HomeMy WebLinkAboutRSH Russian Mission K12 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
RUSSIAN MISSION K12 SCHOOL
P.O. Box 90
Russian Mission, AK
Prepared for:
Mr. Robert Reed
Director of Maintenance and Facilities
Lower Yukon School District
P.O. Box 3289
Mountain Village, AK 99632
Prepared by:
David C. Lanning PE, CEA
Jason Ginter CEA
Pauline E. Fusco EIT, CEAIT
July 17, 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\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Building Use .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules ...................................................................... 5
2.3 Building Description ............................................................................................... 5
3.0 BENCHMARKING 2010 UTILITY DATA .......................................................................... 8
3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010 ...................................................................... 9
3.2 Energy Utilization Index of 2010 .......................................................................... 10
3.3 Cost Utilization Index of 2010 .............................................................................. 11
3.4 Seasonal Energy Use Patterns ........................................................................... 12
3.5 Future Energy Monitoring .................................................................................... 13
4.0 MODELING ENERGY CONSUMPTION ......................................................................... 14
4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption ............................... 15
4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Russian Mission K12 School ..................... 16
4.3 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications .......................................... 17
4.4 Additional Modeling Methods .............................................................................. 17
5.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M) .............................................. 18
5.1 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................. 18
5.2 Commissioning .................................................................................................... 18
5.3 Building Specific Recommendations ................................................................... 19
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
ii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Recommended Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................... 21
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended ..................... 24
Appendix C Significant Equipment List ....................................................................... 25
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure ...................................................................... 27
Appendix E Analysis Methodology .............................................................................. 28
Appendix F Audit Limitations ...................................................................................... 29
Appendix G References .............................................................................................. 30
Appendix H Typical Energy Use and Cost – Fairbanks and Anchorage ..................... 31
Appendix I Typical Energy Use and Cost – Continental U.S. .................................... 32
Appendix J List of Conversion Factors and Energy Units .......................................... 33
Appendix K List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions .................................... 34
Appendix L Building Floor Plan .................................................................................. 35
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NORTECH has completed an ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit of the Russian Mission K12
School, a 34,800 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
February 6 through 8, 2012, 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 Russian
Mission K12 School. Additional discussion of the modeling process can be found in Section 3.
Details of each individual EEM can be found in Appendix A of this report. A summary of EEMs
that were evaluated but are not currently recommended is located in Appendix B.
PRIORITY LIST – ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (EEMs)
Rank Feature/
Location Improvement Description
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Installed
Cost
Savings to
Investment
Ratio, SIR
Simple
Payback
(Years)
1 Other Electrical:
Generator Room
Replace with Repaired Unit
Heater Fan $1,393 $500 17 0.4
2 Ventilation
Repair AHU-2 and bring in
skilled technician once a year
to recommission the air
handlers, associated
equipment and DDC system
set points for energy
management.
$43,491 $75,000 7.4 1.7
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.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)
3 Refrigeration
Implement seasonal shutdown
on all refrigerators, shut down
all empty refrigerators until
needed, and replace the aging
refrigerator in the Student
Store with a new Energy Star
Tier III energy efficient
refrigerator.
$738 $1,000 4.9 1.4
4 Lighting
Replace existing interior and
exterior metal halide lighting
with LED fixtures.
$2,614 $12,518 3.1 4.8
TOTAL, cost-effective measures $48,243 $91,000 6.6 1.9
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
3
With all of these energy efficiency measures in place, the annual utility cost can be reduced by
$48,243 per year, or 25% of the buildings’ total energy costs. These measures, which include
repairing existing errors in the ventilation system that alone will save an estimated 30,000 kWh
of electricity and $26,000 in fuel oil a year, are estimated to cost $91,000, for an overall simple
payback period of 1.9 years.
Further Savings
Built in 2010, Russian Mission K12 School is an example of a school constructed to comply with
modern energy efficiency standards, and most of the EEMs typically considered for schools of
similar size and student population have already been implemented. However, additional
savings could be achieved by school staff though the formation of an energy conservation
committee composed of faculty, maintenance staff, students and parents; and starting a school-
wide energy conservation initiative.
Level III Energy Audit
Targeted Level III energy audits would be required in order to achieve larger projected savings
than those listed above. Level III audits require more detailed and targeted data collection over
a longer time-period and include more risk assessment, engineering, and detailed economic
analyses than Level II audits.
A limited Level III audit targeting reductions in peak electric demand could offer some cost
savings. The method used by the electrical utility AVEC to determine the monthly demand is
the higher of the monthly demand or 85% of the highest monthly demand in the last 12 months,
raising the possibility that one very short-term reduction in peak loads could result in significant
monthly savings for the following 12 months. Demand reductions may result from
further programming the DDC as a energy management system.
electrical use periods,
equipment scheduling in order to prevent simultaneous operation of large plug loads,
load shedding, or reducing demand by turning off non-essential equipment in a
predetermined order to avoid exceeding a pre-programmed upper limit demand,
installation of interlocks which prevent the resulting linked equipment from turning on
simultaneously,
monitoring and regulating adjustable speed drives, and
using the back-up generator.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
4
Modeled Building Energy Cost Breakdown
The following charts are a graphical representation of the modeled energy usage for the
Russian Mission K12 School. The greatest portions of energy cost for the building are replacing
the heat from envelope air losses, heat losses through walls and doors, and fans. 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 Detailed improvements for ventilation 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
$42,415
28%
Ceiling
$3,030
2%
Window
$808 1
%Wall/Door
$25,247
17%
Floor
$8,029
5%
Water
Heating
$2,154
1%
Fans
$23,399
15%
Lighting
$17,350
12%
Refrigeration
$13,885
9%
Other
Electrical
$10,432
10%
2010 Existing Building Energy Cost
Breakdown
$151,253 Envelope
Air
$15,967
11%
Ceiling
$3,039
2%
Window
$797
1%
Wall/Door
$25,910
17%
Floor
$7,972
5%
Water
Heating
$2,154
2%
Fans
$6,432
4%
Lighting
$14,529
10%
Refrigeration
$13,117
9%
Other
Electrical
$8,613
6%
Savings
$48,243
32%
Retrofit Building Energy Cost
Breakdown
$103,018
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
5
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
The Russian Mission K12 School provides educational services to kindergarten through 12th
grade students in Russian Mission. The school also serves occasionally as a community
center.
2.2 Building Occupancy and Schedules
The building is occupied by 112 students, 10 teachers, and 11 other staff members during the
school year, August through May, from approximately 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, weekdays. The gym
is typically occupied until 8:00 pm or later, at least 4 days a week. Two custodians clean the
building for 6 hours each weekday.
The building is typically unoccupied during the summer.
2.3 Building Description
The two-story Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) building, constructed in 2010 with both slab-on-
grade and poured concrete crawlspace foundations is built into a hill overlooking the town of
Russian Mission and the Yukon River.
Building Envelope
Building Envelope: Walls
Wall Type Description Insulation Notes
Above-grade 8” Structural Insulated Panels
(SIPS) R-45 None.
Above-grade gym 12” Structural Insulated Panels
(SIPS) R-60
Basement and
Crawlspace 8” poured concrete
Interior layer of R-10
rigid and R-15 batt
insulation.
None.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
6
Heating Systems
Two oil-fired boilers provide heat to the building via baseboards, heating coils to the Air
Handling Units (AHU), Makeup Air Unit (MAU), reheat coils, cabinet heaters, and unit heaters.
Standard and variable speed circulation pumps distribute hot water from the boilers to the
building.
A Direct Digital Control (DDC) system controls boiler and thermostat settings. Most rooms are
equipped with programmable thermostats, and automatic temperature setbacks are currently in
place.
Building Envelope: Floors
Floor Type Description Insulation Notes
Basement/ Crawlspace
Floor
Vapor barrier over non-frost-
susceptible fill. None None.
On-grade Floor Concrete slab on grade. None. None.
Building Envelope: Roof
Roof Type Description Insulation Notes
All Roofs
Asphalt shingles over continuous
ice and water shield on 12” SIPs
with 2 in 12 roof slope.
R-60 None.
Building Envelope: Doors and Windows
Door and Window
Type Description Estimated
R-Value Notes
Doors Metal doors and frame with
either ½ lite or no lite. R-4 None.
All Windows Vinyl double-pane windows,
low-e and argon-filled. R-3 None.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
7
Ventilation Systems
Three AHUs and a MAU controlled by the DDC system provide ventilation through Variable Air
Volume (VAV) units and provide some heat for the building. Fan motors for for AHU-2 and
AHU-3 and MAU-1 are on Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) and ventilation is demand-
controlled by a combination of DDC scheduling and CO2 sensors in the return air ducts.
AHU-1 serves the shops, garage, boiler room, generator room, and water tank room.
AHU-2 serves the classrooms, hallways, foyer and cafeteria. The classrooms on the
second floor were 82 F and AHU-2 was operating night and day during the audit.
AHU-3 serves the locker rooms and gym.
MUA-1 serves the kitchen and is designed to relieve negative pressure conditions
resulting from exhaust air requirements.
Air Conditioning System
A mini-split air conditioner provides cooling for the server room, and economizer cooling is used
with the existing ventilation system.
Energy Management
The DDC system provides energy management, and the building has been built to comply with
current commercial building energy efficiency standards, including:
Outside air ventilation rates minimized by DDC scheduling in combination with feedback
from CO2 sensors.
Structural insulated panels, which have higher effective R-values and lower air infiltration
rates than conventional wood-frame construction when properly installed,
Efficient lighting such as T-5 or T-8 fluorescent lamps with program start ballasts
controlled by occupancy sensors, and
Appropriate glazing levels.
Lighting Systems
Russian Mission K12 School has energy-efficient lighting. High-usage areas are illuminated by
26 watt (W) T5 fluorescent lamps in volumetric troffers, the gym has high bay fixtures with 50W
high output T-5 fluorescent lamps, and lesser-use areas have 32W T-8 fluorescent lamps in a
variety of fixtures. Exterior wall packs and high cove fixtures are equipped with 100W or 150W
metal halide lamps. All fluorescent fixtures have program start electronic ballasts and almost all
lighting is controlled by occupancy sensors in conjunction with manual switches.
Domestic Hot Water
Two indirect hot water heaters and a summer-season electric water heater provide hot water to
the building.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
8
3.0 BENCHMARKING 2010 UTILITY DATA
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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
9
3.1 Total Energy Use and Cost of 2010
The energy use profiles below show the energy and cost breakdowns for the Russian Mission
K12 School. The total annual energy use is 4,219 mmBTUs per year and the total annual
energy cost for the building is $ 190,578 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 electricity. Fuel oil consumption correlates directly to space heating and
domestic hot water while electrical use can correlate to lighting systems, plug loads, and HVAC
equipment. The energy type with the highest cost often provides the most opportunity for
savings.
Electric
1,023
24%
Oil
3,196
76%
2010 Energy Use Total (mmBTU)
Russian Mission K12 School
Electric
$113,821
60%
Oil
$77,053
40%
2010 Energy Cost Total ($)
Russian Mission K12 School
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
10
3.2 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 Russian Mission K12 School has an EUI of
122,000 BTUs per square foot per year, comparable to Anchorage schools though Anchorage
has much lower utility rates. In part, the high EUI is indicative of known HVAC issues, which
can be reduced significantly by recommissioning some HVAC systems.
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 Russian Mission K12 School relative to these values. These findings are discussed
further in Appendix H.
122,000
62,000
123,000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Btu/ Sq. FtAnnual Energy Use Index (Total Energy/ SF)
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission K12 School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
11
3.3 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, particularly rural Alaska.
The CUI for Russian Mission K12 School is about $5.48 per square foot, more than twice the
cost per square foot of Fairbanks schools. The CUI is based on utility costs from 2010 and the
following rates:
Electricity at $ 0.37 / kWh ($10.84 /Therm)
# 1 Fuel Oil at $ 2.85/ gallon ($2.11 /Therm)
The Department of Energy Administration study, mentioned in the previous section (CBECS,
2006) found an average cost of $2.52 per square foot in 2003 for 4,400 buildings in the
Continental U.S (Tables C4 and C13 of CBDES, 2006). Schools in Fairbanks have an average
cost for energy of $2.42 per square foot while Anchorage schools average $2.11 per square
foot. The chart below shows the Russian Mission K12 School relative to these values. More
details are included in Appendix H.
$5.48
$2.42
$2.11
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
Annual Energy Cost Index (Total Cost/ SF)
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission K12 School Fairbanks Schools Anchorage Schools
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
12
3.4 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 but for Russian Mission School, the increase in electrical
consumption from early 2010 to 2011 is partially the result of malfunctions in the HVAC system.
Fuel oil deliveries are typically made once a year, since the fuel must be either barged or
shipped by plane, so the fuel oil consumption graph below is based on records kept by the
school maintenance personnel.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Jan-10Feb-10Mar-10Apr-10May-10Jun-10Jul-10Aug-10Sep-10Oct-10Nov-10Dec-10Jan-11Feb-11Mar-11Apr-11May-11Jun-11Jul-11KWHElectrical Consumption
Russian Mission K12 School
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Jan-10Feb-10Mar-10Apr-10May-10Jun-10Jul-10Aug-10Sep-10Oct-10Nov-10Dec-10Jan-11Feb-11Mar-11Apr-11May-11Jun-11Jul-11Gallons#1 Fuel Oil Deliveries
Russian Mission K12 School
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
13
3.5 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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
14
4.0 MODELING ENERGY CONSUMPTION
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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
15
4.1 Understanding How AkWarm Models Energy Consumption
NORTECH used the AkWarm model for evaluating the overall energy consumption at Russian
Mission K12 School. The AkWarm program was developed by the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) to model residential energy use. The original AkWarm is the modeling
engine behind the successful residential energy upgrade program that AHFC has operated for a
number of years. In the past few years, AHFC has developed a version of this model for
commercial buildings.
Energy use in buildings is modeled by calculating energy losses and consumption, such as:
• Heat lost through the building envelope components, including windows, doors,
walls, ceilings, crawlspaces, and foundations. These heat losses are computed for
each component based on the area, heat resistance (R-value), and the difference
between the inside temperature and the outside temperature. AkWarm has a library
of temperature profiles for villages and cities in Alaska.
• Window orientation, such as the fact that south facing windows can add heat in the
winter but north-facing windows do not.
• Inefficiencies of the heating system, including the imperfect conversion of fuel oil or
natural gas due to heat loss in exhaust gases, incomplete combustion, excess air,
etc. Some electricity is also consumed in moving the heat around a building through
pumping.
• Inefficiencies of the cooling system, if one exists, due to various imperfections in a
mechanical system and the required energy to move the heat around.
• Lighting requirements and inefficiencies in the conversion of electricity to light;
ultimately all of the power used for lighting is converted to heat. While the heat may
be useful in the winter, it often isn’t useful in the summer when cooling may be
required to remove the excess heat. Lights are modeled by wattage and operational
hours.
• Use and inefficiencies in refrigeration, compressor cooling, and heat pumps. Some
units are more efficient than others. Electricity is required to move the heat from
inside a compartment to outside it. Again, this is a function of the R-Value and the
temperature difference between the inside and outside of the unit.
• Plug loads such as computers, printers, mini-fridges, microwaves, portable heaters,
monitors, etc. These can be a significant part of the overall electricity consumption
of the building, as well as contributing to heat production.
• The schedule of operation for lights, plug loads, motors, etc. is a critical component
of how much energy is used.
AkWarm adds up these heat losses and the internal heat gains based on individual unit usage
schedules. These estimated heat and electrical usages are compared to actual use on both a
yearly and seasonal basis. If the AkWarm model is within 5 % to 10% of the most recent 12
months usage identified during benchmarking, the model is considered accurate enough to
make predictions of energy savings for possible EEMs.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
16
4.2 AkWarm Calculated Savings for the Russian Mission K12 School
Based on the field inspection results and discussions with the building owners/operators,
auditors developed potential EEMs for the facility. These EEMs are then entered into AkWarm
to determine if the EEM saves energy and is cost effective (i.e. will pay for itself). AkWarm
calculates the energy and money saved by each EEM and calculates the length of time for the
savings in reduced energy consumption to pay for the installation of the EEM. AkWarm makes
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 Cooking Clothes
Drying
Ventilation
Fans Total
Existing
Building $79,529 $2,154 $17,350 $13,885 $10,432 $4,334 $169 $23,399 $151,253
With All
Proposed
Retrofits
$53,663 $2,154 $14,529 $13,117 $8,613 $4,334 $169 $6,432 $103,018
Savings $25,866 $0 $2,821 $769 $1,820 $0 $0 $16,967 $48,243
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.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
17
4.3 AkWarm Projected Energy Costs after Modifications
The AkWarm recommended EEMs appear to result in significant savings in ventilation and
ventilation fans, lighting, plug loads, and refrigeration. 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.
4.4 Additional Modeling Methods
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.
AKWarm is unable to precisely model Russian Mission K12 School’s complex mechanical and
electrical systems, which include VFD motors, a VAV system, a DDC system, and demand-
controlled ventilation. Furthermore, AkWarm cannot at this time apply retrofits designed to
minimize electrical demand charges imposed by AVEC, the local electrical utility.
Therefore, conservative estimation of energy consumption by the Russian Mission K12 School
was required to model the uncertainties listed above.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
Existing Retrofit
Ventilation and Fans
Space Heating
Refrigeration
Other Electrical
Lighting
Domestic Hot Water
Cooking
Clothes Drying
Annual Energy Costs by End Use
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
18
5.0 BUILDING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O & M)
5.1 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.
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.
5.2 Commissioning
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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
19
5.3 Building Specific Recommendations
In general, the new school is well-maintained. However, any new building will have
commissioning issues which must be addressed before the building can function as designed.
Only commissioning issues which are not recommended EEMS are mentioned below.
Kitchen personnel report the kitchen is cold unless the MAU-1 is kept on manually, yet
baseboard heat distribution is blocked by shelving. Keeping baseboards clear of obstructions
will improve heat distribution, resulting in improved comfort levels in the kitchen.
The server room, despite a mini-split air conditioner, was 78 F. The high temperature indicates
either the air conditioner is malfunctioning or the server room is being affected by the
malfunctioning HVAC. The problem should be indentified and corrected to ensure that the
server room can be maintained at a cool temperature in order to prolong the life and reduce the
energy consumption of the servers.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
20
APPENDICES
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.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
No modifications are recommended. The programmable thermostats currently installed
implement automatic temperature setbacks regulated by the DDC system. DDC reduction of
the nighttime and unoccupied temperatures already decreases the energy usage.
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 lamps) to T8
(one inch), T5 (5/8 inch), Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFL), or LED lamps provides a
significant increase in efficiency. LED lamps 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.
The existing interior lighting is predominately efficient, but the exterior and interior metal halide
lighting should be replaced with LED fixtures. The interior metal halide lamps reportedly burn
out frequently, and it is believed that the LED replacement fixtures will be more reliable and
more efficient.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
5 Exterior 12 MH 100 Watt StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 12 LED 23W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $5,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,273
Breakeven Cost $16,482 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 3.3 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
22
A.2.2 Other Electrical Loads
In order to achieve energy savings the large walk-in refrigerator should be shut down during
school holidays such as Christmas and summer vacation, the nonoperational fan in the
Generator Room should be repaired and the space heater unplugged, and empty refrigerators
should be unplugged until needed.
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
6 Exterior 4 MH 150 Watt StdElectronic with Manual
Switching
Replace with 4 LED 27W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $3,500 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $666
Breakeven Cost $8,629 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 2.5 Simple Payback (yr) 5
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
8 Foyer 7 MH 150 Watt StdElectronic with
Manual Switching
Replace with 7 LED 34W
Module StdElectronic
Installation Cost $6,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 17 Energy Savings (/yr) $675
Breakeven Cost $9,606 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.6 Simple Payback (yr) 9
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
1 Kitchen Unit Cooler Add new Seasonal Shutdown
Installation Cost $800 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $224
Breakeven Cost $1,386 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
2 Generator Room Oil-Fired Heater with Manual Switching Replace with Repaired Unit
Heater Fan
Installation Cost $500 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $1,393
Breakeven Cost $8,454 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 17 Simple Payback (yr) 0
Rank Location Existing Condition Recommendation
7 Student Store Whirlpool no label, old with Seasonal
Shutdown
Replace with New HE R/F and
Improve Seasonal Shutdown
Installation Cost $800 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 7 Energy Savings (/yr) $224
Breakeven Cost $1,386 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 1.7 Simple Payback (yr) 4
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
23
A.3 Building Envelope: Recommendations for change
A.3.1 Exterior Walls
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.3.2 Foundation and/or Crawlspace
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.3.3 Roofing and Ceiling
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.3.4 Windows
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.3.5 Doors
No EEMS are recommended in this area because construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.4 Building Heating System / Air Conditioning
A.4.1 Heating and Heat Distribution
No EEMS are recommended in this area because the existing boilers are only a year old and
energy efficient, heat distribution seems effective, and the construction cost makes retrofits
uneconomical.
A.4.2 Air Conditioning
No EEMS are recommended in this area because the existing AHUs provide economizer
cooling.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
24
A.4.3 Ventilation
Malfunctions in the AHU-2 HVAC system, including a broken outside air damper, have lead to
upstairs classroom temperatures averaging 82 F. As a result, during the audit, windows in
several classrooms on the second floor were left open to try to cool the rooms. In addition,
AHU-2 operated continuously day and night during the audit, despite low occupancy levels and
DDC demand-controlled ventilation.
Repairing AHU-2, along with recommissioning the air handlers, associated equipment and DDC
system set points for energy management will save an estimated $43,491 a year.
A.4.4 Air Changes and Air Tightening
No EEMs are recommended in this area because of the tight building envelope. In the future
however, by using a blower door to depressurize the building and an infra-red camera, the
location of significant air leaks can be determined so they can be repaired.
Appendix B Energy Efficiency Measures that are NOT Recommended
Due to the fact the Russian Mission School was built in 2010, most typical EEMs were already
incorporated in the school and not considered. In addition, no potential EEMs were identified
that were determined to be NOT cost effective by the AkWarm model. Typically, the
uneconomical 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. 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
yield new EEMs which should be evaluated. Future potential EEMs should be reviewed
periodically to identify any changes to these factors that would warrant re-evaluation.
Future EEMS based on existing fixtures, hardware, controls, or operational changes in Russian
Mission K12 School should be considered when replacing an existing fixture or unit for other
reasons. For example, replacing an existing fixture with LED is not currently economical, but if
a fixture or lamp 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 fixture or lamp to a
more efficient lighting alternative such as LED. That incremental cost difference will have a
significantly shorter payback, considering that the installation costs are likely to be the same for
both units.
Rank Recommendation
3 Repair AHU-2 and bring in skilled technician once a year to recommission the air handlers, associated
equipment and DDC system set points for energy management.
Installation Cost $75,000 Estimated Life of Measure (yr) 15 Energy Savings (/yr) $43,491
Breakeven Cost $558,843 Savings-to-Investment Ratio 7.5 Simple Payback (yr) 2
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
25
Appendix C Significant Equipment List
HVAC Equipment
Equipment Manufacturer Model No. Notes
AHU-1 Envirotech H 1.5 HP Supply Fan
AHU-2 York XT 20 HP Supply Fan on VFD
7.5HP Return/Exhaust Fan on VFD
MAU-1 York XT 3 HP Supply Fan
AHU-3 York XT 25 HP Supply Fan on VFD
5 HP Return/Exhaust Fan on VFD
Exhaust Fan (EF)-1 Car Mon CMW-7 ½ HP
EF-2 -12
CF-1
Boiler 1 Weil-McLain BL 888-W 1904 MBH, ½ HP
Boiler 2 Weil-McLain BL 888-W 1904 MBH, ½ HP
Circulation Pump (CP)-1 Grundfos TP100-80 2 HP, Boiler
CP-2 Grundfos TP100-80 2 HP, Boiler
CP-4A Grundfos 3.OLP5 5 HP, Main Heating
CP-4B Grundfos 3.OLP6 5 HP, Main Heating
CP-5 Grundfos UP26-99F 1/12 HP, Preheat Coil 1
CP-6 Grundfos UPS32-160 ¾ HP, Preheat Coil 2
CP-7 Grundfos UPS32-160 ¾ HP, Preheat Coil 3A
CP-8 Grundfos UPS32-160 1.5 HP, Preheat Coil 3B
CP-9 Grundfos UPS32-160 ¾ HP, Preheat Coil 4
CP-10 Grundfos UP26-99F 1/12 HP, AHU-1 Heating Coil
CP-11 Grundfos 2.5LM5 1.5 HP AHU-2 Heating Coil
CP-12 Grundfos 2.5LM5 ¾ HP, AHU-3 Heating Coil
CP-13 Grundfos TP40-80 ¾ HP, MAU-1 Heating Coil
CP-14 Grundfos UP15-18BUC7 1/25 HP, 140 F DHW Recirc
CP-15 Grundfos UP26-99F 1/12 HP, DHW Recirc
CP-16 Grundfos UP26-99F 1/12 HP, DHW Recirc
DP-1 Grundfos X3P15OS1 Bulk Tank
DP-2 Grundfos X3P15OS1 Bulk Tank
Water Heater (WH)-1 Superstor SSU-119C Indirect Hot Water Heater, General
DHW
WH-2 Superstor SSU-119C Indirect Hot Water Heater, General
DHW
WH-3 State CSB-52 2KW Electric Hot Water Heater,
Summer DHW (boilers off)
Unit Heaters 1-3 Modine varies
Cabinet Unit Heaters 1and 2 Modine varies
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
26
Lighting
Location Lighting Type Lamp Type Quantity KWH/YR* Cost/YR
Building-wide Fluorescent T5 318 27,100 $ 10,027
Gym Fluorescent T5 Highbay 144 15,900 5,883
Exterior and Foyer Metal Halide 70W 100W 150W 23 9,600 3,552
Building-wide Fluorescent T8 366 9,100 3,367
Specialty Lights in Classrooms,
Bilingual Room and Crawlspace Assorted Specialty Assorted 22 730 270
Building-wide EXIT LED 8 440 163
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.37/kWh
Plug Loads
Equipment Location Manufacturer KWH/YR* Cost/YR
Refrigerators Kitchen Various 34,800 $ 12,876
Server Rack Server Room Various 13,150 4,866
Space Heater Generator Room Comfort Cone 5,000 1,850
Dishwashing Equipment Kitchen Various 2,080 770
(48) Computer Towers Building-wide Various 1,700 629
(3) Coffeemakers Building-wide Various 1,500 555
(3) Laptop Cart Classrooms Bretford 1,300 481
(48) Computer Monitors Building-wide Various 1,200 444
Refrigerators Classrooms and Student Store Various 830 307
Cleaning Equipment Janitor Various 440 163
Mini-split air conditioner Server Room Mr. Slim 300 111
(2) Copiers Offices Canon 221 82
(7) Laptops Classrooms Various 170 63
Washer Janitor Maytag 120 44
(6) Smart boards Classrooms Various 99 37
Shop Equipment Shop Various 82 30
(9) TVs Classrooms Sony 74 27
Energy Consumption calculated by AkWarm based on wattage, schedule, and an electricity rate of $0.37/kWh
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
27
Appendix D Local Utility Rate Structure
The information in this section was provided directly from the local utility, the Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative (AVEC) 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. Russian Mission K12 School is classified as a Large Power GS-2 customer.
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC)
4831 Eagle St.
Anchorage, Alaska, 99503
(907) 561-1818
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.
Demand Charge
This charge is based upon high KW demand during the month or 85% of the highest KW demand
(rachet) during the past 12 months, whichever is higher.
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
28
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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
29
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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
30
Appendix G References
Although not all documents listed below are specifically referenced in this report, each contains
information and insights considered valuable to most buildings.
Alaska Department of Education and Early Development; Education Support Services/Facilities.
(1999). Alaska School Facilities Preventative Maintenance Handbook. Juneau, AK: Alaska
Department of Education and Early Development.
Alaska Housing Finance Corportation. (2010). Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans. AHFC.
ASHRAE. (1997). 1997 ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 105-2007 Expressing and Comparing Building Energy
Performance. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 Ventilaton for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.
Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2010). ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in
Low Rise Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE. (2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 Energy Standards for buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings. Retrieved from ASHRAE: www.ashrae.org
ASHRAE RP-669 and SP-56. (2004). Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits. Atlanta,
GA: ASHRAE.
Coad, W. J. (1982). Energy Engineering and Management for Building Systems. Scarborough,
Ontario, Canada: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Daley, D. T. (2008). The Little Black Book of Reliability Management. New York, NY: Industrial
Press, Inc.
Federal Energy Management Program. (2004, March 3). Demand Controlled Ventilation Using CO2
Sensors. Retrieved 2011, from US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_co2.pdf
Federal Energy Management Program. (2006, April 26). Low-Energy Building Design Guidelines.
Retrieved 2011, from Department of Energy; Federal Energy Management Program:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/femp/
Institute, E. a. (2004). Variable Speed Pumping: A Guide to Successful Applications. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Advanced Technology.
International Code Council. (2009). International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills, IL:
International Code Council, Inc.
Leach, M., Lobato, C., Hirsch, A., Pless, S., & Torcellini, P. (2010, September). Technical Support
Document: Strategies for 50% Energy Savings in Large Office Buildings. Retrieved 2011,
from National Renewable Energy Laboratory: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49213.pdf
Thumann, P.E., C.E.M., A., Younger, C.E.M., W. J., & Niehus, P.E., C.E.M., T. (2010). Handbook of
Energy Audits Eighth Edition. Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2006). Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
(CBECS). Retrieved 2011, from Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
31
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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
32
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)
Floor
space
(million
square
feet)
Floor space
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 Floor space (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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
33
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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
34
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
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
35
Appendix L Building Floor Plan
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
36
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
37
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
38
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
39
Energy Audit – Final Report
Russian Mission K12 School
Russian Mission, Alaska
F:\00-Jobs\2011\2602 F - AHFC Grade Audits\50-600 Calista Region\50-630 Calista SD\50-650 Lower Yukon SD\50-660 Russian Mission K-12
School\Reports\Final\2012.07.17 Final AHFC Report RSM-K12.Docx
40