HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPB Public-Safety 2012-EEENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
CITY OF HOOPER BAY PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
Tomaganuk Road
Hooper Bay, Alaska
Prepared for:
Mr. Bosco Olson
City of Hooper Bay
Post Office Box 29
Hooper Bay, Alaska
Prepared by:
Peter Beardsley, PE, CEA
Stephanie Young, EIT, CEAIT
January 25, 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\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Recommended EEMs ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Additional Concerns ............................................................................................ 2
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 .................................................................................... 3
2.2 Benchmarking ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index for 2010 ............................................................. 6
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index for 2010 ................................................................. 7
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ................................................................ 8
2.2.4 Future Energy Monitoring ........................................................................ 9
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS ............................................. 10
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption .............................. 11
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the City of Hooper Bay Public
Safety Building .................................................................................................. 12
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications ............................. 13
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm ................................. 14
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) ............................................. 15
4.1 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................ 15
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations ................................................................. 15
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures .......................................... 17
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 22
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ...................................................................... 23
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ..................................................................... 24
Appendix E Analysis Methods ................................................................................... 25
Appendix F Audit Limitations ..................................................................................... 26
Appendix G References ............................................................................................. 27
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 28
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 29
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 30
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 31
Appendix L Building Floor Plan ................................................................................. 32
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Recommended EEMs
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the City of Hooper Bay Public
Safety Building, a 2,205 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 30, 2011 to obtain information about the lighting, heating 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 City of
Hooper Bay Public Safety Building. 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:
Entire Building
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 67.0 deg F for the
Entire Building space.
$560 $200 42 0.4
2 Other Electrical:
Coffee Maker Add new Other Controls $243 $45 25 0.2
3
Exposed Floor:
Above Grade
Floor - No
Insulation
Fill empty 2x12 cavity with
R-38 fiberglass batts $64 $118 15 1.8
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.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 Lighting:
Dispatch
Replace with LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic $218 $265 11 1.2
5 Lighting:
Dispatch
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $214 $290 9.6 1.4
6
Air Tightening:
Doors and
Window
Perform air sealing to reduce
air leakage by 5%. $270 $500 5.5 1.9
7 HVAC And DHW
Replace furnace with more
efficient model, ensure that
ducts in the attic are properly
insulated and install manual
dampers on vents.
$1,502 $6,000 4.8 4.0
8 Lighting: Main
Hallway
Replace with 8 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic $165 $600 1.9 3.6
9 Lighting: VPSO 1
& 2
Replace with 4 LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic $171 $1,060 1.6 6.2
10 Ceiling w/ Attic:
Cold Roof
Add R-30 fiberglass batts to
attic with Energy Truss. $416 $7,153 1.6 17
11
Lighting: Main
Hallway, On Duty
Office
Replace with 5 LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic $282 $1,325 1.0 4.7
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $4,105 $17,356 3.7 4.2
With all of the recommended Energy Efficiency Measures in place the annual utility costs can be
reduced by approximately 29%. These measures are estimated to cost $17,356 for an overall
simple payback of 4.2 years.
1.2 Additional Concerns
A strong fuel odor was observed by the audit team and reported by occupants in the furnace
room and adjacent office. As a result of the fuel smell the occupants keep one window open 24
hours per day. This odor indicates either a back-drafting problem with the furnace or a fuel leak
somewhere in the furnace room. No fuel odor was detected during an inspection of the outdoor
fuel lines. See Section 4.2 and Appendix A for maintenance suggestions and recommended
retrofits.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
3
2.0 INTRODUCTION
NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform an 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 building is utilized as office space for the City of Hooper Bay Police and the Village Public
Safety Officers (VPSO), as holding cells, and as equipment storage for the Volunteer Fire
Department. The building was constructed in the early 1980s. Until recently this building was
used as a Health Clinic.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
The main offices, entry, and kitchen are occupied by at least three people, 24 hours per day, 7
days per week. The VPSO offices are occupied on some reduced schedule, estimated to be 8
hours per day, and the storage areas are rarely occupied. The VPSO offices were inaccessible
to the audit team during the visit.
2.1.3 Building Description
The Public Safety building is a single-story, wood-framed building. New windows have been
recently installed and the rest of the building is in good condition.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls
Wood-framed with 2x6 studs
spaced 16-inches on center and
T1-11 sheathing
R-19 fiberglass batt. No signs of insulation
damage.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
4
Heating and Ventilation Systems
Most of the building heat is supplied by an oil-fired furnace which is old and in poor repair. This
furnace is controlled by a single non-programmable thermostat.
A small Toyostove has been installed in the VPSO offices to provide heat to that small portion of
the building. The Toyostove is relatively new, in good repair and has a built-in programmable
thermostat which is not currently programmed for a setback. This information was provided by
one of the employees, as the area where the Toyostove is located was inaccessible during the
visit.
Ventilation for the small staff is provided through natural air leakage and windows.
Cooling System
No cooling system is installed in the building.
Energy Management
No energy management system is installed in the building.
Lighting Systems
The lighting in the offices, storage areas and hallways are all fluorescent T12 bulbs (1 ½-inch) in
ceiling mounted fixtures. The arctic entryways and bathrooms have incandescent bulbs.
Domestic Hot Water
Domestic hot water is no longer supplied to the building as the building has been disconnected
from the water supply. Water service may be reconnected within the next few years.
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
Exposed Floor on post
and pad foundation
Wood-framed 2x12 floor joists
spaced 24-inches on center. R-25 fiberglass batt
One 7.7 square foot area
of insulation is damaged
from plumbing retrofit.
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
Gable and Truss Cold roofs framed with
wood energy trusses.
12-inches of fiberglass
batt.
No signs of insulation
damage.
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window Type Description Estimated
R-value Notes
Doors 2” metal door 5.0 Need new weather
stripping and gaskets.
Windows Triple-paned, and vinyl-framed 2.3 Recent and adequate
installation.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
5
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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
6
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index for 2010
The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated
from the utility bills and provides a simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by
the building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use
for the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into
British Thermal Units (BTUs). This total annual usage is then divided by the number of square
feet of the building. The EUI units are BTUs per square foot per year.
The benchmark analysis found that the City of Hooper Bay Public Safety Building has an EUI of
70,500 BTUs per square foot per year. However during 2010 the building was converted from
use as the local clinic to use as the Public Safety Building. The change in usage resulted in a
dramatic increase in electric usage due to the 24 hour per day schedule. The new Public Safety
Building energy use was up to 60% higher than the benchmark year of 2010, therefore the new
use EUI is estimated to be 85,000 BTUs per square foot per year, or about 20% higher than the
year 2010.
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 City of Hooper Bay Public Safety Building relative to these values. These findings are
discussed further in Appendix H.
70,500 62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. Ft Annual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Hooper Bay Public Safety Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
7
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index for 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 City of Hooper Bay Public Safety Building is about $3.18 per square foot per year.
This is based on utility costs from 2010 and the following rates:
Electricity at $0.214 / kWh ($6.15 / Therm)
# 2 Fuel Oil at $6.02 / gallon ($4.30 / Therm)
However during 2010 the building was converted from use as the local clinic to use as the
Public Safety Building. The change in usage resulted in a dramatic increase in electric usage
due to the 24 hour per day schedule. The new Public Safety Building energy use was up to 60%
higher than the benchmark year of 2010, therefore the CUI is estimated to be about $4.00 per
square foot per year, or about 20% higher.
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 City of Hooper Bay Public Safety Building relative to these
values. More details are included in Appendix H.
$3.18
$2.42
$2.11
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
Annual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF)
Hooper Bay Public Safety Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
8
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. The clear relation of increased fuel oil usage during periods of cold weather can be seen
in the months with higher usage. Because of the change in building use the electric baseline
does not show seasonal trends.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10KWH Electrical Consumption
Hooper Bay Public Safety
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10Gallons Estimated Fuel Oil Consumption
Hooper Bay Public Safety
Clinic Use
Building Unoccupied
Public Safety Use
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
9
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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
10
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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
11
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at the
Hooper Bay Public Safety Building. 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. W hile 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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
12
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
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 Cooking Service
Fees Total
Existing
Building $7,893 $0 $4,349 $471 $1,683 $17 $0 $14,413
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$7,041 $0 $1,888 $471 $891 $17 $0 $10,308
SAVINGS $852 $0 $2,462 $0 $791 $0 $0 $4,105
Energy from electricity is more expensive per unit than energy from fuel oil in Hooper Bay.
Upgrading the lighting system to more efficient lighting decreases the amount of heat given off
by the lights. This adds demand to the heating system. The heating system retrofits and
resulting savings more than make up the cost for the additional load created by the lighting
upgrade. Additional space heating savings are hidden within the “Other Electrical” column as
the furnace motor and fan are classified as other electrical equipment.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
13
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in space heating,
lighting, and other electrical. 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.
By inspection of the above chart, space heating is the most likely area to find opportunities for
savings.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
14
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 City of Hooper Bay Public Safety Building could be modeled well in AKW arm. Retrofits for
the heating system were adequately modeled in AKWarm and did not require additional
calculations.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
15
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, directs preventative
maintenance, and schedules 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 Public Safety Building serves as office and jail for the Police Department, Office space for
the Village Public Safety Officers, and equipment storage for the volunteer Fire Department. As
such, the building must be accessible, organized and clean. Several issues were noted during
the site visit.
The furnace room has a pervasive fuel odor, corrosion of exhaust duct, and a furnace
combustion chamber that fails to seal properly. Observation of a fuel odor should trigger
an immediate inspection of the furnace; fuel leaks can be a significant safety hazard. In
addition, the furnace needs annual maintenance, cleaning, and make up air provided,
see retrofits in Appendix A for more recommendations.
Housekeeping generally is poor in the building, with stored equipment in disarray,
causing trip hazards and reducing the life of the equipment.
The existing, unused water heating unit in the building is oversized for the potential use
as a public safety building. If the building acquires water service, a small, instant hot
water heater should be installed in the bathroom and kitchen.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
16
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
17
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
A programmable thermostat should be installed and programmed to set back to 67 degrees
Fahrenheit for the main furnace and the Toyostove thermostat should be programmed to set
back to a reduced temperature during nights and/or less occupied times. Programmable
thermostats allow for automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than
manual setbacks. Reduction of the nighttime temperature set points will decrease the energy
usage.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
1 Entire Building
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 67.0 deg F for
the Entire Building space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure
(yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $560
Breakeven Cost $8,342 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 42 Simple Payback (yr) 0
A temperature setback of 67 degrees Fahrenheit was used because the building is occupied all
night. If the schedule changes a temperature setback to 60 degrees Fahrenheit will result in
additional savings.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
18
A.2 Electrical Loads
A.2.1 Lighting
The electricity used by lighting eventually ends up as heat in the building. In areas where
electricity is more expensive than other forms of energy, or in areas where the summer
temperatures require cooling; this additional heat can be both wasteful and costly. Converting
to more efficient lighting reduces cooling loads in the summer and allows the user to control
heat input in the winter. The conversion from T12 (one and a half inch fluorescent bulbs) to T8
(one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED bulbs provides a significant
increase in efficiency. LED bulbs can be directly placed in existing fixtures. The LED bulb
bypasses the ballast altogether, which removes the often irritating, “buzzing” noise that
magnetic ballasts tend to make.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
4 Dispatch FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Keep fixtures
Installation Cost $265 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 16 Energy Savings (/yr) $218
Breakeven Cost $2,813 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 11 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5 Dispatch 2 FLUOR (2) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Keep Fixtures
Installation Cost $290 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 16 Energy Savings (/yr) $214
Breakeven Cost $2,770 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 9.6 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8 Main Hallway 8 FLUOR T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 8 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic
Keep Fixtures
Installation Cost $600 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 16 Energy Savings (/yr) $165
Breakeven Cost $1,157 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.9 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 VPSO 1 & 2 4 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,060 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $171
Breakeven Cost $1,652 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yr) 6
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
19
A.2.1 Other Electrical Loads
The coffee maker is currently on 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. This uses an excessive
amount of energy. Replacing the coffee maker with a model that has an automatic shut off, and
using an insulated pot to keep the coffee hot will save a significant amount of energy for a small
investment.
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
The existing walls and insulation appear to be in good condition. Installing additional insulation
is expensive as it involves re-siding or re-installing sheetrock. No EEMs are recommended in
this area.
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
During the disconnection of the water supply a 7.7 square foot area of exposed floor in the
southeast corner of the building was damaged and is currently un-insulated. This area needs
insulation reinstalled. A 2-inch diameter floor penetration for a former pipe needs to be sealed
prior to the installation of new insulation.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
11 Main Hallway, On
Duty Office
5 FLUOR (4) T12 4' F40T12 40W Standard
(2) Magnetic with Manual Switching
Replace with 5 LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Keep Fixtures
Installation Cost $1,325 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 16 Energy Savings (/yr) $282
Breakeven Cost $1,360 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.0 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
2 Coffee Maker Coffee Maker with Manual Switching Add new Other Controls
Installation Cost $45 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $243
Breakeven Cost $1,112 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 25 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
3
Exposed Floor: Above
Grade Floor - No
Insulation
Framing Type: 2 x Lumber
Insulating Sheathing: None
Top Insulation Layer: None
Bottom Insulation Layer: None
Modeled R-Value: 7.7
Fill empty 2x12 cavity with R-38
fiberglass batts .
Installation Cost $118 Estimated Life of
Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $64
Breakeven Cost $1,717 Savings-to-Investment
Ratio 15 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
20
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
This building has a cold roof design and has two layers of fiberglass batt insulation. Current
standards for roofing insulation is R-50 for standard truss construction. Adding insulation will
help prevent heat loss through the roof, and will cover the supply ducts for the furnace heat
delivery, preventing additional heat loss from the ducts to the cold roof. The savings that result
from covering the ducts show up in the Heating and Heat Distribution Section A4.1.
A.3.4 Windows
The windows have been recently replaced with new energy efficient windows. No EEMs are
recommended in this area.
A.3.5 Doors
The existing doors are aging but in good condition, except for the weather stripping. See Air
Tightening in Section A4.4 for weather stripping recommendations. Replacing these doors will
not result in significant energy savings. No EEMs are recommended in this area.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
10 Ceiling w/ Attic: Cold
Roof
Framing Type: Energy Truss
Framing Spacing: 24 inches
Bottom Insulation Layer: Two layers R-19
Batt: 6 inches of fiberglass
Top Insulation Layer: None
Modeled R-Value: 40.4
Add R-30 fiberglass batts to attic
with Energy Truss.
Installation Cost $7,153 Estimated Life of Measure
(yr) 30 Energy Savings
(/yr) $416
Breakeven Cost $10,270 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yr) 17
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
21
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
The existing furnace is old and in very poor condition. Occupants report a strong fuel oil odor
near the furnace, and as a result one window is kept open constantly. The audit team inspected
fuel lines for leaks and found none. This indicates that the furnace itself may have a fuel leak.
Additionally, replacing the furnace with a new furnace that is 83% efficient will save significant
amounts of energy. As the system is currently set up all rooms receive the same amount of heat
regardless of use. Manually adjustable vent covers should be installed in place of the existing
vent covers, so that unused rooms can have the vents closed in all but the coldest weather.
In addition, when fiberglass batt insulation is added to the attic space per the EEM described in
section A3.3 on the previous page, the ducts that supply hot air to the rooms should be fully
covered with insulation to reduce losses in these distribution ducts.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No cooling system is installed in the building, therefore no EEMs are recommended in this area.
A.4.3 Ventilation
No ventilation system is installed in the building, therefore no EEMs are recommended in this
area.
A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening
The existing doors’ gaskets and weather stripping are in poor condition. Replacing the weather
stripping will decrease the air leakage. Currently one window is kept constantly open to relieve
the occupants’ discomfort due to a strong fuel oil smell coming from the furnace room. The
installation of a new furnace, along with providing annual maintenance and make up air may
remove the fuel odor. This will allow the occupants to keep the window closed, and setback the
thermostat to a cooler temperature.
Rank Recommendation
7 Replace furnace with more efficient model, ensure that ducts in the attic are properly insulated
and install manual dampers on vents.
Installation Cost $6,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings
(/yr) $1,502
Breakeven Cost $28,684 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 4.8 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Doors and window High Volume of Air Leakage Perform air sealing to reduce air
leakage by 5%.
Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $270
Breakeven Cost $2,757 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 5.5 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
22
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 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, SIR1
Simple
Payback
(Years)2
12 Lighting: Kitchen Replace with LED (3) 17W
Module (2) StdElectronic $19 $200 0.14 11
13 Lighting: Evidence Replace with FLUOR CFL,
Spiral 15 W $0 $5 0.26 21
14
Lighting: Storage,
Fire Storage, VPSO
#3
Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $1 $480 0.03 390
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
23
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated
Efficiency Notes
Oil-Fired Furnace Magic Chef N/A #1 Fuel Oil 70% 105,000 BTU/HR
Cabinet Heater Toyostove L-56 #1 Fuel Oil 88% 22,000 BTU/HR
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/Year
Main Hallway/On Duty Office Fluorescent T12 14 12,485 $ 2,672
VPSO 1&2 Fluorescent T12 4 3,429 734
Disbatch Fluorescent T12 3 3,429 734
Kitchen Fluorescent T12 1 952 204
Bathroom Fluorescent CFL 15W 1 57 12
Storage, Unused Office Fluorescent T12 4 20 4
Evidence Incandescent A Bulb 1 3 1
Furnace Room Fluorescent CFL 15 W 1 1 0
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.26/kWh
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/Year
Coffee Maker Kitchen N/A 7,889 $ 1,688
Computers Offices N/A 2,758 590
Refrigerator Kitchen N/A 2,200 471
Printers Offices N/A 451 97
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.26/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
24
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.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Rate Structure:
Small Commercial Service Effective Rates***
Customer Charge $0.00
Utility Charge $0.20/KWH $0.214/KWH (includes
regulatory charges)
Fuel Charge $0.30/KWH $0.30/KWH
***The effective rate is all of the charges totaled together and divided by the kilowatt hour used. Fuel charges only
apply during times when wind generation is insufficient for the needs of the community.
The above rate, $0.214, is the average 2010 utility rate. Fuel charges are very rarely applied to this
customer.
Customer Charge
A flat fee that covers costs for meter reading, billing and customer service.
Utility Charge (KWH charge)
This charge is multiplied by the number of kilowatt-hours (kWh) used in a monthly billing period.
It covers the costs to maintain power plants and substations, interest on loans as well as wires,
power poles and transformers.
Regulatory Charge
This charge of .000492 per kWh is set by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Since
November 1, 1992, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska has been funded by a Regulatory
Charge to the utilities it regulates rather than through the State general fund. The charge,
labeled "Regulatory Cost Charge." on your bill, is set by the RCA, and applies to all retail
kilowatt-hours sold by regulated electric utilities in Alaska.
Energy Audit – Final Report
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
25
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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
26
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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
27
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 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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
28
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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
29
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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
30
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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
31
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 T / r- - 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
City of Hooper Bay
Public Safety Building
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-773 Public Safety\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Public Safety.Docx
32
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Floorplan drawn in field by Nortech audit team.