this section is to present lighting energy efficiency measures that may be cost beneficial. It should be noted that replacing current bulbs with more energy-efficient equivalents will have a small effect on the building heating and cooling loads. The building cooling load will see a small decrease from an upgrade to more efficient bulbs and the heating load will see a small increase, as the more energy efficient bulbs give off less heat. Lighting Measures – Replace Existing Fixtures/Bulbs Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 1 Emergency Gym 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents 2 FLUOR (9) US PMD Series 12" FC12T9 32W Magnetic Replace with 2 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-Saver (2) High Light High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi- Level Switch Installation Cost $2,750 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 19 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,954 Breakeven Cost $30,091 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 10.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 1 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacement of the gym lights with new high efficient high output T-5 HO system. A portion of lights are continuously operated for emergency and security purposes 24/7/365. Installation of the more efficient lights and installation of a lighting control package with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching can reduce the gym lighting energy consumption. Below is an example picture of a recently re-lamped gym with the T-5 HO system. This EEM also applies to EEM’s 8 and 24. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Emergency 3 Bulb Fluorescent Troffers 13 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Low Light Standard Electronic Replace with 13 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant Low Light Standard Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,750 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $990 Breakeven Cost $14,647 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the emergency and security T-8 lights with 25W energy saver bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. These lights operate 24/7/365. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Emergency 2 Bulb Fluorescent Troffers 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy- Saver Instant Low Light Standard Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,065 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $573 Breakeven Cost $8,483 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: This EEM is recommending the emergency and security T-8 lights with 25W energy saver bulbs and be installed on occupancy sensors. These lights operate 24/7/365. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Incandescent Various Locations 30 INCAN A Lamp, Std 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 30 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $740 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 9 Energy Savings ($/yr) $607 Breakeven Cost $4,840 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 1 Auditors Notes: Compact fluorescent lamps (CFL’s) were created to be direct replacements for the standard incandescent lamps. The light output of the CFL has been designed to resemble the incandescent lamp. The color rendering index (CRI) of the CFL is much higher than standard fluorescent lighting, and therefore provides a much “truer” light. The CFL is available in a myriad of shapes and sizes depending on the specific application. Typical replacements are: an 18-Watt CFL for a 60-Watt incandescent lamp, a 21-Watt CFL for a 75-Watt incandescent lamp, and a 23-Watt CFL for a 100-Watt incandescent lamp. The CFL is also available for a number of “brightness colors” that is indicated by the Kelvin ratings. A 2700K CFL is the “warmest” color available and is closest in color to the incandescent lamp. CFL’s are also available in 3000K, 3500K, and 4100K. The 4100K would be the “brightest” or “coolest” output. A CFL can be chosen to screw right into your existing fixtures, or hardwired into your existing fixtures. This EEM involves replacing all incandescent lamps in the facility with energy efficient compact fluorescent lamps and install occupancy sensor controls to reduce on time. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 Gym 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents 18 FLUOR (9) US PMD Series 12" FC12T9 32W Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-Saver (2) High Light High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi- Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $15,250 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 19 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,051 Breakeven Cost $46,973 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: This EEM is a continuation of EEM#1 to install new high bay T-5HO lights and includes controls on gym lighting to replace the manual switching currently in use with occupancy sensors and multi-level switching. The lighting in the main area of the gym is controlled by manual switching, therefore, the lights are left on unnecessarily when the gym is unoccupied. In many cases the lights are left on because of the inconvenience to manually switch the lights off when a room is left or on when a room is first occupied. This is common in rooms that are occupied for only short periods and only a few times per day. In some instances lights are left on due to the misconception that it is better to keep the lights on rather than to continuously switch lights on and off. Soft-start technology can reduce the impact of cycling lights on and off. Lighting controls come in many forms. Dual occupancy sensors technology can detect motion and infrared and will switch the lights on when the room is occupied. Occupancy sensors can either be mounted in place of a current wall switch, or on the ceiling to cover large areas. As the Cordova HS gym has no windows, daylight harvesting is not an option in this case. The U.S. Department of Energy sponsored a study to analyze energy savings achieved through various types of building system controls. The referenced savings is based on the “Advanced Sensors and Controls for Building Applications: Market Assessment and Potential R&D Pathways,” document posted for public use April 2005. The study has found that commercial buildings have the potential to achieve significant energy savings through the use of building lighting controls. The average energy savings reported are 20%- 28%. The EEM includes replacement of the exiting fluorescent lights and standard wall switches with a lighting control system with sensor technology. This EEM also applies to EEM 24. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 T-12 Office Lights 4 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy- Saver Program High Light High Efficient Electronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,280 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 14 Energy Savings ($/yr) $200 Breakeven Cost $2,325 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 6 Auditors Notes: CAEC recommends a replacement of the existing fixtures containing T12 lamps and magnetic ballasts with fixtures containing T8 lamps and electronic ballasts. New fluorescent lamps and ballasts are available as direct replacement for the existing lamps and ballasts. A simple change from the old to the new can provide substantial savings. A typical drop-ceiling lay in fixture with four, 4-foot lamps (40 Watt lamps) has a total wattage of about 188 Watts. By retrofitting with new lamps, reflector and electronic ballasts the total wattage would be reduced to 91 Watts per fixture and the space light levels and light quality would increase by about 15% and 35% respectively. The new energy efficient, T8 fixtures will provide adequate lighting and will save the Owner on electrical costs due to the better performance of the electronic ballasts. In addition to functional cost savings, the fixture replacement will also provide operational cost savings. The operational cost savings will be realized through the lesser number of lamps that will be required to be replaced per year. The expected lamp life of a T8 lamp, approximately 30,000 burn-hours, is comparison to the existing T12 lamps, approximately 20,000 burn-hours, will provide the Owner with few lamps to replace per year. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 14 Exit Signs 15 INCAN A Lamp, Standard 25W Replace with 15 LED 4W Module Standard Electronic Installation Cost $2,250 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $473 Breakeven Cost $3,836 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacing the incandescent lamped exit signs with the new LED technology. The exit signs operate 24/7/365 and can result in the savings indicated above. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 15 T-12 Library, Wrestling Room and Various Locations 132 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 132 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy-Saver High Light High Efficiency Electronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Controls Installation Cost $39,512 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 14 Energy Savings ($/yr) $5,486 Breakeven Cost $63,701 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 7 Auditors Notes: CAEC recommends replacement of the existing T12 lamps and ballasts with the latest technology T8 lamps and high efficiency electronic ballasts. The new energy efficient T8 lamps will provide adequate lighting and will save electrical costs due to improved performance of the lamps and ballasts. Maintenance savings will be realized by reducing the number of lamps replaced per year. This EEM also includes the recommendation to install a building lighting control system such as recommended by the SystemsHouse proposal for Classroom Lighting Controls dated 7/28/2009 and was allocated over several lighting EEM’s. The proposal addresses the installation of lighting controls throughout the school to motion sensor technology from the current manual switching in place. Additional controls should include light sensors in the classrooms to dim the lights when adequate sunlight is available for daylight harvesting. Photocell control senses light levels and turn off or reduce lights when there is adequate daylight. Photocells are mostly used outside, but are becoming more popular in energy-efficient interior lighting designs as well. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 17 Restrooms with Occupancy Sensor Lighting 16 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Occupancy Sensor Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant Standard Electronic and Improve Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $1,320 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 14 Energy Savings ($/yr) $132 Breakeven Cost $1,874 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 10 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM 15 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 18 T-12 Home Economics and Various Locations 36 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 36 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program High Light High Efficiency Electronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $10,415 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 14 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,269 Breakeven Cost $14,739 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 8 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM 15 for similar notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 21 Outside Lighting 12 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with On/Off Photoswitch Replace with 12 LED (2) 67W Module Standard Electronic and Add new Daylight Sensor Installation Cost $4,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $366 Breakeven Cost $5,630 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 13 Auditors Notes: Install new LED outside lighting with daylight sensor technology. The outside lights are in poor condition as can be seen in the pictures included in Appendix A. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 22 3 Bulb Fluorescent Troffers 50 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 50 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program Standard Electronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $6,580 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 14 Energy Savings ($/yr) $518 Breakeven Cost $7,665 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 13 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM 15 for similar notes on the lighting control system upgrade. This EEM also includes bulb replacement of the T-8 systems in place with the lower wattage energy saver bulbs. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 23 2 Bulb Fluorescent Troffers 128 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant Standard Electronic with Manual Switching Replace with 128 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant Standard Electronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $15,714 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 14 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,232 Breakeven Cost $18,228 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 13 Auditors Notes: Refer to EEM 15 for similar notes on the lighting control system upgrade. This EEM also includes bulb replacement of the T-8 systems in place with the lower wattage energy saver bulbs. Refrigeration Measures Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 24 Shop 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents 11 FLUOR (9) US PMD Series 12" FC12T9 32W Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy-Saver (2) High Efficiency Electronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi-Level Switch Installation Cost $7,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 19 Energy Savings ($/yr) $523 Breakeven Cost $8,053 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yrs) 14 Auditors Notes: Install new high bay T-5HO lights with occupancy controls on shop lighting with multi-level switching. Refer to EEM #8 for additional notes. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 25 T-12 Classrooms and Various Locations 52 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 52 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Program High Light High Efficiency Electronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $14,930 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 14 Energy Savings ($/yr) $1,326 Breakeven Cost $15,398 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: System HOUSE Proposal $48,590 for classroom Lighting Controls dated 7/28/2009. 52/425 = 12%. Allocated $5830 for this upgrade. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 2 Various Locations Refrigerated Vending Machines with Seasonal Shutdown Replace Vending Machine Controls Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $218 Breakeven Cost $1,906 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.5 Simple Payback (yrs) 1 Auditors Notes: There are many no and low cost ways to cut the energy use of a refrigerated vending machine. Vending machines generate good savings in buildings that are not occupied around the clock. Installation of a Vending Miser Control System (or equivalent) is estimated to save 20% on electric energy costs. A refrigerated vending machine operates 24 hours, seven days per week. It was noted that during the summer months, the refrigerated vending machines were unplugged thereby conserving energy. This case study evaluated the use of controls during the non-summer break months. If the vending machine is leased, then the cost of installation of a control system is recommended to be installed by the owner of the vending machine. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 12 Ice Making Machine near Locker Rooms Ice Making Machine Replace with Ice Making Machine and Add new Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $24 Breakeven Cost $377 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yrs) 8 Auditors Notes: Turn off ice machine when not in use for instance during the summer break. Other Electrical Measures Mechanical Equipment Measures Ventilation System Measures Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 16 Standup Refrigerators 5 Standup Refrigerators with Seasonal Shutdown Replace with 5 Refers and Improve Seasonal Shutdown Installation Cost $2,600 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $476 Breakeven Cost $4,158 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: Install new energy star rated refers to save 30% on energy use. Turn off and unplug refrigerators when not in use for instance during the summer break. Rank Location Description of Existing Efficiency Recommendation 20 Classroom Portables 2 Classroom Portable with Manual Switching Replace with 2 Classroom Portables Removed and Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $1,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 2 Energy Savings ($/yr) $987 Breakeven Cost $1,907 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: Remove portable classroom to eliminate plug load. During the audit, one of the two portable classrooms had been removed and the other unit removal was pending. These buildings are considered poorly constructed and are energy hogs. Fuel oil reduction will also be realized by removing the heat load of these buildings. Rank Description Recommendation 6 Honeywell DDC Control System Upgrade DDC system to reduce HVAC operational time and install demand control of gym area. Installation Cost * $7,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,146 Breakeven Cost $43,826 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.8 Simple Payback (yrs) 2 Auditors Notes: The ventilation system consumes about 20% of the electricity purchased by the school. Therefore the programming of ventilation equipment to cycle on and off during low use periods has the potential to save between 4 and 8 percent of the total electric power cost. This can be done with no noticeable difference to the occupants of the building, which is vacant or near vacant during low use periods. There is no need for fresh air when the building is vacant. Improved control of the ventilation system is within the capacity of the DDC controller, but the existing Honeywell controller is antiquated and is recommended to be upgraded to a new operating system. The ventilation equipment may be slowed down to near the surge point on the blower wheels. This can be done with the variable frequency drives already in place at the school. Installation of demand control on the gym air handling unit by installing a carbon dioxide controller can be used to optimize run time. Upgrading of the DDC system will allow optimizing the “On-Off” run timing for the ventilation system. There is energy to be saved by the automation system including tuning the variable frequency speed controllers of the fans. Management attention in this area would be profitable. An additional concern was brought up about the exhaust air from the home economics room being inadequate which can cause an over-pressuring of this zone. Additional barometric pressure relief could reduce the air-handling system energy use to allow the machine to not deadhead on the fan curve. * The cost of upgrading the Honeywell DDC system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. Setback Thermostat Control Measures Heating/Cooling/Domestic Hot Water Measure Rank Building Space Recommendation 7 Gym, Library, Offices, Classrooms and Voc Ed Addition Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60 deg F Installation Cost * $25,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 15 Energy Savings ($/yr) $6,587 Breakeven Cost $99,002 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.0 Simple Payback (yrs) 4 Auditors Notes: There are economic reasons why the thermostatic controller set points should be setback during off peak use hours. However one important control data input concerns the water dew point of the air. The water dew point of the inside air varies with the seasons. Currently, there is no humidity measuring instruments normally available to or monitored by the control system or staff and this data is needed before choosing the ideal “setback” temperatures. As outside air temperatures rise, the inside air dew point also rises. The teachers and students will complain about mildew and mold smells if the temperature is dropped below the dew point. In keeping with this mildew and mold concern, it is recommended that the control system monitor the water dew point within the building to select how far back the temperature can be set during low use periods. If the water dew point is above 70 oF, then set up the temperature not back. If the water dew point is 50 oF or below then reduce the setback temperature control toward 60oF. Every degree of setback is worth an estimated $1,500 per year in fuel oil savings. Wisely paying attention to dew point in the school offers the greater savings of fuel cost than all the other savings in this report combined. Other parameters relating to setting back the building temperature include warm-up time required to reheat the building and preventing any water pipes near the building perimeter from freezing. During extreme cold periods, reducing the setback temperature limit and time appropriately is required to prevent possible problems. * The cost of upgrading the Honeywell DDC system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. Rank Recommendation 9 Heating System Upgrades: Reduce Sidearm DHW Capacity, Duty Cycle on Recirculation Pump, Optimize Boiler Outdoor Temperature Reset Controls Installation Cost * $20,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $3,900 Breakeven Cost $54,786 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.7 Simple Payback (yrs) 5 Auditors Notes: The recommendations of this EEM include reducing the sidearm DHW capacity to better meet the demand requirements, add a duty cycle on the DHW recirculation pump, and install an outdoor temperature reset control to the boiler output temperature using the upgraded DDC system. The combination of these energy efficiency measures are bundled in the AkWarm program calculations. Currently there are five (5) 120 gallon hot water generators used in the boiler room system. These units have a high rate of recovery using the boiler output. Two of these units could be isolated and tested to determine adequacy which will reduce fuel oil consumption. The recirculation pump should be placed on a timed schedule using the upgraded DDC system. This will reduce the energy lost by circulating DHW during unoccupied periods. And last, a boiler outdoor temperature reset algorithm can reduce the boiler fire time by monitoring the outdoor temperature and setting the boiler temperature to an appropriate level. Also noted during the audit was that the make-up air unit providing combustion air to the boiler room appeared to be over ventilating the boiler room and the exhaust air duct was installed adjacent to the air intake louver to the unit causing recycling of the warm exhaust air back into the boiler room. A reduction of the make-up air system can be realized by separating these ducts to provide cooler temperature to better air condition the boiler room. A reduction in fan speed can be accomplished using the DDC system. An additional concern was brought up about the size of the glycol expansion tanks serving the boiler system which can cause the glycol system to relieve pressure back to the storage tank during large temperature swings in the system. Additional expansion capacity should be evaluated and installed as appropriate for the application. * The cost of upgrading the Honeywell DDC system was allocated across several of the mechanical energy efficiency measures. Building Shell Measures Window Measures Door Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 26 Window/Skylight: Voc Tech Non South Facing Windows (NSFW) Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.87 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 or better window Installation Cost $11,256 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $343 Breakeven Cost $6,620 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 33 Auditors Notes: The existing windows in the vocational education addition are in poor condition with leaky seals and poor air tightness. These windows are good candidates for replacement although the payback is poor for this EEM. New windows will reduce heat loss and infiltration and provide an improved solar heat gain. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 27 Window/Skylight: Voc Tech South Facing Windows (SFW) Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U-Value: 0.87 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U-0.30 or better window Installation Cost $3,934 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 20 Energy Savings ($/yr) $117 Breakeven Cost $2,259 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yrs) 34 Auditors Notes: Refer to above EEM #26 for similar note. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 10 Exterior Door: Broken Gym Exit Door Door Type: Metal – Non Functional Modeled R-Value: 1 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $1,013 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $92 Breakeven Cost $2,478 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacing the broken exterior door to the gym/locker room area. Air Sealing Measures Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 11 Garage Door: Wrestling Room Door Type: Metal Insulating Blanket: None Modeled R-Value: 1.8 Replace existing garage door with R-7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. Installation Cost $1,239 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $112 Breakeven Cost $3,003 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 11 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacing the exterior overhead door to the wresting room area with a more modern energy efficient unit. Rank Location Size/Type, Condition Recommendation 28 Garage Door: Voc Tech Shop Doors Door Type: 1-1/2" metal clad- polystyrene core Insulating Blanket: None Modeled R-Value: 5.6 Replace existing garage door with R-7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. Installation Cost $3,671 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 30 Energy Savings ($/yr) $34 Breakeven Cost $912 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.2 Simple Payback (yrs) 108 Auditors Notes: This EEM recommends replacing the exterior overhead doors to the shop area with more modern energy efficient units. Rank Location Existing Air Leakage Level (cfm@50/75 Pa)Recommended Air Leakage Reduction (cfm@50/75 Pa) 19 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.88 cfm/ft2 of above- grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 5% Installation Cost $5,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yrs) 10 Energy Savings ($/yr) $674 Breakeven Cost $6,931 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yrs) 7 Auditors Notes: This EEM evaluates improving the air tightness of the building to reduce unwanted and uncontrolled cold air infiltration into the building. This can be accomplished by replacing weather stripping where applicable, assure all operable windows close correctly, maintain outdoor air dampers to assure they close tightly and make-up and exhaust air systems, caulk and seal all thermal/pressure boundary penetrations. Through inspection of the energy-using equipment on-site and discussions with site facilities personnel, this energy audit has identified several energy-saving measures. The measures will reduce the amount of fuel burned and electricity used at the site. The projects will not degrade the performance of the building and, in some cases, will improve it. Several types of EEMs can be implemented immediately by building staff, and others will require various amounts of lead time for engineering and equipment acquisition. In some cases, there are logical advantages to implementing EEMs concurrently. For example, if the same electrical contractor is used to install both lighting equipment and motors, implementation of these measures should be scheduled to occur simultaneously. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (Senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund”). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions for municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Refer to the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans manual which can be obtained from AHFC for more information on this program. CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX A Appendix A Benchmark Reports CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT First Name Last Name Middle Name Phone Jim Nygaard 424‐3265 State Zip AK 99574 Monday‐ Friday Saturday Sunday Holidays 7 to 50 0 0 Average # of Occupants During 210 Renovations Date 2001 PART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / ton Other energy sources? Jr/Sr High School Public Order and Safety 52,956 Facility Address Building Type Mixed Community Population Facility City Year Built 1966 Facility Zip REAL Preliminary Benchmark Data Form PART I – FACILITY INFORMATION Facility Owner Cordova School District Building Name/ Identifier Building Usage Building Square Footage Facility Owned By Date 06/21/11Regional Education Attendance Primary Operating Hours 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source. 2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use. Contact Person City CordovaPO Box 140 Mailing Address Email Jnygaard@cordovaSD.org Details 2,100 100 Fishermans Way Cordova 99574 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT Jr/Sr High School Buiding Size Input (sf) =52,956 2009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2009 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2009 Electric Consumption (kWh)344,900 2009 Electric Cost ($)90,398 2009 Oil Consumption (Therms)32,328.12 2009 Oil Cost ($)83,802 2009 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2009 Propane Cost ($) 2009 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Coal Cost ($) 2009 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2009 Wood Cost ($) 2009 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2009 Thermal Cost ($) 2009 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2009 Steam Cost ($) 2009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)4,409,956 2009 Total Energy Cost ($)174,200 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)22.2 2009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 61.0 2009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)83.3 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.71 2009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.58 2009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)3.29 APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT 2010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) 2010 Natural Gas Cost ($) 2010 Electric Consumption (kWh)331,169 2010 Electric Cost ($)92,116 2010 Oil Consumption (Therms)29,144.28 2010 Oil Cost ($)64,761 2010 Propane Consumption (Therms) 2010 Propane Cost ($) 2010 Coal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Coal Cost ($) 2010 Wood Consumption (Therms) 2010 Wood Cost ($) 2010 Thermal Consumption (Therms) 2010 Thermal Cost ($) 2010 Steam Consumption (Therms) 2010 Steam Cost ($) 2010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)4,044,708 2010 Total Energy Cost ($)156,877 Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 2010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)21.3 2010 Oil (kBtu/sf)55.0 2010 Propane (kBtu/sf) 2010 Coal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Wood (kBtu/sf) 2010 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 2010 Steam (kBtu/sf) 2010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)76.4 Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI) 2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)1.74 2010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)1.22 2010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf) 2010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)2.96 Note: 1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's 1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's 1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTJr/Sr High SchoolElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)CEC 243001 Jul‐097/1/2009 7/31/20093111,012376$2,412$0.22CEC 243001 Aug‐098/1/2009 8/31/20093121,323728$5,457$0.26CEC 243001 Sep‐099/1/2009 9/30/20093034,6181,182$8,197$0.24CEC 243001 Oct‐0910/1/2009 10/31/20093133,4261,141$7,446$0.22CEC 243001 Nov‐0911/1/2009 11/30/20093036,1681,234$8,820$0.24CEC 243001 Dec‐0912/1/2009 12/31/20093132,1981,099$9,151$0.28CEC 243001 Jan‐101/1/2010 1/31/20103134,4701,176$9,192$0.27CEC 243001 Feb‐102/1/2010 2/28/20102835,2431,203$9,643$0.27CEC 243001 Mar‐103/1/2010 3/31/20103130,6211,045$8,537$0.28CEC 243001 Apr‐104/1/2010 4/30/20103035,0491,196$10,234$0.29CEC 243001 May‐105/1/2010 5/31/20103126,556906$7,904$0.30CEC 243001 Jun‐106/1/2010 6/30/20103014,216485$3,405$0.24CEC 243001 Jul‐107/1/2010 7/31/2010319,372320$2,077$0.22CEC 243001 Aug‐108/1/2010 8/31/20103122,246759$5,025$0.23CEC 243001 Sep‐109/1/2010 9/30/20103029,9951,024$6,274$0.21CEC 243001 Oct‐1010/1/2010 10/31/20103133,8141,154$7,403$0.22CEC 243001 Nov‐1011/1/2010 11/30/20103035,2511,203$8,184$0.23CEC 243001 Dec‐1012/1/2010 12/31/20103129,107993$8,786$0.30CEC 243001 Jan‐111/1/2011 1/31/20113131,7001,082$9,785$0.31CEC 243001 Feb‐112/1/2011 2/28/20112831,5801,078$9,810$0.31CEC 243001 Mar‐113/1/2011 3/31/20113131,4951,075$10,542$0.33CEC 243001 Apr‐114/1/2011 4/30/20113029,9001,020$10,287$0.34CEC 243001 May‐115/1/2011 5/31/20113127,846950$9,327$0.33CEC 243001 Jun‐116/1/2011 6/30/20113018,863644$4,616$0.24Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:344,90011,7710$90,398$0Jul ‐ 10 to Jun ‐ 11 total:331,16911,3030$92,116$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:$0.26Jul ‐ 10 to Jun ‐ 11 avg:$0.27APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000$10,000$12,00005,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Jr/Sr High School ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTJr/Sr High SchoolOilBtus/Gal =132,000Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (Gal) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Oil Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Jul‐09 7/1/2009 7/31/2009311,6632,195$8,1693.72Aug‐09 8/1/2009 8/31/200931613809$3,0283.74Sep‐09 9/1/2009 9/30/2009301,4301,888$6,6733.54Oct‐09 10/1/2009 10/31/2009312,8943,820$12,8733.37Nov‐09 11/1/2009 11/30/2009301,2331,628$5,1543.17Dec‐09 12/1/2009 12/31/2009314,6146,090$14,6492.41Jan‐10 1/1/2010 1/31/2010312,8353,742$8,5052.27Feb‐10 2/1/2010 2/28/2010281,9792,612$5,5502.12Mar‐10 3/1/2010 3/31/2010313,4324,530$9,5282.10Apr‐10 4/1/2010 4/30/2010302,2482,967$5,6261.90May‐10 5/1/2010 5/31/201031550726$1,4251.96Jun‐10 6/1/2010 6/30/2010301,0001,320$2,6221.99Jul‐10 7/1/2010 7/31/201031118156$3392.18Aug‐10 8/1/2010 8/31/201031300396$8552.16Sep‐10 9/1/2010 9/30/2010301,6002,112$4,9042.32Oct‐10 10/1/2010 10/31/2010313,6554,825$6,4481.34Nov‐10 11/1/2010 11/30/2010302,1502,838$6,4722.28Dec‐10 12/1/2010 12/31/2010313,0584,037$9,2252.29Jan‐11 1/1/2011 1/31/2011312,2502,970$6,9062.33Feb‐11 2/1/2011 2/28/2011281,9382,558$6,0112.35Mar‐11 3/1/2011 3/31/2011312,4363,216$7,5412.35Apr‐11 4/1/2011 4/30/2011302,4703,260$7,7472.38May‐11 5/1/2011 5/31/2011311,0541,391$4,8793.51Jun‐11 6/1/2011 6/30/2011301,0501,386$3,4342.48Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 total:24,49132,3280.00$83,802$0Jul ‐ 10 to Jun ‐ 11 total:22,07929,1440.00$64,761$0Jul ‐ 09 to Jun ‐ 10 avg:2.69Jul ‐ 10 to Jun ‐ 11 avg:2.33APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT$0.00$2,000.00$4,000.00$6,000.00$8,000.00$10,000.00$12,000.00$14,000.00$16,000.0001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr)Jr/Sr High School ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($)APPENDIX A CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Appendix B AkWarm© Building Simulation Short Report CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 11/2/2011 General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Cordova Jr/Sr High School Auditor Company: Central Alaska Engineering Company Address: 100 Fishermans Way Auditor Name: Jerry P. Herring, PE, CEA City: Cordova Auditor Address: 32215 Lakefront Drive Soldotna, AK 99669 Client Name: Jim Nygaard Client Address: Cordova School District P.O. Box 140 Cordova, AK 99574 Auditor Phone: (907) 260‐5311 Auditor FAX: ( ) ‐ Client Phone: (907) 424‐3265 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 52,956 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 1,319,015 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 1,345,799 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 2,051,522 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 210 people Design Indoor Temperature: 72 deg F (building average) Actual City: Cordova Design Outdoor Temperature: ‐2 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Cordova Heating Degree Days: 9,004 deg F‐days Utility Information Electric Utility: Cordova Electric ‐ Commercial ‐ Lg Fuel Oil Provider: Unknown Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.27/kWh Average Annual Cost/gallon: $2.93 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 $91,364 $1,359 $5,488 $41,780 $13,178 $0 $0 $9,764 $0 $165,328 With Proposed Retrofits $78,345 $834 $5,323 $23,017 $12,191 $0 $0 $8,527 $0 $129,919 SAVINGS $13,019 $525 $164 $18,763 $987 $0 $0 $1,237 $0 $35,408 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 Existing Retrofit Ventilation and Fans Space Heating Space Cooling Refrigeration Other Electrical Lighting Domestic Hot Water Annual Energy Costs by End Use CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: Emergency Gym 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents Replace with 2 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver (2) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch $1,954 $2,750 10.94 1.4 2 Refrigeration: Refrigerated Vending Machines Replace with Refrigerated Vending Machines and Improve Seasonal Shutdown $218 $200 9.53 0.9 3 Lighting: Emergency 3 Bulb Flourescent Troffers Replace with 13 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant LowLight StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $990 $1,750 8.37 1.8 4 Lighting: Emergency 2 Bulb Flourescent Troffers Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant LowLight StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $573 $1,065 7.97 1.9 5 Lighting: Incandescent Various Locations Replace with 30 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $607 $740 6.54 1.2 6 Ventilation Upgrade DDC system to reduce HVAC operational time. $3,146 $7,500 5.84 2.4 7 Setback Thermostat: School Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $6,587 $25,000 3.96 3.8 8 Lighting: Gym 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents Replace with 18 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver (2) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $3,051 $15,250 3.08 5 9 HVAC And DHW HVAC System Upgrades $3,900 $20,000 2.74 5.1 10 Exterior Door: ED Metal Broken Remove existing door and install standard pre‐hung U‐0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $92 $1,013 2.45 11 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 11 Garage Door: Wrestling Room Replace existing garage door with R‐7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $112 $1,239 2.42 11.1 12 Refrigeration: Ice Making Machine near Locker Rooms Replace with Ice Making Machine and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $24 $200 1.88 8.2 13 Lighting: T‐12 Office Lights Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $200 $1,280 1.82 6.4 14 Lighting: Exit Signs Replace with 15 LED 4W Module StdElectronic $473 $2,250 1.70 4.8 15 Lighting: T‐12 Library, Wrestling Room and Various Locations Replace with 132 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy‐Saver HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $5,486 $39,512 1.61 7.2 16 Refrigeration: Standup Refrigerators Replace with 5 Refers and Improve Seasonal Shutdown $476 $2,600 1.60 5.5 17 Lighting: Restrooms with Occupancy Sensor Lighting Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic and Improve Occupancy Sensor $132 $1,320 1.42 10 18 Lighting: T‐12 Home Economics and Various Locations Replace with 36 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,269 $10,415 1.42 8.2 19 Air Tightening Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 5%. $674 $5,000 1.39 7.4 20 Other Electrical: Classroom Portables Replace with 2 Classroom Portables Removed and Improve Manual Switching $987 $1,500 1.27 1.5 21 Lighting: Outside Lighting Replace with 12 LED (2) 67W Module StdElectronic and Add new Daylight Sensor $366 $4,800 1.17 13.1 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 22 Lighting: 3 Bulb Flourescent Troffers Replace with 50 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $518 $6,580 1.16 12.7 23 Lighting: 2 Bulb Flourescent Troffers Replace with 128 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐Saver Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,232 $15,714 1.16 12.8 24 Lighting: Shop 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver (2) HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch $523 $7,500 1.07 14.3 25 Lighting: T‐12 Classrooms and Various Locations Replace with 52 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,326 $14,930 1.03 11.3 26 Window/Skylight: Voc Tech NSFW Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window $343 $11,256 0.59 32.8 27 Window/Skylight: Voc Tech SFW Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window $117 $3,934 0.57 33.6 28 Garage Door: Voc Tech Shop Doors Replace existing garage door with R‐7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $34 $3,671 0.25 108.4 TOTAL $35,408 $208,969 2.27 5.9 ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – ENERGY EFFICIENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Building Envelope Insulation Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation Type/R- Value Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings Exterior Doors – Replacement CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 10 Exterior Door: ED Metal Broken Door Type: R‐1 Door (non‐ standard, not exterior) Modeled R‐Value: 1 Remove existing door and install standard pre‐hung U‐0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $1,013 $92 11 Garage Door: Wrestling Room Door Type: Uninsulated, 3/8" Wood panel Insulating Blanket: None Modeled R‐Value: 1.8 Replace existing garage door with R‐7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $1,239 $112 28 Garage Door: Voc Tech Shop Doors Door Type: 1‐1/2" metal clad‐ polystyrene core Insulating Blanket: None Modeled R‐Value: 5.6 Replace existing garage door with R‐7, 2" polyurethane core replacement door. $3,671 $34 Windows and Glass Doors – Replacement Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 26 Window/Skylight: Voc Tech NSFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U‐Value: 0.87 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window $11,256 $343 27 Window/Skylight: Voc Tech SFW Glass: Double, glass Frame: Aluminum, No Thermal Break Spacing Between Layers: Quarter Inch Gas Fill Type: Air Modeled U‐Value: 0.87 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient: 0.46 Replace existing window with U‐0.30 vinyl window $3,934 $117 Air Leakage Rank Location Estimated Air Leakage Recommended Air Leakage Target Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 19 Air Tightness estimated as: 0.88 cfm/ft2 of above‐grade shell area at 75 Pascals Perform air sealing to reduce air leakage by 5%. $5,000 $674 2. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B Rank Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 9 HVAC System Upgrades $20,000 $3,900 Setback Thermostat Rank Location Size/Type/Condition Recommendation Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 7 School Existing Unoccupied Heating Setpoint: 65.0 deg F Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the School space. $25,000 $6,587 Ventilation Rank Recommendation Cost Annual Energy Savings 6 Upgrade DDC system to reduce HVAC operational time. $7,500 $3,146 3. Appliances and Lighting Lighting Fixtures and Controls Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 1 Emergency Gym 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents 2 FLUOR (9) Circline 12" FC12T9 32W Magnetic Replace with 2 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver (2) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch $2,750 $1,954 3 Emergency 3 Bulb Flourescent Troffers 13 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant LowLight StdElectronic Replace with 13 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant LowLight StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,750 $990 4 Emergency 2 Bulb Flourescent Troffers 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic Replace with 8 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant LowLight StdElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,065 $573 5 Incandescent Various Locations 30 INCAN A Lamp, Std 75W with Manual Switching Replace with 30 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 20W and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $740 $607 8 Gym 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents 18 FLUOR (9) Circline 12" FC12T9 32W Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 18 FLUOR (5) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver (2) HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch and Improve Manual Switching $15,250 $3,051 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B 13 T‐12 Office Lights 4 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,280 $200 14 Exit Signs 15 INCAN A Lamp, Std 25W Replace with 15 LED 4W Module StdElectronic $2,250 $473 15 T‐12 Library, Wrestling Room and Various Locations 132 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12 75W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 132 FLUOR (2) T8 8' F96T8 54W Energy‐ Saver HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $39,512 $5,486 17 Restrooms with Occupancy Sensor Lighting 16 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Occupancy Sensor Replace with 16 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic and Improve Occupancy Sensor $1,320 $132 18 T‐12 Home Economics and Various Locations 36 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 36 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $10,415 $1,269 21 Outside Lighting 12 HPS 150 Watt Magnetic with On/Off Photoswitch Replace with 12 LED (2) 67W Module StdElectronic and Add new Daylight Sensor $4,800 $366 22 3 Bulb Flourescent Troffers 50 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 50 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $6,580 $518 23 2 Bulb Flourescent Troffers 128 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace with 128 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $15,714 $1,232 24 Shop 22" Diameter Compact Fluorescents 11 FLUOR (9) Circline 12" FC12T9 32W Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 11 FLUOR (4) T5 45.2" F54W/T5 HO Energy‐Saver (2) HighEfficElectronic and Add new Occupancy Sensor, Multi‐Level Switch $7,500 $523 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX B 25 T‐12 Classrooms and Various Locations 52 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 52 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy‐ Saver Program HighLight HighEfficElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $14,930 $1,326 Refrigeration Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 2 Refrigerated Vending Machines Refrigerated Vending Machines with Seasonal Shutdown Replace with Refrigerated Vending Machines and Improve Seasonal Shutdown $200 $218 12 Ice Making Machine near Locker Rooms Ice Making Machine Replace with Ice Making Machine and Add new Seasonal Shutdown $200 $24 16 Standup Refrigerators 5 Standup Refrigerators with Seasonal Shutdown Replace with 5 Refers and Improve Seasonal Shutdown $2,600 $476 Other Electrical Equipment Rank Location Existing Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings 20 Classroom Portables 2 Classroom Portable with Manual Switching Replace with 2 Classroom Portables Removed and Improve Manual Switching $1,500 $987 Cooking/Clothes Drying Rank Recommended Installed Cost Annual Energy Savings CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX C Appendix C Major Equipment List CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANYCORDOVA JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORTTAG LOCATIONFUNCTIONMAKE MODEL TYPECAPACITY EFFICIENCY MOTOR SIZEASHRAE SERVICE LIFEESTIMATED REMAINING USEFUL LIFENOTESB-1 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN 1288 OIL / CAST IRON 3,588 MBH80%3020B-2 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN 88 OIL / CAST IRON 1,960 MBH80%305B-3 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT WEIL MCLAIN 89 OIL / CAST IRON 351 MBH84%3015CP-1 BOILER ROOM B-1 CIRC PUMP B/G SERIES 80INLINE 200 GPM @ 15' 72%1.5 HP100CP-2 BOILER ROOM B-2 CIRC PUMP B/G SERIES 80INLINE 100 GPM @ 15' 51%1 HP100CP-3 BOILER ROOM B-3 CIRC PUMP B/G SERIES 60INLINE 30 GPM @ 15'55%0.5 HP100CP-4 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT B/G SERIES 80INLINE 160 GPM @ 62' 63%5 HP100 VARIABLE SPEED PUMPCP-5 BOILER ROOM BUILDING HEAT B/G SERIES 80INLINE 160 GPM @ 62' 63%5 HP100 VARIABLE SPEED PUMPCP-6 BOILER ROOM VOCED HEAT B/G SERIES 80INLINE 80 GPM @ 50'58%3 HP100CP-7 BOILER ROOM VOCED HEAT B/G SERIES 80INLINE 80 GPM @ 50'58%3 HP100CP-8 BOILER ROOM DOMESTIC HOT WATER B/G SERIES 80INLINE 50 GPM @ 25'53%1 HP100CP-9 BOILER ROOMDHW CIRCGRUNDFOS 15-42 INLINE 5 GPM @ 15'-0.25 HP100CP-10 BOILER ROOM SNOW MELT SYSTEM GRUNDFOS 26-96 INLINE 2 GPM @ 25'-.18 HP100SP-1 ELEVATOR ROOMELEVATOR SUMP GOULD LSP03 INLINE 20 GPM @ 15'-0.33 HP100AHU-1 KITCHEN CAFETERIA VENTILATION PACEA12 HORIZONTAL 4030 CFM @ 1.25" NEMA3 HP250AHU-2 GYMNASIUM GYM VENTILATIONPACEA22 HORIZONTAL 10000 CFM @ 1.6" NEMA7.5 HP2515AHU-3 BACK STAGE BAND, TECH LAB, LOCKERS PACEA15 HORIZONTAL 4000 CFM @ 1.5" NEMA3 HP2515AHU-4 MECH ROOM ADMIN, LIBRARYPACEA11 HORIZONTAL 2600 CFM @ 1.5" NEMA1.5 HP2515AHU-5 JAN ROOMCLASSROOMSPACEA16 HORIZONTAL 5400 CFM @ 1.6" NEMA5 HP2515AHU-6 MECH ROOM HOME ECONOMICS PACEA11 HORIZONTAL 1500 CFM @ 1.25" NEMA1 HP2515AHU-7 MECH ROOM VOC ED SHOPSPACEA16 HORIZONTAL 5000 CFM @ 1.4" NEMA3 HP2515EF-1 ROOFKITCHEN HOODPACE CRE-20 CENT 2760 CFM @ 1.5" NEMA1.5 HP255EF-2 KITCHENKITCHEN PACE DD 350G CABINET 320 CFM @ 0.15" NEMA0.01 HP250EF-3 ROOFADMIN TOILET UNKNOWN -CENT 340 CFM @ 0.15" NEMA0.01 HP250EF-4 ROOF CLASSROOM TOILET UNKNOWN -CENT 605 CFM @ 0.15" NEMA1.5 HP250EF-5 ROOFLOCKER ROOMS GREENHECK SFB-12 UPBLAST 2200 CFM @ 0.63" NEMA1.0 HP2515EF-6 VOCEDVOCED TOILETS UNKNOWN -INLINE 600 CFM @ 0.25" NEMA0.25 HP250EF-7 VOCED VOCED VEHICLE EX CARMON F-30INLINE 1200 CFM @ 3.0" NEMA1.5 HP255EF-8 ROOF VOCED PARTS WASH GREENHECK CUBE 120-4 UPBLAST 900 CFM @ 0.5" NEMA0.5 HP2515EF-9 ROOFVOCED WELDING CARMON 182INLINE 3000 CFM @ 2.25" NEMA2.0 HP250EF-10 ROOFVOCED SHOP AREA GREENHECK CUBE 160-3 UPBLAST 2000 CFM @ 0.5" NEMA0.33 HP2515EF-11 ROOFFUME HOOD GREENHECK CUBE 100-4 UPBLAST 340 CFM @ 1.0" NEMA0.25 HP2515EF-12 ROOFGENERAL SCIENCE GREENHECK CUBE 120-4 UPBLAST 900 CFM @ 0.38" NEMA0.25 HP2515VF-1 KITCHENHOOD MAKE-UP UNKNOWN -CABINET 901 CFM @ 0.38" NEMA0.25 HP250VF-2 BOILER ROOM BOILER ROOM VENT UNKNOWN -CABINET 2500 CFM @ 1.0" NEMA1.0 HP255RF-1 CAFETERIA ADMIN RELIEF AIR UNKNOWN -CABINET 2000 CFM @ 0.5" NEMA0.5 HP250RF-2 ROOF CLASSROOM RELIEF AIR UNKNOWN -CENT 4000 CFM @ 1.0" NEMA0.75 HP255RF-3 BAND ROOM BAND RETURN AIR GREENHECK BCF-110 CABINET 1500 CFM @ 1.0" NEMA0.5 HP2515MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORYAPPENDIX C CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D Appendix D Site Visit Photos CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 1. Partial Front View of School Building 2. Partial Back View of School Building 3. View of Broken Gym Emergency Exit Doors 4. Back Entrance to Boiler Room 5. Portable Classroom Image 6. Partial Back Side View of School Building CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 7. Server Room Equipment requiring A/C 8. Broken Air Conditioning Unit mounted to Front of School 9. Waste-Oil Supply and Boiler Outbuilding 10. Waste-Oil Boiler B-4 11. VOC ED Building Entrance and Exhaust Outlet (upper right corner) 12. VOC ED Building Air Handling Unit CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 13. VOC ED Building Domestic Hot Water Tank 14. Kitchen Roof and Antiquated Kitchen Exhaust Hood System 15. Boiler Room Overall Featuring Boilers 1&2 16. Fuel Oil Boiler, B-2 17. Fuel Oil Boiler – B-3 18. Circulation Pumps 4-7 CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 19. Boiler Room Make-Up Air Unit 20. Main Circulation Pump with Outdoor Temperature Reset Control Valve 21. Boiler Room Exhaust and Combustion Intake (The System Exhausts into the Intake) 22. Boiler Fuel Oil Supply Tank 23. Inefficient Exit Signs, Replacement Recommended 24. Inefficient Gym and Shop Lights, Replacement Recommended CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 25. Inefficient T-12 Band Room Lights, Replacement Recommended 26. Inefficient Library T-12 Lights, Replacement Recommended 27. Inefficient T-12 Wrestling Room Lights & Low R-value Equipment Access Door, Replacement Recommended 28. Example of Lights Needing Replacement “T- 12’s” 29. Inefficient Appliances, Replacement Recommended if more than 10 years old 30. Kitchen Ovens and Range using plug load CENTRAL ALASKA ENGINEERING COMPANY CORDOVA JR‐SR HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AUDIT REPORT APPENDIX D 31. Variable Speed Controllers for Pumps & HVAC 32. Honeywell DDC Panel 33. Example of Existing Windows, Replacement Recommending 34. Close up of Window Width 35. Broken Outdoor Light Fixture, Replacement Recommended 36. Example of Vinyl Windows Replaced Previously