The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutANI Aniak AMN School 2012-EEManaging Office 2400 College Road 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Suite 106A 4402 Thane Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Juneau, Alaska 99801 p. 907.452.5688 p. 907.222.2445 p: 907.586.6813 f. 907.452.5694 f. 907.222.0915 f: 907.586.6819 www.nortechengr.com ENERGY AUDIT AUNTIE MARY NICOLI ELEMENTARY P.O. Box 29 Aniak, Alaska 99557 Prepared for: Mr. Brad Allen, Superintendent Kuspuk School District PO Box 49 Aniak, Alaska Prepared by: David C. Lanning PE, CEA Pauline E. Fusco EIT, CEAIT July 9, 2012 Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095” ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HEALTH & SAFETY Anch: 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Ste 106A, 99517 907.222.2445 Fax: 222.0915 Fairbanks: 2400 College Road, 99709 907.452.5688 Fax: 452.5694 Juneau: 4402 Thane Road, 99801 907.586.6813 Fax: 586.6819 info@nortechengr.com www.nortechengr.com F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 2 2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Building Use ......................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ..................................................................... 6 2. 3 Building Description ............................................................................................. 6 3.0 BENCHMARKING 2010 UTILITY DATA ......................................................................... 9 3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 ................................................................... 10 3.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ......................................................................... 11 3.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010............................................................................. 12 3.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns .......................................................................... 13 3.5 Future Energy Monitoring ................................................................................... 14 4.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS.............................................. 15 4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 16 4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School ....... 17 4.3 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications ......................................... 18 4.4 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm ................................. 19 5.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 20 5.1 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................. 20 5.2 Commissioning .................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Building Specific Recommendations .................................................................. 21 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx ii APPENDICES Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures .......................................... 23 Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 32 Appendix C Significant Equipment List ...................................................................... 34 Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ..................................................................... 34 Appendix E Analysis Methodology ............................................................................ 37 Appendix F Audit Limitations ..................................................................................... 38 Appendix G References ............................................................................................. 39 Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 40 Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. ................................... 41 Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 42 Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 43 Appendix L Building Floor Plan ................................................................................. 44 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary, a 19,471 square foot facility. The audit began with benchmarking which resulted in a calculation of the energy consumption per square foot. A site inspection was completed on November 14th through the 21st of 2011 to obtain information about the lighting, heating, ventilation, cooling and other building energy uses. The existing usage data and current systems were then used to develop a building energy consumption model using AkWarm. Once the model was calibrated, a number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) were developed from review of the data and observations. EEMs were evaluated and ranked on the basis of both energy savings and cost using a Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). While these modeling techniques were successful in verifying that many of the EEMs would save energy, not all of the identified EEMs were considered cost effective based on the hardware, installation, and energy costs at the time of this audit. While the need for a major retrofit can typically be identified by an energy audit, upgrading specific systems often requires collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that are beyond the scope of the Level II energy audit. The necessity and amount of design effort and cost will vary depending on the scope of the specific EEMs planned and the sophistication and capability of the entire design team, including the building owners and operators. During the budgeting process for any major retrofit identified in this report, the building owner should add administrative and supplemental design costs to cover the individual needs of their own organization and the overall retrofit project. The following table, from AkWarm, is a summary of the recommended EEMs for the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School. Additional discussion of the modeling process can be found in Section 3. Details of each individual EEM can be found in Appendix A of this report. A summary of EEMs that were evaluated but are not currently recommended is located in Appendix B. Building a replacement school for Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School is high on the state Capital Improvements Projects list. Although the school is an example of an aging school which would benefit from extensive retrofits to reduce energy costs, some retrofits listed below may not truly be economical if the school is replaced before the payback is complete. Replacing the existing school with a high efficiency building is not economical based on energy savings alone, but a new school constructed to current ASHRAE standards of energy efficiency could save about $45,000, or 50% of annual energy costs. PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs) Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 1 Setback Thermostat: Building Install four programmable thermostats and institute an unoccupied temperature setback to 60 F. $10,953 $1,400 106 0.1 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 3 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs) Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 2 Lighting: Hallways and Vestibules Replace existing 40W T12 lamps with 4 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic $919 $660 18 0.7 3 Lighting: Classrooms and Office Install an occupancy sensor with a built-in photocell in each classroom. $1,880 $1,000 12 0.5 4 Lighting: Cafeteria Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor $490 $300 9.9 0.6 5 Lighting: Bathrooms Install an occupancy sensor in each bathroom. $932 $800 7.7 0.9 6 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Basement Install R-21batt insulation on basement wall $2,215 $6,469 8.1 2.9 7 Refrigeration: Kitchen Replace 2 existing upright freezers with 2 inherently more efficient chest freezers. $1,283 $2,000 5.2 1.6 8 Lighting: Library Install an occupancy sensor with built-in photocell. $236 $300 4.8 1.3 9 Lighting: Hallways and Vestibules Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 12 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic. $111 $156 4.4 1.4 10 Lighting: Hallways and Vestibules Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic. $55 $78 4.4 1.4 11 Lighting: Hallways and Vestibules Add new Occupancy Sensor $105 $200 3.2 1.9 12 Exterior Door: Half-lite Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $408 $3,292 2.9 8.1 13 Lighting: Classrooms and Office Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant StdElectronic $144 $315 2.7 2.2 14 Lighting: Gym Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Manual Switching $128 $300 2.5 2.4 15 Exterior Door: Quarter Lite Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $61 $603 2.4 9.9 16 Lighting: Bathrooms Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 16 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Program StdElectronic $195 $496 2.3 2.5 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 4 PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs) Rank Feature/ Location Improvement Description Estimated Annual Energy Savings Estimated Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 17 Lighting: Classrooms and Office Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $83 $234 2.1 2.8 18 Classroom windows Remove every other column of windows in classrooms with window walls and replace with insulated wall. $1,071 $12,000 2.0 11.2 19 Lighting: Classrooms and Office Replace existing 40W T12 lamps with 48 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic $1,210 $8,000 1.8 6.6 20 Below- (part or all) Grade Wall: Crawlspace BG Install R-14 rigid insulation on basement wall $310 $3,971 1.8 12.8 21 Lighting: Classrooms and Office Replace existing 40W T12 lamps with 8 LED (4) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic $349 $2,520 1.7 7.2 22 Exterior Door: Flush Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U- 0.16 insulated door, including hardware. $40 $603 1.5 15.1 23 Lighting: Library Replace existing 40W T12 lamps with 20 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic $328 $3,300 1.2 10.1 24 On- or Below- Grade Floor, Perimeter: Crawlspace Install 4' of R-19 encapsulated batt insulation on Perimeter of Crawl Space Floor. $545 $11,475 1.1 21.1 25 HVAC And DHW 1) Remove furnaces 4 and 5 and existing chimneys and vents from gym ceiling 2) insulate and repair ceiling and wall penetrations 3)engineer and install new 90%-efficient furnace and ancillary damper controls and ductwork. 4) Flow reducers on existing handwash fixtures save 5% of hot water consumption. $2,258 $40,000 1.0 17.7 26 Lighting: Cafeteria Replace existing 40W T12 lamps with 29 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic $402 $4,790 1.0 11.9 TOTAL, cost-effective measures $26,711 $97,294 3.7 3.6 With all of the recommended EEMs in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by $26,711 per year, or 28.6% of the building’s total energy costs. These measures are estimated to cost $97,294, for an overall simple payback period of 3.7 years. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 5 Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown The above charts are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School. The greatest portions of energy cost for the building are envelope air losses, lighting, other electrical and wall/door heat loss, which indicates that the greatest savings can be found in air tightening and potentially reducing the amount of outside air provided to the building using Demand Control Ventilation, more efficient lighting, and reducing school plug-loads. Detailed improvements for lighting and other cost effective measures can be found in Appendix A. The chart breaks down energy usage by cost into the following categories: • Envelope Air Losses—the cost to provide heated fresh air to occupants, air leakage, heat lost in air through the chimneys and exhaust fans, heat lost to wind and other similar losses. • Envelope o Ceiling—quantified heat loss transferred through the ceiling portion of the envelope. o Window—quantified heat loss through the window portion of the envelope. o Wall/Door—quantified heat loss through the wall and door portions of the envelope. o Floor—quantified heat loss through the floor portion of the envelope. • Water Heating—energy cost to provide domestic hot water. • Fans—energy cost to run ventilation, and exhaust fans. • Lighting—energy cost to light the building. • Refrigeration—energy costs to provide refrigerated goods for the occupants. • Other Electrical—includes energy costs not listed above including cooking loads, laundry loads, other plug loads and electronics. Envelope Air Losses $21,180 24% Ceiling $4,910 6% Window $4,717 5% Wall/Door $12,516 14% Floor $10,975 12% Water Heating $739 1% Fans $1,808 2% Lighting $16,651 19% Refrigeratio n$2,471 3% Other Electrical $12,121 14% Existing Building Energy Cost Breakdown $88,089 Envelope Air Losses $16,954 19% Ceiling, $4,440 5% Window $2,523 3% Wall/Door $6,055 7% Floor $8,780 10% Water Heating $689 1% Fans $1,808 2% Lighting $7,209 8% Refrigeratio n $803 1% Other Electrical $12,121 14% EEM Savings $26,711 30% Retrofit Building Energy Cost Breakdown $61,378 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 6 2.0 INTRODUCTION NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform ASHRAE Level II Energy Audits for publically owned buildings in Alaska. This report presents the findings of the utility benchmarking, modeling analysis, and the recommended building modifications, and building use changes that are expected to save energy and money. The report is organized into sections covering: • description of the facility, • the building’s historic energy usage (benchmarking), • estimating energy use through energy use modeling, • evaluation of potential energy efficiency or efficiency improvements, and • recommendations for energy efficiency with estimates of the costs and savings. 2.1 Building Use The Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School provides educational services to preschool through 6th grade students in Aniak. 2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules The building is occupied by 75 students and 5 teachers during the school year, August through May, from approximately 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, weekdays. After school, a janitor cleans the building about 2 hours each weekday during the school year. The building is typically unoccupied during the summer. 2. 3 Building Description The original 2,640 square foot Territorial Department of Education school was built in 1930, and over the years at least five documented major additions enlarged the building to the current 19,471 square foot, single-story building by 1993. All the classrooms are at least 33 years old. Building Envelope Building Envelope: Walls Wall Type Description Insulation Notes Above-grade main Wood-framed with 2x8 studs spaced 16-inches on center. R-24 fiberglass batt. Some wall sections in main building may be 2x6, R-21. Sections of wall built in 1930, 1955, 1973, 1979, and 1993. Gym Structural steel spaced 20 ft on center. Insulated panels with approximately 4 inches of unspecified rigid insulation. Built in 1973 and remodeled in 1982. Basement 8” concrete blocks (CMU) None. South wall is partially composed of a railroad tie retaining wall. Built in 1930. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 7 Above-grade crawlspace Wood-framed with 2x6 studs spaced 16-inches on center. R-21 batt insulation. Older crawlspace walls may have R-19 or less insulation. Sections of wall built in 1955, 1979, and 1993. Below-grade crawlspace Wood-framed with 2x6 studs spaced 16-inches on center. R-21 batt insulation in stud bays plus rigid insulation installed on the exterior. Additional rigid insulation is installed horizontally, sloping away from the building. Sections of wall built in 1955, 1979, and 1993. Building Envelope: Floors Floor Type Description Insulation Notes Basement Concrete slab. None. None. Crawlspace Bare earth. None. Separate crawlspaces for each addition. Gym and gym addition Concrete slab with slab-edge insulation. R-20 rigid insulation on slab edge. None. Building Envelope: Roof Roof Type Description Insulation Notes Gym Structural insulated roof panels. 8 inches of unspecified rigid insulation. Insufficient roof ventilation causes cold roof to function as hot roof. Main Wood-framed attic R-60 batt insulation. Sections of roof framing built in 1955, 1979, and 1993. Re-roofed in 1993. Building Envelope: Doors and Windows Door and Window Type Description Estimated R-Value Notes All Doors Metal insulated doors with either half-lite, quarter-lite or no glazing. R-1.7, R-2.0, R-2.7 All doors need weatherstripping. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 8 Heating and Ventilation Systems Seven oil-fired furnaces provide heat and ventilation to the building. Each furnace is controlled by a non-programmable thermostat. • Furnace 1 serves the cafeteria, kitchen, and kitchen prep area. • Furnace 2 serves hallway 4, classrooms 101 and 102, the restrooms 2, janitors, rooms 105 and 106, and the offices. • Furnace 3 serves classrooms 103 and 104, restrooms 1, the art room, the staff room, hallway 3, and the library. • Furnaces 4 and 5 serves the gym, although currently furnace 5 is out of order. • Furnace 6 serves the gym locker rooms. • Furnace 7 serves hallway 1 and classroom 109. Furnaces 4 through 7 also provide outside air using manually-adjustable dampers. Air Conditioning System No air conditioning system is installed in the building and economizer cooling cannot be used with the existing ventilation system. Energy Management There is no energy management system in the building. The school is reducing electricity use by converting from T12 lamps to T8 lamps and the gym has already been retrofitted to high-bay fluorescent fixtures. Lighting Systems The building is lit with a variety of fluorescent fixtures and T12 or T8 lamps. Exterior lighting is high pressure sodium lamps in a variety of fixtures. Domestic Hot Water An oil-fired hot water heater supplies Domestic Hot Water (DHW) to the school. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 9 3.0 BENCHMARKING 2010 UTILITY DATA Benchmarking building energy use consists of obtaining and then analyzing two years of energy bills. The original utility bills are necessary to determine the raw usage, and charges as well as to evaluate the utility’s rate structure. The metered usage of electrical and natural gas consumption is measured monthly, but heating oil, propane, wood, and other energy sources are normally billed upon delivery and provide similar information. During benchmarking, information is compiled in a way that standardizes the units of energy and creates energy use and billing rate information statistics for the building on a square foot basis. The objectives of benchmarking are: • to understand patterns of use, • to understand building operational characteristics, • for comparison with other similar facilities in Alaska and across the country, and • to offer insight in to potential energy savings. The results of the benchmarking, including the energy use statistics and comparisons to other areas, are discussed in the following sections. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 10 3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School. In 2010, the school used 2,100 mmBTUs of energy, which cost $93,304. These charts show the portion of use for a fuel type and the portion of its cost. The above charts indicate that the highest portion of energy use and the highest portion of cost is for oil. Fuel oil consumption correlates directly to space heating and domestic hot water while electrical use can correlate to lighting systems, plug loads, and HVAC equipment. The energy type with the highest cost often provides the most opportunity for savings. Electric MMBtu, 206 10% Oil MMBtu, 1,860 88% Propane MMBtu, 34.00, 2% 2010 Actual Energy Use Total Electric Cost, $32,198 35% Oil Cost, $57,121 61% Propane Cost, $3,985 4% 2010 Actual Energy Cost Total Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 11 3.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated from the utility bills and provides a simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by the building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use for the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into British Thermal Units (BTUs). This total annual usage is then divided by the number of square feet of the building. The EUI units are BTUs per square foot per year. The benchmark analysis found that the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary school has an EUI of 107,900 BTUs per square foot per year, 73% higher than the EUI of typical Fairbanks schools. The EUI is useful in comparing this building’s energy use to that of other similar buildings in Alaska and in the Continental United States. The EUI can be compared to average energy use in 2003 found in a study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration of commercial buildings (abbreviated CBECS, 2006). That report found an overall average energy use of about 90,000 BTUs per square foot per year while studying about 6,000 commercial buildings of all sizes, types, and uses that were located all over the Continental U.S. (see Table C3 in Appendix I). In a recent and unpublished state-wide benchmarking study sponsored by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, schools in Fairbanks averaged 62,000 BTUs per square foot and schools in Anchorage averaged 123,000 BTUs per square foot annual energy use. The chart below shows the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary relative to these values. These findings are discussed further in Appendix H. 107,900 62,200 123,400 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 Btu/ Sq. Ft Annual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF) Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 12 3.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 Another benchmarking statistic that is useful is the Cost Utilization Index (CUI), which is the cost for energy used in the building on a square foot basis per year. The CUI is calculated from the cost for utilities for a year period. The CUI permits comparison of buildings on total energy cost even though they may be located in areas with differing energy costs and differing heating and/or cooling climates. The cost of energy, including heating oil, natural gas, and electricity, can vary greatly over time and geographic location and can be higher in Alaska than other parts of the country. The CUI for Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary school is about $4.79 per square foot, almost twice that of Fairbanks-area schools. This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the following rates: Electricity at $ 0.54/ kWh ($15.82 /therm) # 1 Fuel Oil at $ 4.30 / gallon ($ 3.18 /therm) Propane at $ 10.56 / gallon ($11.52 /therm). The Department of Energy Administration study, mentioned in the previous section (CBECS, 2006) found an average cost of $2.52 per square foot in 2003 for 4,400 buildings in the Continental U.S (Tables C4 and C13 of CBDES, 2006). Schools in Fairbanks have an average cost for energy of $2.42 per square foot while Anchorage schools average $2.11 per square foot. The chart below shows the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary school relative to these values. More details are included in Appendix H. $4.79 $2.42 $2.11 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 Annual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF) Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 13 3.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns Energy consumption is often highly correlated with seasonal climate and usage variations. The graphs below show the electric and fuel consumption of this building over the course of two years. The lowest monthly use is called the baseline use. The electric baseline often reflects year round lighting consumption. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of cold weather can be seen in the months with higher usage. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 May-08Jul-08Sep-08Nov-08Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11KWH Electrical Consumption 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 May-08Jul-08Sep-08Nov-08Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11Gallons Fuel Oil Deliveries 0 10 20 30 40 50 May-08Jul-08Sep-08Nov-08Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11May-11Gallons Propane Consumption Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 14 3.5 Future Energy Monitoring Energy accounting is the process of tracking energy consumption and costs. It is important for the building owner or manager to monitor and record both the energy usage and cost each month. Comparing trends over time can assist in pinpointing major sources of energy usage and aid in finding effective energy efficiency measures. There are two basic methods of energy accounting: manual and automatic. Manual tracking of energy usage may already be performed by an administrative assistant: however if the records are not scrutinized for energy use, then the data is merely a financial accounting. Digital energy tracking systems can be installed. They display and record real-time energy usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are several types which have all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 15 4.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS After benchmarking of a building is complete and the site visit has identified the specific systems in the building, a number of different methods are available for quantifying the overall energy consumption and to model the energy use. These range from relatively simple spreadsheets to commercially available modeling software capable of handling complex building systems. NORTECH has used several of these programs and uses the worksheets and software that best matches the complexity of the building and specific energy use that is being evaluated. Modeling of an energy efficiency measure (EEM) requires an estimate of the current energy used by the specific feature, the estimated energy use of the proposed EEM and its installed cost. EEMs can range from a single simple upgrade, such as light bulb type or type of motor, to reprogramming of the controls on more complex systems. While the need for a major retrofit can typically be identified by an energy audit, the specific system upgrades often require collecting additional data and engineering and design efforts that are beyond the scope of the Level II energy audit. Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators, auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. Common EEMs that could apply to almost every older building include: • Reduce the envelope heat losses through: o increased building insulation, and o better windows and doors • Reduce temperature difference between inside and outside using setback thermostats • Upgrade inefficient: o lights, o motors, o refrigeration units, and o other appliances • Reduce running time of lights/appliances through: o motion sensors, o on/off timers, o light sensors, and o other automatic/programmable systems The objective of the following sections is to describe how the overall energy use of the building was modeled and the potential for energy savings. The specific EEMs that provide these overall energy savings are detailed in Appendix A of this report. While the energy savings of an EEM is unlikely to change significantly over time, the cost savings of an EEM is highly dependent on the current energy price and can vary significantly over time. An EEM that is not currently recommended based on price may be more attractive at a later date or with higher energy prices. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 16 4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary. The AkWarm program was developed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to model residential energy use. The original AkWarm is the modeling engine behind the successful residential energy upgrade program that AHFC has operated for a number of years. In the past few years, AHFC has developed a version of this model for commercial buildings. Energy use in buildings is modeled by calculating energy losses and consumption, such as: • Heat lost through the building envelope components, including windows, doors, walls, ceilings, crawlspaces, and foundations. These heat losses are computed for each component based on the area, heat resistance (R-value), and the difference between the inside temperature and the outside temperature. AkWarm has a library of temperature profiles for villages and cities in Alaska. • Window orientation, such as the fact that south facing windows can add heat in the winter but north-facing windows do not. • Inefficiencies of the heating system, including the imperfect conversion of fuel oil or natural gas due to heat loss in exhaust gases, incomplete combustion, excess air, etc. Some electricity is also consumed in moving the heat around a building through pumping. • Inefficiencies of the cooling system, if one exists, due to various imperfections in a mechanical system and the required energy to move the heat around. • Lighting requirements and inefficiencies in the conversion of electricity to light; ultimately all of the power used for lighting is converted to heat. While the heat may be useful in the winter, it often isn’t useful in the summer when cooling may be required to remove the excess heat. Lights are modeled by wattage and operational hours. • Use and inefficiencies in refrigeration, compressor cooling, and heat pumps. Some units are more efficient than others. Electricity is required to move the heat from inside a compartment to outside it. Again, this is a function of the R-Value and the temperature difference between the inside and outside of the unit. • Plug loads such as computers, printers, mini-fridges, microwaves, portable heaters, monitors, etc. These can be a significant part of the overall electricity consumption of the building, as well as contributing to heat production. • The schedule of operation for lights, plug loads, motors, etc is a critical component of how much energy is used. AkWarm adds up these heat losses and the internal heat gains based on individual unit usage schedules. These estimated heat and electrical usages are compared to actual use on both a yearly and seasonal basis. If the AkWarm model is within 5 % to 10% of the most recent 12 months usage identified during benchmarking, the model is considered accurate enough to make predictions of energy savings for possible EEMs. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 17 4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators, auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes recommendations based on the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR), which is defined as ratio of the savings generated over the life of the EEM divided by the installed cost. Higher SIR values are better and any SIR above one is considered acceptable. If the SIR of an EEM is below one, the energy savings will not pay for the cost of the EEM and the EEM is not recommended. Preferred EEMs are listed by AkWarm in order of the highest SIR. A summary of the savings from the recommended EEMs are listed in this table. Description Space Heating Water Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other Electrical Cooking Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Total Existing Building $54,299 $739 $16,651 $2,471 $8,021 $4,100 $0 $1,808 $88,089 With All Proposed Retrofits $38,751 $689 $7,209 $803 $8,021 $4,100 $0 $1,808 $61,378 Savings $15,548 $50 $9,442 $1,668 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,711 Savings in these categories do not reflect interaction with other categories. So, for example, the savings in lighting does not affect the added space heating cost to make up for the heat saved in replacing less-efficient lights with more-efficient lights that waste less heat. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 18 4.3 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in space heating and lighting. The energy cost by end use breakdown was provided by AkWarm based on the field inspection and does not indicate that all individual fixtures and appliances were directly measured. The current energy costs are shown below on the left hand bar of the graph and the projected energy costs, assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the right. This graphical format allows easy visual comparison of the various energy requirements of the facility. In the event that not all recommended retrofits are desired, the proposal energy savings can be estimated from visual interpretation from this graph. $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Existing Retrofit Annual Energy Cost By End Use Aunti Mary Nicoli Elementary School Ventilation Fans Clothes Drying Cooking Other Electrical Lighting Water Heating Refrigeration Space Heating Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 19 4.4 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm The AkWarm program effectively models wood-framed and other buildings with standard heating systems and relatively simple HVAC systems. AkWarm models of more complicated mechanical systems are sometimes poor due to a number of simplifying assumptions and limited input of some variables. Furthermore, AKWarm is unable to model complex HVAC systems such as variable frequency motors, variable air volume (VAV) systems, those with significant digital or pneumatic controls or significant heat recovery capacity. In addition, some other building methods and occupancies are outside AkWarm capabilities. This report section is included in order to identify benefits from modifications to those more complex systems or changes in occupant behavior that cannot be addressed in AkWarm. The Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary could be modeled well in AKWarm. Despite the number of furnaces installed in Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School, retrofits for the HVAC system were adequately modeled in AkWarm and did not require additional calculations. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 20 5.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) 5.1 Operations and Maintenance A well-implemented operation and maintenance (O & M) plan is often the driving force behind energy savings. Such a plan includes preserving institutional knowledge, directing preventative maintenance, and scheduling regular inspections of each piece of HVAC equipment within the building. Routine maintenance includes the timely replacement of filters, belts and pulleys, the proper greasing of bearings and other details such as topping off the glycol tanks. Additional benefits to a maintenance plan are decreased down time for malfunctioning equipment, early indications of problems, prevention of exacerbated maintenance issues, and early detection of overloading/overheating issues. A good maintenance person knows the building’s equipment well enough to spot and repair minor malfunctions before they become major retrofits. Operations and Maintenance staff implementing a properly designed O & M plan will: • Track and document o Renovations and repairs, o Utility bills and fuel consumption, and o System performance. • Keep available for reference o A current Building Operating Plan including an inventory of installed systems, o The most recent available as-built drawings, o Reference manuals for all installed parts and systems, and o An up-to-date inventory of on-hand replacement parts. • Provide training and continuing education for maintenance personnel. • Plan for commissioning and re-commissioning at appropriate intervals. 5.2 Commissioning Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems perform within the design or usage ranges of the Building Operating Plan. This process ideally, though seldom, occurs as the last phase in construction. HVAC system operation parameters degrade from ideal over time due to incorrect maintenance, improper replacement pumps, changes in facility tenants or usage, changes in schedules, and changes in energy costs or loads. Ideally, re-commissioning of a building should occur every five to ten years. This ensures that the HVAC system meets the potentially variable use with the most efficient means. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 21 5.3 Building Specific Recommendations Replace the ceiling-mounted fan in the gym with a quieter, more efficient model designed to reduce heat stratification near cathedral ceilings. The existing fan is effective, but often shut down due to the irritation the noise and vibration causes occupants. Reducing heat stratification is essential to reducing heat loss costs. Keep heat vents clear of obstruction. Every classroom has heating vents either all or partially obscured by school supplies or furniture, which prevents the proper and comfortable distribution of heat. Improved heat distribution will result in improved comfort levels in the classrooms at lower thermostat temperature set points, saving energy. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 22 APPENDICES Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 23 Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures A number of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) are available to reduce the energy use and overall operating cost for the facility. The EEMs listed below are those recommended by AkWarm based on the calculated savings/investment ration (SIR) as described in Appendix E. AkWarm also provides a breakeven cost, which is the maximum initial cost of the EEM that will still return a SIR of one or greater. This section describes each recommended EEM and identifies the potential energy savings and installation costs. This also details the calculation of breakeven costs, simple payback, and the SIR for each recommendation. The recommended EEMs are grouped together generally by the overall end use that will be impacted. A.1 Temperature Control Replace the existing nonprogrammable thermostats with programmable thermostats. • Install the new programmable thermostats in the same place as the old thermostats for Furnaces 1 through 3, and • Install one programmable thermostat in to control the new gym furnace and Furnaces 6 and 7. The thermostat should be installed in the gym near the hallway entrance from the main building. Programmable thermostats allow for automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks. Reduction of the nighttime temperature set point from 70 F to 60 F from 3:00 pm to 7:00 am weekdays and all weekend throughout the building will decrease the energy usage. Rank Building Space Recommendation 1 Building Install four programmable thermostats and institute an unoccupied temperature setback to 60 F. Installation Cost $1,400 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $10,953 Breakeven Cost $148,406 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 106 Simple Payback (yr) 0 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 24 A.2 Electrical Loads A.2.1 Lighting The electricity used by lighting eventually ends up as heat in the building. In areas where electricity is more expensive than other forms of energy, or in areas where the summer temperatures require cooling; this additional heat can be both wasteful and costly. Converting to more efficient lighting reduces cooling loads in the summer and allows the user to control heat input in the winter. The conversion from T12 (one and a half inch fluorescent bulbs) to T8 (one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED bulbs provides a significant increase in efficiency. LED bulbs can be directly placed in existing fixtures. The LED bulb bypasses the ballast altogether, which removes the often irritating, “buzzing” noise that magnetic ballasts tend to make. The following retrofits are from T12 lamps to direct-replacement LED lamps. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 2 Hallways and Vestibules 4 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $660 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $919 Breakeven Cost $13,713 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.9 Simple Payback (yr) 4 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 19 Classrooms and Office 48 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 48 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $8,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,228 Breakeven Cost $15,151 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yr) 7 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 21 Classrooms and Office 8 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace existing 40W T12 lamps with 8 LED (4) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic Installation Cost $8,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,228 Breakeven Cost $15,151 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yr) 7 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 24 Classrooms and Office 8 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 8 LED (4) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic Installation Cost $2,520 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $354 Breakeven Cost $4,364 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yr) 7 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 25 The following retrofits are from 32W T8 lamps to 25W T8 lamps. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 23 Library 20 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 20 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $3,300 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $333 Breakeven Cost $4,101 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yr) 10 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 26 Cafeteria 29 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace with 29 LED (2) 17W Module StdElectronic Installation Cost $4,790 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $402 Breakeven Cost $4,952 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr) 12 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 9 Hallways and Vestibules 12 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 12 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $156 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $111 Breakeven Cost $686 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.4 Simple Payback (yr) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 10 Hallways and Vestibules 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $78 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $55 Breakeven Cost $343 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.4 Simple Payback (yr) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 13 Classrooms and Office 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard (2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 15 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $315 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $144 Breakeven Cost $876 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.8 Simple Payback (yr) 2 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 26 The following retrofits apply occupancy-based or photocell-based lighting controls to rooms and hallways. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 16 Bathrooms 16 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard (2) EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 16 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver (2) Program StdElectronic Installation Cost $496 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $195 Breakeven Cost $1,183 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.4 Simple Payback (yr) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 17 Classrooms and Office 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Replace existing 32W T8 lamps with 18 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic Installation Cost $234 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $84 Breakeven Cost $514 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback (yr) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 3 Classrooms and Office 48 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard Magnetic with Manual Switching Install an occupancy sensor with a built-in photocell in each classroom. Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,880 Breakeven Cost $11,425 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 12 Simple Payback (yr) 0 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 4 Cafeteria 29 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $490 Breakeven Cost $2,976 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.9 Simple Payback (yr) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 5 Lighting: Bathrooms Manual Switching Install an occupancy sensor in each bathroom. Installation Cost $800 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $932 Breakeven Cost $6,149 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.7 Simple Payback (yr) 1 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 27 A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads Replacing the existing upright freezers with inherently more efficient chest freezers of similar capacity saves energy. The EEM is particularly useful for schools off the road system because more freezers are necessary and freezers are typically operational year-round. A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change A.3.1 Exterior Walls No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits uneconomical. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 8 Library 20 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor, Daylight Sensor Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $236 Breakeven Cost $1,435 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.8 Simple Payback (yr) 1 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 11 Hallways and Vestibules 12 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $105 Breakeven Cost $647 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.2 Simple Payback (yr) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 14 Gym 24 FLUOR (2) T12 8' F96T12 60W Energy- Saver EfficMagnetic with Manual Switching Add new Occupancy Sensor and Improve Manual Switching Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $128 Breakeven Cost $774 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.6 Simple Payback (yr) 2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 7 Refrigeration: Kitchen Upright freezers used year-round. Replace 2 existing upright freezers with 2 inherently more efficient chest freezers. Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,283 Breakeven Cost $8,465 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.2 Simple Payback (yr) 1.6 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 28 A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits uneconomical. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 6 Basement Wall Type: Masonry Insul. Sheathing: None known Masonry Wall: Concrete block, 2 core Modeled R-Value: 4.3 Install R-21batt insulation on interior of basement wall Installation Cost $6,469 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,215 Breakeven Cost $52,415 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.1 Simple Payback (yr) 3 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 20 Below-ground portion of crawlspace wall. Wall Type: All Weather Wood Insul. Sheathing: XPS (Blue/Pink Foam), 2 inches Framed Wall: 2 x 6, 16" on center None Insulation Quality: Damaged Modeled R-Value: 14.1 Install R-14 rigid insulation on crawlspace wall Installation Cost $3,971 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $310 Breakeven Cost $6,971 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yr) 13 Adding insulation to the interior face of the crawlspace wall is economical only if the building is occupied for the full 30-year life of the retrofit. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 24 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Crawlspace Insulation for 0' to 2' Perimeter: None Insulation for 2' to 4' Perimeter: None Modeled R-Value: 7.2 Install 4' of R-10 rigid board insulation on Perimeter of Crawl Space Floor. Installation Cost $11,475 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $545 Breakeven Cost $12,234 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yr) 21 Adding perimeter insulation to the floor of the crawlspace is economical only if the building is occupied for the full 30-year life of the retrofit. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 29 A.3.4 Windows Classrooms with window walls are significantly over-glazed. Converting approximately 50% of the window area in each classroom with window walls to insulated wall area reduces heat loss while still meeting egress and daylight requirements. Otherwise, typical window retrofits were uneconomic. However, performing a maintenance inspection and minor repairs on the windows could reduce infiltration and further reduce energy costs. A.3.5 Doors Due to the inability of AkWarm to quantify air leakage due to malfunctioning doors, some door EEMs were unsuccessful. However, blower door-directed repairs to the doors, as per section A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening, may result in significant ventilation savings not quantifiable within the scope of this audit. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 18 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Crawlspace Classroom windows Remove every other column of windows in classrooms with window walls and replace with insulated wall. Installation Cost $12,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,071 Breakeven Cost $23,987 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yr) 11.2 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 12 Half-lite exterior door Door Type: Entrance, Metal, EPS core, metal edge, half-lite Modeled R-Value: 1.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $3,292 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $408 Breakeven Cost $9,646 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.9 Simple Payback (yr) 8 Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 15 Quarter-lite exterior door Door Type: Entrance, Metal, EPS core, metal edge, quarter lite Modeled R-Value: 2 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $603 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $61 Breakeven Cost $1,448 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.4 Simple Payback (yr) 10 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 30 A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution AkWarm procedures place the following HVAC and DHW retrofits into one recommendation: • Replace the existing furnaces 4 and 5 with a single high-efficiency furnace and ancillary components. • Reduce DHW consumption by fitting existing hand wash fixtures with low-flow faucet restrictors. Install New High Efficiency Furnace, Ductwork and Dampers Furnaces 4 and 5 are over thirty years old, comparatively inefficient, used frequently, difficult to access, and hard to repair. Replacing the two gym ceiling-mounted furnaces with a single high- efficiency furnace installed in what is now one of two gym storage rooms will save an estimated $2,691 a year in energy costs, while reducing maintenance expenses. Both installing the furnace supply, return and outside air vents and dampers in compliance with ASHRAE best practices, and eliminating a stack will offer further savings by reducing heat stratification near the ceiling, controlling outside air, and reducing stack losses. Furnaces 6 and 7, which heat the locker rooms and one rarely-used classroom, are also about thirty years old, but the reduced heating demand in comparison to furnaces 4 and 5 suggests retrofitting to newer high efficiency furnaces may not be economical. Low-flow Faucet Fittings Retrofitting handwash fixtures with 0.5 Gallons Per Minute (gpm) aerated flow-restrictors will cut the estimated DHW consumption by at least 5%. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 22 Flush exterior door Door Type: Entrance, Metal, EPS core, metal edge, no glass Modeled R-Value: 2.7 Remove existing door and install standard pre-hung U-0.16 insulated door, including hardware. Installation Cost $603 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $40 Breakeven Cost $898 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 15 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 31 A.4.2 Air Conditioning No EEMS are recommended in this area because Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary School does not have any air conditioning. However, the existing furnaces supplying fresh air are capable of providing some economizer cooling if necessary. A.4.3 Ventilation A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening No EEMs are recommended in this area because of the difficulty of quantifying the amount of leaking air and the savings. However, by using a blower door to depressurize the building and an infra-red camera, the location of significant air leaks can be determined so they can be repaired. Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation 20 Gym 1) 30 y.o ceiling–mounted furnaces 4 and 5 w/ a. separate fixed-position outside air dampers. b. separate exhaust stack and oil burner c. ceiling-mounted caged fan to reduce heat stratification near ceiling, fan is frequently shut down due to noise and vibration. d. no nameplate data 2) 2.0 to 2.2 gpm fixtures 1) Replace ceiling mounted furnaces 4 and 5 and existing ceiling fan with single HE furnace installed in existing storage room, along with ancillary components 2) Flow reducers on existing handwash fixtures save 5% of hot water consumption. Installation Cost $20,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $2,691 Breakeven Cost $46,829 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yr) 7 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 32 Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended As indicated in other sections of the report, a number of potential EEMs were identified that were determined to be NOT cost effective by the AkWarm model. These EEMs are not currently recommended on the basis of energy savings alone because each may only save a small amount of energy, have a high capital cost, or be expensive to install. While each of these EEMs is not cost effective at this time, future changes in building use such as longer operating hours, higher energy prices, new fixtures or hardware on the market, and decreases in installation effort may make any of these EEMs cost effective in the future. These potential EEMs should be reviewed periodically to identify any changes to these factors that would warrant re-evaluation. Although these upgrades are not currently cost effective on an energy cost basis, the fixtures, hardware, controls, or operational changes described in these EEMs should be considered when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other reasons. For example, replacing an existing window with a triple-pane window may not be cost effective based only on energy use, but if a window is going to be replaced for some other reason, then the basis for a decision is only the incremental cost of upgrading from a less efficient replacement window to a more efficient replacement window. That incremental cost difference will have a significantly shorter payback, especially since the installation costs are likely to be the same for both units. The following measures were not found to be cost-effective: Rank Feature/Location Improvement Description Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost Savings to Investment Ratio, SIR Simple Payback (Years) 31 Lighting: Hallways and Vestibules Add new Occupancy Sensor $31 $200 0.96 6.4 32 Above-Grade Wall: Crawlspace AG Add R-14 rigid to rim joist of above grade wall $508 $13,131 0.92 26 33 Lighting: Bathrooms Replace with 6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $11 $78 0.84 7.2 34 Window/Skylight: Cafeteria Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window $13 $419 0.56 31 35 Window/Skylight: Mech 1 Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window $63 $1,962 0.56 31 36 Window/Skylight: Kitchen Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window $44 $1,364 0.56 31 37 Window/Skylight: Bathrooms 2 Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window $50 $1,556 0.56 31 38 Window/Skylight: Classrooms Replace existing window with U- 0.22 vinyl window $1,284 $39,764 0.56 31 39 Window/Skylight: Cafeteria Replace existing window with U- 0.30 vinyl window $95 $3,716 0.45 39 40 Lighting: Bathrooms Replace with 16 LED (4) 17W Module (2) StdElectronic $174 $5,100 0.42 29 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 33 41 Lighting: Bathrooms Add new Occupancy Sensor $10 $200 0.31 20 42 Window/Skylight: Library, Staff Workroom, Art Room Install single pane storm window on exterior $41 $2,791 0.26 68 43 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Perimeter: Basement Install R-5 insulation on perimeter of basement floor $50 $4,683 0.25 94 44 Above-Grade Wall: Gym Install R-5 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. $360 $44,987 0.19 130 45 Above-Grade Wall: Main wall Install R-5 rigid foam board to exterior and cover with T1-11 siding or equivalent. $623 $117,487 0.13 190 46 Window/Skylight: Classrooms Install single pane storm window on exterior $7 $1,159 0.11 160 47 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Center: Crawlspace Install R-5 insulation on center of basement floor $250 $56,059 0.11 220 48 On- or Below-Grade Floor, Center: Basement Install R-5 insulation on center of basement floor $15 $6,064 0.06 403 Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 34 Appendix C Significant Equipment List HVAC Equipment Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Notes Furnaces 1 and 2 Allied Air LBR-80C 112/125D20-3A #1 Fuel Oil ¾ HP four-speed Emerson supply fan. Furnace 3 Allied Air LHF-80C 112/125D20-3A #1 Fuel Oil No nameplate on motor. Installed in 1979. Furnaces 4 and 5 Lennox 05G-350 #1 Fuel Oil ¾ HP supply fan, 2450 CFM capacity, OA 40% open Furnaces 6 and 7 Lennox 057-105 #1 Fuel Oil No nameplate on motor. Installed in 1979. Hot Water Heater Bock 32E #1 Fuel Oil None. Gym Ceiling Fan n/a n/a - Caged fan vibrates noisily. Bathroom Exhaust Fans (2) Broan n/a - Manual switch. Bathroom Exhaust Fans (2) Penn Zephyr - Manual switch. Locker Rooms Exhaust Fan Pace U-13F - Never used. Manual switch located in upstairs mechanical room. Lighting Location Lighting Type Lamp Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR Classrooms and Office, Gym, Library, Bathrooms, Locker Rooms, Hallways and Vestibules, Caféteria and Kitchen, and Low Use Utility Areas Fluorescent 4’ T12 356 21,900 $ 11,826 Classrooms and Office, Gym, Library, Bathrooms, Locker Rooms, Hallways and Vestibules Fluorescent T8 155 5,700 3,078 Gym Fluorescent 8’ T12 48 3,100 1,674 Exterior High Pressure Sodium 70 W 5 2,900 1,566 Low Use Utility Areas Incandescent A-lamps 13 80 43 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.54/kWh Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 35 Plug Loads Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR (29) Computer Towers Classrooms, Offices, Media Room Various 4,450 $ 2,403 (2) Upright Freezer Kitchen Kenmore 3,300 1,782 Manlift Gym Workforce 3,000 1,620 Smartboards Classrooms Various 2,000 1,080 Server Rack Library Various 1,840 994 TVs Building-wide Various 930 502 (3) Full-Size Refrigerator/Freezer Staff Room, Kitchen varies 880 475 Computer Monitors Classrooms, Offices, Media Room Various 790 427 Coffee Pot Staff Room, Kitchen Various 790 427 Laptop Station Classrooms Bretford 550 297 Mini R/F Staff Room Haier 390 211 (3) Microwaves Building-wide Various 200 108 Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.54/kWh Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 36 Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure The information in this section was provided directly from the local utility or gathered from the local utility’s publicly available information at the time of the audit. All language used in this section was provided by the local utility and believed to be current at the time of the audit. Energy use terms, specific fees, and other specific information are subject to change. Updated rate structure information should be gathered from the utility during future discussion of rates, rate structures and utility pricing agreements. Aniak Light and Power Commercial Rate Structure Rate Component Unit Charge Customer Charge (0-67 kWh usage) $30.38 First 1600 kWh $0.4532 per kWh Balance over 1600 Kwh $0.4070 per kWh Regulatory Cost Charge (RCC) $0.000492 per kWh Average Rate (Auntie Mary Nicoli School) $0.54 per kWh Customer Charge A flat fee that covers costs for meter reading, billing and customer service. Utility Charge (kWh charge) This charge is multiplied by the number of kilowatt-hours (kWh) used in a monthly billing period. It covers the costs to maintain power plants and substations, interest on loans as well as wires, power poles and transformers. Regulatory Charge This charge of .000492 per kWh is set by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Since November 1, 1992, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska has been funded by a Regulatory Charge to the utilities it regulates rather than through the State general fund. The charge, labeled "Regulatory Cost Charge." on your bill, is set by the RCA, and applies to all retail kilowatt-hours sold by regulated electric utilities in Alaska. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 37 Appendix E Analysis Methodology Data collected was processed using AkWarm energy use software to estimate current energy consumption by end usage and calculate energy savings for each of the proposed energy efficiency measures (EEMs). In addition, separate analysis may have been conducted to evaluate EEMs that AkWarm cannot effectively model to evaluate potential reductions in annual energy consumption. Analyses were conducted under the direct supervision of a Certified Energy Auditor, Certified Energy Manager, or a Professional Engineer. EEMs are evaluated based on building use, maintenance and processes, local climate conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule and existing conditions. Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering estimations. Each model created in AkWarm is carefully compared to existing utility usage obtained from utility bills. The AkWarm analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the cost effectiveness of various improvement options. The primary assessment value used in this audit report is the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). The SIR is a method of cost analysis that compares the total cost savings through reduced energy consumption to the total cost of a project over its assumed lifespan, including both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Other measurement methods include Simple Payback, which is defined as the length of time it takes for the savings to equal the total installed cost and Breakeven Cost, which is defined as the highest cost that would yield a Savings/Investment Ratio of one. EEMs are recommended by AkWarm in order of cost-effectiveness. AkWarm first calculates individual SIRs for each EEM, and then ranks the EEMs by SIR, with higher SIRs at the top of the list. An individual EEM must have a SIR greater than or equal to one in order to be recommended by AkWarm . Next AkWarm modifies the building model to include the installation of the first EEM and then re-simulates the energy use. Then the remaining EEMs are re- evaluated and ranked again. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all suggested EEMs have been evaluated. Under this iterative review process, the savings for each recommended EEM is calculated based on the implementation of the other, more cost effective EEMs first. Therefore, the implementation of one EEM affects the savings of other EEMs that are recommended later. The savings from any one individual EEM may be relatively higher if the individual EEM is implemented without the other recommended EEMs. For example, implementing a reduced operating schedule for inefficient lighting may result in relatively higher savings than implementing the same reduced operating schedule for newly installed lighting that is more efficient. If multiple EEMs are recommended, AkWarm calculates a combined savings. Inclusion of recommendations for energy savings outside the capability of AkWarm will impact the actual savings from the AkWarm projections. This will almost certainly result in lower energy savings and monetary savings from AkWarm recommendations. The reality is that only so much energy is consumed in a building. Energy savings from one EEM reduces the amount of energy that can be saved from additional EEMs. For example, installation of a lower wattage light bulb does not save energy or money if the bulb is never turned on because of a schedule or operational change at the facility. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 38 Appendix F Audit Limitations The results of this audit are dependent on the input data provided and can only act as an approximation. In some instances, several EEMs or installation methods may achieve the identified potential savings. Actual savings will depend on the EEM selected, the price of energy, and the final installation and implementation methodology. Competent tradesmen and professional engineers may be required to design, install, or otherwise implement some of the recommended EEMs. This document is an energy use audit report and is not intended as a final design document, operation, and maintenance manual, or to take the place of any document provided by a manufacturer or installer of any device described in this report. Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each EEM. Estimated costs include labor and equipment for the full up-front investment required to implement the EEM. The listed installation costs within the report are conceptual budgetary estimates and should not be used as design estimates. The estimated costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry publications, local contractors and equipment suppliers, and the professional judgment of the CEA writing the report and based on the conditions at the time of the audit. Cost and energy savings are approximations and are not guaranteed. Additional significant energy savings can usually be found with more detailed auditing techniques that include actual measurements of electrical use, temperatures in the building and HVAC ductwork, intake and exhaust temperatures, motor runtime and scheduling, and infrared, air leakage to name just a few. Implementation of these techniques is the difference between a Level III Energy Audit and the Level II Audit that has been conducted. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 39 Appendix G References Although not all documents listed below are specifically referenced in this report, each contains information and insights considered valuable to most buildings. Alaska Department of Education and Early Development; Education Support Services/Facilities. (1999). Alaska School Facilities Preventative Maintenance Handbook. Juneau, AK: Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. Alaska Housing Finance Corportation. (2010). Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans. AHFC. ASHRAE. (1997). 1997 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 105-2007 Expressing and Comparing Building Energy Performance. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 Ventilaton for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Energy Standards for buildings Except Low- Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org ASHRAE RP-669 and SP-56. (2004). Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. Coad, W. J. (1982). Energy Engineering and Management for Building Systems. Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Daley, D. T. (2008). The Little Black Book of Reliability Management. New York, NY: Industrial Press, Inc. Federal Energy Management Program. (2004, March 3). Demand Controlled Ventilation Using CO2 Sensors. Retrieved 2011, from US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_co2.pdf Federal Energy Management Program. (2006, April 26). Low-Energy Building Design Guidelines. Retrieved 2011, from Department of Energy; Federal Energy Management Program: http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/ Institute, E. a. (2004). Variable Speed Pumping: A Guide to Successful Applications. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Advanced Technology. International Code Council. (2009). International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills, IL: International Code Council, Inc. Leach, M., Lobato, C., Hirsch, A., Pless, S., & Torcellini, P. (2010, September). Technical Support Document: Strategies for 50% Energy Savings in Large Office Buildings. Retrieved 2011, from National Renewable Energy Laboratory: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49213.pdf Thumann, P.E., C.E.M., A., Younger, C.E.M., W. J., & Niehus, P.E., C.E.M., T. (2010). Handbook of Energy Audits Eighth Edition. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc. U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2006). Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). Retrieved 2011, from Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/ Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 40 Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage This report provides data on typical energy costs and use on selected building in Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska for comparative purposes only. The values provided by the US Energy Information Administration CBECS study included a broader range of building types for the Continental U.S. are not necessarily good comparatives for buildings and conditions in Alaska. An assortment of values from CBECS may be found in Appendix I. The Alaska data described in this report came from a benchmarking study NORTECH and other Technical Services Providers (TSPs) completed on publicly owned buildings in Alaska under contract with AHFC. This study acquired actual utility data for municipal buildings and schools in Alaska for the two recent full years. The utility data included costs and quantities including fuel oil, electricity, propane, wood, steam, and all other energy source usage. This resulted in a database of approximately 900 buildings. During the course of the benchmarking study, the comparisons made to the CBECS data appeared to be inappropriate for various reasons. Therefore, this energy use audit report references the average energy use and energy cost of Anchorage and Fairbanks buildings as described below. The Alaska benchmarking data was evaluated in order to find valid comparison data. Buildings with major energy use information missing were eliminated from the data pool. After detailed scrutiny of the data, the most complete information was provided to NORTECH by the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD) and the Anchorage School District (ASD). The data sets from these two sources included both the actual educational facilities as well as the district administrative buildings and these are grouped together in this report as Fairbanks and Anchorage schools. These two sources of information, being the most complete and reasonable in-state information, have been used to identify an average annual energy usage for Fairbanks and for Anchorage in order to provide a comparison for other facilities in Alaska. Several factors may limit the comparison of a specific facility to these regional indicators. In Fairbanks, the FNSBSD generally uses number two fuel oil for heating needs and electricity is provided by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA). GVEA produces electricity from a coal fired generation plant with additional oil generation upon demand. A few of the FNSBSD buildings in this selection utilize district steam and hot water. The FNSBSD has recently (the last ten years) invested significantly in envelope and other efficiency upgrades to reduce their operating costs. Therefore a reader should be aware that this selection of Fairbanks buildings has energy use at or below average for the entire Alaska benchmarking database. Heating in Anchorage is through natural gas from the nearby natural gas fields. Electricity is also provided using natural gas. As the source is nearby and the infrastructure for delivery is in place, energy costs are relatively low in the area. As a result, the ASD buildings have lower energy costs, but higher energy use, than the average for the entire benchmarking database. These special circumstances should be considered when comparing the typical annual energy use for particular buildings. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 41 Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. Released: Dec 2006 Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007 Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003 All Buildings* Sum of Major Fuel Consumption Number of Buildings (thousand) Floorspace (million square feet) Floorspace per Building (thousand square feet) Total (trillion BTU) per Building (million BTU) per Square Foot (thousand BTU) per Worker (million BTU) All Buildings* 4,645 64,783 13.9 5,820 1,253 89.8 79.9 Building Floorspace (Square Feet) 1,001 to 5,000 2,552 6,789 2.7 672 263 98.9 67.6 5,001 to 10,000 889 6,585 7.4 516 580 78.3 68.7 10,001 to 25,000 738 11,535 15.6 776 1,052 67.3 72.0 25,001 to 50,000 241 8,668 35.9 673 2,790 77.6 75.8 50,001 to 100,000 129 9,057 70.4 759 5,901 83.8 90.0 100,001 to 200,000 65 9,064 138.8 934 14,300 103.0 80.3 200,001 to 500,000 25 7,176 289.0 725 29,189 101.0 105.3 Over 500,000 7 5,908 896.1 766 116,216 129.7 87.6 Principal Building Activity Education 386 9,874 25.6 820 2,125 83.1 65.7 Food Sales 226 1,255 5.6 251 1,110 199.7 175.2 Food Service 297 1,654 5.6 427 1,436 258.3 136.5 Health Care 129 3,163 24.6 594 4,612 187.7 94.0 Inpatient 8 1,905 241.4 475 60,152 249.2 127.7 Outpatient 121 1,258 10.4 119 985 94.6 45.8 Lodging 142 5,096 35.8 510 3,578 100.0 207.5 Retail (Other Than Mall) 443 4,317 9.7 319 720 73.9 92.1 Office 824 12,208 14.8 1,134 1,376 92.9 40.3 Public Assembly 277 3,939 14.2 370 1,338 93.9 154.5 Public Order and Safety 71 1,090 15.5 126 1,791 115.8 93.7 Religious Worship 370 3,754 10.1 163 440 43.5 95.6 Service 622 4,050 6.5 312 501 77.0 85.0 Warehouse and Storage 597 10,078 16.9 456 764 45.2 104.3 Other 79 1,738 21.9 286 3,600 164.4 157.1 Vacant 182 2,567 14.1 54 294 20.9 832.1 This report references the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2006. Initially this report was expected to compare the annual energy consumption of the building to average national energy usage as documented below. However, a direct comparison between one specific building and the groups of buildings outlined below yielded confusing results. Instead, this report uses a comparative analysis on Fairbanks and Anchorage data as described in Appendix F. An abbreviated excerpt from CBECS on commercial buildings in the Continental U.S. is below. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 42 Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units 1 British Thermal Unit is the energy required to raise one pound of water one degree F° 1 Watt is approximately 3.412 BTU/hr 1 horsepower is approximately 2,544 BTU/hr 1 horsepower is approximately 746 Watts 1 "ton of cooling” is approximately 12,000 BTU/hr, the amount of power required to melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours 1 Therm = 100,000 BTU 1 KBTU = 1,000 BTU 1 KWH = 3413 BTU 1 KW = 3413 BTU/Hr 1 Boiler HP = 33,400 BTU/Hr 1 Pound Steam = approximately 1000 BTU 1 CCF of natural gas = approximately 1 Therm 1 inch H2O = 250 Pascal (Pa) = 0.443 pounds/square inch (psi) 1 atmosphere (atm) = 10,1000 Pascal (Pa) BTU British Thermal Unit CCF 100 Cubic Feet CFM Cubic Feet per Minute GPM Gallons per minute HP Horsepower Hz Hertz kg Kilogram (1,000 grams) kV Kilovolt (1,000 volts) kVA Kilovolt-Amp kVAR Kilovolt-Amp Reactive KW Kilowatt (1,000 watts) KWH Kilowatt Hour V Volt W Watt Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 43 Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions ACH Air Changes per Hour AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency Air Economizer A duct, damper, and automatic control system that allows a cooling system to supply outside air to reduce or eliminate the need for mechanical cooling. Ambient Temperature Average temperature of the surrounding air Ballast A device used with an electric discharge lamp to cause the lamp to start and operate under the proper circuit conditions of voltage, current, electrode heat, etc. CO2 Carbon Dioxide CUI Cost Utilization Index CDD Cooling Degree Days DDC Direct Digital Control EEM Energy Efficiency Measure EER Energy Efficient Ratio EUI Energy Utilization Index FLUOR Fluorescent Grade The finished ground level adjoining a building at the exterior walls HDD Heating Degree Days HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning INCAN Incandescent NPV Net Present Value R-value Thermal resistance measured in BTU/Hr-SF-̊F (Higher value means better insulation) SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per Minute Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) Savings over the life of the EEM divided by Investment capital cost. Savings includes the total discounted dollar savings considered over the life of the improvement. Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and materials required to install the measure. Set Point Target temperature that a control system operates the heating and cooling system Simple payback A cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of an EEM is divided by the first year’s savings of the EEM to give the number of years required to recover the cost of the investment. Energy Audit – Final Report Auntie Mary Nicoli Elementary Aniak, Alaska F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-643 Aniak Mary Nicoli Elem\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI AMN School.Docx 44 Appendix L Building Floor Plan There are no floor plans for several of the additions.