HomeMy WebLinkAboutANI District Office 2012-EEENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
KUSPUK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE
Post Office Box 49
Aniak, Alaska
Prepared for:
Mr. Brad Allen
Superintendent, Kuspuk School District
P.O. Box 49
Aniak, Alaska
Prepared by:
David Lanning PE, CEA
Pauline Fusco EIT, CEAIT
December 26, 2012
Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of
Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095”
Managing 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
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\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description .......................................... 4
2.1.1 Building Use ................................................................................................. 4
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ............................................................. 4
2.1.3 Building Description ...................................................................................... 4
2.2 Benchmarking ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ................................................................ 8
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ................................................................ 10
2.2.4 Future Energy Monitoring ........................................................................ 11
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS .............................................. 12
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 13
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Kuspuk School District Office ......... 14
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .............................. 15
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm .................................. 16
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 17
4.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 17
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations ................................................................... 17
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 19
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 25
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 27
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 30
Appendix E Analysis Methods .................................................................................... 31
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 32
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 33
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 34
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 35
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 36
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 37
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 38
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Kuspuk School District
Office, a 12,576 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 19th and 20th, 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 Kuspuk
School District Office. 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 in Appendix B.
Cost-effective energy reductions were found through reducing building temperatures during the
night and unoccupied periods, removing excess refrigeration, replacing the boiler, and
retrofitting to more efficient lighting.
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:
Conditioned
Crawlspace
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 50.0 deg F for the
Conditioned crawlspace.
$1,868 $200 140 0.1
2
Refrigeration:
Full Size
Refrigerator
Remove refrigerator. $270 $30 64 0.1
3 Lighting: Exterior
Incan.
Replace with LED 12W
Module StdElectronic $68 $30 31 0.4
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
2
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)
4
Setback
Thermostat:
Office
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 58.0 deg F for the
Office space.
$461 $400 17 0.9
5 Lighting: 208,
123
Replace with 2 LED (2) 8W
Module StdElectronic $120 $115 13 1.0
6 Other Electrical:
Parking Lot
Add new Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control $434 $300 9.2 0.7
7
Refrigeration:
Full Size
Refrigerator
Add new Seasonal Shutdown $47 $50 8.1 1.1
8 Lighting: Exterior
HPS Wall
Replace with 2 LED 40W
Module StdElectronic $277 $600 6.2 2.2
9 Lighting: Exterior
HPS Canopy
Replace with LED 40W
Module StdElectronic $138 $300 6.2 2.2
10
Portion of below-
grade
crawlspace wall
without batt
insulation.
Install R-21 fiberglass batts in
the portion of crawlspace wall
without batt insulation.
$110 $656 4.4 6.0
11 HVAC And DHW
Replace boiler (age:25 yrs)
with new larger-capacity HE 3-
pass boiler with modulating
aquastat, add automated vent
damper to chimney connector.
$3,149 $25,000 2.4 7.9
12 Lighting: 104,
111
Replace with 2 LED (3) 4W
Module StdElectronic $24 $150 1.9 6.3
13 Lighting: 131,
132
Replace with 5 LED (3) 17W
Module StdElectronic $147 $1,100 1.8 7.5
14 Lighting: 210,
126
Replace with 7 LED (4) 17W
Module (2) StdElectronic $245 $2,000 1.6 8.2
15 Lighting: 122
Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$25 $100 1.5 4.0
16 Lighting: 117
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$12 $55 1.3 4.6
17 Lighting: 114
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$15 $75 1.3 4.9
18 Lighting: 209 Replace with 3 LED 72W
Module StdElectronic $200 $2,100 1.2 11
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.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)
19
Lighting: 200,
201, 202, 212,
217, 101, 102,
120, 100, 111,
106, 108, 109,
105, 107, 110,
118
Replace with 28 LED (3) 17W
Module StdElectronic $469 $5,800 1.1 12
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $8,078 $39,061 3.2 4.8
With all of the recommended Energy Efficiency Measures in place the annual utility costs can be
reduced by approximately 24%. These measures are estimated to cost $39,061 for an overall
simple payback of 4.8 years.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
4
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, Occupancy, Schedules and Description
2.1.1 Building Use
The Kuspuk School District Office serves as office space for the school district administrative
staff.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
Ten personnel are in the building from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, during the
school year of late August to mid May.
During the summer, the building occupancy drops to less than 5 full-time staff.
The custodian cleans Monday through Friday from 4:30 pm – 5:00 pm, and on weekends for
approximately 3 hours one day.
2.1.3 Building Description
The Kuspuk District Office is a 2-story wood-framed building with insulated crawlspace and
wood foundation built in 1987.
The layout on both floors has a central corridor with exit vestibules on each end that contain
stairways. The corridors are daylit by high, south-facing clerestory windows.
The following building modifications have occurred since construction:
Thicker fiberglass batt insulation was installed in the upper portion of the crawlspace
wall.
The crawlspace temperature setpoint was increased from the design temperature of
40°F to 60°F.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
5
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Wood-framed with 2x10 studs
spaced 16-inches on center. R-30 fiberglass batt.
Crawlspace walls
All-Weather-Wood-
Foundation with 2x8 studs
spaced 16-inches on center.
R-30 fiberglass batt. Evidence of past
moisture damage.
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
Crawlspace floor Polyethylene vapor barrier. None. None.
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
Roof Cold roof framed with wood
trusses. R-60 fiberglass batt. No attic.
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window Type Description Est. R-Value Notes
South-facing operable
windows Wood-framed double-paned. 2.0
Inspection revealed
drafts, some icing,
and warped frames.
South-facing fixed-pane
windows Wood-framed double-paned. 2.0 Inspection revealed
some icing.
All other windows Wood-framed, double-paned. 2.4 None.
Doors
Insulated metal doors with
half-lite, double-paned
windows and no thermal
break.
3.0
Weatherstripping is
damaged, floor
sweeps in poor
condition.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
6
Heating Systems
The building is heated by an oil-fired boiler supplying hydronic baseboards in the building and
two hydronic unit heaters in the crawlspace.
Ventilation Systems
An Air Handling Unit (AHU) is meant to ventilate the building, but has been shut down for at
least two years. The AHU has an oil-fired furnace to temper incoming outside air, a heat
recovery ventilator to recover exhaust air heat, and a heat pump to capture reject heat from the
Computer Room air conditioning system.
Cooling System
The only air conditioning system in the building is an air conditioner in the computer room
intertied with the AHU, neither of which is currently functioning.
Energy Management
The following energy saving measures have been instituted:
Summer turn-down of all systems.
Lighting retrofits to T-8 fluorescent lamps.
Habits of turning off lights in unoccupied rooms.
Retrofit of crawlspace insulation.
Photoluminescent exit signs.
Clerestory windows are not listed as an energy-saving element because, although they reduce
lighting needs, they also increase heat loss.
Lighting Systems
The Kuspuk School District Office is primarily lit by fluorescent fixtures. In addition, daylighting
in approximately 75% of the building reduces the lighting demand. Some fluorescent lamps
have been retrofitted to more efficient lamp types. Less efficient fixtures are found in the low-
use or work areas:
Storage rooms
Mechanical rooms
Janitorial closets
Crawlspace
Exterior
Domestic Hot Water
Domestic Hot Water (DHW) is produced by a coil in the boiler for handwashing and small
amounts of break-room dishwashing. The system does not recirculate hot water, and there is
no storage tank.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
7
2.2 Benchmarking
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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
8
2.2.1 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 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 Kuspuk School District Office has an EUI of 64,000
BTUs per square foot per year, comparable to the EUI of 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 Kuspuk School District Office relative to these values. These findings are discussed
further in Appendix H.
64,000 62,200
123,400
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Utilization Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Kuspuk School District Office
District Office Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
9
2.2.2 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 the Kuspuk School District Office is about $2.74 per square foot. This is based on
utility costs from 2010 and the following rates:
Electricity at $0.44 / kWh ($12.89 / Therm)
# 1 Fuel Oil at $4.30 / gallon ($ 3.21 / 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 Kuspuk School District Office relative to these values. More
details are included in Appendix H.
$2.74
$2.42
$2.11
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
Annual Energy Cost Utilization Index (Total Cost/ SF)
Kuspuk School District Office
District Office Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
10
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns
Energy consumption is often highly correlated with seasonal climate and usage variations. The
graphs below show the electric consumption and fuel oil deliveries of this building based on
utility data provided by the Kuspuk School District. 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 on the Electrical Consumption graph.
Electrical data was not available after July 2010.
Fuel data was not available before July 2009.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
May-08Jul-08Sep-08Nov-08Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11KWHElectrical Consumption
Kuspuk School District Office
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
May-08Jul-08Sep-08Nov-08Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Jan-11Mar-11GallonsFuel Oil Deliveries
Kuspuk School District Office
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
11
2.2.4 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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
12
3.0 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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
13
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm-C model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Kuspuk
School District Office. 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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
14
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Kuspuk School District Office
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
recommendation based 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 Ventilation Total
Existing
Building $22,658 $934 $6,195 $652 $3,196 $30 $33,665
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$17,642 $613 $4,204 $336 $2,762 $30 $25,587
Savings $5,016 $320 $1,991 $317 $434 $0 $8,078
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
15
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in space heating,
lighting, and smaller savings in refrigeration. The energy cost by end use breakdown is
provided by AkWarm based on the field inspection and does not indicate that all individual
fixtures and appliances were direct 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
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
Existing Retrofit
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
16
3.2 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 Kuspuk School District Office could be modeled well in AKWarm. Retrofits were adequately
modeled in AKWarm and did not require additional calculations.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
17
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M)
4.1 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.
Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems act within the design or
usage ranges. 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.
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations
The Kuspuk School District Maintenance and Operations department responsible for the
buildings in the Kuspuk School District has made significant strides in improving the
performance of the District Office building systems since last year. Building maintenance was
up-to-date excepting those larger projects reportedly affected by budget constraints and time.
Larger projects may require additional maintenance funds. However, some building-specific
observations and recommendations have been made concerning ventilation, Americans with
Disabilities Act compliance, heat distribution, and fire safety.
The entire ventilation system is shut down and has been for two years, the maintenance
department does not know why. The ventilation system may not need to be repaired. The
building is large, the occupancy is low, and sufficient fresh air is likely provided through
infiltration so an Indoor Air Quality assessment is recommended to determine if the ventilation
system is necessary. The lack of institutional knowledge indicates the need for a well-
implemented O & M plan.
The elevator needs to be repaired to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The building’s baseboard heat distribution and fire safety plan is compromised by clutter.
Keep desks, papers, bookshelves and other items from blocking baseboards.
Clear all hallways and exits of recyclables and other debris. Consider an unheated
storage shed for storing recyclables.
The south-facing windows have a crumpled film layer between the panes which is aesthetically
unattractive but does not appear to affect the window performance.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
18
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
19
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
The existing thermostats in the Media Room and Business Office should be replaced with
programmable thermostats. Programmable thermostats allow for automatic temperature
setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks. Reduction of the nighttime
and unoccupied temperature set point will decrease the energy usage.
If the ducts in the crawlspace are insulated as recommended, the temperature in the crawlspace
will be controllable and could be reduced to as low as 50 deg F. The temperature in the
crawlspace should be frequently monitored to ensure the temperature set point is both
sustainable by the unit heaters and adequately protects against freezing.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
1 Conditioned Crawlspace Lower the temperature to 50.0 deg F for the
Conditioned Crawlspace.
Installation
Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure
(yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,868
Breakeven
Cost $27,904 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 140 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Building Space Recommendation
4 Office
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 58.0 deg F for the
Office space and install 2 programmable
thermostats.
Installation
Cost $400 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $461
Breakeven
Cost $6,879 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 17 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
20
A.2 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.
LED retrofits are typically most desirable in hard-to-reach and/or high usage locations, but may
not be suitable for low-use areas. The EEMs below reflect the best retrofit options and include
both fluorescent and LED bulbs.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 Exterior Incan. INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual
Switching
Replace with LED 12W Module
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $30 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $68
Breakeven Cost $921 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 30 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5 208, 123 2 INCAN (2) A Lamp, Halogen 100W with
Manual Switching
Replace with 2 LED (2) 8W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $115 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $120
Breakeven Cost $1,501 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 13 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8 Exterior HPS Wall
Pack
2 HPS 150 Watt StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 2 LED 40W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $600 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $277
Breakeven Cost $3,753 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.3 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Exterior HPS
Canopy
HPS 150 Watt StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with LED 40W Module
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $138
Breakeven Cost $1,877 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.3 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
21
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
12 104, 111 2 INCAN (3) A Lamp, Halogen 60W with
Manual Switching
Replace with 2 LED (3) 4W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $150 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $24
Breakeven Cost $297 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yr) 6
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
13 131, 132 5 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 5 LED (3) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $147
Breakeven Cost $1,989 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yr) 7
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
14 210, 126 7 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 7 LED (4) 17W
Module (2) StdElectronic
Installation Cost $2,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $245
Breakeven Cost $3,326 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yr) 8
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
15 122 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR (4) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $100 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $25
Breakeven Cost $152 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
16 117 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $55 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $12
Breakeven Cost $74 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
17 114 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8 4'
F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
Installation Cost $75 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $15
Breakeven Cost $98 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.3 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
22
A.3 Other Electrical
A.3.1 Refrigeration
The Kuspuk School District Office has two full-size residential refrigerator/freezer units, one on
each floor. Based on offices of similar size, one refrigerator is sufficient. Removing the extra
refrigerator is a simple way to cut energy costs without impacting services. For additional
savings, the remaining refrigerator should be shut down for the summer.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
18 209 3 HPS 250 Watt StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 3 LED 72W Module
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $2,100 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $200
Breakeven Cost $2,531 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yr) 11
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
19
200, 201, 202, 212,
217, 101, 102, 120,
100, 111, 106, 108,
109, 105, 107, 110,
118
28 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 34W
Energy-Saver (2) Magnetic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 28 LED (3) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $5,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $469
Breakeven Cost $6,698 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.2 Simple Payback (yr) 12
Auditors Note: Reduce to 2 bulbs in each fixture. LED bulbs come with protective cover, so diffusing lenses on
fixtures could be removed for increased light levels.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
2 Full Size
Refrigerator 1 Full Size Refrigerator Remove refrigerator.
Installation Cost $30 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $270
Breakeven Cost $1,912 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 63 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Full Size
Refrigerator 1 Full Size Refrigerator Add new Seasonal Shutdown
Installation Cost $50 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $47
Breakeven Cost $407 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 8.1 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
23
A.3.2 Other Electrical
The electrical energy consumption of headbolt heaters can be reduced with the addition of clock
timers or similar scheduling controls.
A.4 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.4.1 Exterior Walls
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.4.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
The crawlspace walls are well-insulated using a combination of R-30 batt insulation to 1.5 feet
below-grade and two inches of exterior XPS sheathing below-ground. However, the bottom 1.5
feet of the crawlspace stud cavities was left uninsulated. Add R-21 fiberglass batt to the voids
in the crawlspace walls below the existing batt insulation to achieve significant projected
savings.
A.4.3 Roofing and Ceiling
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.4.4 Windows
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical. However, if windows need to be replaced in the future, they should be replaced
with higher efficiency alternatives.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Parking Lot 4 Head-bolt Heaters with Manual Switching Add new Clock Timer or Other
Scheduling Control
Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $434
Breakeven Cost $2,772 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.2 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
10
Portion of below-
grade crawlspace
wall without batt
insulation.
Wall Type: All Weather Wood
Insul. Sheathing: XPS (Beadboard), 2 inches
Framed Wall: 2 x 8, 16" on center
None
Modeled R-Value: 12.9
Install R-21 fiberglass batts in
the sections of crawlspace wall
without batt insulation.
Installation Cost $656 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $110
Breakeven Cost $2,937 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.5 Simple Payback (yr) 6
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
24
A.4.5 Doors
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.5 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.5.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
AkWarm procedures force the following HVAC and DHW retrofits into one recommendation.
The boiler, which is 25 years old, should be replaced by a high-efficiency triple-pass boiler with
modulating aquastat sized to heat the building. A modulating aquastat with outdoor temperature
setback lowers the boiler water temperature in response to warmer outdoor temperatures, which
reduces boiler standby losses significantly. The vent damper on the chimney connector will
also decrease stack losses.
A.5.2 Air Conditioning
No EEMS are recommended in this area because the existing system has been out of order for
two years or longer, so air conditioning energy consumption is not represented in the utility bills.
A.5.3 Ventilation
No EEMs are currently recommended in this area because there is no working system for
providing outside air other than natural infiltration, and the exhaust fans are not used enough to
make retrofits financially economic.
A.5.4 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
11 HVAC and DHW
Replace boiler (age:25 yrs) with new
larger-capacity HE 3-pass boiler with
modulating aquastat, add vent damper to
chimney connector.
Installation
Cost $25,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,149
Breakeven
Cost $61,415 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.5 Simple Payback (yr) 8
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
25
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 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 the 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)
16
Lighting: 214, 215,
211, 14, 123, 127
Replace with 16 LED (4) 20W
Module (2) StdElectronic $187 $4,000 0.79 21
17 Lighting: 115
Replace with 2 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$14 $109 0.76 8.1
18 Lighting: 204, 112,
111
Replace with 3 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $17 $360 0.68 21
19 Above-Grade Wall:
Crawlspace with Batt
Install R-15 rigid foam board
to exterior and cover with T1-
11 siding or equivalent.
$232 $10,545 0.59 45
20 Lighting: Crawlspace Replace with 14 LED 4W
Module StdElectronic $7 $403 0.52 58
21
Window/Skylight: Dbl
Wd-Vn Other
Install single pane storm
window on exterior $25 $989 0.48 40
22 Window/Skylight:
Tripl Wd Vn Other
Install single pane storm
window on exterior $20 $805 0.48 40
23 Window/Skylight: Dbl
Wd-Vn Lowe South
Install single pane storm
window on exterior $157 $7,575 0.40 48
24 Window/Skylight:
Double South
Install single pane storm
window on exterior $8 $416 0.38 51
25 Window/Skylight:
clerestory
Install single pane storm
window on exterior $54 $2,764 0.38 51
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
26
26 Window/Skylight: Dbl
Wd-Vn South
Install single pane storm
window on exterior $31 $1,599 0.38 51
27 Lighting: 105, 107,
110, 106
Replace with 6 LED (3) 17W
Module StdElectronic $25 $1,210 0.37 48
28 Lighting: East
Stairwell
Replace with 3 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $7 $415 0.35 56
29 Lighting: 124 Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $2 $140 0.34 81
30 Window/Skylight: Dbl
Wd-Vn Lowe Other
Install single pane storm
window on exterior $66 $3,762 0.34 57
31 Lighting: 130 Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $3 $275 0.30 80
32 Lighting: 206, Mech Replace with 17 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $21 $2,400 0.27 110
33 Lighting: West
Stairwell, 203
Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $3 $550 0.19 160
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
27
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Location Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Notes
Mech Room Boiler Burnham V-36 WT #1 Fuel Oil 284 MBH gross, 0.25 HP
Mech Room Compressor GE 5KC39QN1 Electric 0.33 HP 3454 RPM
Mech Room AHU Fan Marathon RPB48534S231F Electric 115 V
Mech Room Fuel Pump Suntec B2VA-8216 Electric 3 GPH, 1 PSI, 3450 RPM
Mech Room Oil Burner Carlin 102CBD Electric 2.0-4.5 GPH, 6A, 120 V
Mech Room Circulation Pumps Grundfos (2) UMS 50-80 Electric 20 GPM{}@29’ head, speed 2,
heating loops, redundant.
N/A Heat Exchanger Enerquip RHR 400 Electric 400 CFM 72W fan
Mech Room Glycol Pump Jacuzzi RP-2 Electric 8 GPM 0.33 HP
IT Room Air Conditioner Liebert MM18A Electric SEER 1.5 tons, heat to
ventilation system
Crawlspace Unit Heaters Trane (2) 106-B Electric 100 MBH@11 GPM, 0.25 HP,
T’stat 40°F, crawlspace
Elev/Equip Exhaust Fan Penn z-10 Electric 365 CFM @ .25’’SP, 130W
Bathrooms Exhaust Fan Penn (4) z-8 Electric 165 CFM @ .25’’SP, 105W, run
with lights
Crawlspace Fuel Pump Marathon RPL48S17T29OH Electric 0.17 HP, 1725 RPM
Out Of Service HVAC Equipment
Mech Room Air Handling Unit Jackson and Church SFD-20 #1 Fuel Oil 200 MBH, 2500 CFM, 1 HP fan,
forced draft
Mech Room Circulation Pump Grundfos UMC 50-40 A Electric
210 W (in parallel with
operational Grundfos circ
pumps)
Mech Room Exhaust Fan GE 5KH32GN54X Electric 0.25 HP, 1725 RPM
Mech Room Oil Burner Dayton 6K315D Electric 1.8 A, 230 V 1750 RPM
Mech Room AHU Fan Marathon RPB48534S231F Electric 115 V
Mech Room Dehumidifier EZ Breathe n/a Electric n/a
Mech Room Humidifier n/a n/a Electric n/a
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
28
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity Kwh/yr Cost/yr
Rms 215, 218, 221, 127, Media Center Fluorescent T12 29 2280 $ 1,003
Rms 200, 201, 202, 212, 217, 101,
102, 120, 100, 111, 106, 108, 109,
105, 107, 110, 118
Fluorescent T12 35 2170 955
Rms 214, 215, 211, 114, 123, 127 Fluorescent T8 18 2020 889
Rms 101, 102, 205 Fluorescent T12 13 1240 546
Rms 210, 126 Fluorescent T12 7 1100 484
Exterior HPS Wall Fluorescent A bulb 2 860 378
Rms 209 High Pressure Sodium A bulb 3 820 361
Rms 131, 132 Fluorescent T12 5 620 273
Rm 210 Fluorescent T8 4 450 198
Exterior HPS Canopy High Pressure Sodium A bulb 1 430 189
Rms 208, 123 Incandescent A bulb 2 390 172
Rms 105, 107, 110, 106 Fluorescent T8 6 250 110
Exterior Incandescent High Pressure Sodium A bulb 1 190 84
Rms 204, 112, 111 Fluorescent T8 3 170 75
Rm 122 Fluorescent T12 1 160 70
Rms 206, Mechanical Fluorescent T12 17 108 48
Rm 115 Fluorescent T12 1 95 42
Rm 114 Fluorescent T12 1 80 35
Rm 117 Fluorescent T12 1 80 35
Rms 104, 111 Incandescent A Bulb 2 80 35
Rm 215 Incandescent T12 1 45 20
East Stairwell Fluorescent T12 3 40 18
West Stairwell, Rm 203 Fluorescent T12 4 30 13
Crawlspace Incandescent A bulb 14 23 10
Rm 130 Fluorescent T12 2 20 9
Rm 217 Fluorescent CFL 1 13 6
Rm 124 Fluorescent T12 1 10 4
Rm 123 Incandescent A bulb 1 8 4
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.44/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
29
Plug Loads
Plug Loads Number of Units Kwh/yr Cost/yr
Server Racks 3 2176 $ 957
Head Bolt Heaters 4 1929 849
Full Size Refrigerators 2 1200 528
Computer Towers 16 553 243
Laptops 12 518 228
Vacuum Cleaners 2 373 164
Computer Monitors 21 363 160
Laminator 1 311 137
Dishwasher 1 254 112
Mini Fridge 1 250 110
Coffee Makers 2 233 103
Large Copier/Printers 3 86 38
Floor Fans 4 79 35
Televisions 3 74 33
Scanners 5 46 20
Fax Machines 2 39 17
Adding Machines 3 23 10
Microwave 1 22 10
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.44/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
30
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: Kuspuk District Office
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
Customer Charge
A flat fee that covers costs for meter reading, billing and customer service.
Regulatory Cost 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 the bill, is set by the RCA, and applies to all retail kilowatt-
hours sold by regulated electric utilities in Alaska.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
31
Appendix E Analysis Methods
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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
32
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.
Disclaimer: "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."
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
33
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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
34
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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
35
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S.
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.
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
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
36
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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
37
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
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
38
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Energy Audit – Final Report
Kuspuk School District Office
Aniak, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-642 Aniak Admin
Building\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report ANI District Office.Docx
39