HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPB Washeteria 2012-EEManaging Office
2400 College Road 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Suite 106A 4402 Thane Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Anchorage, Alaska 99517 Juneau, Alaska 99801
p. 907.452.5688 p. 907.222.2445 p: 907.586.6813
f. 907.452.5694 f. 907.222.0915 f: 907.586.6819
www.nortechengr.com
ENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
HOOPER BAY WASHETERIA
Lagoon Road
Hooper Bay, Alaska
Prepared for:
Mr. Bosco Olson
City of Hooper Bay
PO Box 29
Hooper Bay, Alaska
Prepared by:
David C. Lanning PE, CEA
Stephanie Young EIT, CEAIT
July 9, 2012
Acknowledgment: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of
Energy under Award Number DE-EE0000095”
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HEALTH & SAFETY
Anch: 3105 Lakeshore Dr. Ste 106A, 99517 907.222.2445 Fax: 222.0915
Fairbanks: 2400 College Road, 99709 907.452.5688 Fax: 452.5694
Juneau: 4402 Thane Road, 99801 907.586.6813 Fax: 586.6819
info@nortechengr.com www.nortechengr.com
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description .......................................... 4
2.1.1 Building Use............................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules .......................................................... 4
2.1.3 Building Description ................................................................................... 5
2.2 Benchmarking ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ................................................................ 8
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Cost Utilization Index ............................................................................... 10
2.2.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ................................................................ 11
2.2.5 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 Hooper Bay Washeteria ................. 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 Recommendations ................................................................... 19
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 21
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 26
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 28
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 30
Appendix E Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 31
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 32
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 33
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 34
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 35
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 36
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 37
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 38
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Hooper Bay Washeteria, a
19,200 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 29,
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 Hooper
Bay Washeteria. 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
Lighting: Men's
Sauna, Women's
Sauna
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, A
Lamp 15W $88 $8 85 0.1
2 HVAC And DHW
Manually shutdown one boiler
used for space heating during
the summer months, using the
existing controls.
Replace existing shower
heads with 1.5 gpm shower
heads. Install a timer for hot
water circulation.
$4,725 $1,000 82 0.2
3
Setback
Thermostat:
Saunas
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Saunas space.
$3,100 $600 70 0.2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.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 Ventilation
Install timer controls on three
circulation type fans.
Install Humidistat control on
the Shower Exhaust to reduce
Mechanical Room/Dryer make-
up air fan run time
Control evaporation from
settling tanks to reduce
exhaust air and HRV schedule
for main water treatment area.
$61,766 $15,000 56 0.2
5
Setback
Thermostat:
Public Use Areas
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Public Use Areas space.
$5,028 $3,500 20 0.7
6 Lighting: Exterior Replace with 6 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic $157 $1,050 2.2 6.7
7
Air Tightening:
Main Entry
Doors, Garage
Door,
Maintenance
Door
Perform air sealing to reduce
air leakage by 15% by
replacing weather stripping
and closing the front doors.
$1,430 $8,000 1.7 5.6
8
Lighting:
Women's Bath,
Entry 4 Hall,
Men's Bath
Replace with 13 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $161 $1,560 1.5 9.7
9 Lighting:
Women's Bath
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $12 $120 1.5 9.7
10
Lighting:
Women's
Shower
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $12 $120 1.5 9.7
11 Lighting: Office Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $50 $480 1.5 9.7
12
Lighting:
Women's Bath,
Men's Bath
Replace with 6 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $74 $720 1.5 9.7
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $76,605 $32,158 32.6 0.4
The nature of the HVAC system plus the interaction with the water treatment plant leads to the
recommendation that the owner consider funding both a more in-depth, level three energy audit
and re-commissioning the building. As part of the investigation, a closer look should be taken at
the added cost that evaporation from the settling tanks brings to the space heating. Covering
the settling tanks to reduce or eliminate evaporation has the potential to save more energy than
is estimated here. Uncontrolled air losses are the greatest concern for this building. Air is
brought into the building mechanically and then heated to supply the public areas, however the
main doors are propped open during the day and the air losses are an uncontrolled cycle. This
wastes a significant amount of heat.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
3
Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown
The charts above are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the Hooper
Bay Washeteria. The greatest portions of energy cost for the building are envelope air losses
and domestic hot water This indicates that the greatest savings can be found in reducing the
amount of outside air provided to the building mechanically or through air leakage and reducing
hot water usage. Detailed improvements for ventilation, air leakage, domestic hot water and
other cost effective measures can be found in Appendix A.
The chart breaks down energy usage by cost into the following categories:
Envelope Air Losses—the cost to provide heated fresh air to occupants, air leakage,
heat lost in air through the chimneys and exhaust fans, heat lost to wind and other
similar losses.
Envelope
o Ceiling—quantified heat loss transferred through the ceiling portion of the
envelope.
o Window—quantified heat loss through the window portion of the envelope.
o Wall/Door—quantified heat loss through the wall and door portions of the
envelope.
o Floor—quantified heat loss through the floor portion of the envelope.
Water Heating—energy cost to provide domestic hot water.
Fans—energy cost to run ventilation, and exhaust fans.
Lighting—energy cost to light the building.
Refrigeration—energy costs to provide refrigerated goods for the occupants.
Other Electrical—includes energy costs not listed above including cooking loads, laundry
loads, other plug loads and electronics.
Envelope
Air Losses
$179,679
Ceiling
$6,160
Window
$513
Wall/Door
$9,241
Floor
$12,321
Water
Heating
$46,391
Fans
$4,620
Lighting
$7,081
Refriger-
ation
$5,798
Other
Electrical
$10,626
Existing Building Energy Cost
Breakdown Total Cost $277,069
Envelope
Air Losses
$122,254
Ceiling
$4,970
Window
$497
Wall/Door
$5,964
Floor
$10,436 Water
Heating
$35,281
Fans
$3,473
Lighting
$6,525
Refriger-
ation
$5,798
Other
Electrical
$10,626
EEM
Savings
$76,607
Retrofit Building Energy Cost
Breakdown Total Cost $200,463
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
4
2.0 INTRODUCTION
NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform ASHRAE
Level II Energy Audits for publically owned buildings in Alaska. This report presents the findings
of the utility benchmarking, modeling analysis, and the recommended building modifications,
and building use changes that are expected to save energy and money.
The report is organized into sections covering:
description of the facility,
the building’s historic energy usage (benchmarking),
estimating energy use through energy use modeling,
evaluation of potential energy efficiency or efficiency improvements, and
recommendations for energy efficiency with estimates of the costs and savings.
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description
2.1.1 Building Use
This building is the Washeteria and the Water Treatment Plant for Hooper Bay. The Washeteria
portion of the building provides showers, sauna and laundry facilities to the public at a small
cost. The rest of the building serves as location for the Water Treatment Plant, lab space for
some of the water quality testing and storage for replacement equipment for the Water
Treatment Plant and heavy equipment.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
The public area of the Washeteria has three attendants on-site from 9 am to 7 pm, daily.
Normally, 40-60 customers visit per day except Thursdays when the building is closed for
cleaning. The maintenance shop in the water plant side is occupied by two employees from
about 8 am until 8 pm, Monday through Friday.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
5
2.1.3 Building Description
The building is a two-story, metal-framed building with walls and ceiling composed of Structural
Insulated Panels (SIP) on a slab-on-grade foundation. It was constructed in 2004.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Prefabricated structural insulated
panels (SIP)
5.5-inch polyurethane
insulation R-30
No signs of insulation
damage.
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
Building Floor Un-insulated slab None None
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
Building Roof
Hot Roof composed of
prefabricated structural insulated
panels (SIP)
6-inches polyurethane
insulation R-40
No signs of insulation
damage.
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window
Type Description Estimated R-Value Notes
All Windows Triple-paned, vinyl-framed 2.6
One window had a
broken pane, replaced
with a storm window
cover
Man-Doors Metal, 2-inch thick, good
condition 5
Damaged weather
stripping on heavily
used doors.
Garage Doors Metal, sectional door, 1.75-inch
thick insulation, good condition 6.3 Damaged weather
stripping
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
6
Heating and Ventilation Systems
Three Weil McLain Boilers serve the heating needs of the building and the Water Treatment
Plant, each with a 3,290,000 BTU per hour rating. Two of the boilers work in combination to
provide space heating and hot water, and the third provides heat for the hydronic dryers and the
saunas.
The heat is distributed via two tempered make-up air intakes, four unit heaters, and a perimeter
baseboard heating system. Make up air for the clothes dryers is mechanically supplied based
on exhaust air rates, and the exhaust for the showers and laundry is manually controlled. The
unit heaters are controlled by simple thermostats and the perimeter baseboards are controlled
by manual valves. Additionally heat is saved by a Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) which has a
sophisticated control system that monitors temperature, pressure and humidity to control the air
flow.
Air Conditioning System
No air conditioning system is installed in the building. However economizer cooling is possible
using the ventilation equipment.
Energy Management
No energy management system is installed in the building.
Lighting Systems
The lighting in the building is composed of mainly fluorescent fixtures with 4-foot long T8 bulbs
(1-inch diameter) in ceiling mounted fixtures. The shop/water tank area is lit by 400-watt metal
halide fixtures and bulbs. Exterior lighting consists of 75-watt high pressure sodium wall packs,
controlled by a photocell.
Domestic Hot Water
Eight, 80 gallon, hot water tanks heat and store water for the building. All of the hot water tanks
and lines are insulated .The tanks heat the water via a combination of heat exchangers off the
boiler glycol lines and electric elements. Four of the tanks provide water at 100 degrees
Fahrenheit for the showers and the other four provide water at 140 degrees Fahrenheit for the
clothes washing machines. Hot water circulates 24 hours per day.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
7
2.2 Benchmarking
Benchmarking building energy use consists of obtaining and then analyzing two years of energy
bills. The original utility bills are necessary to determine the raw usage, and charges as well as
to evaluate the utility’s rate structure. The metered usage of electrical and natural gas
consumption is measured monthly, but heating oil, propane, wood, and other energy sources
are normally billed upon delivery and provide similar information. During benchmarking,
information is compiled in a way that standardizes the units of energy and creates energy use
and billing rate information statistics for the building on a square foot basis. The objectives of
benchmarking are:
to understand patterns of use,
to understand building operational characteristics,
for comparison with other similar facilities in Alaska and across the country, and
to offer insight in to potential energy savings.
The results of the benchmarking, including the energy use statistics and comparisons to other
areas, are discussed in the following sections.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
8
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010
The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for the Hooper Bay
Washeteria The total annual energy cost for the building is $ 267,292 per year. These charts
show the portion of use for a fuel type and the portion of its cost.
The above charts indicate that the highest portion of energy use is for fuel oil and the highest
portion of cost is for fuel oil. Fuel oil consumption correlates directly to space heating, domestic
hot water use and in this building, water distribution line heat trace, while electrical use can
correlate to lighting systems, plug loads, and HVAC equipment. The fuel type with the highest
cost often provides the most opportunity for savings.
Electric
711
11%
Oil
5,507
89%
Energy Use Total (mmBTU)
Electric
$30,502
11%
Oil
$236,790
89%
Energy Cost Total ($)
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
9
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010
The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated
from the utility bills and provides a simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by
the building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use
for the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into
British Thermal Units (BTUs). This total annual usage is then divided by the number of square
feet of the building. The EUI units are BTUs per square foot per year.
The benchmark analysis found that the Hooper Bay Washeteria has an EUI of 353,000 BTUs
per square foot per year. This value includes estimated fuel use based on the annual average
heating degree days and boiler run time during the site visit.
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 Hooper Bay Washeteria relative to these values. These findings are discussed
further in Appendix H.
324,000
62,000
123,000
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Hooper Bay Washeteria Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
10
2.2.3 Cost Utilization Index
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 Hooper Bay Washeteria is about $15.19. This is based on utility costs from 2010
and the following rates:
Electricity at $0.15 / kWh ($4.39 / Therm)
# 1 Fuel Oil at $6.02 / gallon ($4.49 / Therm)
This value includes estimated fuel usage based on the annual average heating degree days and
boiler run time during the site visit.
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 Hooper Bay Washeteria relative to these values. More details
are included in Appendix H.
$13.92
$2.42 $2.11
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
$16.00
Annual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF)
Hooper Bay Washeteria Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
11
2.2.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns
Energy consumption is often highly correlated with seasonal climate and usage variations. The
graphs below show the electric and fuel consumption of this building over the course of two
years. The lowest monthly use is called the baseline use. The electric baseline often reflects
year round lighting consumption while the heating fuel baseline often reflects year round hot
water usage. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of cold weather can
be seen in the months with higher usage.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10KWHElectrical Consumption
Hooper Bay Washeteria
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10GallonsEstimated Fuel Oil Consumption
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
12
2.2.5 Future Energy Monitoring
Energy accounting is the process of tracking energy consumption and costs. It is important for
the building owner or manager to monitor and record both the energy usage and cost each
month. Comparing trends over time can assist in pinpointing major sources of energy usage and
aid in finding effective energy efficiency measures. There are two basic methods of energy
accounting: manual and automatic. Manual tracking of energy usage may already be performed
by an administrative assistant: however if the records are not scrutinized for energy use, then
the data is merely a financial accounting. Digital energy tracking systems can be installed. They
display and record real-time energy usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are
several types which have all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
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 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
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
14
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Hooper
Bay Washeteria. 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
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
15
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Hooper Bay Washeteria
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm
to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm
calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the
savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes
recommendations based on the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR), which is defined as ratio of the
savings generated over the life of the EEM divided by the installed cost. Higher SIR values are
better and any SIR above one is considered acceptable. If the SIR of an EEM is below one, the
energy savings will not pay for the cost of the EEM and the EEM is not recommended.
Preferred EEMs are listed by AkWarm in order of the highest SIR.
A summary of the savings from the recommended EEMs are listed in this table.
Description Space
Heating
Water
Heating Lighting Refrigeration Other
Electrical
Clothes
Drying
Ventilation
Fans Total
Existing
Building $207,914 $46,391 $7,081 $436 $10,584 $42 $4,620 $277,069
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$144,120 $35,281 $6,525 $436 $10,584 $42 $3,473 $200,463
Savings $63,794 $11,110 $555 $0 $0 $0 $1,147 $76,605
Savings in these categories do not reflect interaction with other categories. So, for example, the
savings in lighting does not affect the added space heating cost to make up for the heat saved
in replacing less-efficient lights with more-efficient lights that waste less heat.
The cost of clothes drying is hidden within the space heating section as the building has
hydronic clothes dryers. The ventilation savings reflect mainly the electrical costs associated
with ventilation fans and the rest of the ventilation savings are contained within space heating.
This calculated savings is extremely high reflecting our opinion that the building is operated with
little regard for the energy costs. Given the large percentage of energy savings we believe that
actual savings could be less than presented here depending on how the EEMs are
implemented. However because of the high usage, any of the recommended EEMs will result in
significant savings.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
16
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in space heating and
domestic hot water. The energy cost by end use breakdown was provided by AkWarm based
on the field inspection and does not indicate that all individual fixtures and appliances were
directly measured. The current energy costs are shown below on the left hand bar of the graph
and the projected energy costs, assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the
right.
This graphical format allows easy visual comparison of the various energy requirements of the
facility. In the event that not all recommended retrofits are desired, the proposal energy savings
can be estimated from visual interpretation from this graph.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
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 Hooper Bay Washeteria could be modeled well in AKWarm. Retrofits for the HVAC system
were modeled in AKWarm using approximations. The nature of the HVAC system plus the
interaction with the water treatment plant made modeling more complicated, as the water
treatment plant was not included in the energy audit.
The water treatment plant fuel use and electricity use do not appear to have separate utility bills.
There are heat trace lines running off the boilers on water treatment plant piping, the water in
the settling tanks is indirectly heated to room temperature and pumps serving the treated water
distribution. None of these uses are easily separated from the building use, therefore their cost
is included creating the extremely high $13.92 cost per square foot in the benchmarking.
Savings calculated for this building only include savings based on changes to the Washeteria
system and use.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
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, 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.
Operations and Maintenance staff implementing a properly designed O & M plan will:
Track and document
o Renovations and repairs,
o Utility bills and fuel consumption, and
o System performance.
Keep available for reference
o A current Building Operating Plan including an inventory of installed systems,
o The most recent available as-built drawings,
o Reference manuals for all installed parts and systems, and
o An up-to-date inventory of on-hand replacement parts.
Provide training and continuing education for maintenance personnel.
Plan for commissioning and re-commissioning at appropriate intervals.
Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems perform within the design
or usage ranges of the Building Operating Plan. This process ideally, though seldom, occurs as
the last phase in construction. HVAC system operation parameters degrade from ideal over time
due to incorrect maintenance, improper replacement pumps, changes in facility tenants or
usage, changes in schedules, and changes in energy costs or loads. Ideally, re-commissioning
of a building should occur every five to ten years. This ensures that the HVAC system meets
the potentially variable use with the most efficient means.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
19
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations
The building is new and has been well maintained. The site visit indicated that the building’s
water treatment plant was designed for higher capacity, and the current operations may be
inefficient at the low level of use. No further investigation into the water treatment was
conducted.
The Washeteria portion seems to have a few maintenance and operation issues. The following
were noted during the site visit:
The shower area seems to have humidity problems; water damage was visible on the
ceiling tiles. This may be caused by a combination of the staff forgetting to turn on the
manual switch for the ventilation and the infrequent cleaning of the area. As part of the
ventilation EEMs, installing a humidity based controller on the shower ventilation is
recommended. In addition to this, the staff should regularly clean the shower vent grilles.
The public areas of the Washeteria are cleaned only once per week, and the Washeteria
must shut down for this to occur. Staggering the staff schedule so that cleaning can
occur every evening would provide a higher level of sanitation, and reduce the need for
closure.
Financial records were not available; a system should be implemented to keep record of
the usage and an accounting of whether the costs to the public seem necessary.
The shower times are currently unlimited. In addition to reducing the flow on the shower
head fixtures (see EEM in Appendix A), timers could be installed to limit shower length to
ten minutes. This could save up to one third of the domestic hot water costs.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
20
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
21
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 installed and programmed in the Washeteria public use
areas, saunas, and the water storage/upstairs storage areas. Programmable thermostats allow
for automatic temperature setback, which reduce usage more reliably than manual setbacks.
Reduction of the unoccupied temperature set points will decrease the energy usage.
The saunas are currently heated constantly, but only used two days per week. The saunas
could be completely unheated during the unoccupied periods.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
3 Saunas
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 60.0 deg F for the
Saunas space.
Installation Cost $600 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,100
Breakeven Cost $42,073 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 70 Simple Payback (yr) 0
The building currently has few thermostats and all of the cabinet heaters are controlled by Dan
Foss type manual valve controls. Replacing the manual valves with programmed setback
thermostatic valves for nighttime setbacks will save a considerable amount of energy.
Rank Building Space Recommendation
5 Public Use Areas
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the
Public Use Areas space.
Installation Cost $3,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $5,028
Breakeven Cost $68,242 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 20 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
22
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
1 Men's Sauna,
Women's Sauna
2 INCAN A Lamp, Halogen 75W with
Manual Switching
Replace with 2 FLUOR CFL, A
Lamp 15W
Installation Cost $8 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 9 Energy Savings (/yr) $88
Breakeven Cost $679 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 85 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Exterior 6 HPS 35 Watt StdElectronic with Daylight
Sensor
Replace with 6 LED 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,050 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $157
Breakeven Cost $2,292 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.3 Simple Payback (yr) 7
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8
Women's Bath,
Entry 4 Hall, Men's
Bath
13 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 13 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $1,560 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $161
Breakeven Cost $2,355 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 10
xRank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
9 Women's Bath FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $120 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $12
Breakeven Cost $181 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 10
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
23
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
No EEMs are recommended in this area, as the walls are in great condition, and have sufficient
insulation, adding insulation to the exterior would be expensive and would not result in
economic energy savings.
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
No EEMs are recommended in this area. This building was constructed on a concrete slab and
adding insulation to the slab is expensive and will not yield economic energy savings.
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
The existing roof meets current standards for hot roof design. Adding insulation would be
expensive and would not yield economic energy savings.
A.3.4 Windows
The existing windows are new and energy efficient replacing them would not result in economic
energy savings.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
10 Women's Shower FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $120 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $12
Breakeven Cost $181 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 10
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
11 Office 4 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 4 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $480 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $50
Breakeven Cost $725 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 10
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
12 Women's Bath,
Men's Bath
6 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 32W Standard
Instant StdElectronic with Manual Switching
Replace with 6 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $720 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $74
Breakeven Cost $1,087 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.5 Simple Payback (yr) 10
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
24
A.3.5 Doors
The existing doors are new and energy efficient, with the exception of worn weather stripping on
the much used doors. See Section A4.4 for air sealing recommendations. Replacing the doors
will not result in economic energy savings.
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
Three boilers supply the heating system, operating year round. Boilers of this size, no matter
how new and efficient, incur operational standby losses when sitting idle. During the summer
months the redundant boiler can be shut down to reduce these losses. Discussion with the
boiler manufacturer indicates that the existing controls should be able to accommodate this shut
down.
The existing shower heads have a 2.5 gallon per minute flow, which meets the standard for
shower head flow. However more efficient shower heads with sufficient pressure are available
and can save approximately 30% of the water heating energy needs for the building.
Hot water circulates continuously in the current system. Installing a timer to prevent circulation
during the unoccupied periods will save a significant amount of energy.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No air conditioning system is installed in the facility, therefore no EEMs are recommended in
this area.
Rank Recommendation
2 Manually shutdown one boiler used for space heating during the summer months. Replace existing
shower heads with 1.5 gpm shower heads. Install a timer for hot water circulation.
Installation Cost $1,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $4,725
Breakeven Cost $82,330 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 82 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
25
A.4.3 Air Changes and Air Tightening
The front doors on both sides of the arctic entry are propped open all of the time during
business hours to alleviate occupant high temperature discomfort and to allow customers easier
entry to the building. Creating an "In" and "Out" door for both sets of door will make entry and
exit easier while nighttime setbacks should alleviate some occupant discomfort. The weather
stripping on main entry doors, garage door and maintenance entry door are in poor condition
due to high use and should be replaced.
A.4.4 Ventilation
The make-up air for the dryer mechanical room is controlled by a differential pressure monitor,
and appears to run constantly. It appears that the supply fan cannot keep the desired pressure
due to the practice of keeping the front doors open all day and the unreliable manual controls of
the exhaust system. Therefore it runs far more often than it needs to. Controlling the exhaust
system automatically and keeping the main doors closed should reduce the run time for the
supply fan significantly.
The shower exhaust and make-up air fans are manually controlled. The operators are supposed
to turn on the fans at the beginning of the day and turn them off again at night. The manual
control is unreliable and the fans often get left on or off for days at a time. Installing humidistats
in each of the separate rooms in the shower/bath areas to control both the exhaust and make-
up air fans will reduce energy consumption for this part of the ventilation system and will help
prevent water damage to the shower/bath areas.
The anti-stratification fans in the storage and water treatment areas are manually controlled and
appear to run constantly. Installing a differential temperature control to modulate the “on” time
and speed of these fans should reduce the run time and associated electric cost.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7
Main Entry Doors,
Garage Door,
Maintenance Door
Unusually high volume of air leakage Perform air sealing to reduce
air leakage by 15%.
Installation Cost $8,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,430
Breakeven Cost $13,309 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yr) 6
Rank Recommendation
4
Install timer controls on three circulation type fans.
Install Humidistat control on the Shower Exhaust and Makeup Air Fans this will ensure that Mechanical
Room/Dryer make-up air fan reduces run time to business hours only.
Investigate methods of controlling evaporation from settling tanks to reduce exhaust air and HRV
schedule for main water treatment area.
Installation Cost $15,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $61,766
Breakeven Cost $836,206 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 56 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
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 in these EEMs should be considered
when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other reasons. For example, replacing an existing
window with a triple-pane window may not be cost effective based only on energy use, but if a
window is going to be replaced for some other reason, then the basis for a decision is only the
incremental cost of upgrading from a less efficient replacement window to a more efficient
replacement window. That incremental cost difference will have a significantly shorter payback,
especially since the installation costs are likely to be the same for both units.
The following measures were not found to be cost-effective:
Rank Feature/Location Improvement Description
Annual
Energy
Savings
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
13 Lighting: Lab/Office
Replace with 11 LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic and
Add new Multi-Level Switch
$323 $3,000 0.85 9.3
14 Lighting: Entry 4 Hall Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $6 $120 0.40 20
15
Lighting: Women's
Shower, Men's
Shower, Laundry
Area
Replace with 29 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $171 $3,480 0.39 20
16
Lighting: Lab
Bathroom, Electrical
Panel Room, Staff
Restroom,
Mechanical Room,
Chemical Storage
Replace with 13 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $29 $1,560 0.28 54
17 Lighting: Handicap
Shower
Replace with 2 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $2 $240 0.16 110
18 Lighting: Handicap
Shower
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $1 $120 0.16 110
19 Lighting: Plant
Hallway, Stairway
Replace with 6 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $6 $720 0.14 110
20 Lighting: Janitorial Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $1 $120 0.14 110
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
27
21 Lighting: Women's
Bath Storage
Replace with LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $0 $120 0.00 2,500
22 Lighting: Plant
Hallway
Replace with 4 LED (4) 17W
Module StdElectronic $0 $920 0.00 1000
23 Lighting: Mezzanine,
Dryer Room
Replace with 9 LED (2) 17W
Module (2) StdElectronic $2 $1,080 -0.01 640
24
Lighting: Mezzanine,
Storage 1,
Mechanical, Large
Storage, Mix Room,
Vacuum Sewer
Room, Boiler Room,
Standby Generator
Replace with 65 LED (2) 17W
Module StdElectronic $11 $7,800 -0.01 690
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
28
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated
Efficiency Notes
(3) Boilers Weil McLain 1188 #1 Fuel Oil 80% multiple units
(8) Water Heaters Amtrol Boiler
mate Electric 100% Heating Element & Heat
Exchanger
Various Circulation
Pumps Baldor N/A Electric ~75% vary from 1-5 HP
Combustion Air fan N/A N/A Electric 83% Variable Speed Motor
Dryer/Mechanical
Make-up Air Greenheck 33QEP-4-
60-1 Electric 83% Variable Speed Motor, On
Continuously
(2) Exhaust Fans Broan S110LV-A Electric 75% Low Use
Shower Exhaust Fan Penn Centrex REX12 Electric 75% High Use
Shower Make-up Air N/A N/A Electric 75% 1/4 HP
(2) Exhaust Fans Fantech N/A Electric 75% Low Use
Main Water Plant
Exhaust N/A N/A Electric 83% Variable Speed motor
Heat Recovery
Ventilator Venmar 2000 Electric 55% High Use
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/Yr
Men's & Women's Bath/Entry Fluorescent T8 51 14,102 $ 2,115
Water Tanks Metal Halide 400 W 6 13,122 1,968
Lab/Office & Plant Hallway Fluorescent T8 15 6,205 931
Water Tanks Fluorescent T8 15 5,018 753
Water Tanks High Pressure Sodium 35 W 1 2,451 368
Exterior High Pressure Sodium 35 S 6 2,162 324
Office Fluorescent T8 4 1,128 169
Mezzanine Storage Rooms Fluorescent T8 65 1,118 168
Saunas Incandescent A Bulb 2 735 110
Lab Bath, Staff Bath, Mechanical Room Fluorescent T8 13 468 70
Handicap Shower/Janitor Fluorescent T8 5 351 53
Mezzanine Dryer Room Fluorescent T8 9 161 24
Plant Hallway /Stair Fluorescent T8 10 103 15
Exit Lights LED 4 W 1 64 10
Lab Bath Incandescent A Bulb 1 13 2
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.15/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
29
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/Yr
Clothes Washers Laundry Room Speed Queen 55,820 $ 8,373
Circulation Pump Water Treatment Baldor 5,797 870
Coffee Maker Office 4,412 662
Full Size Freezer Water Treatment N/A 1,679 252
Sauna heater Sauna 1,492 224
Microwave Office Krups 1,378 207
Refrigerated Fountain Lab N/A 730 110
(2) Mini Fridge Office/Lab N/A 500 75
Laptop Office N/A 490 74
Computer Towers Office N/A 392 59
Computer Monitors Office N/A 196 29
Lab Equipment Lab 143 21
Desk Radio Lab 13 2
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.15/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
30
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure
The information in this section was provided directly from the local utility or gathered from the
local utility’s publicly available information at the time of the audit. All language used in this
section was provided by the local utility and believed to be current at the time of the audit.
Energy use terms, specific fees, and other specific information are subject to change. Updated
rate structure information should be gathered from the utility during future discussion of rates,
rate structures and utility pricing agreements.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Rate Structure:
Small Commercial Service Effective Rates***
Customer Charge $0.00
Utility Charge $0.14 /KWH $0.15 /KWH (includes
regulatory charges)
Fuel Charge $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, $0.15, is the average 2010 utility rate. Fuel charges are very rarely applied to customers in
this city, as wind generation supplies most of the community’s needs.
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
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
31
Appendix E Analysis Methodology
Data collected was processed using AkWarm energy use software to estimate current energy
consumption by end usage and calculate energy savings for each of the proposed energy
efficiency measures (EEMs). In addition, separate analysis may have been conducted to
evaluate EEMs that AkWarm cannot effectively model to evaluate potential reductions in annual
energy consumption. Analyses were conducted under the direct supervision of a Certified
Energy Auditor, Certified Energy Manager, or a Professional Engineer.
EEMs are evaluated based on building use, maintenance and processes, local climate
conditions, building construction type, function, operational schedule and existing conditions.
Energy savings are calculated based on industry standard methods and engineering
estimations. Each model created in AkWarm is carefully compared to existing utility usage
obtained from utility bills. The AkWarm analysis provides a number of tools for assessing the
cost effectiveness of various improvement options. The primary assessment value used in this
audit report is the Savings/Investment Ratio (SIR). The SIR is a method of cost analysis that
compares the total cost savings through reduced energy consumption to the total cost of a
project over its assumed lifespan, including both the construction cost and ongoing maintenance
and operating costs. Other measurement methods include Simple Payback, which is defined as
the length of time it takes for the savings to equal the total installed cost and Breakeven Cost,
which is defined as the highest cost that would yield a Savings/Investment Ratio of one.
EEMs are recommended by AkWarm in order of cost-effectiveness. AkWarm first calculates
individual SIRs for each EEM, and then ranks the EEMs by SIR, with higher SIRs at the top of
the list. An individual EEM must have a SIR greater than or equal to one in order to be
recommended by AkWarm. Next AkWarm modifies the building model to include the installation
of the first EEM and then re-simulates the energy use. Then the remaining EEMs are re-
evaluated and ranked again. AkWarm goes through this iterative process until all suggested
EEMs have been evaluated.
Under this iterative review process, the savings for each recommended EEM is calculated
based on the implementation of the other, more cost effective EEMs first. Therefore, the
implementation of one EEM affects the savings of other EEMs that are recommended later.
The savings from any one individual EEM may be relatively higher if the individual EEM is
implemented without the other recommended EEMs. For example, implementing a reduced
operating schedule for inefficient lighting may result in relatively higher savings than
implementing the same reduced operating schedule for newly installed lighting that is more
efficient. If multiple EEMs are recommended, AkWarm calculates a combined savings.
Inclusion of recommendations for energy savings outside the capability of AkWarm will impact
the actual savings from the AkWarm projections. This will almost certainly result in lower
energy savings and monetary savings from AkWarm recommendations. The reality is that only
so much energy is consumed in a building. Energy savings from one EEM reduces the amount
of energy that can be saved from additional EEMs. For example, installation of a lower wattage
light bulb does not save energy or money if the bulb is never turned on because of a schedule
or operational change at the facility.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
32
Appendix F Audit Limitations
The results of this audit are dependent on the input data provided and can only act as an
approximation. In some instances, several EEMs or installation methods may achieve the
identified potential savings. Actual savings will depend on the EEM selected, the price of
energy, and the final installation and implementation methodology. Competent tradesmen and
professional engineers may be required to design, install, or otherwise implement some of the
recommended EEMs. This document is an energy use audit report and is not intended as a
final design document, operation, and maintenance manual, or to take the place of any
document provided by a manufacturer or installer of any device described in this report.
Cost savings are calculated based on estimated initial costs for each EEM. Estimated costs
include labor and equipment for the full up-front investment required to implement the EEM.
The listed installation costs within the report are conceptual budgetary estimates and should not
be used as design estimates. The estimated costs are derived from Means Cost Data, industry
publications, local contractors and equipment suppliers, and the professional judgment of the
CEA writing the report and based on the conditions at the time of the audit.
Cost and energy savings are approximations and are not guaranteed.
Additional significant energy savings can usually be found with more detailed auditing
techniques that include actual measurements of electrical use, temperatures in the building and
HVAC ductwork, intake and exhaust temperatures, motor runtime and scheduling, and infrared,
air leakage to name just a few. Implementation of these techniques is the difference between a
Level III Energy Audit and the Level II Audit that has been conducted.
Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the
United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor
any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability
or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof."
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
33
Appendix G References
Although not all documents listed below are specifically referenced in this report, each contains
information and insights considered valuable to most buildings.
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development; Education Support Services/Facilities.
(1999). Alaska School Facilities Preventative Maintenance Handbook. Juneau, AK:
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Alaska Housing Finance Corportation. (2010). Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans. AHFC.
ASHRAE. (1997). 1997 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 105-2007 Expressing and Comparing Building Energy
Performance. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (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
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
34
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage
This report provides data on typical energy costs and use on selected building in Fairbanks and
Anchorage, Alaska for comparative purposes only. The values provided by the US Energy
Information Administration CBECS study included a broader range of building types for the
Continental U.S. are not necessarily good comparatives for buildings and conditions in Alaska.
An assortment of values from CBECS may be found in Appendix I.
The Alaska data described in this report came from a benchmarking study NORTECH and other
Technical Services Providers (TSPs) completed on publicly owned buildings in Alaska under
contract with AHFC. This study acquired actual utility data for municipal buildings and schools
in Alaska for the two recent full years. The utility data included costs and quantities including
fuel oil, electricity, propane, wood, steam, and all other energy source usage. This resulted in a
database of approximately 900 buildings. During the course of the benchmarking study, the
comparisons made to the CBECS data appeared to be inappropriate for various reasons.
Therefore, this energy use audit report references the average energy use and energy cost of
Anchorage and Fairbanks buildings as described below.
The Alaska benchmarking data was evaluated in order to find valid comparison data. Buildings
with major energy use information missing were eliminated from the data pool. After detailed
scrutiny of the data, the most complete information was provided to NORTECH by the
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD) and the Anchorage School District
(ASD). The data sets from these two sources included both the actual educational facilities as
well as the district administrative buildings and these are grouped together in this report as
Fairbanks and Anchorage schools. These two sources of information, being the most complete
and reasonable in-state information, have been used to identify an average annual energy
usage for Fairbanks and for Anchorage in order to provide a comparison for other facilities in
Alaska.
Several factors may limit the comparison of a specific facility to these regional indicators. In
Fairbanks, the FNSBSD generally uses number two fuel oil for heating needs and electricity is
provided by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA). GVEA produces electricity from a coal
fired generation plant with additional oil generation upon demand. A few of the FNSBSD
buildings in this selection utilize district steam and hot water. The FNSBSD has recently (the
last ten years) invested significantly in envelope and other efficiency upgrades to reduce their
operating costs. Therefore a reader should be aware that this selection of Fairbanks buildings
has energy use at or below average for the entire Alaska benchmarking database.
Heating in Anchorage is through natural gas from the nearby natural gas fields. Electricity is
also provided using natural gas. As the source is nearby and the infrastructure for delivery is in
place, energy costs are relatively low in the area. As a result, the ASD buildings have lower
energy costs, but higher energy use, than the average for the entire benchmarking database.
These special circumstances should be considered when comparing the typical annual energy
use for particular buildings.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
35
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S.
Released: Dec 2006
Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007
Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003
All Buildings* Sum of Major Fuel Consumption
Number of
Buildings
(thousand)
Floorspace
(million
square feet)
Floorspace
per Building
(thousand
square feet)
Total
(trillion
BTU)
per
Building
(million
BTU)
per
Square
Foot
(thousand
BTU)
per
Worker
(million
BTU)
All Buildings* 4,645 64,783 13.9 5,820 1,253 89.8 79.9
Building Floorspace (Square Feet)
1,001 to 5,000 2,552 6,789 2.7 672 263 98.9 67.6
5,001 to 10,000 889 6,585 7.4 516 580 78.3 68.7
10,001 to 25,000 738 11,535 15.6 776 1,052 67.3 72.0
25,001 to 50,000 241 8,668 35.9 673 2,790 77.6 75.8
50,001 to 100,000 129 9,057 70.4 759 5,901 83.8 90.0
100,001 to 200,000 65 9,064 138.8 934 14,300 103.0 80.3
200,001 to 500,000 25 7,176 289.0 725 29,189 101.0 105.3
Over 500,000 7 5,908 896.1 766 116,216 129.7 87.6
Principal Building Activity
Education 386 9,874 25.6 820 2,125 83.1 65.7
Food Sales 226 1,255 5.6 251 1,110 199.7 175.2
Food Service 297 1,654 5.6 427 1,436 258.3 136.5
Health Care 129 3,163 24.6 594 4,612 187.7 94.0
Inpatient 8 1,905 241.4 475 60,152 249.2 127.7
Outpatient 121 1,258 10.4 119 985 94.6 45.8
Lodging 142 5,096 35.8 510 3,578 100.0 207.5
Retail (Other Than Mall) 443 4,317 9.7 319 720 73.9 92.1
Office 824 12,208 14.8 1,134 1,376 92.9 40.3
Public Assembly 277 3,939 14.2 370 1,338 93.9 154.5
Public Order and Safety 71 1,090 15.5 126 1,791 115.8 93.7
Religious Worship 370 3,754 10.1 163 440 43.5 95.6
Service 622 4,050 6.5 312 501 77.0 85.0
Warehouse and Storage 597 10,078 16.9 456 764 45.2 104.3
Other 79 1,738 21.9 286 3,600 164.4 157.1
Vacant 182 2,567 14.1 54 294 20.9 832.1
This report references the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), published by the U.S.
Energy Information Administration in 2006. Initially this report was expected to compare the annual energy
consumption of the building to average national energy usage as documented below. However, a direct comparison
between one specific building and the groups of buildings outlined below yielded confusing results. Instead, this
report uses a comparative analysis on Fairbanks and Anchorage data as described in Appendix F. An abbreviated
excerpt from CBECS on commercial buildings in the Continental U.S. is below.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
36
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units
1 British Thermal Unit is the energy required to raise one pound of water one degree F°
1 Watt is approximately 3.412 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 2,544 BTU/hr
1 horsepower is approximately 746 Watts
1 "ton of cooling” is approximately 12,000 BTU/hr, the amount of power required to
melt one short ton of ice in 24 hours
1 Therm = 100,000 BTU
1 KBTU = 1,000 BTU
1 KWH = 3413 BTU
1 KW = 3413 BTU/Hr
1 Boiler HP = 33,400 BTU/Hr
1 Pound Steam = approximately 1000 BTU
1 CCF of natural gas = approximately 1 Therm
1 inch H2O = 250 Pascal (Pa) = 0.443 pounds/square inch (psi)
1 atmosphere (atm) = 10,1000 Pascal (Pa)
BTU British Thermal Unit
CCF 100 Cubic Feet
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
GPM Gallons per minute
HP Horsepower
Hz Hertz
kg Kilogram (1,000 grams)
kV Kilovolt (1,000 volts)
kVA Kilovolt-Amp
kVAR Kilovolt-Amp Reactive
KW Kilowatt (1,000 watts)
KWH Kilowatt Hour
V Volt
W Watt
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
37
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions
ACH Air Changes per Hour
AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
Air Economizer A duct, damper, and automatic control system that
allows a cooling system to supply outside air to reduce
or eliminate the need for mechanical cooling.
Ambient Temperature Average temperature of the surrounding air
Ballast A device used with an electric discharge lamp to cause
the lamp to start and operate under the proper circuit
conditions of voltage, current, electrode heat, etc.
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CUI Cost Utilization Index
CDD Cooling Degree Days
DDC Direct Digital Control
EEM Energy Efficiency Measure
EER Energy Efficient Ratio
EUI Energy Utilization Index
FLUOR Fluorescent
Grade The finished ground level adjoining a building at the
exterior walls
HDD Heating Degree Days
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning
INCAN Incandescent
NPV Net Present Value
R-value Thermal resistance measured in BTU/Hr-SF-̊F (Higher
value means better insulation)
SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) Savings over the life of the EEM divided by Investment
capital cost. Savings includes the total discounted dollar
savings considered over the life of the improvement.
Investment in the SIR calculation includes the labor and
materials required to install the measure.
Set Point Target temperature that a control system operates the
heating and cooling system
Simple payback A cost analysis method whereby the investment cost of
an EEM is divided by the first year’s savings of the EEM
to give the number of years required to recover the cost
of the investment.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Hooper Bay Washeteria
Hooper Bay, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-770 Hooper Bay\50-775 Washeteria\Reports\Final\2012.07.09 Final AHFC Report HPB
Washeteria.Docx
38
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Lower floor plan drawn in field by NORTECH Field team
Lower floor plan drawn in field by NORTECH Field team