HomeMy WebLinkAboutMOU Mountain Village City Office 2012-EEENERGY AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VILLAGE – CENTRAL OFFICE
PO Box 3285
Mountain Village, Alaska
Prepared for:
Ms. Anita Andrews
Mountain Village, Alaska
Prepared by:
David C. Lanning PE, CEA
Stephanie N. Young EIT, CEAIT
July 11, 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\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description .......................................... 3
2.1.1 Building Use............................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules .......................................................... 3
2.1.3 Building Description ................................................................................... 4
2.2 Benchmarking ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 ................................................................ 7
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns .................................................................. 9
2.2.4 Future Energy Monitoring ........................................................................ 10
3.0 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND MODELING RESULTS .............................................. 11
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 12
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .............................. 14
3.2 Energy Efficiency Measures Calculated Outside AkWarm .................................. 15
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 16
4.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 16
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations ................................................................... 16
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report MOU
City Office.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 18
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 23
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 25
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 26
Appendix E Analysis Methods .................................................................................... 27
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 28
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 29
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 30
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 31
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 32
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 33
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 34
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Mountain Village Mountain
Village Central Office, a 3,680 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 1, 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 Mountain
Village Central Office. Additional discussion of the modeling process can be found in Section 3.
Details of each individual EEM can be found in Appendix A of this report. A summary of EEMs
that were evaluated but are not currently recommended is located in 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:
Office
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 62.0 deg F for the
Office space.
$3,593 $200 270 0.1
2
Setback
Thermostat:
Council
Chambers
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 62.0 deg F for the
Council Chambers space.
$932 $200 70 0.2
3
Setback
Thermostat:
Public Safety
Implement a Heating
Temperature Unoccupied
Setback to 62.0 deg F for the
Public Safety space.
$176 $200 13 1.1
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
2
PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs)
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
4
Air Tightening:
Windows and
Doors
Perform air sealing to reduce
air leakage by 10%. $1,434 $2,000 7.4 1.4
5 HVAC And DHW
1. Replace boiler with more
efficient model.
2. Add vent damper.
3. Insulate piping.
4. Replace circulation pumps
with variable speed pumps.
5. Install three thermostats,
one aquastat and two zone
valves to allow for three
heating zones.
6. Replace damaged base
boards.
$4,756 $25,000 3.6 5.3
6 Above-Grade
Wall: Floor Joist
Add R-10 rigid to floor joist of
above grade wall $161 $2,198 2.0 14
7 Roof Install R-30 loose-fill insulation
in attic with Standard Truss. $945 $14,257 1.8 15
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $11,996 $44,055 4.63 3.7
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
3
2.0 INTRODUCTION
NORTECH contracted with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to perform ASHRAE Level
II Energy Audits for publically owned buildings in Alaska. This report presents the findings of
the utility benchmarking, modeling analysis, and the recommended building modifications, and
building use changes that are expected to save energy and money.
The report is organized into sections covering:
description of the facility,
the building’s historic energy usage (benchmarking),
estimating energy use through energy use modeling,
evaluation of potential energy efficiency or efficiency improvements, and
recommendations for energy efficiency with estimates of the costs and savings.
2.1 Building Use, Occupancy, Schedules and Description
2.1.1 Building Use
The building serves as office space for all of the City of Mountain Village Departments including
Water and Sewer, Maintenance, Accounting, City Council and Public Safety. One end of the
building is devoted to Public Safety and includes holding cells and a secure evidence room.
2.1.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
The building is open to the public during normal office hours from Monday through Friday, 9:00
am to 5:00 pm. City Council meets one evening per week from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm. An
average of ten people occupy the space during these times.
The Public Safety Office has one dispatcher on duty every night from 5:00 pm to 8:00 am. The
two holding cells are occasionally occupied.
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
4
2.1.3 Building Description
The Mountain Village Central Office is a single-story, wood-framed building, constructed before
1980. A small addition was constructed in 2009 at the north end of the building to accommodate
a Public Safety Office.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade walls Wood-framed with 2x6 studs
spaced 16-inches on center.
R-19 Fiberglass
Batt.
Two, 2-inch round holes
from exterior need repairs
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
Above Grade Floor
2 x Lumber framed with plywood
sheathing on main building and
Thermo-ply sheathing or similar
product on addition.
R-19 Fiberglass Batt
Insulation
Insulation has fallen from
floor to bottom of floor
joist space in many areas.
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
All Roofs Cold roofs framed with wood
trusses.
R-30 Fiberglass Batt
Insulation
Evidence of water
damage, poor insulation
installation and icing on
roof edges.
Unused chimney is open
to outdoors.
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window
Type Description Estimated
R-Value Notes
All Doors 2-inch metal doors with no
thermal break 4.5 Weather stripping in poor
condition
All Windows Double-paned, vinyl-framed 2 Occupants report water
leakage during storms.
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
5
Heating and Ventilation Systems
Building heat is supplied by one boiler which is old and has been poorly maintained. The heat is
distributed via three circulation loops by two pumps. All of the distribution lines are un-insulated
and the baseboard fin tube is damaged.
Building temperature for both sides is controlled by a single, non-programmable thermostat in
the city clerk’s office.
No ventilation system is installed in the building.
Air Conditioning System
No air conditioning is installed in the building. Fresh air is supplied by operable windows.
Energy Management
No energy management system is installed in the building.
Lighting Systems
Lighting in the building is a mixture of fluorescent fixtures:
T12 (1 ½-inch fluorescent bulbs with magnetic ballasts)
T8 (1-inch fluorescent bulbs with electronic ballasts
a few compact fluorescent bulbs.
Domestic Hot Water
No domestic hot water is supplied in this building, however domestic cold water is supplied.
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
6
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
7
2.2.1 Energy Utilization Index of 2010
The primary benchmarking statistic is the Energy Utilization Index (EUI). The EUI is calculated
from the utility bills and provides a simple snapshot of the quantity of energy actually used by
the building on a square foot and annual basis. The calculation converts the total energy use
for the year from all sources in the building, such as heating fuel and electrical usage, into
British Thermal Units (BTUs). This total 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 Mountain Village Central Office has an EUI of 179,000
BTUs per square foot per year. This seems very high for a wood building with no ventilation
system. The audit measured furnace run time of 14 hours over 2 days with an average outdoor
temperature of 24 degrees Fahrenheit, using an estimated 21 gallons in two days.
Complete fuel data was not available for this building instead, the data collected onsite was
used to estimate annual fuel use based on the heating degree days of the collected time and
extrapolated over the year. This report discusses building features that contribute to this amount
of heat loss.
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 Mountain Village Central Office relative to these values. These findings are
discussed further in Appendix H.
179,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Utilization Index
(Total Energy/ SF)
Mountain Village Central Office Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
8
2.2.2 Cost Utilization Index of 2010
Another benchmarking statistic that is useful is the Cost Utilization Index (CUI), which is the cost
for energy used in the building on a square foot basis per year. The CUI is calculated from the
cost for utilities for a year period. The CUI permits comparison of buildings on total energy cost
even though they may be located in areas with differing energy costs and differing heating
and/or cooling climates. The cost of energy, including heating oil, natural gas, and electricity,
can vary greatly over time and geographic location and can be higher in Alaska than other parts
of the country.
The CUI for Mountain Village Central Office is about $8.29 per square foot per year. This is
based on utility costs from 2010 and the following rates:
Electricity at $ 0.20 / kWh
# 1 Fuel Oil at $ 6.30 / gallon
This CUI seems extremely high at about four times the average CUI in Anchorage. However the
price of fuel in Mountain Village is significantly more expensive than in either Fairbanks or
Anchorage, and this building, built before 1980 seems to have insufficient envelope insulation.
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 Mountain Village Central Office relative to these values. More
details are included in Appendix H.
$8.29
$2.42 $2.11
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
Annual Energy Cost Utilization Index
(Total Cost/ SF)
Mountain Village Central Office Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
9
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 lowest monthly use is called the baseline use. The electric baseline often reflects
year round lighting consumption. The clear relation of increased energy usage during periods of
cold weather can be seen in the months with higher usage.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10Nov-10KWHElectrical Consumption
Mountain Village Central Office
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jan-09Mar-09May-09Jul-09Sep-09Nov-09Jan-10Mar-10May-10Jul-10Sep-10GallonsEstimated Fuel Oil Consumption
Based on Heating Degree Days
Mountain Village Central Office
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
10
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, such as Smart Meters
for commercial or TED for residential, can be installed. They display and record real-time energy
usage and accumulated energy use and cost. There are several other types including OptoEMU
by Opto22 which has all of the information accessible via Ethernet browser.
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
11
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
12
3.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at City of
Mountain Villages Central Office. The AkWarm program was developed by the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) to model residential energy use. The original AkWarm is the
modeling engine behind the successful residential energy upgrade program that AHFC has
operated for a number of years. In the past few years, AHFC has developed a version of this
model for commercial buildings.
Energy use in buildings is modeled by calculating energy losses and consumption, such as:
• Heat lost through the building envelope components, including windows, doors,
walls, ceilings, crawlspaces, and foundations. These heat losses are computed for
each component based on the area, heat resistance (R-value), and the difference
between the inside temperature and the outside temperature. AkWarm has a library
of temperature profiles for villages and cities in Alaska.
• Window orientation, such as the fact that south facing windows can add heat in the
winter but north-facing windows do not.
• Inefficiencies of the heating system, including the imperfect conversion of fuel oil or
natural gas due to heat loss in exhaust gases, incomplete combustion, excess air,
etc. Some electricity is also consumed in moving the heat around a building through
pumping.
• Inefficiencies of the cooling system, if one exists, due to various imperfections in a
mechanical system and the required energy to move the heat around.
• Lighting requirements and inefficiencies in the conversion of electricity to light;
ultimately all of the power used for lighting is converted to heat. While the heat may
be useful in the winter, it often isn’t useful in the summer when cooling may be
required to remove the excess heat. Lights are modeled by wattage and operational
hours.
• Use and inefficiencies in refrigeration, compressor cooling, and heat pumps. Some
units are more efficient than others. Electricity is required to move the heat from
inside a compartment to outside it. Again, this is a function of the R-Value and the
temperature difference between the inside and outside of the unit.
• Plug loads such as computers, printers, mini-fridges, microwaves, portable heaters,
monitors, etc. These can be a significant part of the overall electricity consumption
of the building, as well as contributing to heat production.
• The schedule of operation for lights, plug loads, motors, etc is a critical component of
how much energy is used.
AkWarm adds up these heat losses and the internal heat gains based on individual unit usage
schedules. These estimated heat and electrical usages are compared to actual use on both a
yearly and seasonal basis. If the AkWarm model is within 5 % to 10% of the most recent 12
months usage identified during benchmarking, the model is considered accurate enough to
make predictions of energy savings for possible EEMs.
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
13
3.1.1 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Mountain Village Central Office
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm
to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm
calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the
savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes
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 Lighting Refrigeration Other
Electrical Total
Existing Building $27,851 $1,157 $450 $873 $30,331
With All Proposed
Retrofits $15,855 $1,157 $450 $873 $18,335
Savings $11,996 $0 $0 $0 $11,996
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
14
3.1.2 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in space heating. The
energy cost by end use breakdown was provided by AkWarm based on the field inspection and
does not indicate that all individual fixtures and appliances were directly measured. The current
energy costs are shown below on the left hand bar of the graph and the projected energy costs,
assuming use of the recommended EEMs, are shown on the right.
This graphical format allows easy visual comparison of the various energy requirements of the
facility. In the event that not all recommended retrofits are desired, the proposal energy savings
can be estimated from visual interpretation from this graph.
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
Existing Retrofit
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
15
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 Mountain Village Central Office could be modeled well in AkWarm. Retrofits for the heating
system were adequately modeled in AkWarm and did not require additional calculations.
The AkWarm model which is based on the physical attributes of the building calibrated easily to
the fuel and temperature data collected onsite.
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
16
4.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M)
4.1 Operations and Maintenance
A well-implemented operation and maintenance (O & M) plan is often the driving force behind
energy savings. Such a plan includes preserving institutional knowledge, directing preventative
maintenance, and scheduling regular inspections of each piece of HVAC equipment within the
building. Routine maintenance includes the timely replacement of filters, belts and pulleys, the
proper greasing of bearings and other details such as topping off the glycol tanks. Additional
benefits to a maintenance plan are decreased down time for malfunctioning equipment, early
indications of problems, prevention of exacerbated maintenance issues, and early detection of
overloading/overheating issues. A good maintenance person knows the building’s equipment
well enough to spot and repair minor malfunctions before they become major retrofits.
Commissioning of a building is the verification that the HVAC systems act within the design or
usage ranges. This process ideally, though seldom, occurs as the last phase in construction.
HVAC system operation parameters degrade from ideal over time due to incorrect maintenance,
improper replacement pumps, changes in facility tenants or usage, changes in schedules, and
changes in energy costs or loads. Ideally, re-commissioning of a building should occur every
five to ten years. This ensures that the HVAC system meets the potentially variable use with
the most efficient means.
4.2 Building Specific Recommendations
The City of Mountain Village does not have a dedicated maintenance person; this position has
been open for over a year.
As a result:
the boiler has not been serviced
the baseboard fin tubes are in bad condition, with crushed fins throughout the building
fire damage in the Public Safety holding cells has not been repaired
damage to the sheathing has not been repaired
the floor insulation has fallen to the bottom of the joist space and
housekeeping is generally poor with maintenance materials and office supplies stacked
in every available space.
A maintenance person should be hired immediately and trained if necessary.
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
17
APPENDICES
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
18
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 Public Safety area, the
City Council Chambers and the office area. There is only one existing thermostat in the building
operating all three zones based upon temperature in one small area. Occupants report
problems with excess heat in the Public Safety area and insufficient heat in the office areas.
Creating three zones as discussed in Section A4.1 will allow for the installation of three
programmable thermostats and individual control of all three areas. Programmable thermostats
also allow for automatic temperature setbacks, 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 Office
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the
Office space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $3,593
Breakeven Cost $53,725 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 270 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Building Space Recommendation
2 Council Chambers
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the
Council Chambers space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $932
Breakeven Cost $13,940 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 70 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Building Space Recommendation
3 Public Safety
Implement a Heating Temperature
Unoccupied Setback to 62.0 deg F for the
Public Safety space.
Installation Cost $200 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $176
Breakeven Cost $2,614 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 13 Simple Payback (yr) 1
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
19
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 (1 ½-inch fluorescent bulbs) to T8 (1-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.
Recommendations for lighting retrofits do not result in enough savings to cover full replacement
costs, however as the equipment ages and requires replacement the existing T-12 bulbs and
magnetic ballasts should be replaced with the more efficient T-8 bulbs and electronic ballasts.
These changes will result in savings that should easily cover the incremental replacement cost.
A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads
The existing electrical loads within the building are a vital part of the City of Mountain Village’s
function. No recommendations for change were evaluated.
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
The existing exterior walls have a gap at the floor that is not covered by sheathing or insulation.
The high concentration of studs, lack of insulation and possible air gap directly behind the hot
baseboards make it a high heat loss area.
Rank Location Existing Type/R-Value Recommendation
6 Above-Grade Wall:
Floor Joist
Wall Type: Single Stud
Siding Configuration: Siding and
Sheathing
Insul. Sheathing: None
Structural Wall: 2 x 6, 16 in. on center
Modeled R-Value: 12.3
Add R-10 rigid foam to rim joist of above
grade wall and cover with sheet metal
or T1-11.
Installation Cost $2,198 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $161
Breakeven Cost $4,323 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.0 Simple Payback (yr) 14
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
No EEMs are recommended in this area because retrofits are not economical at this time.
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
20
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
The ceiling has standard trusses and a cold roof. The existing insulation is R-30 fiberglass batts
with visible mold and water damage in some areas. The damaged insulation should be removed
and the rest of the batts should be refit before the additional R-30, loose-fill, cellulose insulation
is added. The vapor barrier seal should be repaired around the bathroom vents, fans, ceiling
electrical penetrations and chimney. Completion of this EEM will result in enough savings to
repay the cost of installation.
A.3.4 Windows
Although the existing windows were replaced in July 2010 with more efficient double-paned,
vinyl-framed windows, occupants report water leakage during storms. Replacing the windows is
not economical at this time, however recommendations for resealing the windows can be found
in Section A4.4.
A.3.5 Doors
The existing doors are in good condition and replacing them is not economical at this time. The
weather stripping is not in good condition, see Section A4.4 for air sealing recommendations.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Roof
Framing Type: Standard
Framing Spacing: 24 inches
Insulated Sheathing: None
Bottom Insulation Layer: R-30 Batt:FG or
RW, 9.5 inches
Top Insulation Layer: None
Insulation Quality: Damaged
Modeled R-Value: 29.3
Install R-30 loose-fill cellulose
insulation in attic with Standard
Truss.
Installation Cost $14,257 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 30 Energy Savings (/yr) $945
Breakeven Cost $25,413 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.8 Simple Payback (yr) 15
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
21
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
The boiler is old, has been poorly maintained and is now undersized considering the new
addition. Replacing the boiler with a slightly larger, (225,000 BTU/hr) more efficient model will
ensure adequate heat supply. The chimney needs to have a barometric damper and vent
damper installed to reduce standby losses.
The heating system is controlled by a single thermostat located in the city clerk office, resulting
in occupant complaints of cold and hot areas. The heating system should be modified to provide
three separate zones by installing three programmable thermostats an aquastat and two zone
valves will allow for three separate heating zones.
The distribution system runs along the exterior walls of the building and is completely un-
insulated resulting in heat losses to the outdoors. The fin-tube is not fully contained within
baseboard protectors and is damaged. Heat loss can be reduced by insulating pipe runs along
the ceiling and in exterior corners.
Rank Recommendation
5
1. Replace boiler with more efficient model
2. Add vent damper
3. Insulate pipe runs
3. Replace circulation pumps with variable speed pumps
4. Install three thermostats, one aquastat and two zone valves to allow for three heating zones.
5. Replace damaged base board fin tube.
Installation Cost $25,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 20 Energy Savings (/yr) $4,732
Breakeven Cost $88,901 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.6 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
22
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No air conditioning system is installed in the building. No EEMs are recommended in this area.
A.4.3 Ventilation
No ventilation system is installed in the building. However installing exhaust fans in the holding
cells may help increase occupant comfort.
A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening
The building envelope should be tightened up to reduce drafts. These measures include:
The weather stripping on the exterior doors is in poor condition and should be replaced.
An unused chimney in the janitor’s closet is open to the outdoors. The unused chimney
should be demolished and the roof, ceiling and vapor barrier should be repaired before
installing insulation in attic per recommendations in Section A3.3.
Occupants report water leakage through windows during storms. This indicates poor
installation and trim sealing; the windows should be inspected and resealed.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
4 Windows and Doors Air Tightness estimated loose Perform air sealing to reduce air
leakage by 10%.
Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 10 Energy Savings (/yr) $39
Breakeven Cost $321 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 0.6 Simple Payback (yr) 13
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
23
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)
7 Lighting: Hallway,
City Clerk
Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
(2) Instant HighEfficElectronic
$69 $460 0.96 6.7
8 Above-Grade Wall:
AG Wall
Install R-20 rigid foam board
to exterior and cover with T1-
11 siding or equivalent.
$1,653 $51,201 0.87 31
9 Lighting: Radio Room Replace with 2 FLUOR (2)
CFL, Spiral 15 W $1 $10 0.26 11
10 Lighting: Hallway
Replace with 3 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
(2) Instant StdElectronic
$18 $345 0.15 19
11 Lighting: Accounting
Office
Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
(2) Instant StdElectronic
$22 $460 0.11 20
12 Lighting: Old Cells,
Storage and Hallway
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$3 $70 0.08 26
13 Lighting: Concessions
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$2 $70 0.02 34
14 Lighting: Chamber
Storage
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$0 $70 0.01 874
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
24
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)
15 Lighting: Council
Chambers
Replace with 4 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
(2) Instant StdElectronic
$4 $260 0.0 72
16 Lighting: Mechanical
Office
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$0 $70 0.0 380
17 Lighting: New Cells
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$0 $35 0.0 221
18 Lighting: Trooper
Office
Replace with FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$0 $100 0.0 2,300
19 Lighting: Boiler Room
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$0 $70 0.0 460
20 Lighting: Evidence
Room
Replace with FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$0 $70 0.0 2100
21 Lighting: City
Manager
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
(2) Instant StdElectronic
$5 $230 0.0 48
22
Lighting: Admin
Office, Water &
Sewer Office
Replace with 2 FLUOR (4) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
(2) Instant StdElectronic
$4 $230 0.0 57
23 Lighting: DS Hallway,
Dispatch
Replace with 3 FLUOR (2) T8
4' F32T8 25W Energy-Saver
Instant StdElectronic
$2 $60 0.0 37
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
25
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Fuel Type Estimated
Efficiency Notes
Boiler Weil McLain n/a # 1 Fuel Oil 76% In poor condition
Circulation Pump Grundfos UP 26-96 BF Electric n/a n/a
Circulation Pump Grundfos UP 26-96 F Electric n/a n/a
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Bulb Type Quantity KWH/YR Cost/YR
Maintenance Office, Accounting Office, City Manager,
Chamber Storage, Evidence, Trooper Office, Old Cells,
Storage, Boiler Room, Hallway, Concessions
Fluorescent T12 17 3,415 $ 680
Council Chambers, New Cells, Dispatch,
Hallway, City Clerk Fluorescent T8 12 2,312 $460
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.20/kWh
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR Cost/YR
Misc. Office
Equipment Offices Varies 3,823 $ 765
Refrigerator Concessions Hotpoint 2,000 400
Computers Offices Varies 543 109
Mini Refrigerator Council
Chambers Sanyo 250 50
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.20/kWh
Energy Audit- Final Report
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
26
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:
Charge Effective Rate
Utility Rate $ 0.30 /KWH
Fuel Charge $ 0.3135/KWH
PCE Rate minus $0.4032/KWH
Total $ 0.2103 /KWH
Power Cost Equalization (PCE)
Power Cost Equalization is a program under which the State of Alaska pays a portion of the
electric bills for consumers served by utilities participating in the program. Participation in the
PCE program is limited by statute to utilities meeting certain requirements such as fuel oil
generated electric power and status as a community facility.
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.
Fuel and Purchased Power
This charge is based on a combination of forecasted and actual power costs. The monthly
charge allows Golden Valley to pass on increases and decreases in fuel and energy purchases
to our members. It is calculated quarterly and multiplied by the kilowatt-hours used each month.
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
27
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
28
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
29
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
30
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
31
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
32
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 Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
33
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
City of Mountain Village
Central Office
Mountain Village, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-810 Mtn Village\50-811 Central Office 1&2\Reports\Final\2012.07.11 FINAL AHFC Report
MOU City Office.Docx
34
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Floor plan drawn in field by NORTECH Audit Team
Addition
Main
Building