HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHU Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam School 2012-EEENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
Crow Village Sam School
Post Office Box CHU
Chuathbaluk, 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
July 13, 2011
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy,Schedules and Description, .......................................... 3
2.1.1 Building Use ................................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ............................................................. 3
2.1.3 Building Description ...................................................................................... 4
2.2 Benchmarking ....................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ................................................................ 11
2.2.4 Future Energy Monitoring ........................................................................ 12
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS .............................................. 13
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 14
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Crow Village Sam School .............. 15
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .............................. 16
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm .................................. 17
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 18
4.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 18
4.2 Building-Specific Maintenance and Operations ................................................... 18
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.13 Final AHFC Report 9A3 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam School.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 20
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 26
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 27
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 29
Appendix E Analysis Methods .................................................................................... 30
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 31
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 32
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 33
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 34
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 35
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 36
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 37
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
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of Crow Village Sam School, a
10,452 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 21st
and 22nd 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 Crow
Village Sam 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.
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:
School
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 58.0 deg F for the
School space.
$3,481 $300 170 0.1
2 Lighting: 115,
103, 110
Replace lamps with 3 LED (3)
17W Module StdElectronic $853 $810 14 0.9
3 Lighting: 06A,
01A
Replace lamps with 2 LED 8W
Module StdElectronic $33 $40 11 1.2
4 Lighting: 115,
109
Replace lamps with 16 LED
17W Module StdElectronic $704 $1,440 6.5 2.0
5
Lighting: 112,
101b, 103, 106,
00
Replace lamps with 40 LED (3)
17W Module StdElectronic $4,046 $10,800 5 2.7
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
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)
6
Lighting: Boy's
Lockers, Girl's
Lockers
Replace lamps with 4 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $120 $360 4.5 3.0
7 Lighting: 105 Replace lamps with 16 LED (3)
17W Module (2) StdElectronic $1,169 $4,320 3.6 3.7
8 Lighting: 111 Replace lamps with LED (3)
17W Module StdElectronic $60 $270 3 4.5
9 Lighting: 09
Hallway
Replace lamps with 5 LED
17W Module StdElectronic $74 $450 2.2 6.1
10 HVAC And DHW
Replace the existing furnaces
with high-efficiency furnaces,
tune boilers, install an outside
temperature setback control on
the boilers, redesign the fresh
air intakes for the mechanical
rooms, reduce hot water usage
by using low flow aerators on
handwash fixtures, lower the
hot water temperature.
$3,165 $30,000 2 9.5
11 Lighting: 116 Replace lamps with LED (4)
17W Module StdElectronic $53 $360 2 6.7
12 Lighting: 108 Replace lamps with LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $19 $180 1.4 9.3
13 Lighting: 105 Replace lamps with 3 LED
17W Module StdElectronic $28 $360 1.1 13
14 Lighting: 10 Replace lamps with LED 8W
Module StdElectronic $5 $30 1 6.2
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $13,812 $49,720 4.2 3.6
With all of the recommended Energy Efficiency Measures in place the annual utility costs can be
reduced by approximately 22%. These measures are estimated to cost $49,720 for an overall
simple payback of 3.6 years.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
3
2.0 INTRODUCTION
NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform ASHRAE Level
II Energy Audits for publicly-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
Crow Village Sam School currently provides educational services to kindergarten through 12th
grade students in Chuathbaluk, Alaska. In prior years, Crow Village Sam School doubled as a
community center, visitors and villagers used the showers and the gym hosted community
events. However, since the construction of a community center and a city water system,
community use of the school has decreased. The school hosts twice-weekly open-gym times in
the evenings during the school year.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
Fifty people occupy the building when school is in session Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to
3:15 am, except for Wednesdays which are 9:00 am to 2:15 am, from late August to mid-May.
The younger students study in the three elementary wing classrooms. The high school
students, currently numbering 2, study in the high school wing classroom. The two-person
evening janitorial staff starts work after school lets out, cleaning for 1-3 hours five days a week
and maintenance staff fly in from Aniak when needed.
During the summer, the teachers typically leave the community and the building is shut down.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
4
2.1.3 Building Description
The wood-framed, single-story structure is composed of an original one-room schoolhouse built
in 1977 and a number of additions:
The gym and a kitchen and connecting hallway (1977)
A vocational education wing (1984)
Two more classrooms, a library, two bathrooms, an entryway, and another mechanical
room. (1984)
Furthermore, there were several renovations and envelope improvements:
Division of the library into a smaller library, a reception office, a server/storage room, and
a small classroom (unknown date, no plans)
Replaced existing attic insulation in the primary school wing with 24” of fiberglass batt
placed between the upper roof joists, replaced the existing crawlspace insulation with R-
21 and R-30 fiberglass batts, and added a vapor barrier to the crawlspace floor under
the gym and primary school wing.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-Grade Walls Main
Building:
Wood-framed with 2x6 studs
spaced 16” on center.
R-19 fiberglass
batt.
No signs of insulation
damage.
Above-Grade Walls
High school Wing
Wood-framed with 2x4 studs
spaced 16” on center.
R-13 fiberglass
batt
Original schoolhouse
walls built in 1977.
Below-Grade Walls High
School Wing Crawlspace
Wood-framed with 2x6 studs
spaced 16” on center.
R-21 fiberglass
batt.
Cramped, in several
sections the new
insulation damaged
or pulled back
Below-Grade Walls Main
Building Crawlspace
Wood-framed with 2x8 studs
spaced 16” on center.
R-30 fiberglass
batt.
Great condition, new
intact vapor barrier
on floor, 5-ft
crawlspace height.
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
Floor over Insulated R-
21 crawlspace
2x8 wood-framed joists spaced 12”
on center. None. None.
Floor over Insulated R-
30 crawlspace
2x10 wood-framed joists spaced
12” on center. None. None.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
5
Heating Systems
Two oil-fired furnaces heat the high school wing, the gym and the kitchen. Two oil-fired boilers
heat the vocational education education wing via a hydronic unit heater, and the remainder of
the school via hydronic baseboards with Dan Foss valves.
Temperature in the building is controlled by three thermostats:
One in the gym,
One in the main hallway, and
One in the vocational education room.
Ventilation Systems
Crow Village Sam School does not have a central ventilation system to supply fresh air
throughout the building, though there is a relief vent in the gym.
The following rooms have exhaust fans:
Student restrooms
Student locker rooms
Kitchen
Vocational Education
Cooling System
This building does not have an air-conditioning system.
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
Gym Roof
Standard wood-framed roof
trusses spaced 24” on center. 3 in
12 roof pitch.
R-38 fiberglass
batt. From plans.
School Roofs
Standard wood-framed roof
trusses spaced 24” on center. 3 in
12 roof pitch.
R-80 fiberglass
batt (24” of
measured
insulation).
Retrofit insulation not
on plans so listed
value based on spot
checks at two
locations of exposed
insulation.
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window Type Description
Estimated
R-value Notes
Windows (exceptions
total less than 1% of
window area)
Double-paned with ¾” spacing in
fiberglass frames. R-6.6
Recent installation of
high efficiency
windows, some have
warped frames
allowing drafts and
ice accumulation.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
6
Energy Management
There is no dedicated energy management system.
However, the following energy-saving measures have been instituted:
An extensive lighting retrofit to T-8 fluorescent lamps.
Meticulous habits of turning off lights in unoccupied rooms.
Retrofit of envelope insulation and improved window systems.
Turning off the heat in the low-use Vocational Education wing when not in use.
Summer shut-down of all systems.
Lighting Systems
Almost all of the original fluorescent and incandescent light fixtures remain in place but some
have been retrofitted to more efficient lamp types. Less efficient fixtures and lamps are still
found in the low-use or work areas:
Storage rooms
Janitorial closets
Crawlspace
Kitchen
Exterior
The table below summarizes the fixture and lighting types for the Crow Village Sam School.
Lighting Systems: Locations and Fixture Types
Location Fixture Types
Classrooms, high school wing hallway,
vocational education wing
Wrap fixtures with electronic ballasts and (3) T-8
fluorescent lamps.
Elementary wing hallway and gym
corridor
T-8 fluorescent lamps are installed in a dry-
walled soffit running just above adult head-
height on each side of the hallway. The soffit is
wood-framed and open on the top and the
bottom.
Other hallways Wrap fixtures with electronic ballasts and (3) T-8
fluorescent lamps.
Work areas Usually T-12 single-wide fluorescent strip
lighting or bare-lamp 75-Watt(W) incandescents.
Gym Cathedral-ceiling mounted strip lighting with (2)
T-8 fluorescent lamps.
Kitchen
Wrap fixtures with electronic ballasts and (3) T-8
fluorescent lamps, but some still have magnetic
ballasts and T-12 fluorescent lamps.
Bathrooms
Wrap fixtures with electronic ballasts and (3) T-8
fluorescent lamps for general illumination,
supplemented with Gym type strip lights.
Exterior Walls 250-W wall packs.
Exit Signs Photoluminescent, no electrical power needed.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
7
Domestic Hot Water
The Burnham boilers provide domestic hot water (DHW) through an indirect BoilerMate TD-7L,
which also acts as a storage tank. The system does not recirculate hot water.
Domestic hot water uses are:
Kitchen sanitation and hand-washing
Bathroom hand-washing
Occasional showers by staff
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
8
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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
9
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 Crow Village Sam School has an EUI of 119,000 BTUs
per square foot per year. This is a very high energy use for a wood building without a central
ventilation system and indicates energy savings should be possible.
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 Crow Village Sam School relative to these values. These findings are discussed
further in Appendix H.
119,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Utilization Index (Total Energy/SF)
Crow Village Sam School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
10
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 Crow Village Sam School is about $5.85 per square foot. This is based on utility
costs from 2010 and the following rates:
Electricity at $ 0.91 / kWh
# 1 Fuel Oil at $ 2.90 / gallon
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 Crow Village Sam School relative to these values. More details
are included in Appendix H.
$5.85
$2.42 $2.11
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
Annual Energy Cost Utilization Index (Total Cost/SF)
Crow Village Sam School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
11
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 and fuel consumption of this building over the course of two
years. All other months with no data indicate incomplete utility bills. The lowest monthly use is
called the baseline use. The electric baseline of about 1,000 kWh per month reflects year-round
lighting consumption. June, July and August of each year have no fuel oil consumption.
There is no fuel oil delivery data available for the period before September 2010 and after May 2010.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
May-08Jul-08Sep-08Nov-08Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10KWHElectrical Consumption
Crow Village Sam School
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
May-08Jul-08Sep-08Nov-08Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10GallonsFuel Oil Deliveries
Crow Village Sam School
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
12
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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
13
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 lamp 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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
14
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at (Crow
Village Sam School). 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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
15
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Crow Village Sam 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
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
Clothes
Drying Ventilation Totals
Existing
Building $28,395 $2,073 $20,534 $2,298 $7,033 $109 $583 $61,025
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$23,084 $1,499 $12,607 $2,298 $7,033 $109 $583 $47,213
Savings $5,311 $574 $7,927 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,812
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
16
3.1.2 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 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.
It is obvious from this graph that space heating, followed by lighting, provides the most potential
for energy savings,
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
Existing Retrofit
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Clothes Drying
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
17
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 Crow Village Sam School could be modeled well in AKWarm. Retrofits were adequately
modeled in AKWarm and required only minor additional calculations.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
18
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 mechanical systems act within the design
or usage ranges. This process ideally, though seldom, occurs as the last phase in construction.
mechanical 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 mechanical systems meet the
potentially variable use with the most efficient means.
4.2 Building-Specific Maintenance and Operations
According to Crow Village School staff, the Kuspuk School District Maintenance and Operations
department has made significant strides in improving the performance of the building systems
since last year despite the fact that maintenance staff must fly in from Aniak. The mechanical
systems have clearly been recently maintained, and building maintenance was up-to-date.
Some issues were noted during the audit:
Significant amounts of lint and particulates in the ductwork was observed during the
audit. Clean the supply air ducts.
The back entrance to the building is unlit. As a result, staff and guests prop the door
open to illuminate the stoop. Install a new exit light.
Fuel consumption records on file spanned only a year, from June 2009 to August 2010.
Improving and maintaining building energy efficiency requires that good fuel oil
consumption records are kept.
Records for recent building envelope upgrades were unavailable. These are another
tool in good maintenance procedures and identifying future energy efficiency measures.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
19
APPENDICES
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
20
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
Programmable thermostats should be programmed and/or installed in place of each existing
thermostat. Programmable thermostats allow for automatic temperature setback, which reduce
usage more reliably than manual setbacks. Reduction of the night-time and unoccupied
temperature set point will decrease the energy usage.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
1 All
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 58.0 deg F for all
occupied spaces and install 2
programmable thermostats.
Installation Cost $300 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,485
Breakeven Cost $51,639 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 170 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
21
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 lamps) to T8
(one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED lamps provides a
significant increase in efficiency. Furthermore, retrofitting to more energy-efficient lighting can
reduce electrical demand charges significantly.
LED lamps are cost-effective at most locations in Crow Village Sam School.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
2 115, 103, 110 3 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 3 LED (3) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $810 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $853
Breakeven Cost $11,294 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 14 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3 06A, 01A 2 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 60W with
Manual Switching
Replace with 2 LED 8W Module
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $40 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $33
Breakeven Cost $441 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 11 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
4 115, 109 16 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 16 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,440 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $704
Breakeven Cost $9,315 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 6.5 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5 112, 101b, 103, 106,
00
40 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 40 LED (3) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $10,800 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $4,046
Breakeven Cost $53,532 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.0 Simple Payback (yr) 3
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Boy's Lockers, Girl's
Lockers
4 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $360 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $120
Breakeven Cost $1,628 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.5 Simple Payback (yr) 3
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
22
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 105 16 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
(2) Instant StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 16 LED (3) 17W
Module (2) StdElectronic
Installation Cost $4,320 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,169
Breakeven Cost $15,458 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.6 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8 111 FLUOR (3) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with LED (3) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $270 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $60
Breakeven Cost $818 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.0 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 09 Hallway 5 FLUOR T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 5 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $450 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $74
Breakeven Cost $1,006 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.2 Simple Payback (yr) 6
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
11 116 FLUOR (4) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $360 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $53
Breakeven Cost $708 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yr) 7
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
12 108 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $180 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $19
Breakeven Cost $258 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.4 Simple Payback (yr) 9
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
13 105 3 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 34W Energy-
Saver Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 3 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $360 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $28
Breakeven Cost $383 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.1 Simple Payback (yr) 13
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
23
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
No EEMS are recommended in this area because recent renovations make updates
uneconomical.
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
No EEMS are recommended in this area because recent renovations make updates
uneconomical.
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
No EEMS are recommended in this area because recent renovations make updates
uneconomical.
A.3.4 Windows
No EEMS are recommended in this area because recent renovations make updates
uneconomical.
No EEMS are recommended in this area because recent renovations make updates
uneconomical.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
14 10 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with Manual
Switching
Replace with LED 8W Module
StdElectronic
Installation Cost $30 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $5
Breakeven Cost $31 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr) 6
A.3.5 Doors
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
24
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 with high-efficiency furnaces.
Tune existing boilers.
Install a control with outside temperature setback on the boilers.
Install automated vent dampers on the chimney connectors.
Redesign the fresh air intakes for the mechanical rooms.
Lower the DHW water temperature to 110°F.
Reduce DHW consumption by fitting existing fixtures with low-flow showerhead and
faucet restrictors.
New Furnaces
The older furnaces should be replaced by high-efficiency furnaces.
Tune Existing Boilers
A boiler typically meets its rated efficiency only if properly installed and maintained, and if air
and fuel supply are satisfactory. Given the remote location of Crow Village Sam School, a
proper recommissioning could benefit by rebalancing the furnace heat distribution vents, and
put the boilers in perfect running order—restoring the boilers to design efficiencies.
Boiler Temperature Setback Control Units
The boiler temperature can be lowered in response to warmer outdoor temperatures using an
outdoor setback controller such as the Tekmar 261, resulting in reduced standby losses.
Reducing Combustion Stack Losses
Automated vent dampers shut off the airflow in the chimneys when the furnaces and boilers are
not running, reducing boiler run time and standby losses.
Fresh Air Intake Redesign
The existing combustion air intake design as a vent in the floor encourages gravity flow up the
chimney. Instead, current design practices place the combustion air vent at about five feet
above the floor and ducts to within about 6 inches off the ceiling. This reduces stack losses
because there is no pressure difference between the stack and the air vent.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
25
DHW Temperature and Flow Reductions
The hot water temperature is 140°F. Reducing the water temperature to 110°F would decrease
heat loss from the tank and still provide safe hot water temperatures.
Retrofitting the shower fixtures with 1 Gallon Per Minute (gpm) shower heads and hand-wash
faucets with 0.5 gpm aerated flow-restrictors could cut the estimated hot water consumption by
about one-third.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No EEMS are recommended in this area because the building does not have an air-conditioning
system.
A.4.3 Ventilation
No EEMs are currently recommended in this area because there is no existing system for
providing outside air other than natural infiltration.
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. Repairing or replacing drafty windows and doors will also reduce energy costs.
Rank Recommendation
7
Replace the existing furnaces with high-efficiency furnaces, tune boilers, install an outside temperature
setback control on the boilers, redesign the fresh air intakes for the mechanical rooms, reduce hot
water usage by using low flow aerators on handwash fixtures, lower the hot water temperature.
Installation Cost $30,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings
(/yr) $3,165
Breakeven Cost $61,588 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.1 Simple Payback
(yr) 9
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
26
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: 101a Replace with 5 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $63 $900 0.93 14
17 Lighting: 114, 109,
110, 113, 05, 02
Replace with 13 LED (2)
17W Module StdElectronic $164 $2,340 0.93 14
18 Lighting: Gym,
Replace with 36 LED (2)
17W Module (2)
StdElectronic
$471 $8,640 0.72 18
19 Lighting: 111 Replace with LED 10W
Module StdElectronic $1 $30 0.61 22
20 Lighting: 08 Voc Ed
Replace with 13 LED (3)
17W Module (2)
StdElectronic
$135 $3,510 0.51 26
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
27
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Efficiency Notes
Boiler 1 Burnham LED-V3 #1 Fuel Oil 81%
nominal
Natural Draft, off
during summer
Boiler 2 Burnham LED-V3 #1 Fuel Oil 81%
nominal
Natural Draft, off
during summer
Furnace 1 Johnson L52 #1 Fuel Oil n/a Natural Draft, off
during summer
Furnace 2 Carrier 58 #1 Fuel Oil n/a Natural Draft, off
during summer
Circulation Pump Grundfos UPS-15-58 FC Electric n/a 1/3 HP
Circulation Pump Grundfos UMS 50-40 Electric n/a 1/3 HP
Circulation Pump Grundfos UPS 43-44-FC Electric n/a 1/3 HP
Unit Heater Trane UHS100S8AAAE Electric n/a 1/10 HP fan
Cabinet Heater Beacon Morris Electric n/a 1/10 HP fan
Domestic Hot Water Weil Mclain Boiler Mate
Heat
exchanger
off boiler
n/a ---
Lighting
Location Lighting
Type
Bulb
Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/Year
112, 101b, 103, 106, 00 Fluorescent T8 52 11130 $ 10,128
105 Fluorescent T8 18 3960 3,604
Gym Fluorescent T8 36 1945 1,770
115, 109 Fluorescent T8 23 1740 1,583
115, 103, 110 Fluorescent T12 4 1570 1,429
114, 109, 110, 113, 05, 02 Fluorescent T8 13 670 610
08 Voc Ed Fluorescent T8 13 560 510
Boy’s Lockers, Girls Lockers Fluorescent T8 4 470 428
111, 01 Fluorescent T8 5 380 346
09 Hallway Fluorescent T8 5 290 264
101a Fluorescent T8 5 260 237
116 Fluorescent T8 1 230 209
111 Fluorescent T12 1 130 118
105 Fluorescent T12 3 70 64
06A, 01A Incandescent A-bulb 2 60 55
108 Fluorescent T12 1 47 43
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.91/kWh
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
28
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/Year
Server 102 Various 2180 $ 1983
Full-Size Upright Freezer 111, 112, 02 Kenmore 2000 1820
Full-Size Refrigerator/Freezer 111, 112 Kenmore 1050 955
Computer Towers 106, 104, 103, 102, Office, Library, 00 Various
1050 955
Laptops 00, 106, 104, 103 Various 900 819
Computer Monitors Classrooms, Library, Office Various 760 691
Smartboard 106, 103, 00 Various 740 673
Vacuum 108 WSS 590 537
Microwave 111 Whirlpool 370 337
Coffee Maker 02 Proctor Silex 370 337
Hot Water Maker 02 Chefmate 300 273
Popcorn Machine 02 Whiz Bang 200 182
Desk Printers 00, 106, 104, 103, Office, Library Various 180 163
Clothes Dryer 08 Kenmore 150 136
Clothes Washer 08 Kenmore 100 91
Projector 104 N/A 75 68
Microwave 02 Kenmore 75 68
George Foreman Grill 02 George Foreman 60 54
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.91/kWh
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
29
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure
The information in this section is gathered from existing utility invoices received by the Kuspuk
School District in 2009 and 2010 from the Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative.
Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative (MKEC)
c/o Raven Technology Services
P.O. Box 206
McGrath, AK 99627
(907) 524-3360; (907) 524-3361 FAX
Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative Rate Structure
Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam School
Rate Component Unit Charge
Minimum Monthly Fee $35.00 flat rate fee
Demand Charge (DEME) $45.00 per KW
Electricity rate (ELEC) $0.237 per kWh
Power Cost Equalization Program
(COPA) $0.268 per kWh
Regulatory Cost Charge (RCC) $0.000492 per kWh
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
30
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 lamp does not save energy or money if the lamp is never turned on because of a schedule
or operational change at the facility.
Energy Audit- Final Report
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
31
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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
32
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. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Energy Standards for buildings Except Low-
Rise Residential Buildings. 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 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 Efficiency 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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
33
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 High school 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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
34
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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
35
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
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 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 KWH = 3413 BTU
1 KW = 3413 BTU/Hr
1 Boiler HP = 33,400 BTU/Hr
1 Pound Steam = 1000 BTU
1 CCF of natural gas = about 1 Therm
1 Pascal (Pa) = 1 inch H2O = 0.363 pounds/square inch (psi)
1 Pascal (Pa) = 0.0025 atmospheres (atm)
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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
36
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
Crow Village Sam School
Chuathbaluk, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-640 Kuspuk SD\50-645 Chuathbaluk Crow Village Sam
School\Reports\Final
37
Appendix L Floor Plan