HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRI-ANC-CAEC ASD Baxter Elementary School 2012-EEAudit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page i Anchorage, AK
RREEPPOORRTT DDIISSCCLLAAIIMMEERR
The information contained within this report, including any attachment(s), was produced under contract to
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). IGAs are the property of the State of Alaska, and may be
incorporated into AkWarm-C, the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), or other state and/or
public information systems. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under
contract by AHFC.
This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number
DE-EE0000095. 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.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page ii Anchorage, AK
TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
ACRONYMS GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PREFACE .................................................................................. 1
1.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 4
2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 5
2.1 ENERGY MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PLANNING ....................................................... 9
2.1.1 Weekend Use .......................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Hours of Operation .................................................................................. 9
2.1.3 System Balancing & Duct Cleaning ......................................................... 9
2.1.4 Outside Air Requirements ....................................................................... 9
3.0 UTILITY AND BENCHMARKING DATA ........................................................................ 10
3.1 SUMMARY AND BENCHMARKING DATA ................................................................... 10
3.2 ELECTRICITY ....................................................................................................... 11
3.3 NATURAL GAS ...................................................................................................... 13
4.0 ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................ 14
AAPPPPEENNDDIICCEESS
APPENDIX A – REALS BENCHMARKING DATA FORM ....................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B – ECO CALCULATIONS ................................................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C – MAJOR EQUIPMENT SURVEY .................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D – THERMAL IMAGE REPORT ......................................................................... D-1
APPENDIX E – ASHRAE LEVEL II DESCRIPTION ................................................................ E-1
LLIISSTT OOFF TTAABBLLEESS
Table ES.1: Energy Cost Summary 2010 .................................................................................................... 2
Table ES.2: ECO Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2.1: Envelope Summary ..................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3.1: Energy Performance Summary 2010 ....................................................................................... 10
Table 3.2: Energy and Cost Indices 2010 .................................................................................................. 10
Table 3.3: Electrical Demand Summary 2010 ........................................................................................... 10
Table 3.4: Index Comparison (CBECS 2003) ............................................................................................ 11
Table 4.1: ECO Summary .......................................................................................................................... 14
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page iii Anchorage, AK
AACCRROONNYYMMSS GGLLOOSSSSAARRYY
Acronym Definition
AHU Air Handling Unit
ARRA The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASD Anchorage School District
ASHRAE American Society for Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers
BPO Building Plant Operator
CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
CCF 100 Cubic Feet
DDC Digital Direct Control
DHW Domestic Hot Water
ECO Energy Conservation Opportunity
EIA US Energy Information Administration
EMCS Energy Management Control System
EPDM Ethylene-Propylene-Diene-Monomer
ES Elementary School
FCA Fuel Cost Adjustment
GCA Gas Cost Adjustment
GPF Gallons Per Flush
GPM Gallons Per Minute
HEU High-Efficiency Urinals
HID High Intensity Discharge
HP Horsepower
HPS High Pressure Sodium
HS High School
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
HX Heat Exchanger
IES Illuminating Engineering Society
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LED Light Emitting Diode
MBH 1,000,000 BTU*Hours
OA Outside Air
PPA Purchased Power Adjustment
REAL Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans
RSMeans An Industry Standard Cost Estimation Handbook
VAV Variable Air Volume Unit
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 1 Anchorage, AK
EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY AANNDD PPRREEFFAACCEE
This report summarizes the results of an Ameresco Federal Solutions (Ameresco) Energy Audit of Baxter
Elementary School (Baxter ES) at 2991 Baxter Rd, Anchorage, Alaska 99517. The intent of this report is
to evaluate energy consumption and costs and to recommend improvements to reduce consumption and
costs. The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) provided funding for this audit via the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) with the end goal of improving the economy by
reducing state-wide energy consumption and environmental impact.
Baxter ES, Anchorage, Alaska
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 2 Anchorage, AK
Ameresco engineers conducted an energy audit at Baxter ES in several phases during the months of
September and October 2011. The engineers were assisted primarily by Paul Kapinos, Energy
Conservation Manager of the Anchorage School District (ASD) as well as other faculty and staff at
Baxter ES including Charles Olson, Building Plant Operator (BPO). Valuable assistance was provided to
the Ameresco team including access to mechanical areas, utility data, facility drawings, and contact with
other pertinent building personnel.
This audit report identifies cost-effective system and facility modifications, alterations, additions,
retrofits, and operations adjustments. Systems investigated include heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC), interior and exterior lighting, domestic water, motors, building envelope, and
energy management control systems (EMCS). Baxter ES comprises 62,076 square feet of classrooms,
offices, a library, corridors, recreational areas as well as other ancillary spaces. All of these areas are
covered in this report. Table ES.1 summarizes the 2010 utility cost for this facility.
Table ES.1: Energy Cost Summary 2010
Energy Type Annual Cost
Electricity $ 50,497
Natural Gas $ 51,226
Total $ 101,723
Table ES.2 lists energy conservation opportunities (ECO) with estimated cost and savings figures. ECOs
are prioritized first according to recommendation status and then by simple payback number.
Recommended ECOs are listed before not recommended ECOs and simple paybacks are listed from low
to high. Savings figures are estimated based on information available at the time of the audit and
conforming to the level of detail recommended by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Level II Audit standards. For the official ASHRAE Level II
description, please see Appendix E. Costs are estimated based on industry standard references and
Ameresco’s experience with relevant constructed energy conservation projects. Costs include equipment
and installation.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 3 Anchorage, AK
Table ES.2: ECO Summary
ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback
4 CFL Lighting Upgrade $ 39 $ 106 2.3
12 Air-side Energy Recovery Loop $ 13,624 $ 44,984 3.3
15 Install High Efficiency Urinals $ 1,265 $ 5,221 4.1
9 Variable Secondary Pumping $ 2,776 $ 14,864 5.4
14 Install High Efficiency Toilets $ 3,604 $ 21,823 6.1
16 Low Flow Faucets $ 131 $ 1,168 8.9
8 Premium Efficiency Motors $ 559 $ 11,828 21.2
10 Install Higher Efficiency Boilers $ 3.864 $ 99,006 25.6
1 Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 3,045 $ 90,995 25.7
18 Install AERCO Boilers $ 5,474 $ 153,939 28.1
13 Install Higher Efficiency DHW $ 169 $ 6,920 41
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 4 Anchorage, AK
11..00 MMEETTHHOODDOOLLOOGGYY
Prior to the site survey, the audit team gathered information about the site including available utility data
for electric and natural gas services. This data was collected in the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans
(REAL) Preliminary Benchmark Data Form attached in Appendix A. Analysis of utility data reveals
operational characteristics and usage trends which help identify savings measures. Historical utility data
is also useful for establishing a baseline for future savings and benchmarking Baxter ES against similar
facilities.
The first step of the site survey process was a review of drawings to get an overview of building
construction and mechanical design. The drawings were then compared to the actual facility during a
facility walkthrough which included a thorough inspection of mechanical systems, lighting, envelope,
domestic water fixtures, and other energy dependent equipment.
Referencing data collected from the drawings and the walkthrough, the audit team determined the most
feasible ECOs for implementation which are analyzed for cost-effectiveness in this report. These ECOs
incorporate utility data and rates, local climate conditions, operating schedules, building occupancy, and
the condition of building systems and equipment. The audit team employs proven system simulation
techniques to model energy upgrades. Energy consumption of new equipment is based on up-to-date data
for commercially available systems.
Material costs and labor hour data are calculated from RSMeans Cost Data or other industry standards.
These resources provide cost information to the construction industry for accurate project estimates and
projections when relevant, actual costs from other Ameresco projects are not available. Labor rates are
based on Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates for the Anchorage area. Where reliable figures are available
(primarily on lighting calculations with predictable burnout rates), maintenance saving are included in
savings figures. Maintenance costs are not included in controls or mechanical upgrades. Additionally,
avoided costs of replacement are not included in these calculations.
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and can only act as an approximation. Not
all data could be verified and no destructive testing or investigations were undertaken. Some data may
have been incomplete. Financial ratios may vary from those forecasted. Ameresco and CAEC accept no
liability for financial loss due to ECMs that fail to meet the forecasted financial ratios.
This report is not intended to be a final design document. Budget for engineering and design of these
projects is not included in the cost estimate for each measure. Any modifications or changes made to a
building to realize the savings must be designed and implemented by licensed, experienced professionals
in their fields. All liabilities for upgrades, including but not limited to safety, design, and performance are
incumbent upon the professional(s) who prepare the design. Ameresco and Central Alaska Engineering
Company (CAEC) bear no responsibility for work performed as a result of this report.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 5 Anchorage, AK
22..00 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONN
General: Baxter Elementary School is a grade K-6 educational facility. The building is
operational throughout the day, starting with the YMCA before classes begin and ending with
after school programs and events. The building was constructed in 1973 with a total square
footage of 62, 076. The primary operating hours when the building is at full capacity are from
8:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday-Friday from August to May. The building is closed for the summer
and has minimal use. The average occupancy profile is around 450 people during these primary
operating hours.
Building Envelope: The exterior walls are 8-inch concrete blocks filled with vermiculite layered
with polystyrene board before a gypsum interior finish. The cumulative R value for the exterior
wall system is 21.5 ft²·°F·h/Btu. The roof areas are EPDM with approximately 8 inches of rigid
insulation over gypsum sheathing on a metal deck. Windows are insulated, untinted double
glazing with aluminum frames with thermal break or aluminum clad wooden frames. Exterior
doors are insulated hollow metal.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 6 Anchorage, AK
Table 2.1: Envelope Summary
Envelope Estimated
R–Value
Exterior Walls 21.5
Roof 41.0
Exterior Doors 2.7
Exterior Windows 1.7-1.9
Air Distribution: There are three air handling units (AHUs) in the building. AHU-1 and AHU-2
are located in fan rooms 1 and 2, respectively. Each unit is equipped with variable frequency
drives (VFDs) and distribute through terminal variable air volume units (VAVs). AHU-3 located
above the gym does not have a VFD and is connected to a two speed starter/disconnect. All
AHUs are equipped with glycol heating coils. There are eight zone reheat coils existing
throughout the building located in the fan rooms, Music Room, PE Office, and Multi-Purpose
area. AHUs are typically shut off at 4 pm and start at 6 or 7 am.
Ventilation and Exhaust: There are a total of 24 exhaust fans throughout the building, but
mostly smaller units that serve bathrooms. The largest exhaust fan is 1/4 HP and serves the
kitchen. Exhaust fans are interlocked with the AHUs. In cooling mode OA dampers open 100%.
Return dampers on the AHUs close and relief dampers in the mechanical room open to balance
this extra OA intake. In heating mode OA air dampers modulate appropriately to maintain
minimum ventilation rates. The VAV in one server closet with substantial heating load may
cause the AHUs to enter cooling mode even on cold days. This would require extra reheating
energy for the remainder of units served by this AHU. An independent ventilation unit or spilt
system for this closet would alleviate the issues caused by this critical space.
Heating: Two 3103 MBH Weil-McLain gas-fired cast iron sectional boilers (B-1 and B-2) with
power burners provide hot water for heating. Combustion analysis tests quantify B-1 and B-2
efficiencies at 82.9 and 82.3, respectively. Each boiler is equipped with a primary loop pump and
a warm up pump. The secondary loop serves VAV reheat coils and glycol heat exchangers (HXs)
for AHU heating coils. The primary and secondary heating loops 100% water and the AHU
heating coils use a 50/50 water glycol mix. Each glycol loop has a lead and standby pump. All
pumping is constant volume. Heating water loop temperature is reset based on outside air
temperature.
Cooling: Cooling is accomplished with outside air. There are no chilling systems.
Controls: A Siemens Apogee DDC system is in operation. It is relatively new and appears to be
well maintained.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 7 Anchorage, AK
Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting currently consists of high pressure sodium (HPS) and light
emitting diode (LED) fixtures. The HPS lamps are either 400W or 100W and operate about
4,230 hours per year.
Interior Lighting: Interior lighting throughout Baxter ES has up-to-date technology installed.
Two, three, and four lamp T8 fluorescent fixtures as well as compact fluorescent lamps are
present in the majority of the school. Controlling these fixtures are both zonal and multilevel
switches depending on size and dynamic of the lighted area. The Multi-Purpose room contains
both T8 and 400W metal halide lamps. Light levels vary in the building and are within the ranges
recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). Most exit signs employ LEDs.
Process Loads and Miscellaneous Equipment: A kitchen also contributes to energy
consumption and heat load. Computer load is typical for an educational building.
Domestic Water: Domestic water is used in the BPO room, classrooms, lavatories, and kitchen
areas. Hot water is provided by a gas-fired, 100 gallon storage tank water heater. Plumbing
fixtures include 3.5 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets, 1.5 gpf urinals, 2.2 gallons per minute (gpm)
lavatory sinks, and 0.5 gpm faucets. The toilets, sinks and urinals can be updated. However, the
faucets are compliant with standards set by the 1992 Energy Policy Act and no further upgrades
are recommended at this time.
Pictures of general equipment and building conditions follow this section. A list of major mechanical
equipment is available in Appendix C.
Thermal imaging of the building envelope can provide information about its condition. The building
exterior was scanned using a handheld thermal imager during the site walkthrough. Pictures provided are
meant to provide a sample representative of windows, doors, and roofing at the location to give general
feedback about conductive and convective heat loss. Pictures are not meant to be used to find specific
problem areas and therefore exact locations are not discussed. Images captured during the scan are shown
in Appendix D.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 8 Anchorage, AK
Site Photos
Boiler Room - One of Two, Identical Heating
Water Boilers Exterior – HPS Lamps and Pole in Parking Lot
AHU Room 1- AHU-1 AHU Room 1 - Siemens DDC System
AHU Room 1 - Glycol Circulation Pumps AHU Room 1 - Plenum Return/Relief Fans
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 9 Anchorage, AK
22..11 EENNEERRGGYY MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT PPOOLLIICCYY AANNDD PPLLAANNNNIINNGG
22..11..11 WWeeeekkeenndd UUssee
At Baxter ES, teachers use the building during weekends and holidays. It is normal to see one teacher in
a building all day on the weekend. For this reason, it is important to keep automation segmented or zoned
to the location of the teacher. For example, programming corridor sensors or the heating system to turn
on in unoccupied parts of the building for relatively long periods of time for just one teacher may not
make good energy economic sense. A policy of limited after-hours usage and encouraging working from
home would be optimal for reducing excessive energy consumption.
22..11..22 HHoouurrss ooff OOppeerraattiioonn
Interior lighting at Baxter ES is operational for up to 18 hours per day during the week when janitorial use
is included. Better zoning of the lighting system and decoupling from the security system would enable a
reduction in energy consumption.
Areas of the building are leased for various activities before and after primary operating hours, year
round. In years 2009 and 2010, these activities, known as ‘Rentals’, began as early as 6:45am and closed
as late as 9pm Monday through Friday. This accounted for a substantial number of hours per week of
extra occupancy. It is Ameresco’s understanding that the renters of these areas do not pay directly for
their energy use. It could be advantageous for ASD to reevaluate Rentals prices to ensure ASD utility
costs are covered.
22..11..33 SSyysstteemm BBaallaanncciinngg && DDuucctt CClleeaanniinngg
System air balance and the condition of ductwork were not inspected by Ameresco. Air balancing can
greatly improve occupant comfort, and as part of a re-commissioning project has been consistently shown
to save 5% to 20% of HVAC energy consumption. A preliminary air-balance assessment would be able
to determine if Baxter ES is a good candidate for re-commissioning.
22..11..44 OOuuttssiiddee AAiirr RReeqquuiirreemmeennttss
Air change over requirements can be verified by referring to building equipment design drawings. AHUs
at Baxter are equipped with CO2 monitors which have reportedly been disabled and/or taken out of the
control OA calculations. Operation of these sensors should be restored.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 10 Anchorage, AK
33..00 UUTTIILLIITTYY AANNDD BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKIINNGG DDAATTAA
33..11 SSUUMMMMAARRYY AANNDD BBEENNCCHHMMAARRKKIINNGG DDAATTAA
Baxter ES utilizes electricity and natural gas services. Electricity is provided by the Chugach Electric
Association and natural gas is supplied by ENSTAR Natural Gas Company. Natural gas is used primarily
in boilers for hydronic space heating and domestic hot water (DHW). In addition to plug loads and
school operations, electricity is used for space cooling.
The tables below summarize the annual site utility consumption.
Table 3.1: Energy Performance Summary 2010
Energy Type Total Annual Use Units Conversion kBtu Annual Cost
Electricity 434,754 kWh 3.413 kBtu/kWh 1,483,815 $ 50,497
Natural Gas 43,356.72 Therm 100 kBtu/Therm 5,963,824 $ 51,226
7,447,639 $ 101,723
Table 3.2: Energy and Cost Indices 2010
Index Value Units
Energy Utilization Index 120.0 kBtu/sq ft
Energy Cost Index 4.07 $/sq ft
Table 3.3: Electrical Demand Summary 2010
Index Month kW W/sq ft
Maximum Demand Dec 146 2.352
Minimum Demand June 82 1.321
Benchmarking the site’s energy consumption per square foot to facilities in the US Energy Information
Administration’s (EIA) Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) database gives an
estimate of the site’s energy efficiency. Benchmarking comparisons are shown in Table 3.4 below.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 11 Anchorage, AK
Table 3.4: Index Comparison (CBECS 2003)
Category Total
kBtu/sq ft
Elec
kBtu/sq ft
Nat Gas
kBtu/sq ft
Baxter ES 120.0 23.9 96.1
50,001 to 100,000 sq ft 83.8 44.7 36.5
Education 83.1 37.6 38.0
Construction Year 1970-79 95.0 54.3 45.8
CBECS Climate Zone 1 93.2 39.3 56.3
Zone 1 - 50,001 to 100,000 sq ft 100.8 40.3 54.0
Zone 1 - Education 91.6 28.0 54.6
Zone 1 - Construction Year 1970-79 109.8 50.5 56.4
Baxter ES has an overall energy consumption rate higher than all other comparable surveyed facilities.
Although Baxter’s natural gas consumption is almost double the natural gas consumption rates of
comparable surveyed facilities, Baxter’s electricity consumption is lower than other electricity
consumption rates. A potential reason for low electricity consumption rate is that Baxter has no
mechanical cooling equipment and employs advance lighting controls technology and efficient lamps.
High natural gas consumption may be due to excess ventilation air or excess simultaneous heating and
cooling due to the cooling demand in computer areas.
33..22 EELLEECCTTRRIICCIITTYY
Baxter ES’ blended electricity average FY10 rate was $0.1119/kWh. For FY09 the rate was
$0.1329/kWh. The kWh consumption rate fluctuates depending on a Fuel Cost Adjustment (FCA) and a
Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA) based on the actual costs of fuel and power purchased from other
electrical generation companies. The energy rate schedule is calculated as follows as of 8/29/2011:
Basic Charge: $55.00 per meter per month
Demand Charge: $11.39/kW
Energy Charge: $0.02496/kWh
Fuel Cost Adjustment: $0.05741/kWh
Purchased Power Adjustment: $0.00575/kWh
State Tax: $0.000492/kWh (As of 8/29/2011.)
Under-grounding Charge: 2% of bill less state and local taxes
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 12 Anchorage, AK
Baxter HS FY09 and FY10 usage and cost data is presented in the figure below.
The electric usage pattern reflects the occupancy pattern of the school year. The site does not use cooling
equipment; thus, the monthly changes in power consumption are largely due to fan, pump, and lighting
usage. The cost of electricity tracks well with usage indicating that large fluctuations of the FCA and
PPA are not common. Though the 2010 overall kWh usage was higher than 2009, costs were lower due
to lower FCA and PPA charges. An ASD Indian Education program that lasted for the summer months of
2010 accounts for the increased usage over 2009, during which there was no consistent summer usage.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 13 Anchorage, AK
33..33 NNAATTUURRAALL GGAASS
Baxter ES’ average FY10 natural gas cost was $0.8898/Therm. The average FY09 fuel oil cost was
$0.8898/Therm. The average FY09 fuel oil cost was $1.0224/Therm. The total rate fluctuates depending
on the Gas Cost Adjustment (GCA) based on the actual costs of fuel purchased. Baxter ESFY09 and
FY10 usage and cost data is presented in the figure below. The natural gas rate schedule is calculated as
follows:
Customer Charge: $109.00 per account per month
Base Rate: $0.1087/CCF
Gas Cost Adjustment: $0.57409/CCF (Varies)
Natural gas usage for both 2009 and 2010 follow a typical seasonal pattern. According to Paul Kapinos,
higher natural gas usage in 2010 is due at least in part to boiler maintenance issues. An ASD Indian
Education program that lasted for the entire summer of 2010 accounts for the increased usage over 2009,
during which there was no consistent summer usage.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 14 Anchorage, AK
44..00 EENNEERRGGYY CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN OOPPPPOORRTTUUNNIITTIIEESS
Table 4.1 summarizes the ECOs identified during the energy audit and evaluated for implementation.
Potential ECOs for this report were identified based on observations made during the energy audit, a
review of historical energy consumption data, building drawings, and input from maintenance
personnel. These opportunities were evaluated for detailed savings, cost estimate, and life-cycle costs.
Product selections in each ECO indicate suitable and available products for Baxter ES. These products
may or may not be selected for actual implementation. The intent is to provide reasonable cost and
performance data to be used to evaluate ECO feasibility. A balance of cost and performance is
considered when selecting products. Alternative product selection options are not likely to substantially
improve simple payback numbers. A description of each energy conservation opportunity is provided
in this section. Table 4.1 presents total costs and annual savings for ECOs in the order they were
calculated. Sequential calculation avoids savings overlaps. For example, school savings from ECO 21
were calculated using the efficiency of the new boilers from ECO 10. ECO 18 takes into account
savings from ECOs 1-9 but not ECOs 10-16.
Table 4.1: ECO Summary
ECO # ECO Description Annual Savings Total Cost Simple Payback
1 Exterior Lighting Upgrade $ 3,045 $ 90,995 28.1
4 CFL Lighting Upgrade $ 39 $ 106 2.3
8 Premium Efficiency Motors $ 559 $ 11,828 21.2
9 Variable Secondary Pumping $ 2,776 $ 14,864 5.4
10 Install Higher Efficiency Boilers $ 3,864 $ 99,006 25.6
12 Air-side Energy Recovery Loop $ 13,624 $ 44,984 3.3
13 Install Higher Efficiency DHW $ 169 $ 6,920 41
14 Install High Efficiency Toilets $ 3,604 $ 21,823 6.1
15 Install High Efficiency Urinals $ 1,265 $ 5,221 4.1
16 Low Flow Faucets $ 131 $ 1,168 8.9
18 Install AERCO Boilers $ 5,474 $ 153,939 28.1
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 15 Anchorage, AK
ECO 1 – Exterior Lighting Upgrade
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing exterior HPS lighting fixtures with high
efficiency LED fixtures via a retrofit kit for existing poles. LEDs have a higher efficacy than
HPS and are commercially available to replace outdoor building and roadway lights. These
fixtures have similar output, longer service life, and better lumen maintenance.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple
payback of 28.1 years. The simple payback period is longer than the typical 15-year length of
study period for lighting upgrades. Most of the lighting fixtures analyzed in this calculation had a
life span of greater than 20 years in this application. Maintenance savings due to longer life of
recommended lamps are included in this calculation.
ECO 4 – CFL Lighting Upgrade
Summary: This ECO proposes retrofitting the existing incandescent light bulbs with compact
fluorescent bulbs. Incandescent light bulbs installed in recessed fixtures, track lighting, utility
closets, and other general areas. Over 75% of the energy used by an incandescent light bulb is
converted into heat and is lost. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are much more efficient and can
easily replace incandescent bulbs. Post-light levels will be nearly equal to that of the existing
lighting systems or to IES standards for the present space usage, whichever is lower.
Recommendation: Applied to the buildings above, this ECO is recommended as a stand-alone
measure with a simple payback of 2.3 years. The simple payback period is less than the typical
15-year length of study period for lighting upgrades. Maintenance savings due to longer life of
recommended lamps are included in this calculation.
ECO 8 – Premium Efficiency Motors
Summary: This ECO proposes installing National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) premium efficiency motors to replace standard and high efficiency motors. This
replacement would cover all fan and pump motors 2HP and higher as well as a select few with
less than 2 HP. Premium efficiency motors typically increase energy efficiency by 2 to 3%.
Currently AHU fans run around 70 hours/week and HW pumps run 24/7 year round. Seals in
Victaulic fitting in the boiler room may have been overheated at some point in the past and now
leak if the system is allowed to cool. Maintaining circulation keeps fitting temperature from
dropping too low. Replacing the rubber seals with new high temp seals would alleviate this issue.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 21.2. The simple
payback period is slightly more than the 20-year median expected life of the new motors.
Maintenance savings were not included in this calculation.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 16 Anchorage, AK
ECO 9 – Variable Secondary Pumping
Summary: This ECO proposes modifying the existing pumping configuration to a variable
secondary configuration. Existing hydronic systems use constant volume secondary loops with
three-way control valves on terminal devices. By eliminating the three-way control valves at the
terminal devices and installing VFDs on secondary loop pumps to modulate pump speed, a
significant quantity of pumping energy can be saved. This ECO assumes pump motors have been
upgraded to premium efficiency inverter duty motors.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback
of 5.4 years. The simple payback period is less than the 10-year median expected life of the
VFDs. The energy cost savings justify the initial investment cost.
ECO 10 – Install Higher Efficiency Boilers
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing hot-water heating boilers with higher energy
efficiency units. The existing boilers are approaching the end their useful service life. Boilers
employing modern technology can be installed to reduce energy consumption, improve system
operations, and reduce maintenance costs. The current boilers operating have an average
combustion efficiency of 82.6% whereas current generation high efficiency boilers reach 88%
efficiency.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 25.6 years. The
simple payback period is greater than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers.
Avoided costs of replacement are included in this calculation. Annual total cost savings for this
ECO are $3,864.
ECO 12 – Air-Side Energy Recovery Loop
Summary: Large buildings require outside air intake in order to maintain adequate indoor air
quality. However, expelling indoor air and replacing it with outdoor requires a significant
amount of energy to heat the outdoor air during winter months and to cool outdoor air during
summer months. In order to reduce this heating/cooling load, the expelled indoor air and fresh
outdoor air may be passed through a set of coils connected to the glycol loop, preheating/cooling
the outdoor air before it is conditioned in the air handler. This ECO proposes to install such
energy recovery loops on AHUs where recommended.
Recommendation: Applied to the building above, this ECO is recommended as a stand-alone
measure with a simple payback of 3.3 years. The energy cost savings justify the investment
costs. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of ECO 10. If ECO 10 is not
implemented, ECO 12 savings will increase.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 17 Anchorage, AK
ECO 13 – Install Higher Efficiency Domestic Water Heaters
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing domestic water heating units with higher
efficiency domestic hot water heaters. The current water heaters operating have a nominal
efficiency of 80% whereas current generation high efficiency water heaters reach up to 97%
efficiency.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 41 years. The
simple payback period is more than the typical 20-year median expected life of the new hot water
heaters.
ECO 14 – Install High Efficiency Toilets
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing standard efficiency toilets with low-flow or
high-efficiency units. Existing toilets are wall-mounted and consume 3.5 gpf. These units can be
replaced with high-efficiency commercial models which consume as little as 1.0 gpf.
Recommendation: Applied to the building above, this ECO is recommended as a stand-alone
measure with a simple payback of 6.1 years. The annual total cost savings are sufficient to justify
the initial investment cost.
ECO 15 – Install High Efficiency Urinals
Summary: This ECO proposes installing high-efficiency urinals (HEUs) to replace standard
water urinals. As mentioned earlier, Baxter ES employs 1.5 gpf urinals. Energy savings can be
realized by reducing water consumption and wastewater treatment costs. Using the Caroma HEU
utilizes only 0.13 gpf and is equipped with an automatic flush sensor. Where waterless urinals
have the disadvantage of having to maintain urinal cartridges, the Caroma HEU does not.
Recommendation: This ECO is recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple payback
of 4.1 years. The simple payback period is less than the typical 5-year length of study period for
domestic plumbing upgrades.
ECO 16 – Low Flow Faucets
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing conventional kitchen, lavatory and classroom
faucets with low-flow units to reduce water and fuel consumption. Existing units at Baxter ES
predominantly operate at 2.2 gpm. New kitchen/classroom faucets will be 1.5 gpm and lavatory
faucets will be 0.5 gpm. New faucets will also have internal ceramic components, ensuring
longer service life and requiring less maintenance.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended as a stand-alone measure with a simple
payback of 8.9 years. The simple payback period is more than the typical 5-year length of study
period for domestic plumbing upgrades. This ECO was calculated assuming the installation of
ECO 13. If ECO 13 is not implemented, ECO 16 savings will increase.
Audit Report Level II Energy Audit
Ameresco Federal Solutions Baxter ES
Page 18 Anchorage, AK
ECO 18 – Install AERCO Boilers
Summary: This ECO proposes replacing existing hot-water heating boilers with AERCO units.
The existing boilers are approaching the end of their useful service life. AERCO boilers
employing modern technology can be installed to reduce energy consumption, improve system
operations, and reduce maintenance costs. The current boilers operating have an average
combustion efficiency of 82.6% whereas AERCO high efficiency boilers can be expected to
obtain an annual average of approximately reach 93% efficiency in this application.
Recommendation: This ECO is not recommended with a simple payback of 28.1 years. The
simple payback period is greater than the 25-year median expected life of the new boilers.
Avoided costs of replacement are included in this calculation. Annual total cost savings for this
ECO are $5,474.
APPENDIX A
REALS Benchmarking
Data Form
First Name Last NameMiddle NamePhone Steven Golab348‐5132State ZipAK Monday‐FridaySaturday Sunday Holidays8‐4:30 Average # of Occupants During 445 RenovationsDatePART II – ENERGY SOURCES Heating Oil Electricity Natural Gas Propane Wood Coal $ /gallon $ / kWh $ / CCF $ / gal $ / cord $ / tonOther energy sources? Baxter ElementaryBaxter ElementaryEducation ‐ K ‐ 1262,076Facility AddressBuilding TypeMixedCommunity PopulationFacility CityBuilding Square FootageREAL Preliminary Benchmark Data FormPART I – FACILITY INFORMATIONFacility OwnerMOAFacility Owned By 1. Please check every energy source you use in the table below. If known, please enter the base rate you pay for the energy source.Primary Operating HoursContact PersonCityDate07/26/11Municipal Government/SubdivisionYear Built1973Building Name/ Identifier Building UsageFacility Zip2. Provide utilities bills for the most recent two‐year period for each energy source you use.2991 Baxter RdAnchorage261,50099517EmailGolab_Steven@asdk12.orgDetailsAnchorage Mailing Address
Buiding Size Input (sf) =62,0762009 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)55,201.215,685,7252009 Natural Gas Cost ($)54,7932009 Electric Consumption (kWh)422,0931,440,6032009 Electric Cost ($)59,8657,126,3282009 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Oil Cost ($)02009 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Propane Cost ($)0.002009 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Coal Cost ($)0.002009 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Wood Cost ($)0.002009 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Thermal Cost ($)0.002009 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.002009 Steam Cost ($)0.002009 Total Energy Use (kBtu)6,960,7242009 Total Energy Cost ($)114,658Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2009 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf) 88.92009 Electricity (kBtu/sf)23.22009 Oil (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Propane (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Coal (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Wood (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Thermal (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Steam (kBtu/sf) 0.02009 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)112.1Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2009 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.882009 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)0.962009 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.002009 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)1.852010 Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)59,638.242010 Natural Gas Cost ($)51,2262010 Electric Consumption (kWh)434,7542010 Electric Cost ($)50,4972010 Oil Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Oil Cost ($)02010 Propane Consumption (Therms)0.00
2010 Propane Cost ($)02010 Coal Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Coal Cost ($)02010 Wood Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Wood Cost ($)02010 Thermal Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Thermal Cost ($)02010 Steam Consumption (Therms)0.002010 Steam Cost ($)02010 Total Energy Use (kBtu)7,447,6392010 Total Energy Cost ($)101,723Annual Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2010 Natural Gas (kBtu/sf)96.12010 Electricity (kBtu/sf)23.92010 Oil (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Propane (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Coal (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Wood (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Thermal (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Steam (kBtu/sf)0.02010 Energy Utilization Index (kBtu/sf)120.0Annual Energy Cost Index (ECI)2010 Natural Gas Cost Index ($/sf)0.832010 Electric Cost Index ($/sf)0.812010 Oil Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Propane Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Coal Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Wood Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Thermal Cost Index ($/sf)0.002010 Steam Cost Index ($/sf)0.0020010 Energy Cost Index ($/sf)1.64Note:1 kWh = 3,413 Btu's1 Therm = 100,000 Btu's1 CF ≈ 1,000 Btu's
Baxter ElementaryNatural GasBtus/CCF =100,000Provider Meter # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (CCF) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Natural Gas Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/Therm) Demand Cost ($)Enstar NGC144544 Jan‐09 01/13/09 02/13/09318,2408,240$8,322$1.01Enstar NGC144544 Feb‐09 02/13/09 03/13/09285,0555,055$5,131$1.01Enstar NGC144544 Mar‐09 03/13/09 04/15/09335,2865,286$5,362$1.01Enstar NGC144544 Apr‐09 04/15/09 05/14/09293,3993,399$3,471$1.02Enstar NGC144544 May‐09 05/14/09 06/16/09332,6992,699$2,769$1.03Enstar NGC144544 Jun‐09 06/16/09 07/16/09301,1991,199$1,267$1.06Enstar NGC144544 Jul‐09 07/16/09 08/17/09322,0502,050$2,120$1.03Enstar NGC144544 Aug‐09 08/17/09 09/15/09293,0383,038$3,111$1.02Enstar NGC144544 Sep‐09 09/15/09 10/14/09294,5894,589$4,667$1.02Enstar NGC144544 Oct‐09 10/14/09 11/13/09305,3875,387$5,467$1.01Enstar NGC144544 Nov‐09 11/13/09 12/10/09276,7136,713$6,798$1.01Enstar NGC144544 Dec‐09 12/10/09 01/13/10347,5487,548$6,308$0.84Enstar NGC144544Jan‐10 01/13/10 02/12/10306,7056,705$5,611$0.84Enstar NGC144544 Feb‐10 02/12/10 03/15/10315,4265,426$4,553$0.84Enstar NGC144544 Mar‐10 03/15/10 04/16/10325,1185,118$4,341$0.85Enstar NGC144544 Apr‐10 04/16/10 05/13/10273,6273,627$3,096$0.85Enstar NGC144544 May‐10 05/13/10 06/14/10322,5732,573$2,216$0.86Enstar NGC144544 Jun‐10 06/14/10 07/14/10302,4342,434$2,100$0.86Enstar NGC144544 Jul‐10 07/14/10 08/16/10333,4623,462$3,131$0.90Enstar NGC144544 Aug‐10 08/16/10 09/15/10303,7843,784$3,388$0.90Enstar NGC144544 Sep‐10 09/15/10 10/14/10294,0204,020$3,577$0.89Enstar NGC144544 Oct‐10 10/14/10 11/11/10284,8564,856$4,246$0.87Enstar NGC144544 Nov‐10 11/11/10 12/10/10296,5436,543$5,595$0.86Enstar NGC144544 Dec‐10 12/10/10 01/18/113911,09111,091$9,372$0.84Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 total:55,20155,2010$54,793$0Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 total:59,63859,6380$51,226$0$1.01$0.86Jan ‐ 09 to Dec ‐ 09 avg:Jan ‐ 10 to Dec ‐ 10 avg:
Baxter ES ‐ Natural Gas Consumption (Therms) vs. Natural Gas Cost ($)02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000Jan‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Sep‐09 Nov‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10 Jul‐10 Sep‐10 Nov‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Natural Gas Consumption (Therms)$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000$10,000Natural Gas Cost ($)Natural Gas Consumption(Therms)Natural Gas Cost ($)
Baxter ElementaryElectricityBtus/kWh =3,413Provider Customer # Month Start Date End Date Billing Days Consumption (kWh) Consumption (Therms) Demand Use Electric Cost ($) Unit Cost ($/kWh) Demand Cost ($)CEA 1‐7996949 Dec‐08 12/8/2008 1/7/20093048,6731,661146$7,575$0.16$1,620.60CEA 1‐7996949 Jan‐09 1/7/2009 2/6/20093038,1251,301150$5,944$0.16$1,665.00CEA 1‐7996949 Feb‐09 2/6/2009 3/10/20093237,0611,265136$5,752$0.16$1,509.60CEA 1‐7996949 Mar‐09 3/10/2009 4/8/20092936,0541,231130$5,465$0.15$1,443.00CEA 1‐7996949 Apr‐09 4/8/2009 5/8/20093029,6441,012130$4,716$0.16$1,443.00CEA 1‐7996949 May‐09 5/8/2009 6/8/20093115,716536124$2,383$0.15$1,376.40CEA 1‐7996949 Jun‐09 6/8/2009 7/8/20093017,15958650$2,610$0.15$555.00CEA 1‐7996949 Jul‐09 7/8/2009 8/6/20092933,4691,14294$4,564$0.14$1,043.40CEA 1‐7996949 Aug‐09 8/6/2009 9/4/20092939,7101,355128$5,140$0.13$1,420.80CEA 1‐7996949 Sep‐09 9/4/2009 10/6/20093243,8961,498154$5,516$0.13$1,784.80CEA 1‐7996949 Oct‐09 10/6/2009 11/5/20093043,1041,471140$5,385$0.12$1,622.60CEA 1‐7996949 Nov‐09 11/5/2009 12/7/20093239,4821,348150$4,815$0.12$1,738.50CEA 1‐7996949 Dec‐09 12/7/2009 1/7/20103144,9941,536146$5,190$0.12$1,692.10CEA 1‐7996949 Jan‐10 1/7/2010 2/5/20102936,4801,245144$4,235$0.12$1,668.90CEA 1‐7996949 Feb‐10 2/5/2010 3/9/20103236,9731,262140$4,494$0.12$1,622.60CEA 1‐7996949 Mar‐10 3/9/2010 4/8/20103037,3831,276128$4,446$0.12$1,483.50CEA 1‐7996949 Apr‐10 4/8/2010 5/10/20103230,9501,056128$3,997$0.13$1,483.50CEA 1‐7996949 May‐10 5/10/2010 6/9/20103022,780777124$2,894$0.13$1,437.10CEA 1‐7996949 Jun‐10 6/9/2010 7/9/20103025,58187382$3,089$0.12$950.40CEA 1‐7996949 Jul‐10 7/9/2010 8/9/20103137,6121,284102$4,239$0.11$1,182.20CEA 1‐7996949 Aug‐103039,1991,338$4,496$0.11CEA 1‐7996949 Sep‐103140,8281,393$4,616$0.11CEA 1‐7996949 Oct‐103040,2271,373$4,602$0.11CEA 1‐7996949 Nov‐103141,7471,425$4,199$0.10422,09314,4061,532$59,865$17,223434,75414,838994$50,497$11,520$0.14$0.12Dec ‐ 08 to Nov ‐ 09 total:Dec ‐ 09 to Nov ‐ 10 total:Dec ‐ 08 to Nov ‐ 09 avg:Dec ‐ 09 to Nov ‐ 10 avg:
Baxter ES ‐ Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($)010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000Dec‐08 Feb‐09 Apr‐09 Jun‐09 Aug‐09 Oct‐09 Dec‐09 Feb‐10 Apr‐10 Jun‐10 Aug‐10 Oct‐10Date (Mon ‐ Yr)Electric Consumption (kWh)$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption(kWh)Electric Cost ($)
APPENDIX B
ECO Calculations
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E01.Baxter ElementaryECO Description:Exterior Lighting (Bldg Baxter Elementary)Applicable Building:Baxter Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $71 818$ 25,127 2,227$ - -$ - - 86 3,045$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material191$ -$ -$ 3,236$ 7,078$ 73,806$ 10,111$ 90,995$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost9 EA - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Other-$ -$ 191$ 191$ 191$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost191$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost3 EA 0.3 0.9 Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - Other-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsNet Material CostAnnual CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MMaterial Cost for PMTotal Labor CostMaterial CostExterior LightingBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 1Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E01.Baxter Elementary5. Cost Estimate14 EA 0.8 Electrician 74$ 831$ 1,925$ 26,950$ 27,781$ 29 EA 0.8 Electrician 74$ 1,722$ 815$ 23,635$ 25,357$ 15 EA 0.8 Electrician 74$ 891$ 498$ 7,470$ 8,361$ 58 EA0.2 Electrician74$ 861$ -$ -$ 861$ 58 EA0.3 Electrician74$ 1,291$ 5$ 290$ 1,581$ Total Cost5,596$ 58,345$ 63,941$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeeklyMonthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):30$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:80,885$ Subtotal:63,941$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 5,258$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):16,944$ Design Cost (6%):4,853$ Subtotal:80,885$ Total Installed Cost:90,995$ Install 57.4 Watt LED systemFixture, Ballast, Lamp DisposalU/MUnit Labor-HrsDescriptionUnit QtyTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 221 Watt LED systemInstall 69 Watt LED systemTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostMisc WiringDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportTotalExterior LightingBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 2Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E01.Baxter Elementary3. Replace 14 - 400W HPS system with 14 - 221 Watt LED system.4. Replace 29 - 100W HPS Flood system with 29 - 69 Watt LED system.5. Replace 15 - 100W HPS Can system with 15 - 57.4 Watt LED system.Annual Demand (kW) = 143 Annual Demand (kW) = 71 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 71 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 50,321 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 25,193 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 25,127 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =1,639$ Demand Cost =820$ Demand Cost Savings =818$ Electrical Consumption Cost =4,459$ Electrical Consumption Cost =2,232$ Electrical Cost Savings =2,227$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =3,045$ 1. Lighting listed for replacement is HID technology.2. New lighting will be LED technology.8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)c. Calculations:13. Fixtures average 4229.9 hours per year.14. Electrical consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.15. Electrical demand costs $11.48/kW.b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)Baseline Condition: Proposed Condition:2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)Exterior LightingBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 3Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E04.Baxter ElementaryECO Description:CFL Lighting Upgrade (Bldg Baxter Elementary)Applicable Building:Baxter Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykWkW $kWhkWh $CCF$ kGal$ mmBtu $2 23$ 189 17$ - -$ - - 1 39$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material14$ 7$ -$ 46$ 68$ 26$ 12$ 106$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost1 EA 0.3 0.2 Electrician60$ 12$ -$ -$ 12$ - EA- - Electrician60$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - Electrician60$ -$ 1$ 1$ 1$ Total Cost14$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost0 EA 0.3 0.1 Electrician60$ 5$ -$ -$ 5$ - EA- - Electrician60$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- - --$ -$ 2$ 2$ 2$ Total Cost7$ Material Cost for PMAnnual O&MAnnual PMUnit QtyU/MMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual CostAnnual O&MTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual PMMaterial Cost for PMUnit Labor-HrsO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTotal Labor CostNet Labor-HrsMaterial CostNet Material CostConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V Cost Total Cost SavingsInstallation CostsCFL Lighting UpgradeBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 4Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E04.Baxter Elementary5. Cost Estimate3 EA 0.3 Electrician 60$ 54$ 7$ 20$ 74$ Total Cost54$ 20$ 74$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- DailyWeeklyMonthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):30$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:94$ Subtotal:74$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):6$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):20$ Design Cost (6%):6$ Subtotal:94$ Total Installed Cost:106$ TotalReportDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Total Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall 20 W CFLInspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationMaterial CostDescriptionUnit QtyU/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTradeCFL Lighting UpgradeBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 5Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E04.Baxter Elementary3. Replace 3 - 75W Incandescent with 3 - 20 W CFL.Annual Demand (kW) = 3 Annual Demand (kW) = 1 Annual Demand Savings (kW) = 2 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 258 Electrical Consumption (kWh) = 69 Electrical Savings (kWh) = 189 Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Consumption (Natural Gas) = - Natural Gas Savings (Natural Gas) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Consumption (kGal) = - Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =31$ Demand Cost =8$ Demand Cost Savings =23$ Electrical Consumption Cost =23$ Electrical Consumption Cost =6$ Electrical Cost Savings =17$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =39$ c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:3. Proposed Demand (kW) = (Proposed Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)4. Proposed Usage (kWh) = (Proposed Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Annual Energy Savings = (Baseline Energy Usage) - (Proposed Energy Usage)6. Annual Cost Savings = (Energy Savings) x (Energy Cost)b. Equations:1. Baseline Demand (kW) = (Existing Fixture Wattage) x (Qty) x (12 months) / (1,000)2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = (Baseline Demand) x (Fixture Hours)5. Electrical consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.6. Electrical demand costs $11.48/kW.8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. Lighting listed for replacement is Incandescent technology.2. New lighting will be CFL technology.4. Fixtures average 1146.6 hours per year.CFL Lighting UpgradeBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 6Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E08.Baxter ElementaryECO Description:Premium Efficiency Motors (Bldg Baxter Elementary)Applicable Building:Baxter Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $kGal$ mmBtu $1 16$ 6,125 543$ - -$ - - 21 559$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material11$ 11$ -$ 559$ 1,709$ 8,804$ 1,314$ 11,828$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost1 LS0.4 0.4 Electrician30$ 11$ -$ -$ 11$ 11$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost1 LS0.4 0.4 Electrician30$ 11$ -$ -$ 11$ 11$ 5. Cost Estimate4 LS1.5 84$ 507$ 677$ 2,708$ 3,215$ 2 LS2.0 84$ 338$ 718$ 1,436$ 1,774$ 2 LS3.0 84$ 507$ 1,408$ 2,816$ 3,323$ 1,351$ 6,960$ 8,311$ Total Cost10 horse1.5 horseTotal Labor CostTotal CostU/M Unit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Unit Labor-Hrs Net Labor-Hrs2 horseDescriptionUnit QtyAnnual PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MTotal Labor CostMaterial CostMaterial CostTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostAnnual CostNet Material CostTotal Labor CostMaterial CostTradeTotal CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater SavingsTotal Energy SavingsAnnual CostAnnual PMO&M TasksUnit Qty U/M Unit Labor-HrsTotal Installed CostNet Labor-Hrs TradeNet Material CostConstruction CostsO&M CostM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Premium Efficiency MotorsBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 7Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E08.Baxter Elementary6. Project Markups-$ -$ -$ 10,514$ 8,311$ 683$ 2,202$ 631$ 10,514$ 11,828$ 21.31 19.92 1.40 Electrical Consumption (kWh) =93,356.57 Electrical Consumption (kWh) =87,231.11 6,125 Fuel Consumption (mmBtu) =- Fuel Consumption (mmBtu) =- Fuel Savings (mmBtu) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =245$ Demand Cost =229$ Demand Cost Savings =16$ Electrical Consumption Cost =8,273$ Electrical Consumption Cost =7,730$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =543$ Fuel Consumption Cost =-$ Fuel Consumption Cost =-$ Fuel Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =559$ Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =Demand (kW) =b. Equations:1. Existing/Proposed Motor Demand (kW) = (Motor HP) x (Load Factor) x (0.746 kW/HP)/ Motor EfficiencyDemand Savings (kW) =Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =2. Existing/Proposed Motor Consumption (kWh) = (Motor Demand) x (Diversity Factor) x (Annual Hours)3. kW Savings = [(Baseline kW) - ( Proposed kW)] x 124. kWh Savings = (Baseline kWh) - ( Proposed kWh)5. Energy Cost Savings = Energy Savings (kW or kWh) x (Energy Unit Cost)c. Calculations:5. Fan annual operating hours = 87606. Electrical demand costs = $11.48/kW.7. Electrical consumption costs = $0.088612/kWh.1. This ECO considers replacing existing motors with NEMA premium efficiency motors.2. Existing motors & efficiencies: (4) 1.5-hp @ 84%; (2) 2-hp @ 84%; (2) 10-hp @ 89.5%3. Proposed motors & efficiencies: (4) 1.5-hp @ 86.5%; (2) 2-hp @ 86.5%; (2) 10-hp @ 91.1%4. Pump annual operating hours = 87607. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:Subtotal:Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): Design Cost (6%):Sales Tax (0%): Bond (0%):Subcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subtotal: Total Installed Cost:Premium Efficiency MotorsBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 8Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 09ECO Description:Install Primary/Secondary Pumping on Heating Water SystemBaxter ES1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ mmBtu $kGal$ mmBtu $40 457$ 26,174 2,319$ - -$ - - 89 2,776$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material-$ -$ -$ 2,776$ 6,761$ 6,452$ 1,652$ 14,864$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance CostEA0.5 - Electrician30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS0.5 - Electrician30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS1.0 - Electrician-$ -$ 7$ -$ -$ - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance CostEA0.3 - Electrician30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS0.5 - Electrician30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS1.0 - Electrician-$ -$ 7$ -$ -$ - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Applicable Building:Unit Labor-Hrs Net Labor-HrsTotal CostMaterial CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual CostTotal CostNet Material CostNet Labor-HrsDaily O&MUnit Labor-HrsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial Cost Net Material CostTradeAnnual PMElectric Savings Natural Gas SavingsUnit QtyWater SavingsU/MInstallation CostsTotal Cost SavingsTotal Energy SavingsAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMTotal Installed CostTradeTotal Labor CostO&M TasksM&V CostDaily O&MO&M Tasks Unit QtyConstruction CostsU/MO&M CostPrimary Secondary PumpingBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 9Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 095. Cost EstimateVFD 10 HP2 EA 11.9 Electrician 74$ 1,772$ 1,625$ 3,250$ 5,022$ 1 LS30.0 Mechanical84$ 2,534$ 1,800$ 1,800$ 4,334$ 1 LS10.0 Electrician74$ 742$ 50$ 50$ 792$ 2 2.0 Electrician74$ 297$ -$ -$ 297$ Total Cost5,345$ 5,100$ 10,445$ 6. Measurement and Verification Cost-$ -$ -$ 13,213$ 10,445$ 859$ 2,768$ 793$ 13,213$ 14,864$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):Subtotal:Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):Subtotal:Subtotal:Total M&L CostTotal Labor CostTotal Material CostUnit Labor-HrsMaterial CostBond (0%):Pump Motor WiringSupervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):Design Cost (6%):TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)DescriptionU/MUnit QtyControls SetupMisc. piping & InstrumentationSales Tax (0%):7. Energy SavingsTotal Installed Cost:Primary Secondary PumpingBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 10Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 094. The heating water system operates 1572.7 hours per year.3. Motor Load Factor = (Chilled Water Load (%) / 100%)^359.4 19.6 39.8 42,221 16,047 26,174 - - -$ - - - 682$ 225$ 457$ 3,741$ 1,422$ 2,319$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,776$ 7. Electrical demand costs = $8.89/kW.2. Existing secondary pumping system is rated at 10 hp with flow of 425 gpm, 52 ft. of head, and 91.7% efficiency.6. Electrical consumption costs = $0.0356/kWh.1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK (nearest available NOAA station) applies.a. Assumptions:3. Proposed pump system will be a 10 hp secondary pump with 52 ft of head. The secondary pump will operate with a VFD to modulate flow based on heating water demand.Electrical Consumption Cost =Propane Consumption (Gal) =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Demand Savings (kW) =Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =Demand (kW) =Baseline Condition:Savings:4. Proposed Usage= (Primary Pump HP x 0.746 x Hours) + (Secondary Pump HP x 0.746 X Hours x Motor Load Factor)7. Monthly Demand Savings = Baseline Demand - Demand at Peak OAT for Monthc. Calculations:1. Pump horsepower (hp) = (Pump flow (gpm) x Total Dynamic Head (ft.)) / (3960 x Pump Eff.)b. Equations:2. Baseline Usage (kWh) = Baseline Pump HP x 0.746 x Operating HoursDemand Cost =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Total Cost Savings =Electrical Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Cost Savings =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Water Cost Savings =Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =Propane Savings (Gal) =Water Consumption Cost = Water Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) = Propane Consumption (Gal) =Water Savings (kGal) =Water Consumption (kGal) =Demand Cost Savings =Water Consumption (kGal) =Demand Cost =5. kWh Saved = Existing kWh Usage - Proposed kWh Usage6. Annual Cost Savings = kWh Saved x kWh Unit Cost5. The heating water demand is 100% of capacity at the design OAT and 0% at 62°F, and the load profile is linear between these points.Primary Secondary PumpingBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 11Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99516ECO NO:ECO 10.Baxter ElementaryECO Description:Boiler Upgrade (Bldg Baxter Elementary)Applicable Building:Baxter Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 2,871 1,960$ - - 287 1,960$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material1,904$ -$ -$ 3,864$ 13,674$ 74,331$ 11,001$ 99,006$ 1,904$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA 0.5 60.0 - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS40.0 40.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA 0.5 54.0 - -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS36.0 36.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Annual CostUnit QtyTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsConstruction CostsAnnual CostElectric SavingsInstallation CostsTotal Cost SavingsM&V CostO&M TasksUnit QtyUnit Labor-HrsU/MDaily O&MO&M TasksAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMU/MNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Labor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostTradeTradeNet Material CostNet Labor-HrsDaily O&MAvoided CostTotal Installed CostBoiler UpgradeBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 12Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99516ECO NO:ECO 10.Baxter Elementary5. Cost Estimate2 EA - Mechanical84$ -$ 29,380$ 58,760$ 58,760$ 1 LS128.0 Mechanical84$ 10,810$ -$ -$ 10,810$ Total Cost10,810$ 58,760$ 69,570$ 6. Avoided Cost Savings1 LS - Mechanical84$ -$ 1,904$ 1,904$ 1,904$ -$ 1,904$ 1,904$ 7. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Unit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsMaterial CostTotal Material CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostDemolitionTradeTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportTotal CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)DutiesTotal Labor CostTotalRecord OperationInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)DescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostAnnualized Avoided Replacement CostMaterial CostThermal Soultions Evo EVAM-3000DescriptionBoiler UpgradeBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 13Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99516ECO NO:ECO 10.Baxter Elementary8. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:88,006$ Subtotal:69,570$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 5,720$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 18,436$ Design Cost (6%):5,280$ Subtotal:88,006$ Total Installed Cost:99,006$ 9. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 25 year lifecycle and a 20 year length of study at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units less than 5 years old are excluded.3. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is included in O&M savings213199911. Fuel Oil accounts for less than 7% of basewide heating fuel consumption. For uniformity of calculation among buildings, this ECO assumes all fuel use is gas.QuantityYear Installed 1-for-1 Replacement Cost New Unit20,799.33 Thermal Soultions Evo EVAM-30001. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.Remaining LifeUnit ReplacedWeil McLain 10887. It was assumed that the annual building heating kbtu/sqft is in line with EIA regional averages. The heating load at design temperature is adjusted to 26.0% of the max output of the boiler system based on these averages and the heating load decreases linearly with increased outdoor air temperature.8. Unoccupied temperature setpoint = 60°F9. Heating setpoint = 68°F10. Natural Gas costs = $0.68279/CCF3. Existing boiler measured efficiency = 81.6%4. Proposed boiler efficiency = 88.0%9. No cooling occurs above 62°F OAT.5. Existing standby losses = 1.0%6. Proposed standby losses = 1.0%Boiler UpgradeBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 14Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99516ECO NO:ECO 10.Baxter Elementaryc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =46,255 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =43,384 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =2,871 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =31,582$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =29,622$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =1,960$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =1,960$ 3. Proposed mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Proposed Efficiency4. mmBtu Saved = Existing mmBtu Usage - Proposed mmBtu Usage5. Annual Cost Savings = mmBtu Saved x mmBtu Unit Cost2. Existing mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Existing Efficiencyb. Equations:1. Building Heat Load = Building Load Factor x Max Boiler OutputBoiler UpgradeBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 15Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASDECO NO:M07.Baxter ESBaxter ES1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 19,953 13,624$ - - 1,995 13,624$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryExisting NewLabor Material-$ -$ -$ 13,624$ 14,529$ 25,457$ 4,998$ 44,984$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA- - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA0.2 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA0.2 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA0.8 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA0.8 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA0.4 - Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ ECO Description:Applicable Building:Total Energy SavingsElectric Savings Natural Gas SavingsTotal Installed CostQuarterly PM (Wheel)Unit Qty U/MSemi-Annual PMAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MO&M TasksUnit Labor-HrsTotal CostEquipment ReplacementQuarterly PMAnnual PM (Wheel)Net Labor-HrsTotal Cost SavingsConstruction CostsNet Labor-HrsSemi-Annual PM (Wheel)Annual PM (Heat Pipe)Monthly PM (Wheel)O&M TasksNet Material CostTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostMaterial CostAnnual CostAnnual CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)TradeTradeTotal Labor CostTotal CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)O&M Cost Installation CostsM&V CostUnit Labor-HrsEnergy Recovery Unit (Bldg Baxter ES)Water SavingsEnergy Recover UnitBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 16Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASDECO NO:M07.Baxter ES5. Cost Estimate2 EA20.0 Mechanical84$ 3,378$ 1,318$ 2,636$ 6,014$ 2 EA20.0 Mechanical84$ 3,378$ 1,938$ 3,876$ 7,254$ 2 EA5.3 Mechanical84$ 901$ 1,775$ 3,550$ 4,451$ - EA- Mechanical84$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6 LS7.6 Mechanical84$ 3,828$ 1,677$ 10,062$ 13,890$ Total Cost11,485$ 20,124$ 31,609$ 6. Measurement and Verification Cost- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total 50$ - - - - - - - -$ - - - - - - - -$ 39,986$ 44,984$ 11. Integration costs for energy wheels (i.e. additional ductwork, AHU expansion, etc.) is 100% of the energy wheel material cost plus 50% of the labor cost.1.5 HP PumpCoil C-17. Energy SavingsTotal Installed Cost:DutiesCoil C-2-Labor Requirement (Hours)Integration with Existing Air HandlerRecord OperationUnit Labor-HrsUnit Qty U/MTradeDescription1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.3. Existing and proposed day setpoints: 70°F, 40% RH (Heating); 72°F, 50% RH (Cooling)7. Energy recovery efficiency = 0%4. Total Min OA CFM = 11200 for 6 AHUs5. Existing cooling efficiency = 0 kW/ton6. Existing heating efficiency = 88%8. Electrical demand costs = $11.48/kW.9. Electrical consumption costs = $0.088612/kWh.10. Natural gas costs = $0.68279/CCF.2. The ERU recovers heat from the exhaust air during the winter and pre-cools & dehumidifies during the summer.Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):Annual Labor Cost ($):Subtotal:a. Assumptions:Inspect EquipmentLabor Rate ($Hr):Annual Labor Requirement (Hrs):Total Material CostMaterial CostTotal M&L CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Energy Recover UnitBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 17Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASDECO NO:M07.Baxter ES264 264 - 192,587 192,587 - 34,789 14,837 19,953 - - - 3,029$ 3,029$ -$ 17,066$ 17,066$ -$ 23,754$ 10,130$ 13,624$ -$ -$ -$ 13,624$ Water Consumption Cost =Water Consumption Cost =Water Cost Savings =Electrical Consumption Cost =Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Cost Savings =Demand Cost =Demand Cost Savings =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =Water Consumption (kGal) =Water Savings (kGal) =Natural Gas Consumption Cost =Water Consumption (kGal) =Demand Cost =Electrical Consumption Cost =Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =Demand (kW) =Electrical Consumption (kWh) =7. Existing/Proposed Annual Cooling Demand (kW) = Σ[(Total Cooling Load) x (Cooling Efficiency) / 12,000]Bin8. Existing/Proposed Annual Cooling Consumption (kWh) = Σ[(Cooling Demand) x (Bin Hours)]BinDemand Savings (kW) =Demand (kW) =c. Calculations:b. Heat Pump (kWh) = Σ[(MBH / 15 MBH/ton) x (Heat Pump Efficiency, kW/ton) x (Bin Heating Hours)]Bin3. Proposed Heating (MBH) = 60 min/hr x 0.018 Btu/lbm-ºF x (OA CFM) x ( Heating SP Temp - Bin Mean Temp) x (1 - ERU Efficiency) / 1,000b. Electric Resistance (kWh) = Σ[(MBH / 3.412 MBH/kW) x (Heating Element Efficiency) x (Bin Heating Hours)]Bin2. Existing Heat Load (MBH) = 60 min/hr x 0.018 Btu/lbm-ºF x (OA CFM) x ( Heating SP Temp - Bin Mean Temp) / 1,00010. Annual Cost Savings = Annual Savings x Energy Unit Cost6. Proposed Cooling Load (Btu/Hr) = 60 min/hr x 0.075 lba/ft3 x (OA CFM) x (Bin Mean Enthalpy - Cooling Setpoint Enthalpy) x (1 - ERU Efficiency)a. Fuel Heating (mmBtu) = Σ[(MBH x Bin Heating Hours) / (1,000 x Boiler Efficiency)]BinTotal Cost Savings =Saving Calculation:5. Existing Cooling Load (Btu/Hr) = 60 min/hr x 0.075 lba/ft3 x (OA CFM) x (Bin Mean Enthalpy - Cooling Setpoint Enthalpy)b. Equations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:9. Annual Savings = Existing Condition - Proposed Condition4. Annual Heating Consumption:1. Existing and proposed heating and cooling hours are based on bin hours and estimated building occupancy periods.Energy Recover UnitBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 18Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E01.Baxter ElementaryECO Description:Domestic Hot Water Heater Upgrade (Bldg Baxter Elementary)Applicable Building:Baxter Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 247 169$ - - 25 169$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting NewLabor Material-$ -$ -$ 169$ 1,695$ 4,456$ 769$ 6,920$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Plumber 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Plumber 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas SavingsWater SavingsTotal Energy SavingsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsMaterial CostNet Material CostConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeO&M TasksLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostAnnual CostDaily O&MTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Annual PMMaterial Cost for PMMaterial Cost for PMUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsDaily O&MAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MDomestic Water HeaterBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 19Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E01.Baxter Elementary5. Cost Estimate1 EA11.0 Plumber74$ 812$ 4,511$ 4,511$ 5,323$ 1 EA6.0 Plumber74$ 443$ 180$ 180$ 623$ 1 LS1.1 Plumber74$ 84$ -$ -$ 84$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS- --$ -$ (1,169)$ (1,169)$ (1,169)$ Total Cost1,340$ 3,522$ 4,862$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:6,151$ Subtotal:4,862$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):400$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 1,288$ Design Cost (6%):369$ Subtotal:6,151$ Total Installed Cost:6,920$ Total Material CostTotal M&L CostU/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostRHEEM-GHE100-200NGFlue installation, pipe re-route, misc.Demolition WorkDescriptionUnit QtyInspect EquipmentRecord OperationTest OperationReportAvoided CostsDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)TotalDomestic Water HeaterBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 20Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:E01.Baxter Elementary8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Tankless sizing based on sum of sink and shower fixture GPM x 60% hot water use with a peak demand of 80% of total GPM5. Surface area of tanks calculated based on capacity and standard sizings.6. Existing water heaters have an R-value of 7.9. Existing annual usage split between existing heaters proportionally with tank size.10. Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 20 year lifecycle at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units with more than 5 years remaining life are excluded from the calculation.12. Natural Gas consumption costs $0.68279/CCF1001999 0.845.6 3258,760141,125,000116,391,753b. Equations:1. Existing Standby Losses = 1/R x SurfaceArea x (Temp. tank- Temp. ambient)2. Energy Savings per year (kWh/yr.) = Standby Losses x hours /3413Baseline Condition: Proposed Condition: Savings Estiamtes:Demand (kW) = - Demand (kW) = - Demand Savings (kW) = - Electrical Consumption (kWh) = - Electrical Consumption (kWh) = - Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =1,411 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =1,164 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =247 Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =964$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =795$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =169$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =168.88$ Surface Area (sq. ft.)Existing Standby Losses (Btu/hr)1. Installed Tankless Heaters based on RHEEM-GHE100-200NG @ 70 deg F temperature rise3. Existing water heater temperature is 120 degrees F.4. The ambient temperature is 70 degrees F.Hours of Operation (hr)Existing Annual Usage (Btu.yr)Stand-by Savings (Btu.yr)Proposed Annual Usage (Btu.yr)7. Existing water heaters operate 8,760 hours per year.8. One bank of multiple instantaneous heater will replace each traditional tank heater.11. Electrical consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.Existing Water Heater Size (nominal gallons)Existing Water Heater TypeReplacement Water Heater TypeExisting Tank Year InstalledReplacement Value Factor (% of 1 for 1 replacement cost avoided)Conventional gas RHEEM-GHE100-200NG3. Cost Savings = Energy Savings x $0.0360Domestic Water HeaterBldg Baxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 21Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 14.Baxter ESECO Description:High-Efficiency Toilets (Bldg Baxter ES)Applicable Building:Baxter ES1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ - -$ 466.83 3,603.93 - 3,604$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 3,604$ 7,241$ 12,157$ 2,425$ 21,823$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ EA1.0 - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Construction CostsTotal Installed CostAnnual CostUnit Qty U/MTradeInstallation CostsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMO&M TasksO&M TasksUnit QtyNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsU/MDaily O&MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Net Material CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMAnnual CostTradeTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsElectric SavingsHigh Efficency ToiletsBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 22Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 14.Baxter ES5. Cost Estimate31 EA2.5 Plumber74$ 5,724$ 310$ 9,610$ 15,334$ - - - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost5,724$ 9,610$ 15,334$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:19,398$ Subtotal:15,334$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 1,261$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 4,064$ Design Cost (6%):1,164$ Subtotal:19,398$ Total Installed Cost:21,823$ Record OperationTest OperationReportTotalDescriptionMaterial CostTotal Material CostTradeUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostTotal M&L CostInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)Install Sloan 1.6 gpf flushometerDutiesHigh Efficency ToiletsBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 23Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 14.Baxter ES8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:8. Domestic water cost = $4.09/kGal.9. Wastewater cost = $3.63/kGal.10. Electric Consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.11. Electric Demand costs $11.48/kW.12. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/gal.b. Equations:c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Savings:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)- Water Consumption (kGal) =860 Water Consumption (kGal) =393 Water Consumption (kGal) =467 Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost-$ Water Consumption Cost =6,639$ Water Consumption Cost =3,035$ Water Consumption Cost =3,604$ Total Cost Savings =3,604$ 1. Avg Daily Toilet Use/Person = [(# Males) x (Male Daily Use Rate) + (# Females) x (Female Daily Use Rate)] / Total Occupants(Avg Daily Toilet Use/Person)Drill x (Annual Occupant Use)Drill] / 10001. 31 existing commercial toilets @ 3.5 gpf.2. 182 schooldays and 0 drill days annually.3. 225 male and 225 female occupants on schooldays. 4. Restroom fixture usage rate = 5X per person per day (National average, AWWA).5. Males use the toilet 1 time(s) per day for solid waste.6. Females use the toilet 5 times a day,1 time(s) for solid waste.7. Proposed flush avg. GPF = 1.65. Annual Water Savings (kGal) = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage6. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Water Savings x Water & Sewer Unit Cost2. Annual Toilet Use = (Total Occupants) x (Annual schooldays)3. Existing Annual Water Usage (kGal) = [(Existing Toilet GPF) x (Avg Daily Toilet Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Occupant Use)Weekday + (Existing Toilet GPF) x (Avg Daily Toilet Use/Person)Drill x (Annual Occupant Use)Drill] / 10004. Proposed Annual Water Usage (kGal) = [(Proposed Toilet GPF) x (Avg Daily Toilet Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Occupant Use)Weekday + (Proposed Toilet GPF) xHigh Efficency ToiletsBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 24Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 15.Baxter ESECO Description:High-Efficiency Urinals (Bldg Baxter ES)Applicable Building:Baxter ES1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $kWhkWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ - -$ 163.80 1,264.54 - 1,265$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material2,560$ 2,560$ -$ 1,265$ 2,490$ 2,151$ 580$ 5,221$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost500 EA 0.1 50.0 Janitor 36$ 1,811$ 0.02$ 10$ 1,821$ 10 EA1.0 10.0 Plumber74$ 739$ -$ -$ 739$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost2,560$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost500 EA 0.1 50.0 Janitor 36$ 1,811$ 0.02$ 10$ 1,821$ 10 EA1.0 10.0 Plumber74$ 739$ -$ -$ 739$ - LS- - Plumber74$ -$ 58$ -$ -$ Total Cost2,560$ Material CostNet Material CostO&M TasksUnit QtyAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostDaily O&MU/MUnit Labor-HrsLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeElectric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsHigh Efficiency UrinalsBldg Baxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 25Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 15.Baxter ES5. Cost Estimate5 EA 5.3 Plumber74$ 1,968$ 340$ 1,700$ 3,668$ 5 EA1.1 Plumber74$ 422$ -$ -$ 422$ Total Cost1,968$ 1,700$ 3,668$ 6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:4,641$ Subtotal:3,668$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):302$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):972$ Design Cost (6%):278$ Subtotal:4,641$ Total Installed Cost:5,221$ TotalTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Test OperationReportTotal Labor CostMaterial CostDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostInstall High Efficiency UrinalDemo Existing UrinalDescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsHigh Efficiency UrinalsBldg Baxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 26Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 15.Baxter ES8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:7. Domestic water cost = $4.09/kGal.8. Wastewater cost = $3.63/kGal.9. Electric Consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.10. Electric Demand costs $11.48/kW.11. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/gal.b. Equations:c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Savings:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =- Natural Gas Savings () =- Water Consumption (kGal) =246 Water Consumption (kGal) =82 Water Savings (kGal) =164 Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =-$ Water Consumption Cost =1,897$ Water Consumption Cost =632$ Water Cost Savings =1,265$ Total Cost Savings =1,265$ 2. Existing or Proposed Annual Urinal Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Urinal GPF) x (Annual Urinal Use)Weekday] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Urinal GPF) x (Annual Urinal Use)Drillday] ) / 10003. Annual Water or Fuel Savings = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage4. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Water Savings x Utility Unit Cost1. 5 existing urinal(s) @ 1.5 gpf.2. 182 weekdays and 0 drill days annually.3. 225 male occupants on workdays. 0 male occupants on drill days.4. Restroom fixture usage rate = 5X per person per day (National average, AWWA).5. Males use the urinal 4 time(s) per day for liquid waste.6. Proposed flush avg. GPF = 0.51. Annual Urinal Use = [(Total Male Occupants) x (Total Days)]Weekday or Drill DaysHigh Efficiency UrinalsBldg Baxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 27Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 16.Baxter ESECO Description:Low Flow Faucets (Bldg Baxter ES)Applicable Building:Baxter ES1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 59 40$ 11.76 90.78 6 131$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material-$ -$ -$ 131$ 452$ 587$ 130$ 1,168$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA- - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Electric SavingsNatural Gas Savings Water Savings Total Energy SavingsM&V CostTotal Cost SavingsInstallation CostsMaterial CostNet Material CostConstruction CostsTotal Installed CostO&M TasksUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-Hrs TradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostAnnual CostDaily O&MAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMLow Flow FaucetsBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 28Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 16.Baxter ES4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost- EA - - Electrician 74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - EA1.0 - Electrician74$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - LS- - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 5. Cost Estimate- EA 0.2 Plumber 74$ -$ 15$ -$ -$ 29 EA0.2 Plumber74$ 357$ 16$ 464$ 821$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost357$ 464$ 821$ O&M TasksTotal Labor CostMaterial CostNet Material CostAnnual CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Material Cost for PMUnit Labor-HrsNet Labor-HrsDaily O&MAnnual PMUnit Qty U/MTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostU/MUnit Labor-HrsTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostUltra Low Flow Faucet AeratorKitchen Faucet Swivel AeratorDescriptionUnit QtyLow Flow FaucetsBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 29Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 16.Baxter ES6. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:1,039$ Subtotal:821$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%):68$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%):218$ Design Cost (6%):62$ Subtotal:1,039$ Total Installed Cost:1,168$ 8. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:1. 0 existing lavatory faucets @ 0.5 gpm; 29 kitchen faucet @ 2.2 gpm.2. 182 weekdays and 24 drill days annually.3. 450 occupant on workdays and 87.125 on drill days.4. Avg daily use/person: lav faucet = 3 mins, kitchen faucet = 1 min5. Estimate of 20% of occupants use the kitchen faucet once daily.6. Proposed lav faucet @ 0.5 gpm; kitchen faucet @ 1 gpm.7. 60% of domestic water is heated hotwater; 80 temp rise; 80% water heater efficiency.8. Domestic water cost = $4.09/kGal.9. Wastewater cost = $3.63/kGal.10. Electric Consumption costs $0.088612/kWh.11. Electric Demand costs $11.48/kW.12. Natural Gas costs $0.68279/gal.Test OperationReportTotalDutiesLabor Requirement (Hours)Inspect EquipmentRecord OperationLow Flow FaucetsBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 30Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99504ECO NO:ECO 16.Baxter ESb. Equations:1. Annual Lav Faucet Use = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days)]Weekday or Drill Days2. Annual Kitchen Faucet Use = [(Total Occupants) x (Total Days) x (Kitchen Use Use Factor)]Weekday or Drill Days3. Existing or Proposed Annual Lav Faucet Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Lav Faucet Use)Weekday x (Faucet GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Annual Lav Faucet Use)Drillday x (Faucet GPM)] ) / 10004. Existing or Proposed Annual Kitchen Faucet Usage (kGal) = ( [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Weekday x (Annual Kitchen Faucet Use)Weekday x (Faucet GPM)] + [(Avg Daily Use/Person)Drillday x (Annual Kitchen Faucet Use)Drillday x (Faucet GPM)] ) / 10005. Annual Water Usage (kGal) = [(Annual Lav Use) + (Annual Kit Use)]Existing/Proposed6. Annual DHW Capacity (kGal) = (% DHW) x (Annual Water Usage)Existing/Proposed7. Heating Energy (mmBtu) = DHW Gal x (8.33 lb/gal) x (1 Btu/lb-°F) x ΔT / 1,000,0008. Fuel Required (mmBtu) = Heating Energy / Boiler Efficiency9. Annual Water or Fuel Savings = Existing Annual Usage - Proposed Annual Usage10. Annual Cost Savings ($) = Annual Savings x Utility Unit Costc. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)1,129 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)1,070 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF)59 Water Consumption (kGal) =226 Water Consumption (kGal) =214 Water Consumption (kGal) =12 Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost771$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost731$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost40$ Water Consumption Cost =1,744$ Water Consumption Cost =1,653$ Water Consumption Cost =91$ Total Cost Savings =131$ Low Flow FaucetsBaxter ESAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 31Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99516ECO NO:ECO 10.Baxter ElementaryECO Description:AERCO Boiler Upgrade (Bldg Baxter Elementary)Applicable Building:Baxter Elementary1. Energy & Cost Savings SummarykW kW $ kWh kWh $ CCF $ kGal$ mmBtu $- -$ - -$ 5,229 3,570$ - - 523 3,570$ 2. Installation Cost SummaryO&M CostExisting New Labor Material1,904$ -$ -$ 5,474$ 17,309$ 119,527$ 17,104$ 153,939$ 1,904$ 3. Eliminated Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA0.5 60.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS40.0 40.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ 4. New Operation and Maintenance Cost120 EA0.5 54.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS36.0 36.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 LS1.0 1.0 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Cost-$ Total Installed CostAvoided CostTradeTradeNet Material CostNet Labor-HrsDaily O&MNet Material CostMaterial CostTotal Labor CostLabor Rates ($/Hr)Labor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostMaterial CostDaily O&MO&M TasksAnnual PMMaterial Cost for PMMaterial Cost for PMAnnual PMElectric SavingsInstallation CostsTotal Cost SavingsM&V CostO&M TasksUnit QtyUnit Labor-HrsU/MTotal Energy SavingsWater SavingsNatural Gas SavingsNet Labor-HrsUnit Labor-HrsConstruction CostsAnnual CostAnnual CostUnit Qty U/MAERCO Boiler UpgradeBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 32Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99516ECO NO:ECO 10.Baxter Elementary5. Cost Estimate2 EA - Mechanical 84$ -$ 45,448$ 90,895$ 90,895$ 1 LS - Mechanical 84$ 1,796$ 3,592$ 3,592$ 5,388$ 1 LS - Mechanical 84$ 1,077$ -$ -$ 1,077$ 1 LS 128.0 Mechanical 84$ 10,810$ -$ -$ 10,810$ Total Cost13,683$ 94,487$ 108,170$ 6. Avoided Cost Savings1 LS - Mechanical 84$ -$ 1,904$ 1,904$ 1,904$ -$ 1,904$ 1,904$ 7. Measurement and Verification CostAnnual Labor Requirement (Hrs):- Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Semi-Annual Annual Total Labor Rate ($Hr):50$ - - - - - - - Annual Labor Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Annual Material/Equipment Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - Total Annual M&V Cost ($):-$ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8. Project MarkupsSales Tax (0%):-$ Bond (0%):-$ Subcontractor Contingency (0%):-$ Subtotal:136,835$ Subtotal:108,170$ Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.5%): 8,894$ Subcontractor Overhead & Profit (26.5%): 28,665$ Design Cost (6%):8,210$ Subtotal:136,835$ Total Installed Cost:153,939$ DescriptionTotal Material CostTotal M&L CostAnnualized Avoided Replacement CostMaterial CostAerco Benchmark BMK3.0 LNRecord OperationInspect EquipmentLabor Requirement (Hours)DescriptionUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsTotal M&L CostTest OperationReportTotal CostTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)DemolitionTradeLabor Rates ($/Hr)Total Labor CostUnit Qty U/MUnit Labor-HrsMaterial CostTotal Material CostControllerStartupDutiesTotal Labor CostTotalAERCO Boiler UpgradeBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 33Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99516ECO NO:ECO 10.Baxter Elementary9. Energy Savingsa. Assumptions:2. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is based on a 25 year lifecycle and a 20 year length of study at a discount rate of 3.0%. Units less than 5 years old are excluded.3. Annualized Avoided Replacement Cost is included in O&M savings00 197600 197611. Fuel Oil accounts for less than 7% of basewide heating fuel consumption. For uniformity of calculation among buildings, this ECO assumes all fuel use is gas.c. Calculations:Baseline Condition:Proposed Condition:Demand (kW) =- Demand (kW) =- Demand Savings (kW) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption (kWh) =- Electrical Consumption Savings (kWh) =- Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =46,255 Natural Gas Consumption (CCF) =41,026 Natural Gas Savings (CCF) =5,229 9. No cooling occurs above 62°F OAT.b. Equations:1. Building Heat Load = Building Load Factor x Max Boiler Output3. Existing boiler measured efficiency = 81.6%4. Proposed boiler efficiency = 93.0%5. Existing standby losses = 1.0%6. Proposed standby losses = 1.0%5. Annual Cost Savings = mmBtu Saved x mmBtu Unit Cost7. It was assumed that the annual building heating kbtu/sqft is in line with EIA regional averages. The heating load at design temperature is adjusted to 26.0% of the max output of the boiler system based on these averages and the heating load decreases linearly with increased outdoor air temperature.8. Unoccupied temperature setpoint = 60°F9. Heating setpoint = 68°F10. Natural Gas costs = $0.68279/CCF2. Existing mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Existing Efficiencydefault 8default 9Remaining LifeUnit Replaced3. Proposed mmBtu Usage = Heat Load x Bin Hrs / Proposed Efficiency4. mmBtu Saved = Existing mmBtu Usage - Proposed mmBtu Usage0.00 default new 90.00 default new 8QuantityYear Installed 1-for-1 Replacement Cost New Unit1. 30-year weather bin data for Anchorage AK applies.AERCO Boiler UpgradeBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 34Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
Energy Conservation Opportunity AnalysisASD, Anchorage, Alaska 99516ECO NO:ECO 10.Baxter ElementaryWater Consumption (kGal) =- Water Consumption (kGal) =- Water Savings (kGal) =- Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost =-$ Demand Cost Savings =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost =-$ Electrical Consumption Cost Savings =-$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =31,582$ Natural Gas Consumption Cost =28,012$ Natural Gas Cost Savings =3,570$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Consumption Cost =-$ Water Cost Savings =-$ Total Cost Savings =3,570$ AERCO Boiler UpgradeBaxter ElementaryAudit Report Ameresco Federal Solutions Appendix B - ECO Calculations, Page 35Level II Energy Audit Baxter ES Anchorage, AK
APPENDIX C
Major Equipment
Survey
NameLocationArea ServedMakeModelTypeCapacityInstall YearNotesP-1 Mech RM Boiler Circ Bell & Gossett Series 80 Inline Centrifugal Pump2 HPP-2 Mech RM Boiler Circ Bell & Gossett Series 81 Inline Centrifugal Pump2 HPP-1aMech RM Boiler Standby Circ Bell & Gossett Series 60 Inline Centrifugal Pump0.25 HPP-2aMech RM Boiler Standby Circ Bell & Gossett Series 60 Inline Centrifugal Pump0.25 HPP-3 Mech RM Building Heating Circ Bell & Gossett Series 1510 Base Mounted Centrifugal Pump10 HPP-4 Mech RM Building Heating Circ Bell & Gossett Series 1510 Base Mounted Centrifugal Pump10 HPP-5 Fan RM 1 Glycol Loop Circ Bell & Gossett Series 60 Inline Centrifugal Pump1.5 HPP-6 Fan RM 1 Glycol Loop Circ Bell & Gossett Series 60 Inline Centrifugal Pump1.5 HPP-7 Fan RM 2 Glycol Loop Circ Bell & Gossett Series 60 Inline Centrifugal Pump1.5 HPP-8 Fan RM 2 Glycol Loop Circ Bell & Gossett Series 60 Inline Centrifugal Pump1.5 HPP-9 Fan RM 3 Glycol Loop Circ Bell & Gossett Series 60 Inline Centrifugal Pump1 HPP-10 Fan RM 3 Glycol Loop Circ Bell & Gossett Series 60 Inline Centrifugal PumpP-11 Mech RM Domestic HW Circ Bell & Gossett NBF-12F/LW Inline Centrifugal Pump55WAHU-1 Fan RM 1 Pace P-4930 HPAHU-2 Fan RM 2 Pace P-4930 HPAHU-3 Fan RM 3 Pace P-4015 HPRF-1a Fan RM 1 Greenheck BSQ-360-50 Centrifugal Inline Fan5 HPRF-1b Fan RM 1 Greenheck BSQ-360-51 Centrifugal Inline Fan5 HPRF-2a Fan RM 2 Greenheck BSQ-360-52 Centrifugal Inline Fan5 HPRF-2b Fan RM 2 Greenheck BSQ-360-53 Centrifugal Inline Fan5 HPSCF-1 Boiler RM Cooling Pace SCF-114A Small Cabinet Fan1 HPEF-1 Old Fan RM above Toilet 178 Penn Centrex Centrifugal Inline Fan0.16 HPEF-2 Roof over toilet 178 Penn Domex Roof Exhauster0.16 HPEF-3 Gym Janitor 154D Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-4 Storage Janitor 176 Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan130WEF-5 Nurse Toilet Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan77WEF-6 Gym toilet Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-7 Toilet RM 166 Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-8 Toilet RMs 167 Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-9 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-10 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-11 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-12 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-13 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-14 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-15 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-16 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-17 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-18 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-19 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-20 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-21 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-22 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-23 Toilet RMs Penn Ventilator Ceiling Mounted Fan48WEF-24 Roof Greenheck Cube-100 Roof Exhauster0.25 HPMechanical Equipment Summary
NameLocationArea ServedMakeModelTypeCapacityInstall YearNotesMechanical Equipment SummaryAS-1 Mech RMAmtrol 6-ASCentrifugal Air SeparatorBLR-1,2 Mech RMWeil MclainBG-1088WF Gas-fired Cast Iron Sectional Boiler 2 HPET-1 Mech RMBell & Gossett B-800Expansion Tank211 GalET-2 Mech RMAmtrol ST-12Expansion Tank4.4 GalET-3,4,5 Fan RM 1,2,3Bell & Gossett D-15Expansion Tank7.8 GalHX-1,2 Fan RM 1,2Bell & Gossett GPV161-67-550 Heat ExchangerHX-3 Fan RM 3Bell & Gossett GPV161-47-350 Heat ExchangerWH-1 Mech RMState Sandblaster SBF-100-199NET Water heater100 GalH-1 KitchenGaylordVH-W-42 Exhaust hood
APPENDIX D
Thermal Image
Report
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/17/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Baxter
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2991 Baxter Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
10/18/2011 7:10:42 PMImage Date
IR_0215.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Good window system with minimal heat loss
Description
Near Main Entrance
1 (8)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/17/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Baxter
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2991 Baxter Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
10/18/2011 7:13:17 PMImage Date
IR_0221.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Low convective heat loss
Description
2 (8)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/17/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Baxter
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2991 Baxter Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
10/18/2011 7:15:04 PMImage Date
IR_0225.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Gap in weather-stripping at Sp1
Description
3 (8)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/17/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Baxter
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2991 Baxter Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
10/18/2011 7:17:09 PMImage Date
IR_0231.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Description
Open Window
4 (8)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/17/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Baxter
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2991 Baxter Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
10/18/2011 7:18:03 PMImage Date
IR_0233.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Good door system- minimal heat loss
Description
5 (8)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/17/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Baxter
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2991 Baxter Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
10/18/2011 7:18:35 PMImage Date
IR_0235.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Good door system- SP2 shows gap in weather-stripping
Description
6 (8)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/17/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Baxter
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2991 Baxter Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
10/18/2011 7:20:40 PMImage Date
IR_0239.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Minimal heat loss
Description
7 (8)
Inspection Report
Report Date 11/17/2011
Company Ameresco Customer Anchorage School
District- Baxter
Elementary School
Address 6643 Brayton Drive Site Address 2991 Baxter Rd
Thermographer Ameresco Contact Person
Image and Object Parameters Text Comments
FLIR T300Camera Model
10/18/2011 7:21:37 PMImage Date
IR_0243.jpgImage Name
0.95Emissivity
68.0 °FReflected apparent
temperature
3.3 ftObject Distance
Good weather-stripping
Description
Above light exists a double door system that is shown in
IR picture
8 (8)
APPENDIX E
ASHRAE Level II
Description
5
Levels of Effort
Depending on the physical and energy-use characteristics of a building and the
needs and resources of the owner, these steps can require different levels of effort. A
commercial building energy analysis can generally be classified into the following levels
of effort.
OVERVIEW
Preliminary Energy
Use Analysis
Analyze historic utility use and cost. Develop the Energy Utilization Index (EUI) of
the building. Compare the building EUI to similar buildings to determine if further engi-
neering study and analysis are likely to produce significant energy savings.
Level I—Walk-
Through Analysis
Assess a building’s energy cost and efficiency by analyzing energy bills and con-
ducting a brief on-site survey of the building. A Level I energy analysis will identify and
provide a savings and cost analysis of low-cost/no-cost measures. It will also provide a
listing of potential capital improvements that merit further consideration, and an initial
judgment of potential costs and savings. A walk-through analysis of a facility will utilize
all the forms in this publication except those in the section on “Building and Systems
Report.”
Level II—Energy
Survey and Analysis
This includes a more detailed building survey and energy analysis. A breakdown of
the energy use within the building is provided. A Level II energy analysis will identify
and provide the savings and cost analysis of all practical measures that meet the owner’s
constraints and economic criteria, along with a discussion of any changes to operation
and maintenance procedures. It may also provide a listing of potential capital-intensive
improvements that require more thorough data collection and engineering analysis, and
a judgment of potential costs and savings. This level of analysis will be adequate for
most buildings and measures.
Level III—Detailed
Analysis of
Capital-Intensive
Modifications
This level of engineering analysis focuses on potential capital-intensive projects
identified during the Level II analysis and involves more detailed field data gathering as
well as a more rigorous engineering analysis. It provides detailed project cost and sav-
ings calculations with a high level of confidence sufficient for major capital investment
decisions.
6 · Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits
Discussion There are not sharp boundaries between these levels. They are general categories for
identifying the type of information that can be expected and an indication of the level of
confidence in the results. It is possible that while performing an energy analysis in a par-
ticular building, various measures may be subjected to different levels of analysis.
Some readers of an energy analysis report may be unable to comprehend the techni-
cal analysis involved, while others may demand a full presentation of the analysis for
critique. Consequently, technical material should be presented in an appendix to the
report, while the body of the report guides the reader through the technical material and
summarizes the findings.
Information presented here outlines the engineering procedures that should be fol-
lowed while performing an energy analysis. It is assumed that the analyst is a knowl-
edgeable and competent individual. No attempt is made in this publication to prescribe
specific methods of data gathering or data analysis.
To assist with the organization of the data collected and the calculation procedures,
this publication contains guideline forms that suggest the type of data to be gathered and
its organization. It is recommended that the analyst develop and use appropriate data col-
lection and organization forms specific to the size and type of building(s) being ana-
lyzed.
The forms presented in the first two sections are building characteristic forms on
which basic building information and energy use can be recorded. Use of these forms by
all engineering analysts will result in a uniform procedure for reporting the results of an
analysis. It is recommended that these forms be completed without modification.
PRELIMINARY
ENERGY USE
ANALYSIS
Before any level of energy analysis is begun, it is valuable to perform a preliminary
energy use analysis to determine a building’s current energy and cost efficiency relative
to other, similar buildings. This is normally done by calculating the energy use and cost
per square foot per year, which can indicate the potential value of further levels of analy-
sis. This preliminary analysis generally includes the following steps.
1. Determine the building’s gross conditioned square footage and record this on
the building characteristics form. Classify the primary use of the building.
Ensure that the standard definition of gross area is used.
2. Assemble copies of all utility bills and summarize them for at least a one-year
period, preferably three years. Review the monthly bills for opportunities to
obtain a better price through taking advantage of different utility rate classes.
Review the monthly patterns for irregularities. Note if a bill is missing or if it is
estimated rather than actual consumption.
3. Complete the energy performance summary to develop the energy index and
the cost index for each fuel, or demand type, and their combined total using
ASHRAE Standard 105 methods.
4. Compare the Energy Utilization Index (EUI) and the cost index with buildings
having similar characteristics. The owner of the subject building may have sim-
ilar buildings for this comparison. Comparison should also be made with pub-
licly available energy indices of similar buildings. In all cases, care should be
taken to ensure that comparison is made with current data, using consistent def-
initions of building usage and floor area.
5. Derive target energy, demand, and cost indices for a building with the same
characteristics as this building. A range of methods are available for this work:
• Pick from any database of similar buildings those buildings with the
lowest energy index.
• Pick an index based on the knowledge of an energy analyst experi-
enced with this type of building.
6. Compare the energy and cost savings for each fuel type if the building were to
reach the target Energy Utilization Index. Using these value(s), determine if
further engineering analysis is recommended.
Levels of Effort · 7
LEVEL I—
WALK-THROUGH
ANALYSIS
This process includes all of the work done for the preliminary energy use analysis,
plus the following.
1. Perform a brief walk-through survey of the facility to become familiar with its
construction, equipment, operation, and maintenance.
2. Meet with owner/operator and occupants to learn of special problems or needs
of the facility. Determine if any maintenance problems and/or practices may
affect efficiency.
3. Perform a space function analysis, guided by the forms in the “Walk-Through
Data” section. Determine if efficiency may be affected by functions that differ
from the original functional intent of the building.
4. Perform a rough estimate to determine the approximate breakdown of energy
use for significant end-use categories, including weather and non-weather-
related uses.
5. Identify low-cost/no-cost changes to the facility or to operating and mainte-
nance procedures, and determine the savings that will result from these
changes.
6. Identify potential capital improvements for further study, and provide an initial
estimate of potential costs and savings.
The report for a Level I analysis should contain the building characteristics and
energy use summary as well as the following.
1. Quantification of savings potential from changing to a different utility price
structure.
2. Discussion of irregularities found in the monthly energy use patterns, with sug-
gestions about their possible causes.
3. The energy index of similar buildings. Report the source, size, and date of the
sample used in this comparison. The names of comparable buildings should be
given if known.
4. The method used to develop the target indices. Where comparison is made to
other buildings, state their names. Where the experience of someone other than
the author is used to develop the target, provide the source. Where the target is
developed by calculation, show the calculation or quote the name and version
of software used and include both input and output data.
5. Total energy and demand cost by fuel type for the latest year and preceding two
years if available. Show potential savings in dollars using the energy index for-
mat of ASHRAE Standard 105.
6. The fraction of current costs that would be saved if the energy index were
brought to the target level.
7. A summary of any special problems or needs identified during the walk-
through survey, including possible revisions to operating and maintenance pro-
cedures.
8. A preliminary energy use breakdown by major end uses.
9. The listing of low-cost/no-cost changes with the savings for these improve-
ments.
10. The potential capital improvements, with an initial estimate of potential costs
and savings
LEVEL II—ENERGY
SURVEY AND
ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS
This analytical procedure is guided by Level I analysis and includes the following
additional work:
1. Review mechanical and electrical system design, installed condition, mainte-
nance practices, and operating methods. Where drawings have been kept up to
date, this task will be much easier.
8 · Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits
2. Review existing operating and maintenance problems. Determine planned build-
ing changes.
3. Measure key operating parameters and compare to design levels, for example,
operating schedules, heating/cooling water temperature, supply air temperature,
space temperature and humidity, ventilation quantities, and light level at the
task. Such measurements may be taken on a spot basis, or logged, manually or
electronically.
4. Prepare a breakdown of the total annual energy use into end-use components,
as illustrated in the 1999 ASHRAE Handbook—Applications, Chapter 34, Fig-
ure 4, or as shown in the section “Energy Analysis Summary and Recommen-
dations.” A number of calculation methods are available, ranging from
simplified manual calculations to fully detailed computer simulation of hour-
by-hour building operations for a full year.
5. List all possible modifications to equipment and operations that would save
energy. Select those that might be considered practical by the owner. List pre-
liminary cost and savings estimates.
6. Review the list of practical modifications with the owner/operator and select
those that will be analyzed further. Prioritize the modifications in the antici-
pated order of implementation.
7. For each practical measure, estimate the potential savings in energy cost and its
energy index. To account for interaction between modifications, assume that
modifications with the highest operational priority and/or best return on invest-
ment will be implemented first. A number of calculation methods are available,
ranging from simplified manual calculations to rerunning computer simula-
tions, if performed in Step 4, above.
8. Estimate the cost of each practical measure.
9. Estimate the impact of each practical measure on building operations, mainte-
nance costs, and non-energy operating costs.
10. Estimate the combined energy savings from implementing all of the practical
measures and compare to the potential derived in the Level I analysis. It should
be clearly stated that savings from each modification are based on the assump-
tion that all previous modifications have already been implemented and that the
total savings account for all of the interactions between modifications.
11. Prepare a financial evaluation of the estimated total potential investment using
the owner’s chosen techniques and criteria. These evaluations may be per-
formed for each practical measure.
12. Following submission of the report of the Level II analysis, meet with the
owner to discuss priorities and to help select measures for implementation or
further analysis.
The report for a Level II analysis should contain at least the following.
1. A summary of energy use and cost associated with each end-use. Show calcula-
tions performed or quote the name and version of software used and include
both input and output pages. Provide interpretation of differences between
actual total energy use and calculated or simulated end-use totals.
2. A description of the building, including typical floor plans and inventories of
major energy-using equipment. (This information may be included as an
appendix.)
3. A list of measures considered but felt to be impractical, with brief reasons for
rejecting each.
4. For each practical measure, provide
• a discussion of the existing situation and why it is using excess energy;
• an outline of the measure, including its impact on occupant health,
comfort, and safety;
Levels of Effort · 9
• a description of any repairs that are required for a measure to be effec-
tive;
• the impact on occupant service capabilities, such as ventilation for late
occupancy or year-round cooling;
• an outline of the impact on operating procedures, maintenance proce-
dures, and costs;
• expected life of new equipment, and the impact on the life of existing
equipment;
• an outline of any new skills required in operating staff and training or
hiring recommendations;
• calculations performed or provide the name and version of software
used and include both input and output data.
5. A table listing the estimated costs for all practical measures, the savings, and
financial performance indicator. For the cost of each measure, show the esti-
mated accuracy of the value quoted. This table should spell out the assumed
sequence of implementation and state that savings may be quite different if a
different implementation sequence is followed.
6. A discussion of any differences between the savings projected in this analysis
and the estimated potential derived in the Level I analysis.
7. Overall project economic evaluation.
8. Recommended measurement and verification method(s) that will be required to
determine the actual effectiveness of the recommended measures.
9. Discussion of feasible capital-intensive measures that may require a Level III
analysis.
LEVEL III—DETAILED
ANALYSIS OF
CAPITAL-INTENSIVE
MODIFICATIONS
This analytical procedure is guided by Levels I and II analyses and the owner’s
selection of measures for greater definition. It must follow such Level I and II work.
1. Expand definition of all modifications requiring further analysis.
2. Review measurement methods, and perform additional testing and monitoring
as required to allow determination of feasibility.
3. Perform accurate modeling of proposed modifications. Ensure that modeling
includes system interaction.
4. Prepare a schematic layout of each of the modifications.
5. Estimate the cost and savings of each modification.
6. Meet with owner to discuss/develop recommendations.
The report for a Level III analysis should include the following, as a minimum.
1. Include text, schematics, and equipment lists necessary to completely describe
all proposed changes to physical equipment. Matters of a final design nature
may be left to subsequent engineering as long as the cost of such engineering is
included in the budget. Firm price contractor quotations for key parts of any
measure may be included. Cost estimates shall show contingencies separately
and report the expected accuracy of the budget.
2. Prepare a financial evaluation of the estimated capital investment and projected
savings. Use the owner’s chosen techniques and criteria.